ACMA slaps Californication, but who slaps ACMA?
A complaint to ACMA about Californication is upheld, but where is the penalty asks one complainant?
- Published by David Knox
- on
- Filed under News
A woman who protested to the Australian Communications and Media Authority about “sleazy” content in Californication last year says her complaint has been upheld, but no sanctions have been dished out to Channel TEN.
“Today I received a letter from Damien Power of the Australian Communications and Media Authority,” Mrs Ros Phillips, FamilyVoice Australia national research officer told religious newspaper Christian Today.
“Mr Power said ACMA has upheld my complaint against Network TEN, which breached the TV Code of Practice during two episodes of the sleazy Californication series last year.
“But there was no penalty – even though I had previously complained about a similar Code breach by the TEN network,” she said.
Mrs Phillips said the US drama normalises promiscuity and illicit drug use.
She claims her campaign against the show resulted in 60 advertisers withdrawing their support for Californication.
“I am pleased that ACMA has ruled that Network TEN twice breached the TV Code, but am concerned about the lack of any sanctions. A significant penalty would ensure that TV networks take their obligations much more seriously,” Mrs Phillips said.
Source: Christian Today
Share
- Tagged with Californication
28 Responses
Oh dear, the nutters strike again. If only these poor individuals had enough confidence in themselves to live their own lives without feeling the need to force everyone else to adhere to their own personal system of morality. Alas, seeing as there is very little chance of that ever happening, we must ensure that the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice is brought into line with the code employed by the Classification board in order to prevent these sadsacks from eroding our freedoms even further. If what Christian Today has reported is true, then I am completely and utterly dumbfounded. Season 1, episode 10 (the threesome sex scene) was understandable. Not acceptable, but understandable given that we live in a society which does not give freedom of speech have the value it deserves. But there were no episodes in season 2 which came close to the level of explicitness in that scene.
To refresh your memories, the most explicit sex scenes in S2 were the mistaken identity oral sex scene in episode 1 and the scene with that crazy cooking show host in episode 5. Of these, the episode 1 scene lasted only a fifth of the time of the S1 breach, and was less explicit, partly because Channel Ten edited it. The episode 5 sex scene was probably a little more explicit, but still down the middle end of what has usually been considered MA level by the Classification Board. It was a very quick scene, and no one in their right mind could label in gratuitous. It was quick and comedic in tone, not sexy. The only other sex scenes I can think of were with Daisy when they were filming porn, but from what I remember these were never really explicit, and would probably escape with an M rating if they were released on DVD.
I am hoping, however, that these breaches will turn out to be minor issues over the specific classification warnings given at the start of the programs. If that is the case, then it’s an issue of classification rather than censorship. If not, then we can kiss goodbye US cable programs on free-to-air commercial TV, including the new digital channels. I believe Nine wants to screen Sex and the City and Entourage and theirs? Good luck with that.
Why the hell did this woman watch a show called “Californication”? Just another crazy person who watches a controversial show to complain about it.
Actually, I think the breaches referred to were from Season 1 where two people successfully argued that the threesome scene in 1.10 brwached the standard. The decision was released July 2008 (hence the reference to “last year”).
ACMA is such a waste of taxpayers’ money. Talk about a toothless tiger. Just an excuse for some public servants to have a job, they achieve nothing…ever.
Season 2 of Californication was mostly terrible, but at least we can be grateful
a free to air Aus network can screen a US cable TV show in a MA suitable timeslot. There’s no way a US free to air network could get away with airing such a show, as US TV broadcast laws simply don’t allow it.
Maybe the real point is that the ACMA code is at fault. Just because there is a law does not mean it is a good law. As it stands, ACMA have to take complaints about prohibited content online (R18+ to RC), and investigate whether they have indeed breached the ACMA code. Is there a point to this? No, but because the law says ACMA have to respond in this way, they do. It is politicians who think up these ridiculous laws that are at fault. Because the laws are in place, moral do-gooders feel that it is their duty to ‘clean up’ everything that is ‘sinful’ and know that their outrage will not go unheard.
I would like to know exactly how the code was breached in two episodes, IMO Ten had it classified MA, it often started well after 10 which is within the classification guidelines time slots……..plus they edited out bits and pieces as I’ve seen the uncut versions of the show……..so what exactly breached it and if you can’t have an MA show on FTA after 10pm with bits edited then whats the point of airing it at all?
I think the moral argument and the analysis of ACMA findings (as succinctly brought up by both Andrew and David) may actually be one and the same, I actually suspect that while this group found the show distasteful, the ACMA have regarded it as a breach, but not a serious one. Taking the timeslot and context of the show, and looking at the general discussion on here, I suspect two minor “infractions” wouldn’t really warrant sanctions.
Should an article about a minor code violation entitled “ACMA finds network ten guilty” be taken with a pinch of salt? I suspect guilty isn’t entirely accurate.
I wonder, was there really 60 different advertisers who pulled out of the show? For a short show, that would be a great deal of adverts to cram in. Would it be more accurate to say that there were organisations who said they were uninterested in advertising, rather than pulling out? 60 sounds a bit hyperbolic.
Mrs Ros Phillips, er, you are not the voice of the majority of adult australians, so pls you are and your “christian/family” groups stop telling me what I can and cannot watch at not only after 8:30pm at night, but also after 10pm(channel 10 aired californication in a Adult Only timeslot, Mrs Philips!!!).
I think Ms Phillips has legitimate concern in that ACMA has twice ruled against Ten for not complying with the Code but has failed to impose any sort of penalty.
What is the point of having a Code, or ACMA, if the authority is not going to do anything when a broadcaster is shown to do wrong? This is not just in this instance but in any ruling that ACMA makes against a network – like the continual rulings against TT and ACA but nothing ever happens from them, so they keep re-offending.
Thanks Andrew for getting the point.
Sure we can all jump up and down about conservatives and complainers….but if their complaint is found to be valid, as we are led to believe in this case, then what is the outcome? And how does it stack up beside other outcomes?
This reminds me of the complaints guy on Chasers
What I find amazing, if it is true, is that 60 advertisers pulled their ads from a show that was watched and enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of people because of the whinging of one person.
I am amazed how much wowsers have taken over this country. Our country is a ban happy country, and any slight ‘moral outrage’ results in even our ‘leaders’ pushing their view. As already said, if you find something offensive, don’t watch it. I don’t watch religious programs and complain that they are scams. I just don’t watch them. I hate reality shows with a passion, but i don’t gather up an angry mob of like minded people to try and get them taken off the air. I just watch something else. If these people had their way, we would all be watching God TV.
“Mrs Phillips said the US drama normalises promiscuity and illicit drug use.”
hope she doesnt watch Skins on SBS then haha
but seriously if you don’t like it don’t watch then. Its that simple. This just smells of some letter writter who just sits at home and looks for things to complain about.
Could someone please explain to Mrs Phillips where the “off” button is, and what it does.
God I hate whingers – seriously is it that hard to just change the channel if you’re offended, it was in a post 10pm timeslot for its entire run last year…..Jesus Christ.
Blow me down with a feather! Someone who’s job it is to hunt down and endlessly complain about Television, is endlessly complaining about television?
I also think that perhaps an analysis of the show that comes to the conclusion that it “normalises promiscuity and illicit drug use” is erroneous. While the show *depicts* these practices, I would hardly say that it *normalises* them. If anything it shows them in a non-glamorous, dysfunctional, and abnormal light. There is only negative depictions of the consequences of drugs and promiscuous sex in the show, and even the most superficial analysis would tell you that.
Why do the religious zealots watch these shows? If they don’t like it, don’t watch it and stop forcing your opinions on us. Your imaginary friend doesn’t control our lives
Does she have nothing better to do?
tv channels do not have an obligation to preach morals to viewers, although this lady obviously feels that is her job description. it is a fictional tv show, if she doesn’t like the content she shouldn’t watch. i hate how these self-righteous people operate in the background and target advertisers claiming to represent all their customers when in fact they only represent a slim minority. it is not like 10 has any say over the content of this show, they just buy it from america and air it, they have already censored some bits which not everyone was happy about. we all know the ACMA is useless but in this instance that is a good thing, just because she defines a show as sleazy does not mean other adults have to abide by her choices and tastes, we should be able to watch it if we so choose.
Ros Phillips: please shut up.
Mrs Phillips, this is a simple answer to this just fon’t watch it if you don’t like it! why is it one idiot wrecks things for the 1000s of fans who tune in each week?
David will this have an impact on TEN airing the next season?
I wonder what she thinks of Weeds or Breaking Bad, both critically acclaimed shows.
this woman needs to get laid… if at all possible. But one would doubt it, being such a stuck-up prude.
Mrs Phillips obviously didn’t so much watch the show as sit there, pen and paper in hand, writing down Things That Offend The Lord Our Saviour.
Because if she thinks that Californication “normalises promiscuity and illicit drug use” then she’s obviously not been paying attention to the plot.
I’d like to think the “Religious Nutter Alert” alarm bells ring at ACMA when they get letters from these idiots. Who knows, perhaps that’s exactly what happens.
Mrs Phillips, if you don’t find Californication to your taste, then, err, change the channel. Or talk to the fairies at the bottom of your garden. Or something.