BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

Some shots of women sunbathing topless on a beach were included in an item on

Beyond 2000 which was concerned with the build up of bacteria in the sand. The

programme was screened at 7.00pm on 6 May 1996.

Mr Holding complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that screening

without warning an item which included a woman sunbathing topless in family

viewing time, breached the broadcasting standards.

On the basis that the item was concerned with the cleaning of the sand and that the

practice of sunbathing topless in that context did not have sexual connotations, TV3

declined to uphold the complaint.

Dissatisfied with TV3's decision, Mr Holding referred the complaint to the

Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

For the reasons below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed the item complained about and have read

the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). As is its practice, the Authority

determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

Cleaning sand on popular beaches because of the large amount of bacteria which

accumulate was dealt with in an item on Beyond 2000 broadcast on TV3 at 7.00pm.

The item focussed on the cleaning of sand at Cannes and two females sunbathing

topless were seen in a beach scene shot.

Expressing concern about the amount of nudity and violence, and the number of sexual

scenes on television in primetime, Mr Holding complained to TV3 that a shot of

women sunbathing topless should only be broadcast in AO time after 8.30pm.

TV3 assessed the complaint under standards G2 and G12 of the Television Code of

Broadcasting Practice which require broadcasters:

G2  To take into consideration currently accepted norms of decency and taste

in language and behaviour, bearing in mind the context in which any

language or behaviour occurs.

G12 To be mindful of the effect any programme may have on children during

their normally accepted viewing times.

On the basis that topless sunbathers were common in Cannes and that neither the

behaviour nor the depiction of the sunbathers had any sexual overtones, TV3 declined

to uphold the complaint.

When he referred the complaint to the Authority, Mr Holding disagreed that

toplessness in that context did not have any sexual connotations. Naked breasts by

themselves, he wrote, could arouse the sexual senses of some males. He also disputed

TV3's arguments that there was any need for the shots in that context, or that

sunbathing topless was natural on beaches in New Zealand. He concluded the referral:

I want to finish by summarising my initial concern. It does not have to do with

whether topless sunbathing is an accepted part of NZ culture on some beaches,

where people may choose to go or not. It concerns whether a close-up of a

woman's naked breast (or other male or female sexual organs for that matter; be

there sexual connotations or not) – regardless of the context – should be shown

on prime time TV.

In its examination of the item complained about, the Authority notes that the shots of

the women sunbathing topless were barely noticeable in view of their brevity. It also

notes that the item was concerned about cleaning the sand at popular sunbathing

beaches because of the build-up of bacteria. The item explained that sand cleaning was

the practice in Cannes.

Given the issue which the item focused on, and given that it was reporting the sand

cleaning practices in Cannes, the Authority is of the opinion that the shots of

sunbathers – some of whom were topless – were appropriate in context. It does not

accept that the standards relating to good taste or requiring that broadcasters be

mindful of children were contravened.

For the reasons above, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
31 October 1996

Appendix

Mr Holding's Complaint to TV3 Network Services Ltd - 13 May 1996

Geoff Holding of Gore complained (through the Broadcasting Standards Authority) to

TV3 Network Services Ltd about the growing amount of violence, sexual scenes and

nudity on television during primetime.

He referred specifically to the programme Beyond 2000, broadcast by TV3 at 7:00pm

on 6 May 1996, which, without warning, included a shot of a woman sunbathing

topless on a beach. Such material, he maintained, should be broadcast only after the

AO watershed at 8.30pm.

Mr Holding also listed a number of films which had been screened which should either

have been shown only after 8.30pm or not screened at all. He also expressed his

concern about the promos for Lady Chatterley's Lover.

TV3's Response to the Formal Complaint - 30 July 1996

Assessing the complaint under standards G2 and G12 of the Television Code of

Broadcasting Practice, TV3 reported that the Beyond 2000 item had reported the

cleaning of the sand on the beaches of Cannes. It acknowledged that a beach scene was

shown and that two sunbathers were topless. As that was common custom in Cannes

and as it did not have any sexual connotations, TV3 did not consider that standards

G2 or G12 were contravened.

TV3 advised Mr Holding that it complied with the Codes of Broadcasting Practice at

all times and explained the hours at which programmes with different ratings could be

screened.

Mr Holding's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 19 August

1996

Dissatisfied with TV3's decision, Mr Holding referred the complaint to the

Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

Mr Holding responded to the following points in TV3's report.

1) Disagreeing with TV3's argument that toplessness in the context shown did not

have any sexual connotations, Mr Holding wrote:

It is no medical secret that the male of the species (much more than the

female) can have their sexual senses aroused simply by seeing a woman's

naked body: without any sexual connotations. You do not need to have

sexual connotations for the pictures to be indecent or for them to arouse

indecent thoughts in people's minds Try telling a teenage boy there was

nothing sexual about the close-up shot of a woman's breasts.

He maintained that the no-sexual-connotation argument did not justify deliberate

and unannounced close-up shots of a woman's naked breast in a G programme.

2) That it might be legal to sunbathe topless, he wrote, did not justify showing

topless sunbathers on television without warning.

3) While it might be natural for some to sunbathe topless, Mr Holding said that it

was not the currently accepted norm on beaches in New Zealand.

4) Mr Holding did not accept that the context justified the shot. He repeated the

point that the pictures were shown without warning and, he commented:

Finally, I fail to see how a close-up shot of a woman's naked breast can

help discussion of bacteria build-up on a beach. I'm glad they were not

doing a study on bacteria build-up in public toilets for I understand that it

is quite natural, decent and in fact legal to remove your underwear in these

places. In this case the decision not to show some one urinating would not

be based on context but on whether it is appropriate to show a particular

and naked part of a person's body.

5) Mr Holding disputed TV3's argument that the shots would not disturb a child's

natural innocence. He considered that it was the parents' right to decide when

and where a child was to be exposed to nudity.

6) As for TV3's contention that, for a child, a breast was no different to a foot or a

leg, Mr Holding said that this question should be put to a teenage boy.

In conclusion, Mr Holding wrote:

I want to finish by summarising my initial concern. It does not have to do with

whether topless sunbathing is an accepted part of NZ culture on some beaches,

where people may chose to go or not. It concerns whether a close-up of a

woman's naked breast (or other male or female sexual organs for that matter; be

there sexual connotations or not) - regardless of the context - should be shown

on prime time TV.

TV3's Response to the Authority - 9 September 1996

TV3 advised that it did not want to comment further on the complaint.