Sexually Explicit Content Restrictions (Singapore & US Comparison) PDF

wk6 course pack: Assorted law module Assorted law module 5 videos: 1. Sexually explicit content restrictions for all media 2. Child abuse material prohibited in all media 3. Restrictions on publications and films 4. News licensing in Singapore 5. Broadcast & video services law Sexually explicit...

wk6 course pack: Assorted law module Assorted law module 5 videos: 1. Sexually explicit content restrictions for all media 2. Child abuse material prohibited in all media 3. Restrictions on publications and films 4. News licensing in Singapore 5. Broadcast & video services law Sexually explicit content restrictions for all media Singapore and US comparison Sexually explicit content restrictions Debates on restricting sexually explicit content featuring consenting adults Singapore obscenity US comparison Pornography versus obscenity pornography: “printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate sexual excitement” Google definition Not a legal category Pornography versus obscenity obscenity: sexually explicit content, defined by law, that is prohibited, or regulated in other ways obscenity Pornography versus obscenity obscenity: sexually explicit content, defined by law, that is prohibited, or regulated in other ways obscenity Assumptions in debate about pornography The debate about pornography’s legality is about pornography … …featuring consenting adults… …that was circulated with their consent… …and viewed by other consenting adults Debate is not about: Revenge pornography (circulated without consent of those involved) Adults or minors forced to view pornography Participants treat child pornography as a separate category that doesn’t require debate about whether to restrict it Classic debates on restricting pornography Classic debate, from at least 19th century to present, features 3 contrasting viewpoints: 1. Arguments based on traditional morality 2. Pornography should be tolerated, however reluctantly 3. Pornography can be celebrated in an open society Assumption behind these views: Debate is about content featuring consenting adults, not minors—that’s a separate category Classic debate position 1: Traditional morality Government role includes enforcing dominant morality to strengthen society Includes protecting us from threats to that cohesion Nothing is entirely private: One’s private thoughts, communication, and actions may lead to actions affecting others James Fitzjames Stephen, 19th century English jurist Classic debate position 1: Traditional morality What’s your view? Is there a strong common morality that holds a society like Singapore together? If so, what is the ideal government role in policing transgressions from morality? Should the law protect you from being offended? Classic debate position 2: The price of an open society If we want free expression, we must reluctantly tolerate disagreeable expression …tasteless, useless, unnecessary, ridiculous, offensive, outrageous, shocking… Based on truth-seeking (marketplace of ideas) rationale for protecting freedom of expression Classic debate position 3: Self-realisation rationale US legal scholar Martin Redish (1982) starts with the truth-seeking and democratic self-governance rationales for protecting free expression “Just as individuals need an open flow in information and opinion to aid them in making their electoral and governmental decisions,… Classic debate position 3: Self-realisation rationale Redish extends the rationale: “…they similarly need a free flow of information and opinion to guide them in making other life-affecting decisions” Matters of sexuality are among the most life- affecting Others extended the argument to explicit content, including Dean Kathleen Sullivan of Stanford Law School (1990s) Feminist debate on pornography,1980s- present 2 opposing camps: 1. Pornography exploits performers and harms society by reinforcing gender stereotypes Catharine MacKinnon, U of Michigan Law School Feminist debate on pornography,1980s- present 2 opposing camps: 2. Other alternative pornography is at least possible, featuring empowered performers and diverse portrayals Nadine Strassen, New York University Law School, building on “self-realisation” Emerging debates on restricting pornography: New platforms User-generated content led to industry upheaval and spurred new debate Studios lost market share to platforms featuring content by amateurs and professionals, e.g.: Pornhub (based in Canada): Eligible creators can monetise their accounts to share ad revenue OnlyFans (based in London): Creators monetise their content through subscriptions, pay-per-view, etc Renewed possibility of performers creating on their own terms? Emerging debates on restricting pornography: User experience Digital content easily accessible Evidence—limited but building—through users’ self-reports and more rigorous psychological studies Hypothesis: Some consumers of sexually explicit content exhibit and experience behaviours consistent with addiction Habituation to higher