Not606 makes the red tops

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
bucks_is_leeds

bucks_is_leeds

Jonny big spuds
Forum Moderator
Feb 1, 2011
10,704
6,713
113
Andover
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/sport-website-hosted-rape-gallery-3871960

Sport website hosted 'rape gallery' of 'women we'd like to sexually assault'


A sports forum hosted a 'rape gallery' which encouraged users to post pictures of people they'd like to sexually assault.

The horrific thread was found on the website not606.com

It is not known whether the people who were pictured were members of the public or celebrities.

A disgusted member of the public complained about the matter to the British Board of Film Classification which since September 2013 has a role to play in classifying content accessible from mobile devices.

The complainant also raised concerns about near-the-knuckle humour and images with sexual content on the site.

Not606.com describes itself as "an alternative place to to talk about your team and other people's teams freely!"


The BBFC said the organisers behind site removed the page when the matter was brought to their attention.

The regulator - which detailed the incident in its annual report, published today - said the humorous content was aimed at adolescents and did not need an adults-only restriction.

But dealing with the gallery, it explained: "We took the view that, while the 'rape gallery' might have been intended to be funny, many would not find it so and, moreover, that it posed a non-trivial harm risk by presenting women as rape targets.

"We concluded that it would be classified at least 18 or R18, and might potentially be refused classification."

R18 is the classification given to hardcore pornography
 
Yes, let me repeat the email.

-------

Dear Mr Reid


I am writing in connection with a complaint that has been received about a discussion thread on the not606 website, concerning rape.


Just to give you a bit of background on the context.


You will be no doubt be aware that there has been longstanding concern in the UK about how best to protect children from accessing age inappropriate content on the Internet. In response, the UK’s mobile operators have had in place a Code of Practice that seeks to addresses such concerns. It is set out here: http://www.mobilebroadbandgroup.com/...ile_010713.pdf. One of commitments is to offer an Internet filter, whereby the content accessible by children can be modified. With large numbers of children now accessing the Internet on a mobile, this aspect is becoming increasingly important. I am responsible for overseeing the implementation of the Code.
To underpin the code we have appointed an independent body to advise on what content is or is not age inappropriate for minors to view, so that we are in a position to filter a mobile operator’s Internet access service accordingly. The independent body is also able to receive complaints from the public about content on websites and to make a determination as to whether it is age inappropriate. The role of the independent body is performed by the BBFC (explained here: http://www.bbfc.co.uk/what-classific...mobile-content.
Complaint
A member of the public has complained that a number of threads on not606 are adult in nature and should not be available for children. For the most part, the BBFC has not agreed but it has informed me that the thread titled Rape Gallery http://www.not606.com/group.php?disc...e=2&do=discuss is age inappropriate, not for the content itself but its title.
Before we consider what changes may be made on our side, I thought it worth notifying you of this complaint in case you wish to make changes on your side by removing or renaming the offending thread. This would avoid the risk that content on not606.com will become unavailable from a mobile.
If you would like to discuss this in more detail, please get in touch.
With regards,
****


Chair
Mobile Broadband Group
www.mbg.mobi


--------------------------


The important part of the email was "not for the content itself but its title." - because there wasn't any actual images or depictions of rape in the thread.
 
From the BBFC's quarterly report:

4 November 2013
Website
not606.com

Issue
A member of the public was concerned about several chat forum threads on
not606.com which were available on an operator’s mobile service, ranging from jokes
about the Bin Laden family, to images with a sexual element, and a thread
encouraging members to post pictures of people they would rape, described as a
'Rape Gallery', alongside written comments about raping these individuals.

Adjudication
The BBFC reviewed the content on 5 November 2013.
We partially upheld the complaint. Much of the humorous content was aimed at
adolescents and was suitable, under BBFC Guidelines, for 15 year olds and above.
This content therefore did not require restriction to adults only. However, we took the
view that, while the ‘Rape Gallery' might have been intended to be funny, many
would not find it so, and, moreover, that it posed a non-trivial harm risk by presenting
women as rape targets. We concluded that it would be classified at least 18 or R18,
and might potentially be refused classification.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back