Erect Penis on TV:Illegal?
.
i seem to remember reading that it is illegal to display an erect
"member" on TV in the UK,,is this correct?,which law is applicable,can
anyone quote the bit which might refer to the above?. If all womens
bits can be shown for eg on subscription channels,why not males' bits
and why not actual penetration shots?
Sir Mike Thornton
. <k7...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:37fa8c7e...@news.freeserve.net...
Mister Rice? Is that you?
David Husband
writes
>Hi all,
>i seem to remember reading that it is illegal to display an erect
>"member" on TV in the UK,,is this correct?,which law is applicable,can
>anyone quote the bit which might refer to the above?.
Showing a penis must be legal on UK TV -- After all we see Tony Blair
featured enough times...
--
David Husband, Portland, Dorset
Philip Walton
. wrote in message <37fa8c7e...@news.freeserve.net>...
>Hi all,
>i seem to remember reading that it is illegal to display an erect
>"member" on TV in the UK,,is this correct?,which law is applicable,can
>bits can be shown for eg on subscription channels,why not males' bits
>and why not actual penetration shots?
>
posture....Philip.
Marshall Rice
<sho...@SUCKTHISdembonez.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>> i seem to remember reading that it is illegal to display an erect
>> "member" on TV in the UK,,is this correct?,which law is applicable,can
>> anyone quote the bit which might refer to the above?. If all womens
>> bits can be shown for eg on subscription channels,why not males' bits
>> and why not actual penetration shots?
>
Eh?
--
Marshall Rice
A. Mcgee
censorship of television is a very opaque subject because OPA
1959-64 do not apply, but common law notions of indecency do.
At the same time there are the various busybodies like the
Broadcasting Standards Council, which exercise ex post facto
regulation by disapproving of things which have been shown.
Channels, esp terrestrial channels also have their own codes
of conduct, which are not always published. So when one talks
about the showing of anything on TV being "not allowed" it is
important to be clear about which rules are said to be
infringed.
I recall hearing a few years ago that TV producers operated a
rule of thumb (sic) that a penis was too erect to be shown if
its angle of inclination was greater than the angle at which
the sTate of Florida projects from the mainland of the USA. I
have no proof of that one, but it's a good story!
As to the merits of the alleged prohibition, well I confess
it all strikes me as total nonsense, but then so does all
obscenity censorship.
Andrew McGee
In article <7tect1$qdm$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>,
"Sir Mike Thornton"
<sho...@SUCKTHISdembonez.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>.. <k7...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Rose Conway
include pictures of erect penises (penae?) in sexual scenarios.
I've always believed this to be considered obscene under the act, so
I've never sold them. I wonder if this is yet another publisher
trying it on? I assume if caught, it would be the retailer who would
be prosecuted?
Gary
Rainer Thonnes
I think the plural you seek is "penes".
bud...@shaws.u-net.com
published for ages with erections in and places like Clone Zone etc
have been selling them openly for ages too.so there would appear to be
no problem there but then again they are gay shops so the people
looking at the mags arent likely to complain. It depends what sort of
shop you have .
regards
Stuart
"Only One Year And Three Months To The Millennium - think about it !"
Andrew Nichols
<r...@dcs.ed.ac.uk> writes
>> pictures of erect penises (penae?)
>
--
Andrew Nichols
NB spamtrap
replace nospam by solicit
In2Home User
semi-law governing television broadcasts.
The whole area is a ridiculous mess, which should be tidied up by adopting
the Dutch system of allowing just about anything.
<bud...@shaws.u-net.com> wrote in message
news:37fceabf...@news.u-net.com...
Michael Sullivan
<sho...@SUCKTHISdembonez.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> Just as well our Thorntons AGM draws nigh. Perhaps Roger Paffard (chief
>exec) will be able to explain why our profits are seriously down. According
>to today's Express, he's pleading not enough attention given to new lines.;
>punters fed-up with the same old offerings.
>
I think you have ducked the main issue here.
Michael Sullivan.
Anthony R. Gold
<zsl0aEAQzN$3E...@solicit.demon.co.uk>
An...@nospam.demon.co.uk "Andrew Nichols" wrote:
> In article <93931200...@muck.dcs.ed.ac.uk>, Rainer Thonnes
> >
> >I think the plural you seek is "penes".
> Not in English, it isn't.
Please cite your authority. Neither OED nor Webster's agree with
you, showing both penises and penes as being correct.
Regards,
--
Tony - G3SKR / W2TG email: tg...@panix.com
Darren Durbin
+0100 (BST), LA...@leeds.ac.uk (A. Mcgee) wrote:
>I recall hearing a few years ago that TV producers operated a
>rule of thumb (sic) that a penis was too erect to be shown if
>its angle of inclination was greater than the angle at which
>the sTate of Florida projects from the mainland of the USA. I
>have no proof of that one, but it's a good story!
