Starz 1 re High Fidelity, Ramy & The Right Kind of Wrong & Starz 2 re The Hangover & Bridesmaids

English-Language Panel

CBSC Decision 20.2021-0745

2021 CBSC 4

June 16, 2021

S. Courtemanche (Chair), J. Dumoulin, J. Medline, Z. Mohamed,S. Sammut, E. Thomas, M. Ziniak

THE FACTS

Starz is a Canadian discretionary television service with two multiplexes. This means Starz has a single broadcast licence, but, from a viewer’s perspective, the two channels are at separate numbers on the dial and broadcast entirely different programs at any given time. Starz focuses on airing feature films, and drama and comedy series.

The Correspondence

On December 21, 2020, a viewer submitted a complaint about coarse language in an episode of the program High Fidelity broadcast on Starz 1. The next day, he submitted another complaint about a different program on the same station, Ramy. His concern was again the coarse language, but also the sexual content. He pointed out that putting an advisory on a program does not allow the broadcaster to air adult material before 9:00 pm. He also suggested that, while 14+ might have been the appropriate classification for High Fidelity, the classification on Ramy should have been higher due to the sexual content.

Starz responded on January 14, 2021. Starz stated that it is a “discretionary pay service that offers a variety of content to its subscribers and as such, is not available to all viewers with a cable package unless specifically purchased.” Starz pointed out that it aired both High Fidelity and Ramy with a 14+ classification and viewer advisories. Starz considered that it provided sufficient warning that the material might not be suitable for viewers under 14 years of age.

The complainant wrote to the CBSC again on January 20 and added three other broadcasts to his complaint: the movie The Right Kind of Wrong on Starz 1 and the movies The Hangover and Bridesmaids on Starz 2. He reiterated his concern that Starz had disregarded the watershed hour of 9:00 pm in these broadcasts and only addressed the issue of viewer advisories. He provided itemized lists of the elements in each film that he considered problematic. His concerns related to coarse language, sexual content and the 14+ classifications given to each of the films.

Starz responded to the additional complaint on February 1, more or less repeating what it had written in its first letter. The complainant filed his Ruling Request on February 11. He requested that the CBSC examine whether the coarse language and sexual content was appropriate for broadcast before 9:00 pm under Clause 10(a) of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters’ (CAB) Code of Ethics and whether the wording of some of the viewer advisories was sufficient. He also disputed Starz’s contention that the channel can be received only if one expressly subscribes to it. He explained that his television service provider treats it like any other discretionary service by offering it in packages along with other channels. He also offered his thoughts on a recent CBSC decision that had dealt with similar issues. (The full text of all correspondence can be found in Appendix A.)

The Broadcasts

The following broadcasts were examined for this decision (more detailed descriptions of the broadcasts can be found in Appendix B.)

Starz 1

High Fidelity (“What F*cking Lily Girl?”)

December 21, 2020 at 4:45 pm

High Fidelity is an American romantic comedy television series from 2020 based on the 1995 novel of the same name by Nick Hornby. The program focuses on the love life of Robyn Brooks, a woman who owns a record store in New York City. This episode is entitled “What F*cking Lily Girl?” and deals with Robyn’s reaction after she learns that her ex-boyfriend now has a new girlfriend named Lily.

Starz rated the broadcast 14+ and provided the following viewer advisory:

The following program is rated 14+ and contains scenes with coarse language and mature themes. Viewer discretion is advised.

There are numerous instances of the word “fuck” and its variations, as well as “shit” and “ass”. There are also references to the new girlfriend being a “bitch”, “some dumb cunt”, and having a “dumb whore face”.

While there are no scenes of sexual activity, at one point Robyn says, “I mean, what do people who have been together for three weeks even do? They have sex. Just constantly have sex.”

Ramy (“Between the Toes”)

December 22, 2020 at 4:00 pm

Ramy is American comedy-drama series about Ramy, a young Egyptian-Muslim man in New Jersey trying to navigate love and life while balancing the pressures of his parents and religious community, on the one hand, and millennial values and culture on the other. This episode, entitled “Between the Toes”, was the first episode in the series.

Starz rated the broadcast 14+ and provided the following viewer advisory:

The following program is rated 14+ and contains scenes with coarse language and mature themes. Viewer discretion is advised.

There are numerous instances of the word “fuck” and its variations as well as the word “shit”.

Towards the beginning of the program, there is a quick short scene of Ramy lying on his back on a bed with a young woman, Chloe, on top of him, kissing. Ramy struggles to get his shirt off while Chloe undoes her belt. The scene then cuts to Ramy lying with his shirt off and eyes open in the dark, with Chloe asleep next to him. The scene then cuts to Ramy in the bathroom filling his used condom with water. He examines the semen floating in the bottom. Chloe comes in and asks him what he is doing. Ramy explains that he is checking for holes in the condom. Chloe asks him if he does this every time they have sex. Ramy confirms that he does, then Chloe mentions she is on the birth control pill, so they do not really have to worry.

Later in the episode, Ramy goes on a date with a woman named Nour. This is the first Muslim woman he has ever dated. After dinner at a restaurant, they walk back to Nour’s car. Nour kisses Ramy passionately and invites him into her car where they kiss some more. Nour takes Ramy’s hand and puts it up her sweater to touch her breast. She rubs her hand between Ramy’s legs. Ramy says, “whoa, whoa” and, between kisses, she asks if he has a condom. Ramy is reluctant to have sex with her so Nour suggests they engage in activity other than intercourse. She straddles Ramy and says, “Choke me while I finger myself.” Ramy is surprised and reluctantly puts one hand on Nour’s neck. She tells him to use both hands and grab harder, which he hesitantly does, and she becomes more aroused. Ramy tells her he does not want to do this because he is not into choking. Nour stops straddling Ramy and says, “God, you’re so full of shit” and accuses him of not wanting to “hook up on the first date” because “I’m, like, in this little Muslim box in your head and I’m the wife or the mother of your kids. Right? I’m not supposed to come.”

At the end of the episode, Ramy is telling his troubles to an older man from his mosque. He talks about how he “jerked off” to a girl’s Facebook photo and then the girl texted him out of nowhere. Ramy bemoans the rules and judgments that society puts on people but acknowledges that he is guilty of doing the same to others. After a long pause, the old man says, “You jerk off too much. It’s no good.”

The Right Kind of Wrong

January 13, 2021 at 3:25 pm

The Right Kind of Wrong is a 2013 Canadian comedy film about a man named Leo Palamino who falls for a woman, Colette, on her wedding day. The movie follows his efforts to win her affections.

Starz rated the broadcast 14+ and provided the following viewer advisory:

The following program is rated 14+ and contains scenes with violence, coarse language, nudity and mature themes. Viewer discretion is advised.

The film contained numerous instances of the word “fuck” and its variations as well as calling a person a “piece of shit” and an “asshole”.

In terms of sexual scenes, there is a flashback to Leo meeting different women at a bar and then having sex with them. In one such scene, a woman named Kingsley is lying on bed with her bare breasts visible, groaning in pleasure. Leo’s head is between her legs, implying he is performing cunnilingus. Kingsley groans in climax and then lifts her head up to look at Leo and says, “You’re aces at that, mate.” The camera angle switches so Kingsley’s bare breasts are shown in profile and Leo’s bare buttocks are visible. Kingsley sits up and stands up, so that her bare buttocks are visible as she walks into the nearby bathroom. Leo sits up on the bed, as Kingsley says, “Okay. Gotta pee. Or I get wicked bladder infections.” Later in the movie, Kingsley encounters Leo and comments, “Last time I saw you, you were downtown. [...] Between my legs. [...] Sucking my oyster. [...] If there was a licensing board for muff diving ....”

There are also references to the sex life of Leo’s friend Neil and his wife Jill. Leo comments that Neil and Jill take intimate photos of each other with their phones and engage in foreplay in front of him. Neil tells Leo that Jill created a Twitter account for his “ball sack”. Later in the movie, Jill puts on an art show featuring close-ups of Neil’s genitalia.

The film’s final scene is of Leo and Colette being intimate on a mountain. They are shown through blades of tall grass. One can see Colette’s bare back and the side of her buttock as she helps Leo remove his shirt. Then they kiss. They are rolling and gyrating on the mountainside. Their bare backs and buttocks are visible, as well as the side of Colette’s breast.

Starz 2

The Hangover

January 1, 2021 at 12:35 pm

The Hangover is a 2009 American comedy film about a group of four friends who go to Las Vegas for a bachelor party. The morning after the party, the groom-to-be, Doug, is missing, so the film follows their antics as his three friends, Phil, Stu and Alan, try to find him.

Starz rated the broadcast 14+ and provided the following viewer advisory:

The following program is rated 14+ and contains scenes with coarse language, nudity and mature themes. Viewer discretion is advised.

There are repeated instances throughout the entire movie of the word “fuck” and its variations as well as other coarse language, such as “shit”, “bitch”, “asshole”, “dick”, “bastard”, “whore”, and “douchebag”. There are also references to illegal drugs: Alan reveals he put drugs in the friends’ drinks and later he accuses the drug dealer of selling him bad drugs.

There are numerous references to sex and instances of nudity. For example, when Phil brings up the fact that Stu’s girlfriend cheated on him, Stu argues that “he didn’t even come inside her [...] because she’s grossed out by semen.” Alan alludes to “masturbating on an airplane” and, in another scene, moves a baby boy’s arm to simulate masturbation. Alan’s bare buttocks are partially visible when he is shown urinating. A woman’s bare breast is visible when she goes to breastfeed her baby. At one point in their search for Doug, Stu suggests Doug is “probably face-down in a ditch right now with a meth head buttfucking his corpse.” In another scene, Phil pretends to sodomize a live tiger. When the friends encounter an Asian man to whom they owe money, he grabs his crotch and tells them to “suck on these little Chinese nuts”, followed by a gesture and sound effect to mimic ejaculation. At the end of the movie, as the credits roll, there are a series of photos taken on the Las Vegas trip. There are photos of the men with scantily clad and topless women in provocative positions, such as a topless woman upside down with her legs open near Phil’s face. There are four photos of an older woman performing fellatio on Alan in an elevator. In the first, his belt is undone, and he is leaning against the wall. The woman is on her knees in front of him holding his penis. In the second, Alan’s penis is visible as the woman holds it and they are both smiling at the camera. In the third, the woman has her mouth on his penis. The fourth photo is taken from further away. Alan has his hand out in a gesture that implies “don’t take a photo” but is laughing. The woman is still on her knees holding his penis.

There are also a few scenes involving violence or blood. In the first, Stu wakes up, looks at his reflection and realizes he is missing a tooth. His mouth is bleeding and it is later revealed that he pulled out his own tooth on a dare. In another, the friends are sitting in a car when they are surrounded by two men with baseball bats. The men with bats hit the car and then one pulls a gun. The gun goes off as Phil drives over the gunman’s foot, and a man looking on is hit by the bullet. In another, the friends are involved in a stun gun demonstration at a police station. Both Phil and Stu get stunned, scream and fall to the ground. In another, a naked man jumps out of the friends’ car trunk and starts hitting Phil with a crowbar. He is later identified as Mr. Chow. There is frontal nudity of Mr. Chow as he threatens them with the crowbar. Mr. Chow throws the crowbar at Alan’s head, knocking him down. Later, there is a cameo appearance by boxer Mike Tyson, who punches Alan in the face, causing him to fall to the ground.

Bridesmaids

January 2, 2021 at 5:10 pm

Bridesmaids is an American comedy film from 2011. The main character Annie is asked to be the maid of honour at her friend’s wedding. She competes with one of the other bridesmaids over who is the bride’s best friend.

Starz rated the broadcast 14+ and provided the following viewer advisory:

The following program is rated 14+ and contains scenes with coarse language and mature themes. Viewer discretion is advised.

