Letter: Specious arguments in favour of broadcasting freedom
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: I write in support of the remarks of Lord Rees-Mogg ('Rees-Mogg in call for closure of porn channel', 21 January) about the Red Hot Dutch satellite channel that transmits pornography to this country from Denmark.
This country should decide its own laws and regulations on pornography and obscenity, as an expression of the shared values on which we want our society to be based. It appears that the 1989 EC broadcasting directive seriously compromises this principle and gives priority instead to European commercial integration.
The directive sets minimum restrictions which seem far looser than UK laws and regulations. They cover only what is likely seriously to impair the physical, mental or moral development of minors: for anyone other than a minor, it seems anything goes which any one member state is prepared to allow to be transmitted. The laws and values of other countries are overridden. If the broadcaster chooses a time or technical measures ensuring that minors will not 'normally' hear or see the programme, that is regarded as good enough.
Commercial integration of this variety makes a mockery of subsidiarity in a highly sensitive area. Unprincipled commercialism must not be allowed to bypass the national regulatory agencies, laws and standards which define what is decent and permissible in the light of our own moral and spiritual beliefs. I call on the Government urgently to seek the renegotiation of this directive.
Yours,
DAVID LIVERPOOL
London, SW1
23 January
The writer is chairman of the Church of England Board for Social Responsibility.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments