The content became increasingly surreal , culminating in Hill wearing an oxygen mask and giving birth to a doll
Ofcom decided that Ms G ’ s son was not identifi able to anyone save for those few who knew him . It was not clear to Ofcom that it was the footage , rather than comments on social media , that led to the identifi cation of Ms G ’ s son and him being attacked , taunted at school and labelled a gang member . Accordingly , the broadcast was not unfair to him , as those who were able to identify him would already know about the circumstances surrounding the incident and his presence at it .
Ofcom also found no unwarranted infringement of privacy . Ofcom noted that being in a public place and being involved in or a witness to a crime does not automatically deprive an individual of a reasonable expectation of privacy , and the circumstances could reasonably be considered a sensitive situation . It was additionally noted that special care must be taken in relation to the privacy of those aged under 16 .
Nonetheless , Ofcom found Ms G ’ s son had no reasonable expectation of privacy . It was material that the footage was obtained by Channel 4 News to highlight the increased use of knives by London gangs , rather than to focus on any individual .
In particular , as Ms G ’ s son was not readily identifi able to an ordinary viewer , he did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to the obtaining of the footage , nor in relation to its broadcast .
This is an interesting case as , in spite of Ms G ’ s son being under 16 , and there apparently having been consequences for him as a result of being identifi ed , no breach was found . Channel 4 News was able to demonstrate the lengths it had gone to in order to ensure the footage was obtained properly and that blurring techniques were used where necessary .
Programme-makers should always seek advice from an experienced lawyer on these matters to ensure they do not fall foul of the numerous laws at play in this area , which include contempt , reporting restrictions , privacy and data protection law .
OFCOM – HARM AND OFFENCE : Harry Hill ’ s TV Burp – repeat in breach
■ Ofcom has found an episode of Harry Hill ’ s TV Burp , aired on the channel Dave , to be in breach of the Ofcom Broadcasting Code ’ s rules on harm and offence . The episode had previously transmitted on ITV in 2008 and although complaints were made then , they were not upheld .
The show referred to a documentary entitled The Pregnant Man on Channel 4 about Thomas Beatie , a transgender male able to conceive and carry a baby because he had retained his female reproductive organs . The item intercut clips of the documentary with narration from Harry Hill . The content became increasingly surreal , culminating in Harry Hill wearing an oxygen mask and giving birth to a doll which was told to call him ‘ mummy ’ instead of ‘ dada ’.
The complainant , a member of the public , considered that the item was offensive and discriminatory towards the transgender community . Ofcom considered the material under Rule 2.3 of the Broadcasting Code , which requires broadcasters to ensure that material which may cause offence is justifi ed by the context .
In its defence , the broadcaster argued that the segment mocked the sensationalist title The Pregnant Man , as opposed to Mr Beatie himself . It also pointed out that they had removed one minute of potentially offensive material from the original cut of the programme before broadcast , which in their view did stray towards mocking Mr Beatie . It also argued that the audience would understand
GAVE BIRTH TO A DOLL : HARRY HILL
The content became increasingly surreal , culminating in Hill wearing an oxygen mask and giving birth to a doll
the surreal nature of Harry Hill ’ s material , and that while his comments were absurd and juvenile , they were not intended to cause offence or be discriminatory . However , in response to the complaint , the broadcaster accepted that attitudes had changed since 2008 , when the show originally aired , and said that they had already removed the item from future broadcasts of the programme . Ofcom disagreed with the broadcaster , fi nding that the item had directly mocked Mr Beatie . Ofcom stated that although there is signifi cant room for innovation , creativity and challenging material , broadcasters do not have an unlimited licence to be offensive . Ofcom also noted that the transgender community has ‘ protected characteristics ’ under equality law and highlighted references in the programme such as ‘ Victorian freak show ’ and ‘ Oh I see – it ’ s a woman with a beard ’ as likely to be highly offensive to the transgender
zoom-in Winter 2016 | 9