There are numerous instances of the word “fuck” and its variations, plus other coarse words, including “dick”, “whore”, “shit”, “asshole” and “bitch”. There is also a scene in which Annie argues with a teenage girl and resorts to calling the girl “a little cunt”.

The very first scene shows Annie having sex with a man named Ted. Ted asks Annie to cup his balls. Annie is wearing a blue bra and is straddling Ted on a bed. There is a close-up of her face as she bounces and says, unconvincingly, “Oh, that feels good.” Annie slows her gyrations and says she prefers it that way, but Ted speeds up his movements again. In a manner that is intended to be humorous, they switch positions a number of times, with Ted thrusting on top of Annie, Annie’s legs in the air as she moves them around wildly, then on their sides, then Annie sitting in Ted’s lap, then lying down again. Ted continues to thrust rapidly, and it is clear Annie is not enjoying herself. The next day, Annie discusses the encounter with her friend Lillian who disapproves of the relationship. Annie admits to having had an “adult sleepover” with Ted and complains that he kept putting his penis near her face.

There are numerous other sexual references. Annie’s mother tells her about a man she knows who “started blowjobbing to get crack” and about how she thinks her ex-husband’s new wife, “greets him in the evening beaver first”. Lillian’s cousin, who is the mother of three boys, complains “there is semen all over everything” to the point where she “cracked a blanket in half”. The same woman later complains that she and her husband have constant sex but never kiss and she just wants to watch television in peace “without him entering me”. Annie and her two British roommates discuss how one of them would have to prostitute herself to make money and would say, “Put your American sausage in my English McMuffin”. On an airplane, one of the bridesmaids is sitting beside a man she believes is an air marshal and questions him at length about whether he hides his gun up his butt.

Annie has a sexual encounter with a police officer named Rhodes. They come through the door of his house, kissing passionately and trying to undo each other’s clothes. Rhodes carries Annie into the bedroom with her legs wrapped around him. They continue kissing passionately on the bed. The scene then cuts to the next morning with Annie asleep in his bed. She is covered with a sheet, but her shoulders are bare.

In another scene, Ted is driving Annie home after her car breaks down and he insinuates that he would like her to perform fellatio on him by pointing at his crotch and inviting her to do a “lap nap”.

Later, Annie is driving by Officer Rhodes, trying to get his attention. She drives by and yells, “I’m topless. I’m totally topless”. Her shoulders are bare, but she is covering her bare breasts with her hands.

During the credits, there are clips of one of the bridesmaids and her date making a home video of their sexual encounter. The bridesmaid has a giant submarine sandwich and asks if the man is a “hungry bear”. She lifts the bread on the sandwich and asks, “Do you see how my flap opens?” She is then shown eating the sandwich off the man’s bare torso.

THE DECISION

The English-Language Panel examined the complaints under the following provisions of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters’ (CAB) Code of Ethics and Violence Code:

CAB Code of Ethics, Clause 10 – Television Broadcasting (Scheduling)

a) Programming which contains sexually explicit material or coarse or offensive language intended for adult audiences shall not be telecast before the late viewing period, defined as 9 pm to 6 am. [...]

CAB Code of Ethics, Clause 11 – Viewer Advisories

To assist consumers in making their viewing choices, when programming includes mature subject matter or scenes with nudity, sexually explicit material, coarse or offensive language, or other material susceptible of offending viewers, broadcasters shall provide a viewer advisory

a) at the beginning of, and after every commercial break during the first hour of programming telecast in late viewing hours which contains such material which is intended for adult audiences, or

b) at the beginning of, and after every commercial break during programming telecast outside of late viewing hours which contains such material which is not suitable for children.

Suggested language for suitable viewer advisories is outlined in Appendix A [to the code]. The suggestions are meant as possible illustrations; broadcasters are encouraged to adopt wording which is likeliest to provide viewers with the most relevant and useful information regarding the programming to which it applies.

CAB Violence Code, Article 4.0 – Classification

14+ - Over 14 Years

Programming with this classification contains themes or content elements which might not be suitable for viewers under the age of 14. Parents are strongly cautioned to exercise discretion in permitting viewing by pre-teens and early teens without parent/guardian supervision, as programming with this classification could deal with mature themes and societal issues in a realistic fashion.

Violence Guidelines

while violence could be one of the dominant elements of the storyline, it must be integral to the development of plot or character
might contain intense scenes of violence

Other Content Guidelines

Language: might contain graphic language

Sex/Nudity: might contain explicit portrayals of sex and/or nudity

CAB Violence Code, Article 5.0 – Viewer Advisories

5.1 To assist consumers in making their viewing choices, broadcasters shall provide a viewer advisory, at the beginning of, and during the first hour of programming telecast in late evening hours which contains scenes of violence intended for adult audiences.

5.2 Broadcasters shall provide a viewer advisory at the beginning of, and during programming telecast outside of late evening hours, which contains scenes of violence not suitable for children.

5.3 Suggested language for suitable viewer advisories is outlined in Appendix A [to the code].

The Panel Adjudicators read all of the correspondence and viewed recordings of the challenged broadcasts. The Panel concludes that all of the broadcasts violated Clause 10(a) of the CAB Code of Ethics for including the word “fuck”, and in two cases the word “cunt”, before 9:00 pm. It also concludes that Ramy, The Right Kind of Wrong and The Hangover violated Clause 10(a) for the inclusion of adult sexual material before 9:00 pm. The Panel finds Starz 1 and 2 in breach of Clause 11 of the CAB Code of Ethics for the failure to mention sexual content in the viewer advisories for Ramy, The Right Kind of Wrong, The Hangover and Bridesmaids. The Panel also finds Starz 2 in breach of Article 5 of the CAB Violence Code for the failure to mention the violence in The Hangover in its advisory. The Panel also concludes that 14+ was the correct classification for all of the broadcasts.

Status of Starz 1 & 2 and the Application of CAB Codes Administered by the CBSC

Prior to making its determinations, the Panel considered the argument made in the broadcaster’s response that “Starz is a discretionary pay service that offers a variety of content to its subscribers and as such, is not available to all viewers with a cable package unless specifically purchased. We ensure we perform a schedule review to ensure we are not airing content specifically intended for adults 18 + prior to 9 pm.”

The Panel considers that there are a number of issues with this argument. It is correct that Starz was originally licensed in 1994 as a “pay” television service known as TMN Moviepix, a sister service to the pay TV service The Movie Network (now known as Crave). Over the years, the service rebranded several times and was also known as Mpix and The Movie Network Encore. The most recent rebrand to Starz occurred in 2018 when Bell Media entered into a multi-year content deal with the American company Starz Inc.

However, in 2015 the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) issued a new regulatory policy (Let’s Talk TV: The way forward – Creating compelling and diverse Canadian programming, Broadcasting Regulatory Policy CRTC 2015-86, 12 March 2015) in which it introduced a simplified and streamlined licensing approach by consolidating the number of classes of programming services. In its new policy, the CRTC created three new classes of programming licences known as basic, discretionary and on-demand. The new class of discretionary licence would include programming licences previously known as pay TV or specialty services. Starz was renewed as a discretionary programming service starting on September 1, 2017, in Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2017-149.

Accordingly, Starz is no longer a “pay” television service subject to the pay TV codes known as the Industry Code of Programming Standards and Practices governing Pay, Pay-Per-View and Video-on-Demand Services and The Pay Television and Pay-Per-View Programming Code regarding Violence. As a discretionary service, Starz is subject to the CAB Code of Ethics, the CAB Violence Code and the CAB Equitable Portrayal Code and the various Watershed period requirements found in these codes. The Watershed requirement applicable in this instance is Clause 10 of the CAB Code of Ethics and it requires that sexually explicit material or coarse or offensive language intended for adult audiences only be broadcast between 9:00 pm and 6:00 am.

Moreover, the Watershed period requirement is not subject to a program having a specific classification. Accordingly, although a program may be classified as 14+, it must still meet the Watershed requirements established in the applicable broadcast codes. Contrary to the argument made by Starz, it is not when a program is classified as 18+ that it must meet the Watershed requirement. In fact, regardless of the classification attributed to a program, it must always meet the Watershed requirements.

Finally, even if Starz were still licensed as a pay service, it would have still been obligated to meet the various Watershed period requirements set out in the pay TV codes. The Watershed period in those codes was likewise 9:00 pm to 6:00 am. For example, in a previous decision, the CBSC found the Super Channel service, which was at the time still licensed as a pay TV service, in breach of the Watershed requirements under the pay TV codes including Article E(1)(a) of the Pay TV Programming Code which referred to mature material that included sexuality, nudity and coarse language and Article 3.0 of the Pay TV Violence Code.¹

Accordingly, Starz is required to ensure that the scheduling of programs that include sexual content, coarse or offensive language and violence that is intended for adult audiences meets the Watershed requirement.

The questions put to the Panel regarding the respective programs were:

High Fidelity

Did the presence of the words “fuck”, “cunt” or other swear words constitute coarse or offensive language intended for adult audiences and should only have been broadcast after 9:00 pm (and before 6:00 am) and, therefore, was contrary to Clause 10 of the CAB Code of Ethics?

The CBSC has had to determine on numerous occasions what will constitute coarse or offensive language that is intended for adult audiences and which can, therefore, only be broadcast between 9:00 pm and 6:00 am (the Watershed period). Generally, the words “fuck” (and its variations) and “cunt” have been considered “intended for adult audiences” and can only be broadcast during the Watershed period. There have been a few exceptions to this general rule.

In Showcase Television re the movie Destiny to Order (CBSC Decision 00/01-0715, January 16, 2002) the movie aired at 2:00 pm and contained words such as “fuck”, “fucker”, “shit” and “asshole” throughout its duration. The CBSC Panel found that the movie, which was replete with very coarse language in a pre-Watershed period, was intended for adult audiences and inappropriate for broadcast prior to 9:00 pm. Similarly, in WTN re the movie Wildcats (CBSC Decision 00/01-0964, January 16, 2002), the CBSC found that the inclusion of very coarse language such as “fuck” and “motherfucker”, even though the broadcaster did mute out the words “fuck” and “motherfucker” in some instances but not in others, was contrary to the Watershed requirement.

In Showcase Television re the movie Frankie Starlight (CBSC Decision 02/03-0682, January 30, 2004) the CBSC examined a movie which contained coarse language, including the word “fucking” numerous times. The Panel found that the movie should not have been scheduled at 1:00 pm. The Panel stated:

The bottom line is that the film ought to have been broadcast after 9:00 pm (or the words muted or deleted from the broadcast in a pre-Watershed environment). It was not and this constitutes a breach of the provisions of Clause 10 of the CAB Code of Ethics.

The CBSC has explained that the scheduling rule applies equally to discretionary services as it does to conventional television services. In Bravo! re the film RKO 281 (Decision 04/05-0584, July 20, 2005) the Panel stated:

The bottom line for the Panel is that its jurisprudence is clear: the broadcast in a program, movie, series episode and so on of multiple uses of terms such as “cocksucker”, “fuck”, “fucking”, “shit” and “pussy” and so on constitutes “coarse or offensive language intended for adult audiences” necessitating broadcast after the Watershed hour or, if the broadcaster prefers, the bleeping, editing out or muting of the offending words. And the foregoing rule applies to all conventional or specialty service broadcasters, including a specialty arts channel like Bravo!, which can be expected, indeed depended on, to deliver programming of a certain genre, quality, festival-recognized, off-the-beaten-path nature. Even though it, and the other specialty services referred to in this decision, are all “available on a discretionary basis [...] not an over-the-air free television service,” there is no separate differentiated codified standard currently applicable in terms of the use of coarse or offensive language.

