Abstract
The introduction and popularity of new genres of ‘reality television’ have created significant challenges for regulation of broadcast content. The availability of a larger number of television channels, where particular reality television shows might be broadcast live for many hours in the day, combined with the unpredictable activities of ‘reality television’ participants raises significant difficulties both for broadcasters and regulators. There is a significant need to consider the rationale for content regulation in this context, and the appropriate regulatory response where infringements take place, in both their theoretical and practical contexts.This article examines the regulatory approach for offensive content in the United Kingdom and the United States of America. The study has adopted a comparative approach in order to determine whether regulators across the Atlantic are confronted with similar challenges and whether similar solutions are adopted in order to address these challenges. The examination of the regime in the United Kingdom assesses the effectiveness of the Broadcasting Code <http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/codes/bcode/> (the Code) adopted by the British communications regulator Ofcom on setting standards for broadcasting content. The discussion focuses on the application of the Code in practice, by analysing the official inquiry and ruling by Ofcom on Channel Four’s response to the 2007 Celebrity Big Brother (CBB) incident. The analysis of the system in the United States of America examines the approach adopted by the American communications regulator, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in dealing with offensive content, focusing on the free speech provisions under the First Amendment of the American Constitution and on FCC’s mandate to act in the pursuit of the public interest. The discussion will examine, inter alia, FCC’s response to complaints regarding the broadcast of indecent material in the ‘reality television’ programme Married by America. A particular feature in both jurisdictions is the tension between regulatory intervention in broadcasting content and considerations for freedom of expression. Both systems are affected by the lack of adequate definitions of the limitations to freedom of expression. This study aims to determine what the current approach is in these jurisdictions for addressing this tension and what lessons might be learned for the future.
Highlights
In the United Kingdom, the competence to regulate offensive content in broadcasting has been 7 entrusted with the communications regulator Ofcom
This article has 44 attempted to explore the dilemmas faced by the communications regulators in the United Kingdom and the United States of America, when balancing the need for intervention in regulating offensive content with considerations for freedom of expression
The discussion focused on the regulation of offensive content in ‘reality television’, examining Ofcom’s adjudication in Channel Four’s broadcast of CBB in 2007 and FCC’s adjudication in the broadcast of Married by America in 2003 by the Fox network
Summary
In the United Kingdom, the competence to regulate offensive content in broadcasting has been 7 entrusted with the communications regulator Ofcom. The Ofcom adjudication in the 2007 CBB incident sends the message that, while freedom of 18 expression must be safeguarded (Foreword, Broadcasting Code) and viewers of ‘reality television’ programmes such as CBB are entitled to be informed about events taking place in the CBB ‘House’, the public is entitled to expect appropriate intervention by the broadcaster in handling content likely to cause harm or offence
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
