联系我们
我们只做按需定制化代写服务,绝对原创!
QQ:41806229 点击这里在线咨询代写
Email:admin@assignment.cc
网  址:http://www.assignment.cc/
支持Paypal、VISA、MasterCard、Discover等银行卡支付
Paypal支付
代写留学生作业,Television Censorship Comparison
发表日期:2013-09-19 08:34:13 | 来源:assignment.cc | 当前的位置:首页 > 代写留学生作业 > 正文

Television Censorship: A Comparison between the United States and the United Kingdom

Since television became official in the 1930s, there have always been geographical disparities regarding to what degree different countries view television content as objectionable based on moral, religious or political criteria. The process of preventing this inappropriate content from reaching audiences is known as censorship, but blocking all unacceptable material from television is seen as a violation of freedom of expression.

However, although censorship is a heavily debated topic around the world, each country has its own regulations and policies that vary significantly. In this comparative analysis, I will examine the different views on censorship and inappropriate content in the United States and the United Kingdom. First I will discuss the current regulations and censorship issues in the United States, as well as programs and content that have been deemed inappropriate.

Then, I will elucidate the censorship regulations in the United Kingdom, and discuss a recent television issue that sparked controversy over lackadaisical censorship policies. To finish, I will compare and contrast the two countries views on censorship, with an emphasis on why the United States and the United Kingdom have different perceptions about the degree of regulations necessary in their country.

The United States

In the United States, censorship and other broadcasting policy-related issues are handled by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The FCC “is an independent United States government agency, directly responsible to Congress. The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable. The FCC’s jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. possessions” (“About the FCC”).

In the United States, obscene, indecent and profane broadcasts are taken very seriously, and based on the severity of their context, can be punishable by law. According to the FCC, enforcement actions by means of warnings, monetary fines or revoking channel licenses can be issued after a complaint is filed and a violation is confirmed. “It is a violation of federal law to airobscene programming at any time.

It is also a violation of federal law to air indecent programming or profane language during certain hours,” which includes any content between 6am and 10pm (“Obscene, Indecent, and Profane Broadcasts”). However, many people and organizations feel that the First Amendment of the Constitution, defending freedom of speech and expression, is in direct violation by the FCC’s enforcement of censorship.

On the opposing side of the FCC are groups united against censorship regulations, claiming that censorship is an infringement of the First Amendment protecting freedom of speech and expression. The National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) is a group of 50 non-profit organizations throughout the nation such as the American Ethical Union (AEU) and the National Communication Association (NCA) who “educate the public and policy makers about threats to free expression; mobilize them to take action to oppose censorship and assist in those efforts; facilitate communications between local activists and national organizations; and devise new educational, advocacy, and media strategies to create a more hospitable environment for free speech and artistic freedom” (“Mission Statement”).

The NCAC believes that a healthy, functional democracy is defined by freedom of communication, and the inability to communicate “is fatal to moral, artistic and intellectual growth” (“Mission Statement”). All groups united against censorship believe that it represents an unreasonable amount of power and dictatorship over the minds and intellectual capacity of all people.

However, the FCC has encountered many severe censorship issues in recent years concerning public broadcasts with inappropriate content. February 1, 2004 will forever be remembered not for an exciting Super Bowl game, but for Janet Jackson’s live “wardrobe malfunction” on CBS in front of millions of football fans. CBS owner Viacom was fined $550,000 for the half-time show broadcast, which the FCC declared was “in apparent violation of the broadcast indecency standard” (Lehrer).

After the Janet Jackson incident occurred, the FCC began imposing greater fines for programs that show indecent, profane or obscene content (“Remote Control: Indecency Legislation Raises Fines and Fears”). In December of 2004, the FCC fined 111 television stations that broadcasted the CBS show “Without a Trace” for a record $3.6 million, which suggested that teenagers were involved in a sexual orgy. “CBS defended the ‘Without a Trace’ episode, saying the episode contained ‘an important and socially relevant storyline warning parents to exercise greater supervision of their teenage children’” (Bosman).

Since then, many other television shows have been fined for indecency, which has led to the detriment of station programming because stations are worried about being charged. This string of massive fines given to inappropriate airings has led broadcasters to self-censor their programs using five-second delays; especially on entertainment, sport and sexually explicit television shows (“Remote Control: Indecency Legislation Raises Fines and Fears”).