In The Comedy Network re South Park (CBSC Decision 09/10-1432 & -1562, October 5, 2010), the Panel found that the cumulative and repetitive use of coarse language such as “suck my balls”, “you have to be a dick”, “stupid assholes”, “dumb ass”, “asshole, you can go [bleep] yourself” and “fat ass”, even though it appeared that the words “shit” and “fuck” (and variations thereof) were bleeped out, necessitated a post-Watershed timeslot.

There are several other CBSC decisions in which the CBSC consistently found the use of the words “fuck” (and its variations) and “cunt” as inappropriate for a pre-Watershed period: Showcase Television re the movie Muriel’s Wedding (CBSC Decision 02/03-0882, January 30, 2004); Bravo! re the movie Kitchen Party (CBSC Decision 03/04-0928, December 15, 2004); Bravo! re the movie Ordinary People (CBSC Decision 03/04-1187, December 15, 2004); BBC Canada re The F-Word (CBSC Decision 08/09-1515, April 1, 2010); BITE TV re The Conventioneers (CBSC Decision 10/11-0627, July 12, 2011); and HIFI re 10 000 BC, The Mechanic & Trailer Park Boys (CBSC Decision 16/17-0474, August 9, 2017).

While there are some decisions in which the CBSC did not find a breach for the broadcast of those words before 9:00 pm, the circumstances in those cases were exceptional and not present or relevant in the matters at hand here.²

In this episode of the program High Fidelity, there are numerous uses of the word “fuck” (and its variations) and some use of the word “cunt”. Even though the use of these words could be considered colloquial, the Panel considers that their inclusion during the pre-Watershed period is contrary to Clause 10 of the CAB Code of Ethics. As set out in previous CBSC decisions, “the broadcaster can choose to broadcast the program after the Watershed hour or, if the broadcaster prefers, [apply] the bleeping, editing out or muting of the offending words”.

Ramy

Did the sexual content included in this program constitute sexually explicit material intended for adult audiences and, therefore, should only have been broadcast after 9:00 pm (and before 6:00 am) in accordance with Clause 10 of the CAB Code of Ethics?

As with coarse and offensive language, the CBSC has on numerous occasions had to determine what constitutes sexually explicit material intended for adult audiences. Not all sexual content is considered as such and there are a number of factors that are considered in making such a determination.

In The Comedy Network re an episode of Dream On (CBSC Decision 97/98-0571, July 28, 1998), a half-hour situation comedy included insinuations of and discussions about oral sex, as well as a scene involving nudity of a man awkwardly having sex with a woman. The Panel concluded that the program had been appropriately scheduled after 9:00 pm.

Nudity is not a requirement to find that sexual content is explicit and intended for adult audiences. In Showcase Television re the movie Rats (CBSC Decision 99/00-0772, August 23, 2001), although the movie did not contain any nudity, it did contain two scenes involving sexual activity. The first showed the distracted protagonist lying in bed with his girlfriend on top of him. The second showed the protagonist sitting in a chair with a woman astride him in the throes of ecstasy. The Panel stated as follows:

[I]t is sexual activity and not nudity that drives the “adult” characterization. It is entirely clear that a scene may be sufficiently sexually explicit without nudity that it ought to be accessible to adults to the exclusion of younger family members. The Panel considers that the second love-making scene in Rats, which lasted for 1 minute and 25 seconds, falls into that category. It is not merely a romantic encounter or suggestive. It is erotic, actively demonstrative, extended, and climactic. It is inappropriate for airing at 7 pm.

In Bravo! re the movie Perfect Timing (CBSC Decision 03/04-1719, December 15, 2004), the broadcast of a sex comedy that included many scenes of frontal nudity of both men and women in a sexual context and which aired at 2:00 pm was found to be a breach of the applicable broadcast code. The Panel considered that:

the frequent level of sexual activity, combined with yet more frequent nudity, make it clear that the film was exclusively intended for adult audiences. The fact that the film could be characterized as a romp, rather than a serious erotic film changes nothing in this regard.

In CHCH-TV (E!) re E!’s Wildest Spring Break Moments (CBSC Decision 08/09-1097 & -1743, May 26, 2010), the Panel examined an hour-long non-fiction program that provided clips of spring break activities around the world including numerous scenes of young men and women in bathing suits or various states of undress drinking alcohol, dancing and participating in different contests, stunts and antics, such as wet t-shirt contests, pudding wrestling, the stripper Olympics and sexual position contests. Included were close-ups of bare breasts and buttocks, but any actual nudity was pixilated. There was also running commentary that was comedic or sarcastic as well as sexually suggestive or consisted of sexual innuendo, such as “So romantic. I mean, one day these two will have a slut of their own.” The Panel concluded that it was inappropriate to broadcast this program during the pre-Watershed period:

It is […] the conclusion of the Panel that almost every segment of the hour-long program was aggressively suggestive of sexual activity and that, collectively, the impression inevitably left on viewers is raucous, libidinous, relationship-less sexual coupling. The Panel finds no inherent problem with the broadcast of such programming; its question is only when it may be aired.

The fact that some nudity was pixilated did not change the explicitness of the sexual content in the program. In this regard, the Panel stated:

The Panel wishes to make clear that the pixillation of genitalia during the program did not diminish the explicitness of the sexual content. Indeed, nudity is not the issue. As noted above, CBSC Panels have long held the view that nudity without related sexual content is not a problem. […] Since nipples would not be the problem, their pixillation is of no assistance in defending the scheduling of the broadcast. The breach is in the consistent sexual content at 1:00 pm, which is neither helped nor hindered by the pixillated visuals.

In Global re ReGenesis (“Baby Bomb”) (CBSC Decision 04/05-1996, January 20, 2006), the Panel reviewed an episode of a dramatic program that focused on the activities of a fictional organization established to investigate questionable advances in biotechnology that aired at 8:00 pm. The complaint related to a 16-second scene in which the teenage daughter of the main character walks in on her father and his girlfriend having sex. The back of a nude woman straddling a man is seen and then the camera shows the woman from the front, covering her breasts with her arms as the man pushes her off him. The Panel did not find a breach and elaborated on the CBSC’s position on programming that contains scenes of sexual activity in relation to this particular program:

CBSC Panels have established a line of precedents on this issue which are quite clear and, therefore, relatively easy to follow, although not scientific or mathematical in their application. They begin with the principle that there is no inherent difficulty with the depiction of healthy sexual activity on television. When, therefore, is there a potential problem? The answer to that is dependent on two matters: first, timing; and, second, the nature of the activity depicted.

First, then, the timing issue, the mathematical element. Before the Watershed (9:00 pm to 6:00 am), the CBSC considers that it is inappropriate to show sexual activity that is intended for adult eyes and minds. [...] There may still, in that time frame, be programming that some parents will not wish their families to see […] but it will not be due to its exclusively adult orientation. And even in the pre-Watershed period, broadcasters advise their audiences of the nature of what is to come.

[…]

What, then, is the nature of sexual content that is adult-oriented? The issues are explicitness and intensity.

On the issue of what is explicit as opposed to suggestive, the Panel in E! re Keeping Up with the Kardashians (“We’re Having a Baby”) (CBSC Decision 13/14-0242, February 20, 2014), considered the discussions amongst the Kardashian family members. The episode in question, which aired at 4:00 pm, included numerous conversations about anal sex. Many euphemisms were used such as “back door”; “back-dooring it”; “Knock, knock. Who’s there? It’s my penis knocking on your back door”. In addition, one of the Kardashian sisters suggested that she perform anal sex on her male partner with a dildo, saying, “I’ll do it nice and slow and then [makes click noise and thrusts her first forward]”. The Panel considered this type of content suggestive rather than explicit.

In the context of the Ramy episode under review, the Panel concludes that the sexual content included in this program was sexually explicit material intended for adult audiences and should only have been broadcast after 9:00 pm (and before 6:00 am) in accordance with Clause 10 of the CAB Code of Ethics.

There are two scenes that are sexual in nature in this episode. The first is the scene with Ramy and Chloe and the condom. The second is the scene of Ramy and Nour in the car. Both scenes are described in more detail above and in Appendix B of this decision.

The Panel understands that this program is artsy and comedic and attempts to deal in a smart and culturally sensitive manner with some very edgy societal issues.

However, the CBSC precedents are clear. Nudity is not required to make a finding of sexually explicit content intended for adult audiences. The Panel considers that the car scene, even though there was no nudity, included graphic and explicit references to sex and included erotic asphyxiation which is definitely material intended for adult audiences. This is not simply mature content. The nature of the activity is key and in this instance the depiction of erotic asphyxiation, even if it was meant to be done in a lighthearted manner, should only be shown during a period in which children are not expected to be viewing.

Did the presence of the words “fuck” or other swear words constitute coarse or offensive language intended for adult audiences and should only have been broadcast after 9:00 pm (and before 6:00 am) and, therefore, was contrary to Clause 10 of the CAB Code of Ethics?

In this episode of the program Ramy, there are numerous uses of the word “fuck” (and its variations). Even though the use of these words could be considered colloquial in some instances, the Panel considers that their inclusion during the pre-Watershed period is contrary to Clause 10 of the CAB Code of Ethics. As set out in previous CBSC decisions, “the broadcaster can choose to broadcast the program after the Watershed hour or, if the broadcaster prefers, [apply] the bleeping, editing out or muting of the offending words”.

Did the failure to mention the sexual content in the advisory constitute a breach of Clause 11 of the CAB Code of Ethics?

Starz 1 and 2 aired viewer advisories in audio and video formats at the beginning of every broadcast, all of which were commercial free. This includes this episode of Ramy. The Panel considers that the format and the frequency of all advisories respected the applicable broadcast code.

With respect to the wording of the advisory, to be compliant, the advisory must provide accurate and detailed information about the upcoming content. There is a wealth of CBSC precedents dealing with the issue of what constitutes a compliant advisory. The key elements of compliant advisories are described in the following precedents.

In Showcase Television re the movie Rats (CBSC Decision 99/00-0772, August 23, 2001), the movie was preceded by an advisory in audio and on-screen formats which stated: “The following program contains scenes of nudity and coarse language. Viewer discretion is advised.” The Panel concluded that the wording of the initial advisory was inadequate and contrary to the applicable code because it did not accurately describe the contents of the film since there was no nudity; there were, however, scenes of sexual activity, mature subject matter and some disturbing scenes, which advisories should have indicated. The advisories coming out of commercial breaks were even more deficient as they did not provide “any reasons for which a viewer might choose to exercise discretion.”

The fullness of the advisory required to be compliant was also detailed in The Comedy Network re an episode of Gutterball Alley (CBSC Decision 01/02-0450 & -0481, September 13, 2002). The program was an unusual game show that had contestants performing stunts or answering quizzes in order to win bowling balls that they then threw down a bowling alley to win cash prizes. The majority of the stunts and quizzes had a sexual aspect or component to them. The broadcast was at 9:30 pm and included a single viewer advisory at the beginning of the program alerting viewers to the “mature subject matter.” The Panel elaborated on the general purpose of and expectations for viewer advisories as follows:

Viewer advisories differ slightly from classification issues. They are broader and more descriptive (and have, on the basis of CBSC decisions, been required in the case of programming including scenes of any type intended for adult audiences). They provide people with more than a single “catch-all” basket category for levels of coarse language, violence, nudity and sexual content. In descriptive words, they advise viewers of the kind of content they can anticipate encountering in a program about to be, or currently being, aired. In the matter at hand, the broadcaster is obliged to advise its audience of the coarse language in the program. It has done so only once, at the start of the program, and then only mentioned “mature subject matter”. There was no reference to coarse language at all, nor was there any subsequent viewer advisory coming out of the later commercial breaks.

The advisory must provide a full portrait of the program. In Showcase Television re the movie Frankie Starlight (CBSC Decision 02/03-0682, January 30, 2004), the Panel determined that the viewer advisory provided for a movie that contained the f-word did not appropriately warn viewers of the content. The importance that all CBSC Panels place on viewer advisories was explained as follows:

In order to give full vent to the broadcast flexibility that flows from freedom of expression, there must, on the level of audience equity alone, be some balance. Some of that balance is represented by the definition and application of standards. Other parts of that balance are represented by the provision of information to the audience. That information is generally of two types: first, the classification icon, which is a non-descriptive reflection of content level, arbitrarily attributed to groups on the basis of age; and second, the viewer advisory, which provides more elaborated information in words about the content. They supplement each other and together provide viewers with a full portrait of a program’s content, which enables audience members to make an informed choice about whether to watch, or to avoid, a particular broadcast.

In making a finding of a breach of the applicable code, the Panel stated:

In the light of the obvious coarse language in Frankie Starlight, the Panel cannot understand why Showcase Television has failed to even refer to the issue in its advisory, which deals only with sexuality and nudity. If the viewer advisory is to remain the useful tool for the viewing audience it was intended to be and generally is, it must be relevant to the content of the programming. Accordingly, the absence of any mention of coarse language in the advisory constitutes a disservice to viewers and a breach of Clause 11 of the CAB Code of Ethics.

An advisory can be expansive, but it must not miss potentially offensive matter. In Bravo! re the movie Perfect Timing (CBSC Decision 03/04-1719, December 15, 2004), the Panel dealt with the broadcast of a sex comedy at 2:00 pm that featured numerous instances of the f-word as well as many scenes of frontal nudity of both women and men in a sexual context. The advisories provided alerted viewers to the “nudity, coarse language and mature subject matter”. The Panel found a breach of Clause 11 of the CAB Code of Ethics for its failure to mention sexual activity in the advisory. On this point, the Panel stated:

The advisory, which is in words and in principle without limitation, can be more expansive and detailed. That being said, it must at least warn audiences of content that may be offensive. It can be conservative in its approach and can exceed what is there but it must not miss potentially offensive matter. It has missed in this case. […] There is […] not a single reference to what will be the most offensive material for some viewers; namely, explicit sexual activity.

The objective of an advisory is to provide viewers with sufficient knowledge about a program so they can make an informed choice on whether to watch the show or not. The Panel in The Comedy Network re South Park (CBSC Decision 09/10-1432 & -1562, October 5, 2010) found a breach because of the failure to specifically mention sexual content and violence in the advisories:

The rules relating to viewer advisories, however, require more than conformity with frequency and format provisions. Without respect for the content of the advisory, that viewer aid is of little value. After all, the purpose of the viewer advisories (and classification icons) is to provide audience members with sufficient knowledge about a program that will enable any viewer to make an informed decision about whether or not to watch it. Nor should this be thought of solely as a tool for parents to regulate suitable viewing for their children; advisories help adults to make suitable choices for their own television viewing.

In addition, the use of “catch-all” phrases such as “nudity” and “mature themes” does not cover “sexual content”. In finding a breach of the applicable code, the Panel stated in CITY-DT re The Long Weekend (CBSC Decision 13/14-0046, February 5, 2014) as follows:

Vague terms such as “mature themes” or “adult content”, while applicable in some cases, should not be used as “catch-all” phrases to cover all types of potentially objectionable material. Instead, broadcasters must specify whether the program contains nudity, violence, coarse language or sexual content. Such detail is required in order to be of the most assistance to viewers [...].

In this episode of Ramy, the advisory stated, in both voice-over and visual formats, that “The following program is rated 14+ and contains scenes with coarse language and mature themes. Viewer discretion is advised.” The CBSC precedents are clear. To be compliant, advisories must fully detail every element of the program so as to best inform the audience members regarding its content. The use of a “catch-all” phrase such as “mature themes” that was used by the broadcaster in this instance is not sufficient. There was sexual content in this episode which the Panel found was explicit and intended for adult audiences only. To make an informed choice, viewers must know what to expect. In this case, the failure to mention “sexual content” in the advisory was a breach of Clause 11 of the CAB Code of Ethics.

Was 14+ the correct classification for this episode of Ramy?

Starz 1 rated this episode 14+ under the Action Group on Violence On Television (AGVOT) system. This system is used by Canadian English-language television services and is entirely separate from the film ratings systems used by most Canadian provinces or by the United States for theatrically released motion pictures. The classification systems do not lend themselves to direct comparisons. In addition, Canadian broadcasting distribution undertakings (BDUs, such as cable, satellite and IPTV television providers) do not necessarily use the AGVOT system. Some of them use the American system. This means that the AGVOT icon that viewers see on screen does not necessarily match what they see in their on-screen program guides. In any event, the CBSC can only assess the AGVOT rating provided by the broadcaster.

The descriptors for the 14+ and 18+ categories of the AGVOT system are provided above. Under the AGVOT system, the audience age group indicated by each rating level serves only as a guideline. Just because a program is rated 14+ does not mean that every 14-year-old would not be troubled by watching the show. Parents must decide what is appropriate for their own individual children.

Moreover, each category itself allows for a spectrum of content within it; that is to say, within the 14+ category there will be those 14+ programs that only just pass the threshold of Parental Guidance (PG), whereas others will be closer to, but not quite at, an 18+ level.

It is important to note that there is not necessarily a straightforward link between a program’s classification level under Article 4.0 of the CAB Violence Code and the program’s scheduling under Clause 10 of the CAB Code of Ethics. This means that a program that contains scenes intended exclusively for adult audiences and, therefore, must only be broadcast after 9:00 pm can nevertheless legitimately carry a 14+ AGVOT rating.

In addition, an 18+ AGVOT rating is not necessarily required under Article 4.0 of the CAB Violence Code even if the program requires a post 9:00 pm time-slot under Clause 10 of the CAB Code of Ethics. Generally, the CBSC only requires an 18+ rating when a program contains a combination of very adult violence, sex and coarse language, or very frequent and graphic violence or sex.

There are a number of CBSC decisions that have considered the 14+ classification of a program. In Showcase re the movie Rats (CBSC Decision 99/00-0772, August 23, 2001), the Panel explained that the PG rating allows for “limited and discreet sexual references” but that a lengthy scene in which the male protagonist was being straddled by a woman and both participants climaxed was much more than “discreet”. The Panel considered that a 14+ rating which allows for sexual activity within the context of narrative or theme would have been the correct one.

In Showcase Television re the movie Police 10-07 (CBSC Decision 00/01-0613, January 16, 2002), the Panel examined a movie about the investigation of the serial killing of homosexual men by a method known as erotic asphyxiation. The movie contained some threatening scenes, some scenes involving violent activity and other scenes showing the results of off-screen violence. It was rated 14+. The Panel concluded that this was the appropriate rating since this category “allows for mature themes and social issues; violence as a dominant element of the storyline; and scenes of intense violence.”

A movie that contained two brief scenes of both male and female nudity, as well as multiple instances of the word “fuck”, “motherfucker”, “shit” and other coarse language was appropriately classified as 14+ according to the CBSC Panel in WTN re the movie Wildcats (CBSC Decision 00/01-0964, January 16, 2002).

In an episode of a program in which the hosts explored the trade show and convention circuit and made humorous comments about the proceedings that had sexual undertones, namely, BITE TV re The Conventioneers (CBSC Decision 10/11-0627, July 12, 2011), the Panel determined that the broadcaster should have displayed a 14+ classification icon:

As to the level of the rating that would be required, the Panel notes that there were several examples of strongly coarse language […] and it considers that the 14+ rating, which allows that the program rated “could possibly include strong or frequent use of profanity” would be the appropriate classification level. While there were no “scenes” of sexual activity, as anticipated by the 14+ rating, the Panel considers that the [...] sexual descriptions fall readily into the category of “content elements which might not be suitable for viewers under the age of 14” as provided in the “Descriptive” heading for that classification level.

In determining whether a particular program fell into the 14+ or the 18+ classification, the Panel, in Much re Workaholics (“Dorm Daze”) (CBSC Decision 15/16-0525, June 16, 2016), examined a fictional program that followed the lives of three male college dropouts who live and work together. This particular episode included one unedited instance of the word “fuck” and constant references to sex, mostly using vulgar terms. On the matter of the 14+ classification the Panel stated that “the constant barrage of strong sexual innuendo and overtly sexual theme […] move it extremely close to the 18+ category, but the absence of any actual explicit depictions of sexual activity barely keeps it on the 14+ side of the 14+/18+ divide.”

In CITY-DT re The Long Weekend (CBSC Decision 13/14-0046, February 5, 2014), the Panel examined a raunchy comedy movie about two brothers trying to find women with whom to have sex. There were numerous scenes of sexual activity and vulgar references to sexual acts and women’s appearances. For example, one scene showed a woman with semen dripping down her leg, scooping it up with her finger and making a slurping noise to imply she had ingested it. In another, one brother commented on the appearance of a woman in a photograph, “How’d you like to have that wrapped around your cock, huh? Oh, dirty, dirty. But I’d do her.” The broadcaster included a 14+ icon but stated that the movie should have been rated 18+. The Panel agreed with the broadcaster and found a breach of Article 4.0 of the CAB Violence Code on the following basis:

The icon that did appear at the beginning of the broadcast was 14+. CITY itself acknowledged that that level appeared in error and the film should have been rated 18+. The Panel agrees that the higher classification was more appropriate. While the 14+ descriptor allows for “strong or frequent use of profanity” and “scenes of nudity and/or sexual activity”, 18+ contains stronger language, namely, “graphic language” and “explicit portrayals of sex and/or nudity”.

In the Panel’s view, there is no question that the language was “graphic” and the scenes “explicit” in The Long Weekend. Moreover, virtually every scene in the movie contained either a depiction of actual sexual activity or a vulgar, detailed description of a sexual act. The sheer quantity of sexually explicit material, along with the overall tone of the movie, pushes The Long Weekend into the 18+ category.

The Panel notes that this episode of Ramy included coarse language throughout and two scenes with sexual content. The issue for the Panel is whether 14+ was the appropriate classification given the inclusion of a sexual scene in which a woman is demanding sexual gratification through erotic asphyxiation. Does this narrative require an 18+ classification? The Panel has determined that the sexual content included in this episode was explicit and required airing in a post-Watershed period. But, as noted earlier, the requirement to meet the Watershed period under the applicable code provision does not necessarily mean that a program must be given an 18+ classification. To require an 18+ classification the content must be unsuitable for viewers under 18 because, among other things, it includes language that might be graphic and might contain explicit portrayals of sex and/or nudity.

CBSC decisions give a wide berth to the 14+ classification and include an instance where a program dealing with the investigation of the serial killing of homosexual men by erotic asphyxiation was considered appropriately classified as 14+. On when a program crosses the 14+ versus 18+ divide, as noted above, the CBSC has said that where there is strong sexual innuendo and an overtly sexual theme, if there is no depiction of any sexual activity, the 14+ classification will be sufficient.

There was no nudity in the segment involving erotic asphyxiation in Ramy. The Panel appreciates that the scene was relevant to the plot and character development in the sense that Ramy’s encounter with Nour causes him to question the stereotypes he holds about Muslim women. The episode as a whole dealt with Ramy’s conflicts in a realistic and thoughtful manner. Although the scene deals with a less conventional form of sexual gratification, as well as issues of consent and belittling, the CBSC precedents are clear that an 18+ classification is required only when the entire program contains depictions of actual sexual activity or vulgar, detailed descriptions of a sexual act. A large quantity of sexually explicit material, along with an overall sexual tone of the program are therefore required before an 18+ classification is needed. In this instance, there is no completion of the sex act and the choking segment is a small part of the entire program’s narrative. While the Panel considers that the inclusion of a troubling sexual act (erotic asphyxiation) along with issues related to consent and belittling takes this episode of Ramy very close to an 18+ level, it still remains on the 14+ side of the 14+/18+ divide. Accordingly, the 14+ classification is sufficient.