levels of explicitness may lead to craving more extreme content Compulsive use, even when they want to stop Emerging debates on restricting pornography: Legal implications? Should emerging evidence of problematic user experiences influence how content is regulated? E.g., enforce audience age restrictions in more sophisticated ways Oversimplified comparison: If societies regulate substances that have addiction potential, should they also regulate such content? How? Free expression advocates reply: Expression (“speech”) is different from conduct—and off-limits Sexually explicit content restrictions Debates on restricting sexually explicit content featuring consenting adults Singapore obscenity US comparison English common law: Obscenity Material “tending to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences” Regina v Hicklin, 1868 Literary merit became a factor in 20th century cases Prosecuted in UK, US: John Cleland’s Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure, aka “Fanny Hill” (1748) Singapore: Obscenity “any thing or matter the effect of which is, if taken as a whole, such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear [it]” Singapore obscenity provisions in multiple statutes for multiple media are actively enforced: films, publications Criminal penalties to distribute (e.g., digital transmission), import, possess (e.g., downloads) Mental state: reason to believe obscene Singapore obscenity: Who decides? Executive branch role: Initial flagging: Law enforcement (e.g., police or customs officials) may flag material as potentially obscene based on statutory guidelines Expert review: Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) can offer expertise and regulatory oversight Judicial branch role: Courts ultimately decide if material fulfils criteria when AGC prosecutes an offence Obscene illustration Amos Yee convicted of distributing obscenity for posting a drawing to his blog at the time of his video on Lee Kuan Yew’s death (2015) Obscenity possession, distribution Admin pleaded guilty (2021) to possessing, distributing obscene images In Telegram chat group with 40K+ members Possible separate offences: Images of women posted without consent could be prosecuted for other offences Instead of, or in addition to, obscenity offences Obscenity distribution Husband and wife pleaded guilty to charges including uploading obscene images (nude photos of her) to Twitter (now X.com) Separate charges for nudity in public, where some of the photos were taken Obscenity distribution: Titus Low case Admitted to charge of distributing (transmitting) obscene photos, videos of himself Posts to OnlyFans site, through which creators monetise content Obscenity distribution: Titus Low case: Singapore Police statement “The police would like to remind the public that it is illegal under the Penal Code to transmit any obscene materials by electronic means.” A form of distribution “It is also against the law to take part in or receive profits from any business where obscene materials are transmitted by electronic means or advertise the sale of obscene materials.” Related offences Members of the public may wish to lodge a police report if they are aware of persons engaging in such activities.” Obscenity distribution: Titus Low case: Govt reaction "Realistically, however, it will not be possible to block all objectionable or obscene content on the internet. That is why we must look beyond banning and take a holistic approach to deal with such content.” Minister for Communications & Information Josephine Teo Are you being monitored for access to controversial content? “IMDA does not restrict or monitor individuals’ access to online content” (IMDA website) Sexually explicit content restrictions Debates on restricting sexually explicit content featuring consenting adults Singapore obscenity US comparison US comparison: Your intended learning outcomes NOT: To be able to recite back the US obscenity law definition 1. Understand how it was done: Understand how adding/removing components of a legal definition affects what’s regulated 2. The real-world consequences: By narrowing the category of restricted material, US law affects content that reaches global audience US obscenity became a narrow category through constitutional litigation US started with English common law definition States passed a variations of the Hicklin definition, some stricter than others Defendants claimed their constitutional rights to free speech violated by their prosecution for obscenity SCOTUS agreed and overturned some convictions and added limits to what can be prosecuted as obscene (esp. in Miller v California case, 1973) Thus, some states had to amend or repeal their laws How SCOTUS narrowed obscenity: Sexual conduct only 1. SCOTUS limited obscenity to portrayals of sexual conduct, real or simulated, that is specifically defined by law Nudity alone insufficient—a drastic limitation SCOTUS gave these examples of what a state can define as obscene in its statutes: “ultimate sex acts”, masturbation, excretory