The United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, the Office of Communications (Ofcom) is in charge of regulating all of the private commercial channels, including iTV, Five and Channel 4. Ofcom was first established as the overseer of communications industries by the Office of Communications Act 2002, combining the responsibilities of the Broadcasting Standards Commission, the Independent Television Commission, the Radio Authority, and the Director General of Communications into one regulating group (“Statutory Duties and Regulatory Principles”). Ofcom’s responsibilities include:

“Ensuring the optimal use of the electro-magnetic spectrum; ensuring that a wide range of electronic communications services - including high speed data services - is available throughout the UK; ensuring a wide range of TV and radio services of high quality and wide appeal; maintaining plurality in the provision of broadcasting; applying adequate protection for audiences against offensive or harmful material; and applying adequate protection for audiences against unfairness or the infringement of privacy” (“Statutory Duties and Regulatory Principles”).

According to the Ofcom Broadcasting Code, multiple sections were established to set proper standards for television broadcasting. Two codes related to the censorship of inappropriate material are: to prevent harm to children under age 18, and to avert offensive or harmful material from being broadcasted. Section One - Protecting the Under-Eighteens states: “Material that might seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of people under eighteen must not be broadcast.

Children must also be protected by appropriate scheduling from material that is unsuitable for them” (“The Ofcom Broadcasting Code”). Section Two - Harm and Offence asserts: “In applying generally accepted standards broadcasters must ensure that material which may cause offence is justified by the context. Such material may include, but is not limited to, offensive language, violence, sex, sexual violence, humiliation, distress, violation of human dignity, discriminatory treatment or language (“The Ofcom Broadcasting Code”). Freedom of expression and responsibility are considered hand in hand by the Code, which is why each programmer must obey regulations that apply to each section.

Although Ofcom controls the private channels in the United Kingdom, the government-owned stations such as the BBC have their own indecency regulations. The BBC has a more relaxed policy for indecency, which is know as the Watershed policy. “From 9pm the TV watershed helps parents protect children from unsuitable material. In all but exceptional circumstances, programmes before 9pm are suitable for general audiences including children.

From 9pm they are progressively suitable only for adults” (“Decency and the TV watershed”). The BBC and other public broadcasting stations in the United Kingdom rely on parent support and program warnings to prevent children from exposure to indecent, profane or obscene content, not on censorship rules and expensive fines. In the United Kingdom, the lack of universal policies and regulations on censoring inappropriate content of all television channels shows the overall laissez-faire attitude toward television censorship.

In general, the United Kingdom fines programs and stations for going over television program limits or blatantly lying on television, but does not often penalize stations for showing morally, politically or religiously indecent content. However, there is extremely limited information on television programs that have been in violation of the Ofcom Broadcasting Code or BBC regulations that have been fined for airing inappropriate material.

In one case, an episode of Jerry Springer - The Opera was brought to court by Christian evangelists trying to prosecute Mark Thompson, the BBC’s director general. According to Stephen Green, National Director of the Christian Voice, the show on BBC2 “featured scenes depicting Christ wearing a nappy and swearing had ‘clearly crossed the blasphemy threshold’ ” (Petre). However, the show was not censored on BBC2 or prosecuted for blasphemous content after being brought to court.

Mark Mullins, who represents Stephen Green and the Christian Voice, said “No prosecution for blasphemy can be brought against the BBC. That is tantamount to saying that blasphemy is of little, if any, relevance in today’s society” (Petre). Compared to the United Kingdom, whose regulations allow for greater rein of freedom of speech and expression, the United States has much harsher regulations about censorship and blocking harmful content from the airwaves.

Comparison

The United States and the United Kingdom both deal with complaints from television viewers on a daily basis; however, the viewers in the United Kingdom complain there is not enough censorship, while the viewers in the United States feel there is too much censorship.

According to mediawatch-uk, an organization that campaigns for decency and accountability in the media, they believe that television has become toxic to viewers, and no longer represents reality or enforces censorship of inappropriate material. “Violence, sex and bad language is so common on TV…However, Parliament has approved laws which say that programmes must meet with ‘generally accepted standards’ and that the public should be protected from ‘offensive and harmful material’.  This law is being ignored and viewers’ rights are being overridden in the quest for ratings, audience share and controversy” (“mediawatch-uk”).

