The easily 'outraged' are enjoying the latest music video from Miley Cyrus called Adore You
Supposedly even the singer's own fans have joined the backlash against her latest raunchy video, branding it gross', sick' and pornographic'.
The former Disney star has been accused of cynically exploiting' her hordes of teenage fans by releasing an X-rated video of herself on Christmas Day simulating masturbation to the sound of her new single Adore You.
It has prompted one of the Government's main whingers about online child safety, the secretary of the Children's Charity Commission John Carr, to call for immediate action to ensure such videos have 18+ age ratings. He spouts:
Lots of children and young teenagers will be browsing the internet with the tablets and mobile phones they have been given for Christmas. And one of the first things they will have stumbled across on Boxing Day is this explicit video. Instead of being
freely available online it should be hidden behind age-filters.'
Pippa Smith of Safer Media, a campaigner against violence, sex and strong language in the media, called the video a new low' in teenage pop culture.
Meanwhile the video is proving very popular on YouTube with 15 million views. Hardly sounds like a fan backlash.
The Department for Culture, Medi a and Sport has published a draft bill to remove the current blanket exemptions for music, sports, religious and educational videos.
Videos that would be U or PG rated will continue to be exempt but videos that would be rated 12 or higher now need to be censored by the BBFC before they can be legally sold in the UK.
The mechanism to predict whether videos require censorship is provided by a long list of content that would likely trigger at least a 12 rating. If none of the triggers apply then the video need not be submitted.
The changes will be applied via a Statutory Instrument meaning that it will not be debated in parliament.
The DCMS has invited public comments on the draft which are to be sent to VRARegs@culture.gsi.gov.uk by 31 January 2014.
The new regulation amends Section 2 subsections (2) and (3) of the Video Recordings Act 1984:
Subsection (2) of the current Video Recordings Act reads
(2) A video work is not an exempted work for those purposes if, to any significant extent, it depicts--
(a) human sexual activity of acts of force or restraint associated with such activity;
(b) mutilation or torture of, or other acts of gross violence towards, humans or animals;
(c) human genital organs or human urinary or excretory functions;
(d) techniques likely to be useful in the commission of offences;
This will be replaced by
The Video Recordings Act 1984 (Exempted Video Works) Regulations 2014
(2) A video work is not an exempted work for those purposes if it does one or more of the following-
(a) it depicts or promotes violence or threats of violence;
(b) it depicts the immediate aftermath of violence on human or animal characters;
(c) it depicts an imitable dangerous activity without also depicting that the activity may endanger the welfare or health of a human or animal character;
(d) it promotes an imitable dangerous activity;
(e) it depicts or promotes activities involving illegal drugs or the misuse of drugs;
(f) it promotes the use of alcohol or tobacco;
(g) it depicts or promotes suicide or attempted suicide, or depicts the immediate aftermath of such an event;
(h) it depicts or promotes any act of scarification or mutilation of a person, or of self-harm, or depicts the immediate aftermath of such an act;
(i) it depicts techniques likely to be useful in the commission of offences or, through its depiction of criminal activity, promotes the commission of offences;
(j) it includes words or images intended or likely to convey a sexual message (ignoring words or images depicting any mild sexual behaviour);
(k) it depicts human sexual activity (ignoring any depictions of mild sexual activity);
(l) it depicts or promotes acts of force or restraint associated with human sexual activity;
(m) it depicts human genital organs or human urinary or excretory functions (unless the depiction is for a medical, scientific or educational purpose);
(n) it includes swearing (ignoring any mild bad language); or
(o) it includes words or images that are intended or likely (to any extent) to cause offence, whether on the grounds of race, gender, disability, religion or belief or sexual orientation, or otherwise.
These Regulations do not apply in relation to any supply of a video work which was first placed on the market before [...] 2014
These new rules are vague enough to allow a whole bunch of the material that is causing the moralisers to have kittens to still pass as exempt . Let's look at the Miley Cyrus performances that have recently caused so much fuss, for instance. Would
the video for Wrecking Ball need to be certified? Certainly not, because the nudity is suggestive, not graphic. Would her notorious performance with Robin Thicke really be considered to be more than mild sexual activity ? Again, surely not by any
There are plenty of moralists, feminists and bullies that make the news whingeing about their pet peeves of sexy videos. But its good to see the other side of the coin and see how popular sexy music videos are with the public.
the list of top music videos most watched on Vevo for 2013 rather show that sexy is very popular indeed.
