Complaints were received about a simulated sex scene in a programme which is directed at 
embarrassing interviewees involved. This then draws a laugh – at least among some viewers and some interviewees.
The Tribunal held that it has understanding for the views expressed by the complainants. It also found the simulated sex scene offensive. However, were there sufficient reasons to find against the broadcaster in law? The Constitutional Court has, more than once, stated that the right to free speech also includes the right to express that which offends. Of course, the context must justify the inclusion of the material and there are limits to the broadcast of offensive material. It is of importance that the broadcast took place after the 21:00 watershed. At this stage of the evening adults must realize that, on a sliding scale, the material could become more explicit and daring. The classification LNP was clearly displayed at the start of the programme and after advertisement breaks. Although it was an error not to have included a reference to S (sex), the Tribunal does not believe that the Code has been contravened. The sex was clearly simulated and there was no state of undress in the simulated sex scene. The context indicates that what seems to have been sex was not sex and that the scene was included to embarrass those involved and, ultimately, draws a laugh. It is clear that this kind of humour does not fall in the taste of all viewers. But this is the price which one pays for democracy and freedom. If there are too many strictures on broadcasters, it would stifle them in their right to artistic freedom.
The complaints were not upheld.