Many organizations like mediawatch-uk have been established to apply greater pressure on the regulating bodies like Ofcom and BBC, convinced they have not responded sufficiently to the public concern. On the opposing side, the United States has many organizations like the NCAC that argue regulations set on American television are too severe, and do not allow for the freedom to exercise the rights guaranteed in the First Amendment.

According to Stephen Rohde, a lawyer who specializes in First Amendment concerns, “It is not in the ‘public interest’ for certain prudish groups to dictate what the American people can see on television, when the material is constitutionally protected and violates no laws. 

Such groups remain free to exercise their constitutional rights to publicly condemn any programming they find offensive and to press the ‘OFF’ button on the remote” (“Censorship on Television: When Crying “Indecency” Goes Too Far”). Although television has become a highly advanced medium in recent years, there are extreme differences between the enforcement of censorship regulations in the United Kingdom and the United States. Censorship is a central issue in television, but it is nearly impossible for either country to agree on what constitutes inappropriate material, and how it should be dealt with to satisfy the majority of viewers.

Conclusion

Both the United Kingdom and the United States would benefit from finding a balanced medium by setting strict censorship laws, while still allowing for freedom of speech and expression. During certain hours of the day, especially after 9pm, parents and their children should be highly advised that there may be inappropriate content in the television material. Therefore, censorship should be enforced while children are more likely to watch television, and more relaxed when the audience becomes more mature at night.

However, because the United Kingdom has different regulatory bodies governing the public and private television channels, they should agree on certain guidelines to avoid censorship issues, as well as complaints from unsatisfied viewers. The United States should relax their policies on censorship by not broadcasting harmful programs during the day, or on channels with consistent adolescent viewers.

Since the biggest concern overriding the censorship problems is obscene, profane or indecent material affecting children, their moral and religious beliefs should be taken into account when establishing regulatory principles. Around the world, countries have different views on the amount of censorship necessary to protect their audiences from harmful television.

The United Kingdom and the United States are just two examples of very dissimilar regulatory systems, based on how their country feels censorship is necessary. In the end, it is the balance of appropriateness and inappropriateness, freedom of expression and freedom of censorship, that must take into account all age groups, moral views and the impact of television on its viewers.

Works Cited

“About the FCC.” FCC. Federal Communications Commission. 10 Dec 2007 <http://www.fcc.gov/aboutus.html>.

Bosman, Julie. “TV Stations Fined Over CBS Show Deemed to Be Indecent.” Business. 16 Mar 2006. The New York Times. 11 Dec 2007 <http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/16/business/media/16fine.html>.

“Censorship on Television: When Crying “Indecency” Goes Too Far.” News. 18 Feb 2005. PEN Center USA. 13 Dec 2007 <http://penusa.org/go/news/comments/167/>.

“Decency and the TV watershed.” Reports, policies and guidelines. British Broadcasting Company. 12 Dec 2007 <http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/policies/decency.shtml>.

Lehrer, Jim. “Television Indecency.” Online News Hour. 23 Sept 2004. Public Broadcasting Service. 11 Dec 2007 <http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/july-dec04/fine_9-23.html>.

“mediawatch-uk.” About Us. 2007. mediawatch-uk. 13 Dec 2007 <http://www.mediawatchuk.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=209&Itemid=97>.

“Mission Statement.” About NCAC. National Coalition Against Censorship. 10 Dec 2007 <http://www.ncac.org/about/mission.cfm>.

“Obscene, Indecent, and Profane Broadcasts.” Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau. 24 Sept 2007. Federal Communications Commission. 10 Dec 2007 <http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/obscene.html>.

“OfCom.” TV. Office of Communications. 10 Dec 2007 <http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/>.

Petre, Jonathan. “Jerry Springer ruling ‘weakens blasphemy law’.” News. 07 Dec 2007. telegraph.co.uk. 13 Dec 2007 <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/05/njerry205.xml>.

“Remote Control: Indecency Legislation Raises Fines and Fears.” National Coalition Against Censorship. 11 Dec 2007 <http://www.ncac.org/entertainment/20060518~USA~Indecency_Legislation_Raises_Fines_and_Fears.cfm>.