ISTR a similar guideline but using the Firth of Forth as a
guideline...
Darren
Andrew Nichols
Gold <tg...@microvest.demon.co.uk> writes
>> >I think the plural you seek is "penes".
>> Not in English, it isn't.
>
>Please cite your authority. Neither OED nor Webster's agree with
>you, showing both penises and penes as being correct.
commoner form, though, except in medical text.
.
>Magaines such as Euroguy ,prowl,mandate ,\aplayguy etc,etsc ahve been
>published for ages with erections in and places like Clone Zone etc
>have been selling them openly for ages too.so there would appear to be
>no problem there but then again they are gay shops so the people
>looking at the mags arent likely to complain. It depends what sort of
>shop you have .
>regards
>Stuart
Indeed,and the fact that they are in "gay" mags helps becuase no one
would dare utter a word of descent or criticism at the "gay community"
or any other "community".
joe
Clive D.W. Feather
<dar...@icode.co.uk> writes
>ISTR a similar guideline but using the Firth of Forth as a
>guideline...
I think you mean Kintyre.
--
Clive D.W. Feather | Internet Expert | Work: <cl...@demon.net>
Tel: +44 20 8371 1138 | Demon Internet Ltd. | Home: <cl...@davros.org>
Fax: +44 20 8371 1037 | | Web: <http://www.davros.org>
Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address
Stan Mould
Clive D.W. Feather <cl...@on-the-train.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cHJh5OTh...@romana.davros.org...
> In article <37fdbd91....@news.demon.co.uk>, Darren Durbin
> <dar...@icode.co.uk> writes
> >ISTR a similar guideline but using the Firth of Forth as a
> >guideline...
>
> I think you mean Kintyre.
>
Internet Course User
>Hi all,
>i seem to remember reading that it is illegal to display an erect
>"member" on TV in the UK,,is this correct?,which law is applicable,can
>anyone quote the bit which might refer to the above?. If all womens
>bits can be shown for eg on subscription channels,why not males' bits
>and why not actual penetration shots?
>
>
Does that mean if the Penis is not erect that it's not illegal?
.
it would appear so as many a flaccid penis can be seen on the box,,it
is the precise definition of what an erect penis is that causes
problems!!,,strnage how its ok to show women in explicit positions and
poses though>>
Nick
Charberlain's rules which specified all this and (if I remember
correctly defined an erection as an angle of inclination exceeding that
at which a certain island or peninsula off the west coast of scotland in
relation to the mainland.
In article <3814defa...@news.freeserve.net>, . <k7...@hotmail.com>
writes
--
Nick
Phil Stovell
<ni...@southwoodford.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>didn't there use to be some old antiquated nonsense called the Lord
>Charberlain's rules which specified all this and (if I remember
>correctly defined an erection as an angle of inclination exceeding that
>at which a certain island or peninsula off the west coast of scotland in
>relation to the mainland.
Mull of Kintyre?
--
Phil Stovell | If the Primary Clear Light is not recognized,
Petersfield, Hants, UK | there remains the possibility of maintaining
ph...@shuv.demon.co.uk | the Secondary Clear Light
http://www.shuv.demon.co.uk/
KKKKatie
<ph...@shuv.demon.co.uk> writes
>On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 01:14:29 +0100 in uk.legal, Nick
><ni...@southwoodford.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>didn't there use to be some old antiquated nonsense called the Lord
>>Charberlain's rules which specified all this and (if I remember
>>correctly defined an erection as an angle of inclination exceeding that
>>at which a certain island or peninsula off the west coast of scotland in
>>relation to the mainland.
>
>Mull of Kintyre?
The angle of dangle?
--
KKKKatie
A. Mcgee
In article <8hoYOEBtW+gYrk...@4ax.com>,
Nick
<Ka...@carterce.demon.co.uk> writes><ph...@shuv.demon.co.uk> writes
>>On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 01:14:29 +0100 in uk.legal, Nick
>><ni...@southwoodford.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>didn't there use to be some old antiquated nonsense called the Lord
>>>Charberlain's rules which specified all this and (if I remember
>>>correctly defined an erection as an angle of inclination exceeding that
>>>at which a certain island or peninsula off the west coast of scotland in
>>>relation to the mainland.
>>
>>Mull of Kintyre?
>
>
Firstly, I would like to point out that my posting re the Lord
chamberlain's rules is serious.
Secondly, I very much doubt that the geographical feature in question
was the state of Florida. Whilst it may be referred to as 'the
panhandle' I fail to see how even the Lord Chamberlain could ever have
concluded that it resembled an erection. (Perhaps Florida should put
Viagra om Medicaid).
--
Nick