functions, “lewd exhibition of the genitals” The semi-formal shorthand term for such content is hardcore pornography How SCOTUS narrowed obscenity: Reasonable person test 2. SCOTUS: Hardcore pornography is evaluated using an average person standard—NOT the “most sensitive person” States can only lawfully restrict content that is offensive to the average person based on their contemporary community standards Contrast : English common law: “tending to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences” Singapore obscenity statute: tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear [it]” How SCOTUS narrowed obscenity: Redeeming value 3. SCOTUS: States can only lawfully restrict content lacking “serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value” when “taken as a whole” So, an isolated explicit sex scene in a film with artistic merit doesn’t make the film obscene Compare: English common law originally lacked such considerations Singapore’s statutory definitions of obscenity consider work as whole SCOTUS limited offences involving obscenity Distribution is criminalised Mental state required: At least some awareness of the nature of the material Can vary among state laws Similar to “reason to believe” standard But govt cannot criminalise possession of obscenity by adults: “If the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch” Stanley v Georgia (SCOTUS, 1969) SCOTUS’s narrowing of “obscenity” affects what’s available globally 1. Pornography must be extreme to qualify as obscene under US law 2. Also, US prosecutors deprioritise obscenity law enforcement (prosecutorial discretion) Results: US pornography industry with global reach Some mainstream American media, such as films and books, include sexually explicit scenes SCOTUS’s narrowing of “obscenity” affects what’s available globally: Films What’s not obscene in the US, thus, one sees it in US films? Bare breasts Full nudity—if not “lewd exhibition” (Simulated) sex acts that aren’t “patently offensive” An explicit scene in a film of artistic merit Child abuse material prohibited in all media Singapore and US comparison Global near-consensus: It’s illegal Sexually explicit material depicting children is widely prohibited Either specifically or through other broader laws Prosecutorial discretion: Prosecutors cite it as a high priority to pursue offenders Global near-consensus: Rationales Children below the specified age (varies by jurisdiction) lack the capacity to consent legal capacity: “ability to make a rational decision based upon all relevant facts and considerations” (Wex) Also includes emotional maturity, sense of right/wrong Thus, such material is considered non-consensual by definition Terminology: Child pornography remains most common term But child abuse material emphasises that it’s evidence of crimes Child abuse material prohibited Singapore Films Singapore: Child abuse material Child pornography (Penal Code, 2020) Includes images of: “person who is, or who appears to a reasonable observer to be, or who is implied to be, below 16 years of age… …engaged in…a sexual pose or sexual activity (whether or not in the presence of another person)” Includes nudity Both images of actual persons and virtual child pornography E.g., digitally-generated, AI-generated Singapore: Child abuse material: Offences: Child pornography (Penal Code, 2020) Seek such material (e.g., through communication or other action) Possess it (e.g., downloads or cloud storage in an account under one’s control) “Gain access to” it (e.g., view it online) Produce, distribute, import, etc Criminal penalties: prison, fine, caning Mental state: Know or have reason to believe it is child abuse material Child abuse material prohibited Singapore US  US child pornography prohibitions Child pornography statutes’ Note scope Criminal offence to knowingly Both possession & distribution create, distribute, possess… included, in contrast to US obscenity, where only distribution is criminalised, not possession …sexually explicit photos and Only actual minors, not wholly videos of actual minors (below 18) computer-generated virtual images, *can include nudity nor text-only material SCOTUS rationales for the scope of the child pornography prohibitions Q: Why criminalise possession as well as distribution… …and why criminalise only images of actual children? A: The aims of the US law: 1. Focus on preventing child abuse Not on the consumer’s thoughts, however problematic those thoughts may be “State does not rely on a paternalistic interest in regulating [the consumer’s] mind” 2. To eliminate a permanent record of children’s abuse Singapore/US comparisons Both Singapore and US provisions focus on images Text-only material could be prosecuted as obscenity US law: Unlike in Singapore, virtual images of children not included (but could be obscene in both jurisdictions) Age thresholds Note that US law criminalises material depicting minors ages 16, 17 (though age of consent for sexual activity in most states is 16) Takeaways for your reflection A rare area in media law in which there’s agreement that enforcement is a high priority In the US, despite aggressive prosecution, First Amendment free expression protections have nonetheless been interpreted to limit the scope of what can be prosecuted Restrictions on publications and films Singapore and US comparison Restrictions on publications and films These content restrictions are: Limited to certain media Broad in scope of what can be restricted Publications and film restrictions Publications Films Films prohibited by ministerial declaration Party political films Film classification Publications Undesirable Publications Act Books Magazines or periodicals Periodically published So, past & future issues affected “Pictures” E.g., drawings, including those made with computer Photos Sound recordings (e.g., music, audiobook, etc) But not films Prohibition of publications by ministerial declaration Minister has discretion to declare publications are prohibited for being “contrary to the public interest” By official published order Unfettered discretion: No further criteria specified After order published, AGC can prosecute in court: Criminal penalties for possession, distribution, import, etc Mental state: Presumed to have known prohibited unless evidence to the contrary Prohibited publications o n t ra r y to the “c li c i n te re st” pub Objectionable publications Minister’s delegate (e.g., IMDA) can declare publications objectionable By official published order Expert determination: Wide discretion but some listed considerations: Can include but not limited to depictions of: Sex, violence, drugs, horror… Or content likely to cause hostility between races or religions Based on holistic analysis of material and likely audience Offences involving objectionable publications AGC can prosecute in court: Criminal penalties for distribution, but not possession Exception: Can prosecute possession for purpose of distribution Inferred from circumstances, e.g., possessing more copies than necessary for personal use Mental state: Reason to believe is objectionable Objectionable publication By Singaporean Prof Cherian George (Hong Kong Baptist U) with cartoonist Sonny Liew Book about censorship of political cartoons (MIT Press) Reproduced political cartoon of Prophet Muhammad (published in Europe) Objectionable publication Couple mailed and dropped off thousands of tracts from California publisher in HDB letterboxes Charges based on complaints to police from recipients Convicted and jailed for offences including distribution of objectionable publications Publications and film restrictions Publications Films Films prohibited by ministerial declaration Party political films Film classification Films Films Act Any kind of video Includes computer-generated Video games (interactive) But online games not included here Publications and film restrictions Publications Films Films prohibited by ministerial declaration Party political films Film classification Prohibitions of films by ministerial declaration (compare publications) Minister has discretion to declare films are prohibited for being “contrary to the public interest” By official published order Unfettered discretion: No further criteria specified After order published, AGC can prosecute in court: Criminal penalties for possession, distribution, exhibition, import, etc Examples: Films profiling ISA detainees by local filmmaker Recently: Films typically NOT prohibited by ministerial order Publications and film restrictions Publications Films Films prohibited by ministerial declaration Party political films Film classification Party Political Films: 1. An advertisement for a political party, OR 2. A film “directed towards any political end in Singapore”; e.g.: It is “intended or likely to affect voting” or It contains “partisan or biased” comments on a political matter: E.g., on an election, candidate, the government, an MP, or “a current policy of the Government or an issue of public controversy in Singapore” u t y p ic a lly think d e r th a n w h at yo roa #2 could be b e a r “pa r t y ” p o li t i ca l film of w he n yo u h PPFs: Criminal penalties AGC can prosecute in court for making, importing, distributing, exhibiting, or possessing for purpose of distributing/exhibiting Mental state: Reason to believe it’s a PPF News & some documentaries are not PPFs Excluded from PPF definition: Any film “for the purpose of reporting of news by a broadcasting service licensed” in Singapore Also excluded from PPF definition: A documentary that: a) is “accurate” and b) is NOT “dramatic” (e.g., it’s dramatic if shows re- enactments of events) and c) does NOT contain animation Other PPFs & exceptions “Examples of PPFs are films which employ dramatisation and/or animation to distort, sensationalise or mislead viewers on political matter” Other exceptions: these are not PPFs: “Live recordings of events held in accordance with the law (e.g. recordings of campaigning activities);… Candidate’s declaration of policies or ideology on the basis of which the candidate will seek to be elected and