TV porn channels halted by court

why have prons on the tv when you can have it on the interwebs?
 
What is to stop ICASA taking 15 minutes to "review" its decision and then sticking to it?
 
Can the same be done for those harmful religious channels?
 
By the time these people have finished squabbling we're going to be beaming virtual porn into our bionic eyes.
 
I'm all for this etc etc, but my only main concern is idk hey what if children gets accidental exposure to this side of world?

No jokes now I mean I have younger siblings etc

Its already easy accessible via the interwebs, but that can be managed to a certain extent, but open broadcasting of this etc, I don't want children expose to this.
 
Thor187 said:
Its already easy accessible via the interwebs, but that can be managed to a certain extent, but open broadcasting of this etc, I don't want children expose to this.
Click to expand...

You being serious? How is blocking internet access easier than pin protecting a tv channel? Kids are smart these days, there are so many ways to bypass internet blocks and every second kid these days has a smartphone, so good luck with that.
 
Thor187 said:
I'm all for this etc etc, but my only main concern is idk hey what if children gets accidental exposure to this side of world?

No jokes now I mean I have younger siblings etc

Its already easy accessible via the interwebs, but that can be managed to a certain extent, but open broadcasting of this etc, I don't want children expose to this.
Click to expand...

You can't stop kids accessing adult content online so don't waste your time trying. You'll just create a Streisand Effect and push your kids towards secrecy. The best thing is to discuss the uncomfortable topics ahead of time and foster a healthy attitude towards sexuality in them.

Also, why are you raising your siblings?

Children won't be exposed to porn on TV by accident. It's not like the channels will sit next to Mnet. They need to be paid for separately and would require a pin code.
 
TV porn channels halted by court
Click to expand...

Only according to "John Smyth QC", the arsehole lawyer who acted for the morality police. I don't see any order for an immediate halt, and doubt if an interdict would achieve that either.

Around 400 StarSat subscribers has since signed up for the sex channels according to court papers
Click to expand...

According to TV with Thinus. That's about as many as I expected, but not as many as I'd expect you'd need to make the service sustainable. This really is a case fought for the principle of it. Let's hope the morality police get their arse handed to them.
 
The judgment for anybody interested:
http://saflii.org/za/cases/ZAWCHC/2014/162.html

I am finding the approach of the presiding judge to the question of costs quite perplexing. In my opinion (and IANAL) the strongest angle of attack for ODM would be to argue (and in my view correctly) that the Court erred in treating the applications for authorization

The conclusion that a channel authorization can only be granted by ICASA on it being established that the intended authorized channels will not be involved in contravening the Film and Publications Act would render all licenses - both relating to broadcasting and to electronic services - of ICASA in jeopardy.
Naspers needs to have all of their channel authorizations for channels that carry any pornography or violent material revoked until they produce all of the relevant licensing and permissions from the Film and Publication Board just in case they break the law.
The finding in paragraph 148 of the judgment is gravely problematic as the Film and Publication Act regulates rather than prohibits

ODM should probably appeal (after obtaining the necessary leave) but ICASA should really just use this as further evidence that they seriously need to revisit their legal department. Vodacom and Neotel should also be paying attention because this judgment is likely to cause ICASA to return to the position of not granting authorization until dragged to court to do so because it is cheaper than to take a decision that will result in protracted and misguided litigation and have a costs order for your opponents duplicating litigation.
In fact everybody except Naspers in the industry (who in part funded the litigation) should be very concerned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter