Broadcaster faces £20,000 fine for showing unencrypted sexually explicit material

SEL broadcasts footage of women inviting viewers to use premium rate phone services to engage in sexually explicit chat on the channel SportxxxBabes. The channel is broadcast free-to-air on Sky's satellite service.

Ofcom has found that some of the material broadcast by the channel was too sexually explicit and broke the rules of its Broadcasting Code.

The regulator received three complaints in early 2007 about material broadcast by the channel. The material complained of was extremely sexually explicit, though the most graphic parts of the picture were pixellated out. Ofcom ruled, though, that the material was inappropriate.

"Ofcom…concluded that the explicitness of the sexual content was wholly unacceptable for broadcast on a free-to-air channel," said its ruling. "It was considered to be ‘adult-sex’ material and fell under Rule 1.24 [of the Code] and so should have been broadcast under encryption."

The rules say that channels can show material classified as 'adult-sex' between 10pm and 5.30am, but that the channel must have a PIN protected encryption system and other systems in place to ensure that viewers are adults.

Channels must also warn any viewers that might be offended by content what is about to be shown.

SEL argued that the material did not qualify as 'adult-sex' material, and that it was generally acceptable for broadcast after the 9pm watershed. It also said that it should be taken into account that the material was broadcast in the adult section of the Sky system.

Ofcom rejected the arguments and said that the material breached the Code because "the content of the programme was sexually explicit, its primary purpose was to arouse the audience sexually, and it did [not] have any or sufficient editorial justification".

SEL said that Ofcom should show some leniency because the sex acts pictured were simulated and not real, despite the fact that a looped voiceover had claimed to viewers that pictured sexual activity was real and happening at that moment.

Ofcom's Content Sanctions Committee, which decided on the £20,000 fine, said that the question of whether the acts were really happening was not the most important one.

"Whether these activities were 'real' or simulated did not alter the seriousness of the breaches in the opinion of the Committee," it said. "They did not obviously appear simulated, and were intended to be perceived as 'real' to the ordinary viewer."

Ofcom had sent letters to SEL and the operators of similar channels twice in 2006 warning them about broadcasting explicit content. The Sanctions Committee said that the size of the SEL fine should be a deterrent to such broadcasters.

"In deciding on the appropriate size of a financial penalty in this case, the Committee considered it should be sufficiently significant to act as a deterrent against a repeat of these or similar breaches," it said. "The Committee was concerned that Licensees, especially those who choose to operate in the ‘adult’ market, should understand that breaches of the Code of a serious nature can have the most significant repercussions."