produced by or on behalf of the candidate….” IMDA & Elections Department Press Release (2023) Publications and film restrictions Publications Films Films prohibited by ministerial declaration Party political films Film classification Film classification Prior to distribution or exhibition (showing) to any audience, films must be submitted to IMDA for classification (“rating”) Restricts age range of audience Classic prior restraint Audience restrictions have business implications Singapore’s film ratings Singapore’s film ratings Advisory ratings for parents: G - General: Suitable for persons of all ages PG - Parental Guidance recommended for younger viewers PG13 - Parental Guidance advised for children 18 R21 - Restricted to persons >21 NAR – Not Approved for All Ratings: Cannot be exhibited, distributed IMDA classifies content based on such elements: Mature theme or message Other elements: about: Violence, nudity, coarse Adultery, promiscuity language, drug use, horror ”Alternative sexualities” For sexual activity, Gender identities depictions of activity Suicide between same-sex partners earns higher ratings Substance abuse Disney films in Singapore Star Wars IX (2019): Disney cut Lightyear (2022): NC16 brief kiss for PG13 rating because Disney declined IMDA suggestion to cut scene of same-sex parents IMDA refuses classification in rare cases: Not Allowed for All Ratings (NAR) IMDA has non-exhaustive list of criteria: Likely to undermine public order, national security Likely to promote hostility between races, religions, other communities in Singapore ”Promotion of homosexuality” or “excessive depictions of sexual activity between individuals of the same gender Also, unlawful content NAR case “To Singapore, with Love”: Film on Singaporeans who fled because of fear of consequences for their alleged communist ties when Singapore IMDA: Individuals give “distorted and untruthful accounts” Thus, “undermines national security” NAR case: Filmmaker’s explanation Filmmaker Tan Pin Pin: “Their feelings for Singapore are intense and heartfelt, albeit sometimes ambivalent, even after so long away. …Those feelings (more than the circumstances of their exile, or even the historical ‘truth’ that led to such exile) are what my film predominantly focuses on.” NAR: PM Lee’s defence of IMDA’s NAR “Why should we allow them through a movie… …to present an account of themselves not of documentary history, objectively presented,… …but a self-serving personal account, conveniently inaccurate in places, glossing over inconvenient facts in others,… …which will sully the honour and the reputation of the security people and the brave men and women who fought the communists all those many years, in order to create today’s Singapore?” Other NAR films 2015: Short promotional clip with footage of Pink Dot 2018: Film on Israeli-Palestine conflict with “skewed narrative” (IMDA) 2022: Film about conflict between gay man and pastor, purporting to be “inspired by true events” Contrast US film ratings Based on sex, nudity, profanity, substance use… …and violence, though critics say too much is allowed US film ratings are voluntary Filmmakers, and distributors voluntarily submit films to an industry organisation, the Motion Picture Association, for rating Trailers also rated Ratings lack legal force but have business impact Many cinemas choose to follow them by checking IDs Some cinemas won’t show NC-17 films; media/cinemas may not accept marketing Film industry avoids legal restrictions by adopting this voluntary industry self-regulation  News licensing in Singapore Print and online News licensing in Singapore Print newspapers Online licensing: Singapore’s 3-tier approach: Group 1 class licence Group 2 class licence + registration Group 3 individual licence Singapore print newspaper licensing Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (NPPA) Permit normally for 1 year Govt can require publisher to post a monetary bond Newspaper: Publication containing news reports or comments on it E.g., on current affairs, entertainment, lifestyle, religion, newsletters for groups (unless exempted) Printed (not online) Periodically published—not a one-off publication Singapore print newspaper licensing Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (NPPA) If published at least weekly, then publisher must form a newspaper company: Its distinguishing feature: 2 classes of investors who can vote on major decisions about the company Ordinary shareholders Management shareholders have shares with more voting power Such shareholders must be govt-approved Implications of licensing Licensing, a classic prior restraint: Govt must permit you to communicate via that medium High barriers to entry: Requiring a bond and management shareholder scheme Now, Singapore Press Holdings has a more complex structure Contrast US: No licensing for publications, online content providers News licensing in Singapore Print newspapers Online licensing: Singapore’s 3-tier approach: Group 1 class licence Group 2 class licence + registration Group 3 individual