A promotional e-mail, from Spotify, an online music service, included the text Have you heard this song by Lily Allen? Give it a try. Fuck You .
The complainant challenged whether the use of a swear word in the ad was likely to cause serious or widespread offence.
ASA Assessment Upheld
The ASA noted the expletive used in the ad reflected the title of a song, which we understood was recommended to users, for example, based on a user having listened to songs of a similar genre, rather than of a similar title. While we considered Spotify
users would understand the use of Fuck You to be the title of a song, we considered recipients of e-mails from a general online music service would not expect them to include swearing. We considered the use of Fuck was likely to cause
serious offence to some recipients of such e-mails and therefore concluded that the ad breached the Code.
The ad breached CAP Code rule 4.1 (Harm and Offence). Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Spotify to ensure their future advertising contained nothing that was likely to cause serious or widespread offence.
US singer and song writer Bob Dylan has been placed under judicial investigation in France for offending Croats.
It follows a legal complaint lodged by a Croat association in France over a 2012 interview Dylan gave to Rolling Stone magazine.
In the interview he compared the relationship between Jews and Nazis to that of Serbs and Croats. He is reported to have said:
Blacks know that some whites didn't want to give up slavery - that if they had their way, they would still be under the yoke, and they can't pretend they don't know that.
If you got a slave master or [Ku Klux] Klan in your blood, blacks can sense that. That stuff lingers to this day. Just like Jews can sense Nazi blood and the Serbs can sense Croatian blood.
After the interview was published, the Council of Croats in France (CRICCF) filed a complaint. Being placed under judicial investigation means that authorities are taking the complaint seriously but that it won't necessarily go further, the BBC's Hugh
Schofield in Paris says.
Police in Germany have developed a smartphone app that helps them to identify right-wing extremist music from just a short clip.
The app, which has been dubbed a Nazi Shazam , in reference to the popular music-identification app, allows German authorities to recognise neo-Nazi music at far-right rallies in just seconds through its audio fingerprints . Ministers are
set to meet this week to discuss implementation of the new piece of software.
According to Der Spiegel, the Federal Review Board for Media Harmful to Minors has collated a list of 79 pieces of music it considers to have racist lyrics or that promotes neo-Nazi ideology.
Malaysia has banned the Ke$ha from performing in Kuaka Lumpur.
The singer claims that authorities in the country banned her because of fears her explicit lyrics would upset muslim cultural sensitivities.
Ke$ha tweeted to her fans:
to be clear. I did NOT cancel. I was not allowed to play. and then I was going to play anyways and was threatened with imprisonment.
A Ministry of Communications and Multimedia spokesman said it was a unanimous decision to cancel the gig because it touched on religious sensitivities and Malaysian values but did not elaborate further.
The Department of Culture, Media and Sport is consulting on proposals to further reduce the need for licences for small scale music events.
The proposals are basically to take away the need for a local council licence for events with less than 500 attendees. Previously licences were required for events with between 200-500 attendees.
The main proposals for the entertainment industry are:
A performance of live amplified music in alcohol licensed premises or in a workplace will not be regulated where the entertainment takes place between 08.00-23.00 and the audience consists of up to 500 persons. (The current audience limit is 200
Any playing of recorded music in alcohol licensed premises will not be regulated where the entertainment takes place between 08.00-23.00 and the audience consists of up to 500 persons.
Live and recorded music exemptions
The following events will not be regulated for live and recorded music between 08.00-23.00, where the audience consists of up to 500 people:
Even dressed head-to-toe in a hooded black jumpsuit Rihanna has managed to provoke 'outrage'.
She posted images on her Instagram account showing her posing at the Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque in UAE, where she is currently on tour.
Despite a very conscious effort to tone down her usual attention-grabbing-garb, she is seen sporting crimson lipstick and wearing dark red fingernails while adopting a series of trademark sultry, pouting poses that some have deemed disrespectful for a place of worship.