“Statutory Duties and Regulatory Principles.” About OfCom. Office of Communications. 12 Dec 2007 <http://www.ofcom.org.uk/about/sdrp/>.

“The Ofcom Broadcasting Code.” Ofcom Broadcasting Code. 25 July 2005. Office of Communications. 12 Dec 2007 <http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/codes/bcode/>.由于电视正式成为在20世纪30年代,一直到什么程度不同的国家,反感的道德,宗教或政治标准的基础上观看电视内容方面的地区差异。防止这种不适当的内容到达受众的过程被称为审查, ,但阻断所有不可接受的材料从电视被视为违反言论自由。

然而,尽管审查是一个在世界各地的大量辩论的话题,每个国家都有自己的法规和政策的变化显著。在这种比较分析,我会研究在美国和英国的审查和不适当的内容的不同意见。首先,我将讨论在美国现行法规和审查制度问题,以及程序和内容,都被认为是不恰当的。
然后,我将阐明在英国的审查法规,并讨论了最近的电视在无精打采的审查政策引发争议的问题。完成后,我将比较和对比两个国家的意见的审查,并强调美国和英国为什么有必要在自己的国家法规的程度存在不同的看法。
美国
审查和其他的广播政策相关的问题在美国,由美国联邦通信委员会(FCC)的处理。美国联邦通信委员会“是一个独立的美国政府机构,直接对国会负责。美国联邦通信委员会成立了1934年通信法,并被控以规范州际和国际通信,广播,电视,电线,卫星和电缆。 FCC的管辖范围涵盖了50个州,哥伦比亚特区和美国属地“ (”关于FCC “ ) 。
在美国,淫秽,下流和亵渎广播都非常认真地对待,并根据其上下文的严重性,可能会受到法律制裁。根据FCC的执法行动,提出投诉和违规行为被确认后,可以发出警告,罚款或撤销频道许可证通过。 “这是违反联邦法律,在任何时间播出淫秽节目。
这也是违反了联邦法律,在某些时段播出不雅编程或亵渎性语言“,其中包括早上6点至晚上10点之间的任何内容( ”淫秽,不雅,亵渎广播“ ) 。然而,许多人组织认为,宪法第一修正案,捍卫言论和表达自由,是直接违反FCC的执法检查。
对方的FCC团体一致反对审查法规,声称审查是宪法第一修正案保护言论和表达自由的侵犯。国家联盟反对检查制度(国家版权局)是一组50个非营利性组织,在全国各地,如美国伦理联合会(AEU )和国家通信协会( NCA ) , “教育公众和决策者面临的威胁自由表达动员他们采取行动,反对审查和协助这些努力,促进当地活动家和国家组织之间的沟通,并制定新的教育,宣传和媒体战略,创造一个更加好客的环境,自由言论和艺术自由“ ( ”使命声明“ ) 。
国家版权局认为,一个健康的,功能性的民主定义的通信自由,无法沟通“是道德,艺术和智力发展” ( “使命声明” )的致命伤。团结起来反对审查组认为,它代表了一个不合理的权力和专政所有的人的思想和知识能力。
然而, FCC已经遇到了许多严重的审查问题,近年来有关公共广播不适当的内容。 2004年2月1日将永远不会被记住一个令人兴奋的超级碗比赛,但珍妮特·杰克逊的现场“衣橱故障”在CBS以百万计的球迷面前。 CBS老板维亚康姆半时间节目播出, FCC宣布是“明显违反了广播猥亵标准” (莱勒)被罚款550,000元。
珍妮特·杰克逊事件发生后, FCC开始施加更大的罚款不雅,亵渎或淫秽内容( “远程控制:猥亵立法提高罚款和恐惧” )的程序。 2004年12月, FCC罚款111家电视台播出的哥伦比亚广播公司节目“寻人密探组”创纪录的360万美元建议,青少年参与的性爱狂欢。 “哥伦比亚广播公司没有跟踪的情节,说情节包含'辩护”的重要和社会有关的故事情节警告家长,他们十几岁的孩子“ (博斯曼)发挥更大的监督。
从那时起,许多其他的电视节目已被罚款猥亵,从而导致站站编程的损害,因为担心被起诉。这串给予不适当的airings的巨额罚款,导致广播自我审查他们的计划,用五秒钟的延迟,尤其是在娱乐,体育和色情的电视节目( “远程控制:猥亵立法提高罚款和恐惧” ) 。