licence All 3 groups have these legal obligations: All licensees must restrict content prohibited by the Internet Code Of Practice (ICOP): Prohibited “on the grounds of public interest, public morality, public order, public security, national harmony” Or unlawful under Singapore law Including content posted by users Must obey orders (e.g., from IMDA) regarding content Noncompliance can result in: A fine Licence can be revoked News licensing in Singapore Print newspapers Online licensing: Singapore’s 3-tier approach: Group 1 class licence Group 2 class licence + registration Group 3 individual licence Group 1: Class licensees: Who? “Internet content providers”: The statutory definition is broad and complex but has been summarised: Individuals, groups, organisations, companies that post content or have authority over websites where content is posted Group 1: Class licence All in the category (class) of internet content providers are automatically regarded as having a “class licence” Just by posting content, operating website, etc No application—no document Only meaningful if revoked, so that website can’t operate Group 1: Class licence: Who? Is everyone who posts online an “Internet content provider”? Not entirely clear what the minimum threshold is to qualify Some content providers specifically mentioned: Those who operate a website (“any web publisher and any web server administrator”) Those who provide content for “business, political or religious purposes” specifically highlighted Group 1: Class licence: Historical context 1996: Online universe was mostly websites Later: Social media platforms and mobile apps Now, laws specifically for online content: POFMA, Online Safety Act News licensing in Singapore Print newspapers Online licensing: Singapore’s 3-tier approach: Group 1 class licence Group 2 class licence + registration Group 3 individual licence Class licensing + registration: Group 2 Broadcasting Act Some of the Group 1 class licensees are required to register …within 14 days of commencing operation—or when authorities order to register: Internet content providers involved in “propagation, promotion or discussion of political or religious issues relating to Singapore” Operators of online newspapers Internet Service Providers Singapore political parties providing online content Group 2 has seen more enforcement than Group 1 1996 Class licensing + registration: Group 2 Authorities investigate some sites to ensure local control, funding IMDA temporarily suspended The Online Citizen’s group 2 license Didn’t comply with repeated demands to reveal funding Class licensing + registration: Group 2 case Site was required to register Political content Then violated ICOP provisions On public order and national harmony Fabricated story about dispute between person of different races, nationalities IMDA suspended class licence for site, so it ceased operation An inspiration for Pofma, passed later? News licensing in Singapore Print newspapers Online licensing: Singapore’s 3-tier approach: Group 1 class licence Group 2 class licence + registration Group 3 individual licence 2013 Online news licensing: Group 3 Individual license: Major news sites operated in Singapore must obtain “individual licence” if: Post news about Singapore regularly* and Meet minimum thresholds for traffic from Singapore users* *Minimums specified in statute Supersedes automatic class licence Site with individual licence no longer has class licence Licensees must post bond of $50,000 Like sending a check that could be cashed to pay penalties Critics asked: A barrier to entry for new sites? 2013 Online news licensing: Group 3 individual licensing Govt cited justifications Need for parity in regulation of online and online and offline media Takeaways on licensing Singapore requires licences for print newspapers and their online counterparts, online news sites, and other online sites Singapore was one of the first nations to pass online-specific laws in the 1990s; some provisions have rarely been enforced, but some online licences were removed due to the content posted or failure to comply with investigations Licensing, a “prior restraint”, has drawn criticism advocates of free expression Broadcast & video services law Singapore and US comparison Broadcast and video services law Broadcast licensing in Singapore Singapore content regulations for broadcasters & video services Compare US Singapore FTA broadcasting requires a license Broadcasting Act Any conditions can be imposed on the licence E.g., broadcast frequency, language, programming, pay deposit Minister can make “directions as he thinks fit” E.g., taking control in a public emergency, censorship Licensee must follow content regulations Licensee can be fined Licence can be cancelled, suspended, modified Singapore FTA broadcast ownership MediaCorp is government-owned By Temasek Holdings, a government holding company But a privately owned broadcaster could be licensed Foreign ownership would require special approval Broadcast and video services law Broadcast licensing in