Her picture prompted a few trivial outraged tweets such as the whatever she does is wrong tweet:
Rihanna may look gorgeous and all but she's covering her head out of fashion not out of respect for the mosque, wrote one user.
Annie Lennox has captured a fair bit of press coverage over a bizarre claim that sexy music videos are somehow pornographic. Surely there would not be many people in the country who could not distinguish a Miley Cyrus video from a porn film. Still, you
can claim any old unchallenged bollox if you are preaching from the moral highground.
Pro-censorship Lennox was speaking against in an interview with BBC Radio 5 Live's Anna Foster and Peter Allen. She spouted:
I'm all for freedom of expression. I'm all for boundary pushing ...BUT... this is clearly one step beyond, and it's clearly into the realm of porn.
She seemed a little angry that millions of people enjoy sexy music videos:
There are so many millions of hits on Youtube; with this barrage how do you stop your kids being exposed to it? It is so powerful. I am sure I talk for millions of parents.
Claiming that she's a liberal minded person, Annie at one point commended artists who are pushing sexuality boundaries but reaffirmed that the music videos need to be age appropriate, and shouldn't be viewed by young audiences.
I actually think that what is really required are some kind of very clear boundaries. There is a difference between what is pornographic and what is entertainment.
She previously wrote on her Facebook page that if a pop star created a soft porn video or highly sexualised live performance, then it needs to qualify as such and be X-rated for adults only .
If sexy music videos were to be rated by say the BBFC, then hardly any would be 18 rated. A 15 rating would be tops, with most qualifying for a 12.
Rihanna faced an extra- ordinary backlash last night after even her fans branded her latest video obscene , vile and pornographic .
Hundreds took to social networking sites to tell the singer that she should be ashamed of herself over the X-rated images in Pour It Up.
'Hundreds' may have complained but this nothing given that 17.5 million have watched the video on YouTube.
The video was originally posted by Rihanna on Vevo, a video sharing site, but was banned due to its explicit content. The site has since reinstated it.
The Daily Mail lavishes praise on the video:
It features pole dancers, strippers and lewd dance moves including twerking , a particularly provocative hip-thrusting dance.
Rihanna spends most of the video dressed in nothing but a jewel-encrusted bikini and platformed stiletto heels. She sings about strip clubs, alcohol and money and is seen gyrating and sliding provocatively down a chair.
Miranda Suit, pro-censorship campaigner for Safermedia lauded the video:
[Rihanna's] crude, tasteless and explicit dancing, combined with the money-focused lyrics, are telling all her fans -- many of them still children -- that it is good for women and girls to sell their body, and right for men and boys to see women purely
as a sexual commodity.
Rihanna has sold out completely to the commercialisation and objectification of women's bodies and their sexuality. And now she's promoting it to girls and boys.
She urged websites such as YouTube to ban such videos, adding: Parents want to know that their children are going to be safe online.
And of course the Daily printed plenty of pictures highlighting all the sexiest bits of the video.
Almost one in five songs in modern top tens contains a reference to alcoholic drinks, twice as many as ten years ago and almost three times as many as 30 years ago.
Recent number ones referring to alcohol include Rihanna's Cheers and Kesha's Tik Tok . Since 2001 lyrics about alcohol in chart-topping songs have more than doubled, according to researchers from Liverpool John Moores University.
The researchers described their findings as a major concern . The research team at Liverpool John Moores University counted mentions of alcohol in songs that reached the UK top ten in 1981, 1991, 2001 and 2011. Songs that specifically mentioned
drunkenness were also noted.
The proportion of hits featuring alcohol rose from 6% in 1981 to 19% in 2011. The number of references was lowest in 1991, at 2%.
The study attributes the rise of alcohol-related lyrics to an increase in the amount of U.S songs becoming popular in the UK. The analysis, published in the Journal of Music Psychology, found mentions of drink to be most common in tracks from the US and
in R&B, rap and hip-hop genres.
Researcher Professor Karen Hughes claims that the hidden advertising could encourage youngsters to start drinking or lead those who already drink to consume more. She said parents should be aware of the content of songs their children listen to.
Hughes added that although lyrics cannot be censored, it may be possible to warn about references to alcohol on labels that point out sexually explicit and violent lyrics.