Moreover, given that the Panel has determined that this episode should only have been aired during the Watershed period and that an appropriate advisory regarding sexual content should have been included, viewers would have the necessary and appropriate tools to determine whether to watch this program or not. More importantly, it means that this program would have aired in a time-slot appropriate to adult viewing.

The Right Kind of Wrong

There are a number of scenes that include sexual content such as the protagonist performing cunnilingus on a bare-breasted woman, a later conversation between those two characters in which the woman uses slang expressions for the sexual act, an art show featuring paintings of intimate scenes and close-ups of a male’s scrotum, a sexual encounter in the art gallery storeroom and the two main characters being intimate on a mountain. The scenes are described in more detail above and in Appendix B of this decision.

The Panel considers that two of the sexual encounter scenes were explicit because it was obvious that an actual sexual act was occurring, namely, the scene of cunnilingus and the scene on the mountain and, therefore, should only have aired during the Watershed period. Accordingly, airing this movie with those scenes in a mid-afternoon time-slot was contrary to Clause 10 of the CAB Code of Ethics.

In addition, there were many discussions about sex that were quite mature for airing in a mid-afternoon time slot. Although these discussions were not contrary to Clause 10 of the CAB Code of Ethics, their inclusion should give pause on what should be the appropriate time slot for the airing of this movie.

In the movie The Right Kind of Wrong, the word “fuck” is used in a few instances. The Panel considers that its inclusion during the pre-Watershed period is contrary to Clause 10 of the CAB Code of Ethics. As set out in previous CBSC decisions, “the broadcaster can choose to broadcast the program after the Watershed hour or, if the broadcaster prefers, [apply] the bleeping, editing out or muting of the offending words”.

Did the failure to mention the sexual content in the advisory constitute a breach of Clause 11 of the CAB Code of Ethics?

In the movie The Right Kind of Wrong, the advisory stated, in both voice-over and visual formats, that “The following program is rated 14+ and contains scenes with violence, coarse language, nudity and mature themes. Viewer discretion is advised.” The CBSC precedents are clear. To be compliant, advisories must fully detail every element of the program so as to best inform the audience members regarding its content. The use of a “catch-all” phrase such as “mature themes” and “nudity” that was used by the broadcaster in this instance is not sufficient. There was sexual content in this movie which the Panel found was explicit and intended for adult audiences only. To make an informed choice, viewers must know what to expect. In this case, the failure to mention “sexual content” in the advisory was a breach of Clause 11 of the CAB Code of Ethics.

Was 14+ the correct classification for the movie The Right Kind of Wrong?

The Panel considers that, in the circumstances, the 14+ classification was correct. Even though there were a couple of sexual scenes and coarse words that required the airing of this movie in a post-Watershed period, the sex, nudity and coarse language in this film are within the context and narrative of the movie and fits within the definition of 14+ content.

The Hangover

There are a number of scenes that include sexual content in this film. For the most part, the sexual content is part of the narrative. It mostly consists of verbal innuendo and crude gestures, and is not graphic until the end of the movie as the credits roll and the bachelor party photos are shown. Some of the photos depict fellatio. The relevant scenes are described in more detail above and in Appendix B to this decision.

The Panel considers that the photos of various sexual encounters were explicit and, therefore, should only have aired during the post-Watershed period. Accordingly, airing this movie in a mid-day time slot with those scenes was contrary to Clause 10 of the CAB Code of Ethics.

The movie The Hangover is replete with coarse and offensive language. Numerous variations of the f-word are used throughout the film and one or more appear in virtually every scene in the film. The movie is about a raunchy and debauched bachelor weekend in Las Vegas. Therefore, the coarse and offensive language used throughout the film does fit within the narrative. Notwithstanding this, the Panel considers that the words’ inclusion during the pre-Watershed period is contrary to Clause 10 of the CAB Code of Ethics. As set out in previous CBSC decisions, “the broadcaster can choose to broadcast the program after the Watershed hour or, if the broadcaster prefers, [apply] the bleeping, editing out or muting of the offending words”.

Did the failure to mention the sexual content in the advisory constitute a breach of Clause 11 of the CAB Code of Ethics?

In the movie The Hangover, the advisory stated, in both voice-over and visual formats, that “The following program is rated 14+ and contains scenes with coarse language, nudity and mature themes. Viewer discretion is advised.” The CBSC precedents are clear. To be compliant, advisories must fully detail every element of the program so as to best inform the audience members regarding its content. The use of a “catch-all” phrase such as “mature themes” and “nudity” that was used by the broadcaster in this instance is not sufficient. There was sexual content in this movie which the Panel found was explicit and intended for adult audiences only. To make an informed choice, viewers must know what to expect. In this case, the failure to mention “sexual content” in the advisory was a breach of Clause 11 of the CAB Code of Ethics.

Did the failure to mention violence in the advisory constitute a breach of Article 5.0 of the CAB Violence Code?

As noted above, the advisory stated that “The following program is rated 14+ and contains scenes with coarse language, nudity and mature themes. Viewer discretion is advised.” There were a number of violent scenes in the film including one of the male characters with a bleeding mouth due to a missing tooth; a character driving over a gunman’s foot who then shoots another character; a girl using a stun gun to stun one of the male characters in the genital region; and a naked man jumping onto one of the male characters with a crowbar and engaging in a violent tussle.

Although the violent scenes on their own were not gory or graphic enough to necessitate a post-Watershed time-slot, they were sufficiently unsuitable for children that they did require a viewer advisory under Article 5.2 of the CAB Violence Code.

As noted earlier, to be compliant advisories must fully detail every element of the program so as to best inform the audience members regarding its content. The use of a “catch-all” phrase such as “mature themes” that was used by the broadcaster in this instance is not sufficient. There were violent scenes in this movie. To make an informed choice, viewers must know what to expect. In this case, the failure to mention “violence” in the advisory was a breach of Article 5.0 of the CAB Violence Code.

Was 14+ the correct classification for the movie The Hangover?

The Panel considers that in the circumstances the 14+ classification was correct. Even though there were sexual scenes and coarse language that required the airing of this movie in a post-Watershed period, the sex, nudity and coarse language in this film are within the context and narrative of the movie and fits within the definition of 14+ content.

Bridesmaids

The Panel is of the view that the sexual content included in this movie was not explicit and, therefore, was not material intended for adult audiences. The sexual content was presented in a comedic manner and not graphic in nature. It followed the narrative of the movie and was consistent with the comedic nature of the plot.

Did the presence of the words “fuck” (and its variations) and “cunt” or other swear words constitute coarse or offensive language intended for adult audiences and should only have been broadcast after 9:00 pm (and before 6:00 am) and, therefore, was contrary to Clause 10 of the CAB Code of Ethics?

The movie Bridesmaids includes many instances of the word “fuck” and its variations along with the use of the word “cunt”. The film is about the foibles of competing bridesmaids and a high-strung bride. Therefore, the coarse and offensive language used throughout the film does fit within the narrative. Notwithstanding this, the Panel considers that its inclusion during the pre-Watershed period is contrary to Clause 10 of the CAB Code of Ethics. As set out in previous CBSC decisions, “the broadcaster can choose to broadcast the program after the Watershed hour or, if the broadcaster prefers, [apply] the bleeping, editing out or muting of the offending words”.

Did the failure to mention the sexual content in the advisory constitute a breach of Clause 11 of the CAB Code of Ethics?

In the movie Bridesmaids, the advisory stated, in both voice-over and visual formats, that “The following program is rated 14+ and contains scenes with coarse language and mature themes. Viewer discretion is advised.” The CBSC precedents are clear. To be compliant, advisories must fully detail every element of the program so as to best inform the audience members regarding its content. The use of a “catch-all” phrase such as “mature themes” that was used by the broadcaster in this instance is not sufficient. There was sexual content in this movie. Even if it was not explicit enough to necessitate a post-Watershed time-slot, it was sufficiently unsuitable for children so that it required a viewer advisory under Clause 11(b) of the CAB Code of Ethics. To make an informed choice, viewers must know what to expect. In this case, the failure to mention “sexual content” in the advisory was a breach of Clause 11 of the CAB Code of Ethics.

Was 14+ the correct classification for the movie Bridesmaids?

The Panel considers that in the circumstances the 14+ classification was correct. The sexual content and coarse language in this film are within the context and narrative of the movie and fits within the definition of 14+ content.

Broadcaster Responsiveness

In all CBSC decisions, the Panels assess the broadcaster’s response to the complainant. The broadcaster need not agree with the complainant’s position, but it must respond in a courteous, thoughtful and thorough manner. In this case, Starz provided two nearly identical replies to the complainant, explaining the nature of its channels and its viewpoint on the content, classifications and viewer advisories that it provided. The broadcaster fulfilled its obligations of responsiveness and, subject to the announcement of this decision, nothing further is required on this occasion.

Decision Announcements

Starz 1 is required to: 1) announce the decision, in the following terms in audio and video format, once during prime time within three days following the release of this decision and once more within seven days following the release of this decision during the time period in which High Fidelity was broadcast, once during the time period in which Ramy was broadcast, and once during the time period in which The Right Kind of Wrong was broadcast, but not on the same day as the first mandated announcement; 2) within the fourteen days following the broadcasts of the announcements, to provide written confirmation of the airing of the statements to the complainant who filed the Ruling Request; and 3) at that time, to provide the CBSC with a copy of that written confirmation and with air check copies of the broadcasts of the four announcements which must be made by Starz 1.

The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council has found that Starz 1 breached the Canadian Association of Broadcasters’ Code of Ethics in its broadcasts of High Fidelity on December 21, 2020, Ramy on December 22, 2020 and The Right Kind of Wrong on January 13, 2021. The broadcasts contained coarse language intended for adults and were aired before 9:00 pm contrary to Clause 10 of the code. Ramy and The Right Kind of Wrong also contained mature sexual content contrary to Clause 10 and the viewer advisories failed to mention that sexual content, contrary to Clause 11.

Starz 2 is required to: 1) announce the decision, in the following terms in audio and video format, once during prime time within three days following the release of this decision and once more within seven days following the release of this decision during the time period in which The Hangover was broadcast, and once during the time period in which Bridesmaids was broadcast, but not on the same day as the first mandated announcement; 2) within the fourteen days following the broadcasts of the announcements, to provide written confirmation of the airing of the statements to the complainant who filed the Ruling Request; and 3) at that time, to provide the CBSC with a copy of that written confirmation and with air check copies of the broadcasts of the three announcements which must be made by Starz 2.

The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council has found that Starz 2 breached the Canadian Association of Broadcasters’ Code of Ethics in its broadcasts of The Hangover on January 1 and Bridesmaids on January 2, 2021. The broadcasts contained coarse language intended for adults and were aired before 9:00 pm contrary to Clause 10 of the code. The Hangover also contained mature sexual content contrary to Clause 10 and the viewer advisories for both broadcasts failed to mention sexual content, contrary to Clause 11. The viewer advisory for The Hangover failed to mention violence, contrary to Article 5 of the Violence Code.

This decision is a public document upon its release by the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council.