Singapore Singapore content regulations for broadcasters & video services Compare US Broadcasters & video services Free-To-Air broadcast radio and TV (e.g., MediaCorp Ch 5) “Cable” (or pay or subscription TV) with a schedule (e.g., from Starhub): Video On Demand services (e.g., Netflix): Content regulations Broadcasters and other providers of video content must follow the relevant IMDA Programme Code for the medium IMDA, a statutory board, granted authority by Parliament to write codes, update them, apply them Codes used in conjunction with IMDA film classification (ratings) In-house censors (e.g., MediaCorp employees) apply the relevant codes Breaches of classification law and regulations AGC can prosecute offences related to classification in court and impose criminal penalties IMDA authorised to impose financial penalties in some cases Distinct from criminal prosecution Broadcasters & video services’ obligations regarding film classifications Free-To-Air broadcast radio and TV (e.g., MediaCorp Ch 5) Nothing above PG13 “Cable” (or pay or subscription TV) with a schedule (e.g., from Starhub): Only up to M18 and parental controls must be available Video On Demand services (e.g., Netflix): R21 if such content is locked by default with a PIN for age verification NAR content is banned on all services E.g., IMDA asked Netflix to take down some titles in Singapore A few examples of programme codes in action To illustrate how broadcasters and other services: Apply the relevant IMDA programme codes in conjunction with the film/video classifications Or are penalised if they breach the code No need to recall details of cases  Screenwriter Dustin Lance Black’s Example acceptance speech for gay-themed film at Oscars (2009): “To all of the gay and lesbian kids out there tonight who have been told that they are less than by their churches or by the government or by their families,… …you are beautiful, wonderful creatures of value and…no matter what anyone tells you, God does love you” Example: FTA TV Code followed (2009) Speech cut from Channel 5 rebroadcast to comply with FTA TV Programme Code MediaCorp, in letter to ST Online Forum, explained that it applied Code : “The encore telecast of the 81st Annual Academy Awards…would have been in serious breach of the MDA Programme Code if such controversial content was not editorially managed.” Code “explicitly disallows content that sympathises with, promotes or normalises such a lifestyle from being broadcast….” Example: TV Codes followed (2016) Obama on Ellen, 2016 Obama praises Ellen for coming out in 1997 “You being willing to claim who you were…empowers other people” Example: TV Codes followed (2016) “In compliance with Singapore’s F2A TV programme guidelines, the brief segment on Obama’s firm endorsement and support of gay rights issues was edited out for our broadcast on Channel 5.” MediaCorp Channel 5 Example: FTA Radio Programme Code breach (2017) DJs chatted about survey finding more Chinese than Malays and Indians get enough sleep Example: FTA Radio Programme Code breach (2017) Potential to provoke hostility between races Example: VOD Code followed Queer Eye makeover show rated R21 with PIN Contrast: Rated PG12 in Japan; 13+ in the Philippines, India, & Indonesia; and PG15 in South Korea. Example: VOD Code followed (2022) China-based streaming service lacked PIN locking To comply with IMDA classification guidelines, service made all R21 content inaccessible in Singapore  VOD Programme Code followed: IMDA required Netflix to block titles (in Singapore only) with substance use Broadcast and video services law Broadcast licensing in Singapore Singapore content regulations for broadcasters & video services Compare US Compare US Free-to-air (TV, radio) broadcasters licensed Licensees must obey broadcast indecency standards Broadcasting content regulations not inconsistent with First Amendment free expression guarantees on the rationale that broadcasting is: Accessible to children and intrusive Other video services (e.g., Netflix) need not obey indecency law US broadcast licensees’ obligations If you watch an American-made TV show with bleep-censored words,… …or see that a song has both a “clean” “radio version” and an ”explicit” version What’s the explanation? Broadcasters following indecency law US broadcast licensees avoid indecency If FTA broadcasters air indecent content (including profanity)… Offensive content by standards for the medium …during hours when children are likely in audience (6am-10pm)… …and citizens complain to govt agency that handles broadcasting (Federal Communications Commission),…...then FCC can fine broadcaster Contrast: Obscenity law applies to all media Indecency cases rare; broadcast obscenity cases even rarer Most well-known indecency case During live broadcast of halftime performance at Super Bowl (football championship game (2004): Janet Jackson’s breast exposed for a half second—accidentally? 500,000 citizen complaints Govt fined broadcaster CBS Appeal: Fine cancelled on Fleeting nudity had not resulted in fines before