英国
英国通信办公室(OFCOM)是负责监管所有的私营商业渠道,包括ITV,五和通道4 。 Ofcom的最初成立作为通信行业监督员办公室2002年通信法“ ,结合成一个调节组( ”法定职责的广播标准委员会,独立电视委员会,无线电管理局,通信和总干事的职责和监管原则“ )。 Ofcom的职责包括:
“确保电磁频谱的最佳利用,确保广泛的电子通信服务 - 包括高速数据服务 - 整个英国;确保广泛的电视和广播服务的高品质和广泛的吸引力;保持多个广播提供施加足够的保护,为观众对进攻或有害的材料和反对不公或侵犯隐私的观众施加足够的保护“ ( ”法定职责和监管原则“ ) 。
根据Ofcom的广播守则,建立多个部分,设置适当的标准电视广播。不恰当的材料送检的两个代码:防止18岁以下儿童的危害,并避免冒犯性或有害物质被播出。第一个 - 保护主管Eighteens指出:“ 18岁以下的人可能会严重损害身体,精神或道德发展的材料不得播出。
保护儿童也必须通过适当的调度是不适合他们的重大“ (以下简称” Ofcom的广播守则“ ) 。 - 伤害和罪行断言: “在应用普遍接受的标准广播,必须确保材料,这可能会导致犯罪是有道理的上下文。这种材料可以包括,但不限于,攻击性语言,暴力,色情,性暴力,屈辱,痛苦,侵犯人的尊严,歧视性待遇或语言(以下简称“ Ofcom的广播守则” ) 。表达自由和责任,被认为是手牵手的代码,这就是为什么每个程序员都必须遵守的规定,适用于每一节。
虽然在英国Ofcom的控制私人渠道,政府全资拥有的电台如BBC有自己的猥亵规定。英国广播公司( BBC )有一个更宽松的政策,这是猥亵知道为分水岭政策。 “从晚上9点电视分水岭帮助父母保护儿童免受不合适的材料。在所有,但特殊情况下,晚上9点之前的方案是适合一般观众,包括儿童在内。
从晚上9点,它们会逐渐只适合成年人“ ( ”正派和电视分水岭“ ) 。英国广播公司(BBC)和其他公共广播电台在英国依靠家长的支持和程序的警告,以防止儿童接触不雅,亵渎或淫秽内容,而不是审查规则和昂贵的罚款。在英国,缺乏普遍的政策和法规上的所有电视频道的审查不适当的内容显示了整体的电视审查放任的态度。
在一般情况下,英国的罚款项目和车站去了电视节目的限制或电视上公然说谎,但不经常惩罚站显示在道义上,政治或宗教不雅内容。然而,有极其有限的信息一直在Ofcom的广播编码播出不适宜的材料已被罚款或BBC法规违反的电视节目。
杰里·斯普林格在一个案例中,一个小插曲 - 歌剧被送上法庭基督教传道者试图起诉BBC总监马克·汤普森,一般。据全国基督教音色董事王志浩,该节目在BBC2 “特色场景描绘基督穿一个尿布和脏话”清楚地越过了亵渎门槛“ ( Petre的)的。然而,展示在BBC2不删亵渎的内容或起诉后,被送上法庭。
代表葛霖(Stephen Green)和基督教的声音,马克·马林斯说: “可以带来对BBC提出检控亵渎。这就等于说亵渎的话很少,如果有的话,在今天的社会关联性“ ( Petre的) 。美国有相比英国,法规允许更大的言论和表达的自由发挥的,更严厉的法规审查和阻止有害内容从电波。
对照
美国和英国电视观众每天处理的投诉,然而,在英国观众抱怨没有足够的审查,而在美国的观众觉得有太多的审查。
据英国媒体观察,组织体统和问责制在媒体的宣传,他们认为,电视已经成为有毒的观众,不再代表现实不合适的材料或强制执行的审查。 “暴力,色情和坏的语言是如此普遍,在电视上......然而,议会已批准方案必须符合公认的标准” ,市民应保护从进攻和有害物质的法律说。此法被忽略和观众的权利都被覆盖在追求收视率,收视份额和争议“( ”英国媒体观察“ ) 。
已经建立了许多组织,如英国媒体观察监管机构Ofcom的和BBC等施加更大的压力,相信他们还没有充分回应公众关注。在反对方,美国有许多组织,如国家版权局,认为在美国电视上的规定过于严厉,不允许自由地行使第一修正案保障的权利。
据斯蒂芬·罗德,律师专业第一修正案的问题, “这是不是某些假正经群体中的”公共利益“的支配上可以看到电视,当材料受宪法保护的是美国人民,并没有违反任何法律。
这些团体仍然自由地行使宪法赋予他们的权利,公开谴责他们找到进攻的任何编程,按下遥控器上的“关闭”按钮“ (在电视上的”检查:当哭“猥亵”过犹远“ ) 。虽然电视已经成为一个非常先进的媒体在最近几年,在英国和美国的执法检查规则之间的差异极大。检查是在电视的一个核心问题,但它几乎是不可能的,任何一个国家的同意,什么是不恰当的材料,以及应该如何处理,以满足广大观众。