[1] Super Channel Vault re Friday the 13^th: Part VII, Saw 3D, Pet Sematary, Zero Dark Thirty & Super Channel Fuse re A Cure for Wellness & GINX eSports re The First Hour, Squad & GINX Plays (CBSC Decision 19/20-0907, July 8, 2020)

[2] W Network re My Feminism (CBSC Decision 01/02-1120, February 28, 2003); CTV re an interview on Question Period (Bill C-10) (CBSC Decision 07/08-1703, October 22, 2008); MusiquePlus re CTRL (CBSC Decision 15/16-0367, October 19, 2016); CP24 re a news report about 4-20 and a panel discussion about the Ontario provincial election (CBSC Decision 17/18-1438, October 18, 2018)

APPENDIX A

The Complaint

The CBSC received the following complaint via its webform on December 21, 2020:

Name of Television or Radio Station: Starz1

Program Name: High Fidelity (S 01 Ep 03)

Date of Program: 21/12/2020

Time of Program: 5:00PM

Specific Concern:

Extension [sic, extensive] use of coarse language within a few minute time span by the lead character Robyn (she was sitting on a couch talking to a male about herself and why someone would be not interested in her romantically).

This episode was shown well before the watershed hour of 9:00 p.m., making the content aired in direct contravention of the Code of Ethics (CAB Clause 10, part (a)). The use of an advisory at the commencement of the show does not give carte blanche to the airing of shows which use this kind of language at this time of day.

The complainant submitted another form on December 22:

Name of Television or Radio Station: Starz1

Program Name: Ramy (episode titled “Between the Toes”)

Date of Program: 22/12/2020

Time of Program: 4:00PM

Specific Concern:

This is the second time in two days that I am filing a complaint concerning the afternoon programming choices of the Starz network. Yesterday my complaint was for a show entitled High Fidelity and it had to do with the type of coarse language used in a show broadcast in the afternoon. The show today is similar in that Ramy, a series of half hour episodes, also contains a lot of coarse language, language which previous rulings by the CBSC have deemed inappropriate for this time slot.

While a 14A rating might have been appropriate for High Fidelity, I think using the same warning for Ramy was not sufficient because of the nature of the sexual content contained in the show. One only has to watch near the end of the episode “Between the Toes” to know to what I am referring.

But the appropriateness of the warning aside, as I wrote in my previous complaint, it is my understanding of the Code of Ethics that the advisory warning at the start of each episode does not give carte blanche if a program is aired before the watershed hour of 9 pm. It seems to me that by airing two series with similar use of coarse language two days in a row, this network either does not know or does not care about the expected standards for afternoon television.

Since each episode of both High Fidelity and Ramy is roughly 30 minutes in length, and Starz decided to show many episodes in a row, starting at 4 pm each day, I could have lodged many complaints, one per episode, because each one has a lot of coarse language being used all before 9 pm.

Broadcaster Response

Starz responded to those first two complaints with the following letter dated January 14, 2021:

The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC) has forwarded to us a copy of your electronic correspondence regarding the program High Fidelity S1 Ep 03 which aired on STARZ on Dec 21 at 4:45 pm and Ramy S1 Ep 01 which aired on Dec 22, 2020 at 4 pm for our attention and response.

Before we address your specific concern, it should be noted that in addition to our own programming policies, STARZ is a member in good standing of the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC) and adheres to all codes and guidelines administered by the CBSC.

High Fidelity is an American romantic comedy 2020 television series, based on the 1995 novel of the same name by Nick Hornby, and Ramy is a 2019 Emmy-nominated television series following an American Muslim-Arab who is on a spiritual journey.

STARZ is a discretionary pay service that offers a variety of content to its subscribers and as such, is not available to all viewers with a cable package unless specifically purchased. We ensure we perform a schedule review to ensure we are not airing content specifically intended for adults 18+ prior to 9 pm.

We assigned both programs a 14+ AGVOT (Action Group on Violence in Television) which allows for "mature themes,” “strong or frequent use of profanity” and programming that "might contain intense scenes of violence." Under this classification code, "parents are strongly cautioned to exercise discretion in permitting viewing by pre-teens and early teens" as programming with this classification code "might not be suitable for viewers under the age of 14."

In addition, we aired both shows with a viewer advisory that states: “The following program is rated 14+ and contains scenes with violence, coarse language, nudity and mature themes. Viewer Discretion is advised.”

We would like to emphasize that your comments are taken seriously and we truly appreciate your feedback and concern. It is never our intention to offend any of our viewers so I apologize to you in that regard.

Additional Correspondence

The complainant wrote to the CBSC again on January 20 and added three additional broadcasts to his complaint:

I acknowledge receipt of an email from [C. H.], Manager of Pay Programming, Bell Media, dated January 14, 2021, regarding my complaint to the CBSC, ref. 20.2021-0745.1.

I appreciate the promptness with which [the Manager of Pay Programming] responded to my concerns. His letter addressed some but not all of the issues I raised. His focus was primarily on the broadcaster’s responsibilities as outlined in clause 11 of the CBSC’s Code of Ethics, but I feel he did not consider clause 10 and the watershed hours.

Therefore, I plan to make a ruling request, but before I do so, I would like to add three other broadcasts to my complaints. The broad issues in each of these are of a similar nature as the original two complaints, i.e., inappropriate language and levels of sexuality given the hour in which they were broadcast.

I was already planning on adding these to the file but [the Manager of Pay Programming]’s reply arrived before I could do so.

The three broadcasts are as follows:

• The Hangover, on Friday, January 1, 2021, 12:35-2:20 p.m. (Starz 2)

• Bridesmaids, on Saturday, January 2, 2021, 5:10-7:20 p.m. (Starz 2)

• The Right Kind of Wrong, Wednesday, January 13, 3:25-5:05 p.m. (Starz 1)

While I can site other examples, giving titles and broadcast dates/times, it becomes redundant after a while. I feel these 3, along with the previous 2 from my first complaints are enough for me to be able to make my points.

I assume that since I am adding to my original complaint, I need to wait for [the Manager of Pay Programming] to have an opportunity to respond to these additions before making a request for a ruling. Please confirm if this is the case.

I’m not sure what else [the Manager of Pay Programming] can add to what he has already written, so I have no problem if he wants his original letter to be a sufficient reply. I feel he has met the CBSC requirements to address the viewer’s complaints, but I will leave that up to him and the CBSC.

In conclusion:

• I would like to add three more broadcasts to my original complaint. Please let me know if this letter is sufficient for doing so, or if I need to go back to the CBSC website and add them individually using the complaint form.

• I plan to make a ruling request.

• I am in the process of composing a more detailed letter in which I expand on my thoughts, which I will submit when I make a formal request for a ruling. In that letter I will address the issue of Starz being a pay channel.

• Please let me know if I need to wait for a second response from [the Manager of Pay Programming] or if his original response is sufficient so that I know when I can make the ruling request.

(appendix below)

Appendix

I offer the following recaps of the above-mentioned broadcasts to substantiate why I am adding these broadcasts to my complaint.

The Hangover

Rating

I did not see the start of the movie and do not know what rating was given by Starz. The rating provided by my service provider when I hit the description was 18+.

Looking at other rating sites, I found the following:

• Canada:18A

• (Alberta/British Columbia/Manitoba): 18A

• Canada:14A (Ontario)

• Canada:13+ (Quebec)

I do not know, given the different ratings based on jurisdiction, which takes precedent.

Sex

Extensive male and female nudity, including nude buttocks and breasts. Discussion of sexual acts, techniques, and one character's work as an "escort." Photos of nudity and explicit sexual acts (including glimpsed male genitalia) in the closing-credits montage. Explicit discussions of infidelity, one-night stands, and other acts. Mimed mock bestiality for comedic effects. A character notes that he cannot be within 200 yards of "A school ... or a Chuck E. Cheese," implying that he's on some kind of serial offender watchlist.

Language

• 100 uses of "fuck", 69 uses of "shit", 4 uses of "faggot", 3 uses of "motherfucker". A few uses of "bitch", and "dick", 1 usage of the middle finger

Bridesmaids

Language

• Around 40 uses of "fuck"

• Woman yells "You’re a poopy head" at hotel clerk.

• About 23 F-words and its derivatives

• 1 use of cunt

Sex

The movie opens with an energetic, often loud sex scene; no sensitive body parts are shown, but nudity is implied (you can see down the whole side of the man's body at one point), and the woman is wearing a bra and underwear. Lots of moaning and groaning. A man squeezes a woman's breast through her bra and talks about having "f--k buddies." A couple is shown making out and trying to rip each other's clothes off; later, she wakes up in bed covered by a sheet (nudity is implied). Another character propositions strangers, sometimes crudely. A woman takes off her top to get a man's attention (shoulders shown, but not breasts). Plenty of sexual innuendo/talk; a woman does an impression of a penis.

The Right Kind of Wrong

Language

Similar to Bridesmaids

Sex

• A man (Leo) is shown with his face between a nude woman's (Kingsley) legs. Her nipples are seen briefly, then her buttocks are shown when she gets out of bed. His nude buttocks are shown rolling over in bed. A group of schoolchildren on a hike see a nude couple (Colette and Leo) having sex and watch through binoculars. The bare buttocks of the man and woman are shown somewhat obscured by tall grass.

Starz responded to the complaint about the three additional broadcasts with a letter dated February 1:

Further to your original correspondence with the CBSC, we are aware that you have provided them with three additional titles: The Hangover, on Friday, January 1, 2021, 12:35-2:20 p.m. (Starz 2) / Bridesmaids, on Saturday, January 2, 2021, 5:10-7:20 p.m. (Starz 2) / The Right Kind of Wrong, Wednesday, January 13, 3:25-5:05 p.m. (Starz 1)

The Hangover (2009) is a comedy film about three friends who wake up from a bachelor party in Las Vegas, with no memory of previous night and the bachelor missing. Bridesmaids (2011) is a romantic comedy about competition between the maid of honor and bridesmaid, over who is the bride’s best friend. The Right Kind of Wrong (2013) is a romantic comedy about a dishwasher that falls in love with a bride on the day of her wedding, to another man.

We assigned all three movies a 14+ AGVOT (Action Group on Violence in Television) which allows for "mature themes,” “strong or frequent use of profanity” and programming that "might contain intense scenes of violence." Under this classification code, "parents are strongly cautioned to exercise discretion in permitting viewing by pre-teens and early teens" as programming with this classification code "might not be suitable for viewers under the age of 14."

In addition, we aired The Hangover and The Right Kind of Wrong with a viewer advisory that states: “The following program is rated 14+ and contains scenes with coarse language, nudity and mature themes. Viewer Discretion is advised.” For Bridesmaids, we aired the following viewer advisory: “The following program is rated 14+ and contains scenes with coarse language and mature themes. Viewer Discretion is advised.

As a responsible broadcaster, we are confident in the steps we took to alert our viewers to the content of these films however we do recognize that there are limitations to what a rating can convey to a viewer. We also recognize that you were offended by the content regardless of our response and it is never our intention to offend any of our viewers, so I apologize to you in that regard.

We would like to emphasize that your comments are taken seriously and we truly appreciate your feedback and concern.

On February 4, the complainant wrote to the CBSC again:

Is a copy of the Pay TV codes available on the CBSC website?

I do not see it.

Thank you.

The CBSC replied on February 10:

The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC) has received your message of February 4, 2021.

In September 2017, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) merged the two categories of pay and specialty television into one called "discretionary services". The last of the pay stations operating under the old system had its licence renewed and its category changed in Summer 2020. The Pay TV Codes thus ceased to be applicable.

The CRTC still applies some of the code provisions to pay-per-view and video-on-demand services. Those services do not participate in the CBSC and the CBSC is no longer involved in the administration of those codes, so those codes are no longer on the CBSC website. The text of the codes can be found on the CRTC website at the following links:

INDUSTRY CODE OF PROGRAMMING STANDARDS AND PRACTICES GOVERNING PAY, PAY-PER-VIEW AND VIDEO-ON-DEMAND SERVICES https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2003/pb2003-10.htm

THE PAY TELEVISION AND PAY-PER-VIEW PROGRAMMING CODE REGARDING VIOLENCE https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/1994/pb94-155.htm

The complainant filed his Ruling Request on February 11:

On January 14, 2021 I received correspondence from [C. H.], Manager of Pay Programming, Bell Media in response to complaints I made regarding the Starz Movie channel airing the program High Fidelity S1 Ep 03 on December 21, 2020 at 4:45 pm and Ramy S1 E1 which aired on December 22, 2020 at 4:00 pm.

On February 1, 2021, I received a second correspondence from the same person regarding further complaints I made regarding the airing of three movies: The Hangover, Bridesmaids, and The Right Kind of Wrong, all which aired before the watershed hour of 9:00 pm.

I am now asking for a ruling to decide whether or not Starz has breached certain codes of ethics by showing these programs during the day, well before the watershed hour of 9:00 pm.

All 5 contained frequent use of the “F” word and in one a single utterance of the “C” word. Some of these programs also contained scenes depicting sexuality, which I feel, were intended for a mature audience only.

Furthermore, I will include concerns regarding the appropriateness of some of the viewer advisory ratings that were displayed at the commencement of some of the programs. As well, I will ask for clarification of what constitutes a company getting a designation of being a discretionary pay service.

Broadcaster Responsiveness

In their decisions, the CBSC Panels assess the broadcaster’s response to the complainant. I have only positive regard for the replies I received from [the Manager of Pay Programming]. They were respectful, professional and exceptionally prompt.

Discretionary Pay Service

In one of the responses I received from [the Manager of Pay Programming], she wrote:

There are elements of this statement that are not true, at least not for some.

On the CBSC website I found the following:

Discretionary services including pay television, PPV and VOD services are distinguished from conventional television, as they require an affirmative decision by a subscriber to purchase and receive them on an unencrypted basis in the home.

I am a resident of Quebec. The main cable providers in Quebec are Bell and Videotron. Both of these providers offer similar cable packages. One can opt for a basic or starter package, with the channels offered being limited to the CRTC’s minimum Canadian content requirement.

Anyone wanting more options chooses from an “à la carte” menu. This is the only option in Quebec, from both Bell and Videotron. They choose how many channels they want to watch from a list of choices. In the case of Videotron, for example, one can choose 5, 10, 20 or 30 channels at different price points. It is similar with Bell.

This is, I assume, the “conventional” television option mentioned above. Obviously one pays for this service, and one has to make an affirmative decision to watch any channel from the list. For example, I have to click to subscribe to “The Food Network”. So by the definition of a discretionary pay service above, the Food Network meets the criteria of being a discretionary pay television service, as does every other channel offered in the “à la carte” menu. Yet these channels are all governed by a different code of ethics as compared to some other channels, such as Starz, that are deemed as a discretionary pay service. If all channels technically meet the criteria of being a pay television service, there should only be one code.

I admit I am nitpicking. The work around is to tighten up your definition of discretionary pay service. This is not really my main point.

If I used Bell as my provider, I could not access Starz from their “à la carte” menu. I would have to pay $25 a month extra, as it is bundled with Crave and HBO. So for Bell subscribers, Starz is a discretionary pay service.

But Videotron offers Starz in their “à la carte” menu. Before getting the reply to my complaint, I had no idea that Starz was a “pay service”. As a Videotron subscriber, I could click off Starz as easily as BBC Canada, NBC, PBS or any of more than a hundred other choices. I do not pay more to be able to watch Starz. So for me (and every other Videotron subscriber), Starz is NOT a discretionary pay service, at least no more so than is BBC Canada, NBC, or PBS.

It is no secret that Videotron and Bell are in stiff competition with each other in their battle for the Quebec cable television market. I do not know where the money I pay Videotron each month goes exactly, but I assume some of it goes back to the company providing the content. So by subscribing to BBC Canada, I assume Videotron sends some money to BBC Canada.

Someone at Bell has made a deal with the people at Videotron to offer Starz as an option in their “à la carte” menu. If I am correct in how I assume the business works, Starz is getting money from Videotron. But by making this deal, as a Videotron subscriber, it means I am not paying extra to get Starz. So for me, Starz does not meet the criteria of being a discretionary pay service.

Quebec has a population of approximately 8.6 million people, or roughly 22.7% of the Canadian population. Roughly one in five Canadians is a Quebecer. Videotron has approximately 1.5 million cable subscribers, subscribers who do not have to pay extra for Starz. Given the numbers, I think that for Quebec residents Starz should be put in the same category as BBC Canada, NBC, PBS and all the other channels, and be governed by the conventional broadcasters code of ethics, not the more lenient discretionary pay television code. They shouldn’t be allowed to pick and chose from both worlds to suit their convenience in my opinion.

Viewer Advisories

With reference to my original complaints regarding the show Ramy and High Fidelity, [the Manager of Pay Programming] wrote:

I agree with that rating for High Fidelity. While I also agree with that rating for the Ramy series as a whole, it is my understanding that the rating for an individual episode in a series should be modified if that particular episode depicts activity outside that noted in the rating for the series as a whole.

At about the 20 minute mark of the Ramy episode “Between the Toes” (S1 E1), the main character is ending a date with a woman. She invites him into her car and begins to initiate sex. She begins kissing him, and then takes his hand and puts it up her sweater to her breast. She then reaches for his crotch and begins to rub it. Ramy expresses reluctance, which the woman interprets to mean that Ramy does not want intercourse. After some discussion she says that’s fine, and then climbs on top of him. After more kissing the woman says “Choke me while I finger myself”. He initially but somewhat reluctantly puts his hands around her neck. She continues to writhe on his lap and begins to moan. She tells him to do it harder. When he doesn’t, she gets off him and rebukes him.

The scene is more than a minute in duration, and I believe is beyond the viewer advisory description supplied.

Regarding The Hangover, Bridesmaids, The Right Kind of Wrong, [the Manager of Pay Programming] wrote:

In addition, we aired The Hangover and The Right Kind of Wrong with a viewer advisory that states: “The following program is rated 14+ and contains scenes with coarse language, nudity and mature themes. Viewer Discretion is advised.” For Bridesmaids, we aired the following viewer advisory: “The following program is rated 14+ and contains scenes with coarse language and mature themes. Viewer Discretion is advised.

The term “mature themes” is quite vague. Depictions of suicide or bulimia are mature themes. The question is how graphic must a depiction of sexuality be to move a show with a rating of 14A from being shown before 9:00 pm to after that time?

Both Bridesmaids and The Hangover, for their theatrical release, were rated R. The Canadian rating system seems more vague and thus more open to interpretation. But if the 14A rating can be modified with different disclaimers, as evidenced from [the Manager of Pay Programming]’s reply, then why could not the phrase “includes scenes with sexuality” be added?

In fact I’m pretty sure I have seen that descriptor added, but it always seemed to be for programs that aired after 9:00 pm. Could it be that by adding that descriptor, the network would have to air the program after 9:00 pm?

In past decisions, various CBSC panels have stated that a scene does not have to include nudity for it to be sexual. Bridesmaids opens with a fairly prolonged depiction of a couple having sex, in various positions. As such, I feel it is a program that should have been aired after 9:00 pm.

While The Hangover has scenes of nudity (not mentioned in the advisor warning), if one watches to the credits, one sees quite explicit “vacation” photos. Although brief, in one of them it is long enough to clearly see a man with his erect penis protruding from his pants receiving fellatio from a woman on her knees, and in the next photo, the same woman has turned towards the camera while still holding an exposed erect penis. Not suitable pre-watershed viewing in my opinion. (In many places in Canada, The Hangover gets an 18+ rating.)

Similarly, there are sex scenes in The Right Kind of Wrong not mentioned in the advisory. It will be up to the Panel to decide if they were graphic enough to warrant viewing only after 9:00 pm.

Language

In previous correspondence I have outlined the types and amount of coarse language used in the three movies. Both of the series I complained about have fairly extensive use of coarse language, language which previous panels have ruled as being suitable only in programming aired after 9:00 pm despite any advisory warnings posted at the show’s commencement.

Commentary on a previous decision, which I feel, is relevant.

Super Channel Vault re Friday the 13th: Part VII, Saw 3D, Pet Sematary, Zero Dark Thirty & Super Channel Fuse re A Cure for Wellness & GINX eSports re The First Hour, Squad, GINX Plays

ENGLISH-LANGUAGE PANEL

CBSC Decision 20.1920-0907

2020 CBSC 3

July 8, 2020

S. Courtemanche (Chair), S. Crawford, K. Gifford, P. Gratton, R. Hutson, S. Makela

“Dissenting Opinion of P. Gratton and S. Crawford”

With regards to the use of the words “fuck” and “cunt” in Friday the 13th: Part VII – The New Blood, we consider that the CBSC is out of touch with community standards of what constitutes appropriate and acceptable mature material for broadcast purposes especially in relation to the use of coarse or offensive language on a pay TV service. The reality is that many theatrically released movies contain coarse and offensive language and they receive a PG rating.

With regards to the PG rating comment, I do not think it is entirely accurate. Profanity may be present in PG rated films, but the use of one of the harsher "sexually-derived words" as an expletive will initially incur at least a PG-13 rating. Usually more than one “F” bomb moves it to an even higher category.

I found it odd that when trying to decide on whether or not the level of violence was beyond community standards, the Panel made thorough references to CRTC studies and Supreme Court of Canada rulings. When it came to the language issue, only personal opinion was presented.

We are all capable of unconscious bias. Humans are tribal. We tend to hang with our own. If one swears often, hangs around others who do likewise, have no qualms watching films that contain a lot of swearing, listen to music with profanity, then it is easy to think that the use of these words is ubiquitous, and becoming more and more prevalent. But studies to prove this are hard to come by because it was not studied decades ago, and so there is nothing to compare with.

Other studies have shown that for most people, swear words are a pretty constant 0.5% of words spoken. This restraint isn’t accidental. Most of us have the common sense not to spoil profanity by using it too much.

Yet many might agree with the statement that swearing is becoming more prevalent.

Why do we overestimate how much we swear? How can our impressions of the speech all around us be so wrong?

We notice profanity just because we use it so infrequently. Even though it’s familiar, it can take us by surprise, so we tend to overestimate its role in speech.

One might also consider that those who write and produce movies may identify much more than average with individualism. As such, they incorporate into their films a flaunting of societal norms, including inserting more than an average amount of swearing. We get used to it. But this doesn’t mean that the silent majority necessarily approve. I would not take the scarcity of complaints to the CBSC to mean acceptance and a changing of community standards. One who need further study to substantiate any such claim.

In previous decisions, the CBSC has at times tried to find studies about how people rate various curse words, from least to most offensive. In one decision, they quoted from a British study. While there are dangers in extrapolating the findings from one culture and projecting their relevance into another, the “C” word consistently comes out as the most offensive.

In a very unscientific study of my female acquaintances, there was near uniform consensus that the word was abhorrent, consistent with the British study.

In the film Bridesmaids there is a scene where the “C” word is uttered. Given how reviled the word is, I think even a single utterance is enough for an after 9:00 only viewing.

Thank you for your time in attending to this matter.

APPENDIX B

Both Starz 1 and 2 are broadcast from Toronto on Eastern Time.

A description and transcription of the most relevant scenes from each broadcast are provided below.

Starz 1

High Fidelity (“What F*cking Lily Girl?”)

December 21, 2020

4:45 pm

High Fidelity is an American romantic comedy television series from 2020 based on the 1995 novel of the same name by Nick Hornby. The program focuses on the lovelife of Robyn “Rob” Brooks, a woman who owns a record store in New York City. Robyn frequently talks directly to the camera. This episode is entitled “What F*cking Lily Girl?”.

