REGULATION – OFCOM, ASA & IPSO
permission. The Daily Star stated that
the website was not private and was
accessible with a name and email address – there was no need to pay a fee.
It also said that its journalist may not
have seen Ms Pearce’s full profile (and
so the disclaimer) because he had only
taken the information that was publicly available.
IPSO found that the information on Ms Pearce’s profile was of a
nature which most would consider
highly private, but as she had disclosed it on a public website she had
no reasonable expectation of privacy.
The Daily Star article had not given
her name or given any further information about her beyond her profile
photograph and username.
IPSO therefore found no breach
of the Code. It did, however, welcome the fact that after receiving
Ms Pearce’s complaint, the Daily
Star had removed the screenshot of
her profile from the article. This is
a useful decision for content producers, affirming that even inherently
private information about an individual will not attract a reasonable
expectation of privacy where the
individual has placed, or consented
to the placement of, that information on a website easily accessible to
members of the public.
OFCOM – report on
offensive language on
television
Ofcom has released a report on
public attitudes to offensive language entitled Attitudes to potentially offensive language and gestures on
TV and radio. The report includes a
ranking of swearwords, from milder words which people generally
have little concern about, to the
strongest words, which are highly
unacceptable before the 9pm watershed, but generally acceptable
post-watershed, if justified by the
context.
Unsurprisingly the strongest
words were ‘cunt’, ‘motherfucker’
12 | zoom-in Winter 2016
and ‘fuck’. Lower down the scale,
however, there were some surprises:
‘tits’ was considered more offensive
than ‘bugger’, and ‘bastard’ more
offensive than ‘arsehole’.
Those involved in the study
thought the 9pm watershed to be
Word
Arse
Arsehole
Balls
Bastard
Beaver
Beef
curtains
Bellend
Bint
Bitch
Bloodclaat
Bloody
Bollocks
Bugger
Bullshit
Clunge
Cock
Cow
Crap
Cunt
Damn
Dick
Dickhead
Fanny
Feck/
Effing
Flaps
very important in protecting children, and also for adults who wanted to avoid strong language. Swear
words were generally considered
more acceptable if used in a context
in which they would be used in everyday, ‘real world’ speech.
Acceptability
Mild language, generally of little concern.
Medium language, potentially unacceptable pre-watershed. More
aggression or specific intent to hurt heightens impact.
Medium language, potentially unacceptable pre-watershed. Particularly
vulgar or sexual use heightens the impact, especially for women.
Strong language, generally unacceptable pre-watershed. More aggression or
specific intent to hurt heightens impact. Less problematic when used to refer
indirectly to someone who is cruel or nasty.
Strong language, generally unacceptable pre-watershed. Seen as vulgar and
distasteful, especially by women.
Strong language, generally unacceptable pre-watershed. Low recognition.
Seen as vulgar and distasteful, especially by women.
Strong language, generally unacceptable pre-watershed. Seen by some as
a childish word often said in jest. More aggression or specific intent to hurt
heightens impact.
Medium language, potentially unacceptable pre-watershed. Seen as
potentially derogatory by women, but men also find the word problematic.
Medium language, potentially unacceptable pre-watershed. More
aggression or specific intent to hurt heightens impact.
Strong language, generally unacceptable pre-watershed. Low recognition.
Among those familiar, seen as vulgar and crude. Strongly disliked by women
when meaning discussed.
Mild language, generally of little concern. Frequently used in everyday
language to express emotion, and not usually as a directed insult.
Medium language, potentially unacceptable pre-watershed. Not generally
offensive but somewhat vulgar when used to refer to testicles. Less
problematic when used to mean ‘nonsense’.
Mild language, generally of little concern. Frequently used in everyday
language to express emotion when making a mistake. Seen as much stronger
when used in a clearly sexual context.
Medium language, potentially unacceptable pre-watershed. Older
participants more likely to consider the word unacceptable.
Strong language, generally unacceptable pre-watershed. Not always
recognised. Seen as vulgar and distasteful, especially by women.
Strong language, generally unacceptable pre-watershed. Seen as vulgar and
distasteful by many. Less problematic when used in a humorous context.
Mild language, generally of little concern. Commonly viewed as a humorous
insult.
Mild language, generally of little concern.
Strongest language, problematic for some even post-watershed. Vulgar,
derogatory and shocking for both men and women. Especially distasteful and
offensive to women and older participants.
Mild language, generally of little concern.
Strong language, generally unacceptable pre-watershed. Seen as vulgar and
distasteful by many. Less problematic when used in a humorous context, and
generally considered slightly milder than ‘cock’.
Strong language, generally unacceptable pre-watershed. Seen as vulgar and
distasteful by many. Less problematic when used in a humorous context.
Strong language, generally unacceptable pre-watershed. Seen as crude,
particularly by women.
Medium language, potentially unacceptable pre-watershed. Often seen as
humorous. Older participants more likely to consider the word unacceptable.
Strong lan guage, generally unacceptable pre-watershed. Seen as crude and
often derogatory, particularly by women.