结论
英国和美国将受益于找到一个平衡的介质,通过设置严格的审查法律,同时仍然允许言论和表达的自由。在一天的某些时段,特别是晚上9点后,家长和他们的孩子应高度应在电视材料,有可能是不适宜的内容。因此,审查应强制执行,而儿童看电视更容易,更放松的时候,观众在夜晚变得更加成熟。
然而,由于英国有不同的监管机构监管公共和私营电视频道,他们应该对某些准则达成一致,以避免审查问题,以及投诉,不满意的观众。美国应放宽其政策对白天,或在渠道与青少年观众一致通过不传播有害程序的审查。
由于覆盖的审查问题最大的担忧是淫秽,亵渎或不雅物品影响儿童,他们的道德和宗教的信仰,应考虑建立监管原则。在世界各地,各国有必要的审查,以保护观众免受有害电视的量的不同意见。
英国和美国只是两个例子非常不同的监管系统,根据自己的国家感觉如何审查制度是必要的。最后,它是恰当和不恰当的平衡,自由表达和自由的审查,必须考虑到各种团队,道德观和电视对观众的影响。
引用
“关于FCC ” FCC 。美国联邦通信委员会。 2007年12月10 <http://www.fcc.gov/aboutus.html> 。
博斯曼,朱莉。 “被罚过CBS电视台显示被视为不雅。 ”业务。 2006年3月16日。纽约时报。 2007年12月11日<http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/16/business/media/16fine.html> 。
在电视上的“检查:当哭泣的”猥亵“ ”太远了。 “新闻。 2005年2月18日。国际笔会美国中心。 2007年12月13日<http://penusa.org/go/news/comments/167/> 。
“正派和电视分水岭。 ”报告,政策和指导方针。英国广播公司。 2007年12月12日<http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/policies/decency.shtml> 。
,吉姆·莱勒。 “电视猥亵。 ”网上新闻一小时。 2004年9月23日。公共广播服务。 2007年12月11日<http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/july-dec04/fine_9-23.html> 。
“英国媒体观察”关于我们。 2007 。英国媒体观察。 13 12月2007 <http://www.mediawatchuk.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=209&Itemid=97> 。
“使命宣言”关于国家版权局。反对检查制度的国家联盟。 10 12月2007 <http://www.ncac.org/about/mission.cfm> 。
“淫亵,不雅,和亵渎的广播。 ”消费者和政府事务局。 2007年9月24日。美国联邦通信委员会。 2007年12月10 <http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/obscene.html> 。
“ OFCOM 。 ”电视。通信办公室。 2007年12月10日<http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/> 。
Petre的,乔纳森。 “杰瑞·斯普林格执政'削弱亵渎法'。 ”新闻。 2007年12月7日。 telegraph.co.uk 。 13 12月2007 <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/05/njerry205.xml> 。
“远程控制:猥亵立法提高罚款和恐惧。 ”全国联盟反对检查制度。 2007年12月11日<http://www.ncac.org/entertainment/20060518~USA~Indecency_Legislation_Raises_Fines_and_Fears.cfm> 。