16:45:22

The following words appear on screen:

The following program is rated

14+

Viewer discretion is advised

CL – Coarse Language

MT – Mature Themes

At the same time, a voice-over states:

The following program is rated 14+ and contains scenes with coarse language and mature themes. Viewer discretion is advised.

16:45:35

The 14+ AGVOT icon appears in the upper-left corner of the screen for 18 seconds.

16:45:32

The screen is black but the viewer hears Robyn shouting: What fucking Lily girl!

Robyn talks directly to camera. She rants about how her ex-boyfriend, Mac, didn’t know anyone named Lily before, so he must have met her in the three weeks he’s been back in New York.

Robyn: I mean, three weeks. How serious could it even be? I mean, what do people who have been together for three weeks even do? They have sex. Just constantly have sex.

16:48:16

Robyn’s brother Cameron tells her that Mac has been dating a woman named Lily for over a year whom he met in London.

Rob: You’re just telling me this now?! Jesus Christ, whose side are you on? What the fuck?

16:51:39

Robyn is smoking a cigarette in her store’s office and is clearly upset. She tells her co-worker/friend Simon that her ex-boyfriend is dating someone named Lily. Rob admits she has been looking at Mac’s Instagram account.

Simon: She’s probably just some dumb cunt.

[...]

Robyn: I mean, look at this shit. [she picks up her cellphone and scrolls; Simon looks at it] I found her profile, right? It’s just all dogs and sunsets and flowers and cocktails and dogs and flowers and sunsets.

Simon: Gross.

Robyn: Gross.

Simon: You just want to see her face?

Robyn: Yeah. I guess I just want to see her dumb whore face. That felt, yeah, that felt terrible.

Simon: Right.

Robyn: I just want to know what kind of person she is.

Simon: [now scrolling through the cellphone himself while Rob sits across from him; he stops on a photo showing the word Frose with a photo of a drink] Apparently she’s the kind of person who enjoys Frosés.

Robyn: What the fuck is a Frosé?

Simon: Evidently it’s something you do “all day” [Simon makes air quotes].

Their other co-worker/friend Cherise bursts into the office.

Cherise: He’s in here.

Robyn: Who’s in here?

Cherise: Who’s in here? Liam. The dope-ass, fine-ass, Scottish singer Liam is in the motherfucking store!

16:56:06

Robyn passes an establishment that has a sign outside advertising Frosés. She goes in and sits down.

Robyn: What in the shit am I doing here?

Robyn orders a Frosé and looks around at the other women in the café wondering if any of them is Mac’s new girlfriend.

Robyn: Since I’ve never seen the bitch, every single one of them may as well be Lily. [she takes a sip of the drink] It’s fucking delicious.

16:59:09

Cherise is at a bar with Liam, talking about the music business. He offers some insights on how to make it in the business.

Cherise: That is some real heavy shit.

17:01:55

Robyn & Liam are standing outside the bar. Liam has taken a glass out with him.

Robyn: You’re a classy bitch, you know that?

Liam: Well, I need some glasses in my apartment.

Robyn: Sounds like a shithole.

17:03:17

Liam & Robyn are at his apartment. Liam asks her about the ex for whom she made a playlist. She realizes that Simon must have told Liam about her situation.

Robyn: Wow, Simon. Fuck you, Simon. Oh my god.

They tell each other about their exes.

Robyn: Mac. And Mac just moved back with a girl.

Liam: And?

Robyn: Named Lily. Which is a total bullshit name.

Liam: Terrible name.

Robyn: Fucking bullshit name, right?

Liam: Yeah.

Robyn: And, um, and I don’t know. She just seems so ... different.

Liam: Different how?

Robyn: Well, first of all, she seems like a fucking bitch.

Liam: Of course, yeah.

Robyn: I’ve never met her, but she seems like a fucking bitch.

[...]

Robyn: You know, it’s like, it’s like you’re with someone. Right? And you’re, like, one person. You become a part of them. And then you’re not with them, and they become like this fucking stranger. You know?

Liam & Robyn start kissing passionately. He mentions that he graduated high school a year ago. Robyn is surprised and gets up and leaves. She is in the hallway of his apartment building and addresses the camera.

Robyn: He’s a fucking child!

17:07:52

Robyn arrives at the store the next day. Simon tells her he found a photo of Lily. He starts explaining the elaborate way he found the photo online.

Robyn: Can you show me the fucking photo, man?

17:08:45

Robyn is depressed and drinking at a bar.

Robyn: Cam’s right. I’m stuck in a dysfunctional fucking loop.

17:10:10

Robyn phones the number of the boy she dated in middle school, Kevin Bannister. She talks to his mother who tells her that Kevin married his first and only girlfriend, Hannah Sheppard. Robyn hangs up.

Robyn: Holy shit. Kevin married Hannah.

Ramy (“Between the Toes”)

December 22, 2020

4:00 pm

Ramy is American comedy-drama series about Ramy, a young Egyptian-Muslim man in New Jersey trying to navigate love and life while balancing the pressures of his parents and religious community on the one hand and millennial values and culture on the other. This episode, entitled “Between the Toes” was the first episode in the series.

16:00:14

The following words appear on screen:

The following program is rated

14+

Viewer discretion is advised

CL – Coarse Language

MT – Mature Themes

At the same time, a voice-over states:

The following program is rated 14+ and contains scenes with coarse language and mature themes. Viewer discretion is advised.

16:00:23

The 14+ AGVOT icon appears in the upper-left corner for 17 seconds.

16:05:51

There is a quick short scene of Ramy lying back on a bed with a young woman, Chloe, on top of him kissing. He struggles to get his shirt off while the woman undoes her belt. The scene then cuts to Ramy lying with his shirt off and eyes open in the dark, with the woman asleep next to him.

The scene cuts to Ramy in the bathroom filling his used condom with water. He pinches the top and examines it with the semen floating in the bottom. Chloe comes into the bathroom.

Chloe: Ramy?

Ramy: Um.

Chloe: What are you doing?

Ramy: I was just ...

Chloe: Is that the condom that we just used?

Ramy: Yeah, I was just, you know, ...

Chloe: Cleaning it? Or ...?

Ramy: I was just checking if there were any holes in it. You know?

Chloe: Why would there be a hole?

Ramy: You ever see the way they ship these things? It’s like on a truck. There’s a bunch of dudes. Like, who are those dudes? I don’t know them. You don’t know, so, you know, so, just to make sure there isn’t a faulty one or anything.

Chloe: And you do this every time we have sex?

Ramy: Yeah, I mean, it just, it just takes a sec.

Chloe mentions that she is offended and explains that she is on the birth control pill so they don’t really have to worry and even if something happened they would take care of it. Ramy says he’s Muslim so he just prefers that they not be put in a situation where they have to take care of it. Chloe says she thought he was Muslim in the same way that she is Jewish, it’s cultural only. She comments that he drinks alcohol. Ramy clarifies that he has bought his friends drinks, but doesn’t drink alcohol himself.

Chloe: Oh, okay. So you get girls drunk and stay sober so you can sleep with them.

Ramy: What?

Chloe: That feels kind of date-rapey.

Ramy: That’s not what I do. That’s not date-rapey. If anything, I’m taking alcohol out of the equation. I’m like a designated driver.

16:09:53

Ramy is looking at his cellphone, scrolling through what his friend Steve calls “Muslim Tinder”, i.e. a match-making web app for Muslims.

Steve: Dude, why’d you swipe no on her? You’re swiping no on all the girls that have scarves.

Ramy: Dude, no. It’s just, she’s not my vibe.

Steve: You’re fucking racist.

Ramy: How is that racist? Headscarf’s not a race. It’s something that people wear.

Steve asks Ramy if Ramy has ever dated a Muslim girl. Ramy says no, but that is why he is looking at this app. Steve insists Ramy is racist.

Ramy: Islam’s not a race. It’s something you believe in.

Steve: You don’t believe in shit.

Steve tries to convince Ramy to “swipe right” on a young woman’s photo. Ramy resists, insisting he is not interested in her.

Steve: You’re looking at a picture. You’re a shallow fuck. Thank you.

16:11:45

Ramy is having dinner with his parents and sister Dena. He mentions that he would like his parents to set him up with a Muslim woman.

Dena: Are you fucking kidding me?

mother: [in Arabic with English subtitles] And Muhammad is his messenger.

Dena: You had one lonely day at a wedding. And now you want Mom to set you up?

Ramy: This has nothing to do with you.

Dena: Of course it does. If you get married, they’re going to start putting pressure on me to start a family and stare at my stomach like it’s the answer to their midlife crisis. I don’t need that shit right now.

[...]

mother: My little man became a big man!

Dena: Bullshit! You’re just filling this void inside of you with a woman and it’s ruining my life. Fuck you, Ramy. Stupid bitch.

mother: Dena!

16:14:37

Ramy is on a date with a young Muslim woman named Nour at an Egyptian restaurant and it is off to an awkward start. A couple of boisterous Italian men who know Ramy approach the table. The introduce themselves to Ramy’s date as Joey and Johnny.

Joey: Yo, fucking Ramy, look at this guy!

Johnny: This motherfucker!

Joey: How you doin’?

Johnny: Bro, we haven’t seen you in forever. How’s it going?

[...]

Joey: You guys try the falafels here? They’re bomb as shit!

Johnny: Bomb as fucking shit.

16:17:44

Ramy & Nour are walking back to her car at the end of their date.

Nour: So, for something my mom helped set up, this wasn’t too bad?

Ramy: Yeah, Tinder doesn’t really have shit on our moms.

Nour kisses Ramy passionately and invites him into her car where they kiss some more. Nour takes Ramy’s hand and puts it up her sweater to touch her breast. She rubs her hand between Ramy’s legs. Ramy says “whoa, whoa” and, between kisses, she asks if he is okay.

Ramy: Yeah.

Nour: Do you have a condom?

Ramy: Yeah, but, um ...

Nour: What, you don’t have sex?

Ramy: Yeah, but I, I didn’t know if, if you could, you know, just ʼcause we’re not married.

Nour: Oh, I didn’t even know you were that strict. I mean, yeah, we can get married. Um, my cousin does, like, nikahs over the phone. If you want to do like a temporary marriage, there’s like this imam –

Ramy explains that he is not suggesting that they “trick God”, only that they slow things down. Nour says okay and that there are other things they can do. She then straddles Ramy and they keep kissing passionately.

Nour: Yeah, right there. Choke me while I finger myself.

Ramy: What?

Nour: I want you to choke me.

Ramy tentatively puts one hand on Nour’s neck.

Ramy: Uhh.

Nour: Use both hands.

Ramy: Are you sure?

Ramy puts both hands around her throat as she becomes more aroused.

Nour: Harder. [she moves her hips in arousal] Like, actually harder. It’s not a massage. [Ramy adjusts his hands] Yeah.

Nour grunts in arousal as Ramy keeps holding her neck, but looks very reluctant.

Ramy: No. No.

Nour: Don’t stop. What?

Ramy: I don’t want to do this.

Nour: No, what? Why?

Ramy: I’m not into choking. I don’t want to choke you.

Nour gets off of Ramy and sits beside him.

Nour: God, you’re so full of shit.

Ramy: What?

Nour: It’s not choking that’s the problem.

Ramy: Look, it’s our first date and I feel like maybe this is happening –

Nour: What, you don’t hook up on the first date? [Ramy just looks at her] Yeah, that’s what I thought.

Ramy: Look, this is, like, just throwing me for a loop a little bit. I didn’t think that a girl like you was going to want to –

Nour: A girl like me? Look, we had this really nice night and you felt weirded out by the idea of kissing me. I get it if you don’t want to have sex, but I’m, like, in this little Muslim box in your head and I’m the wife or the mother of your kids. Right? I’m not supposed to come.

Ramy: Okay, I’ll choke you.

Nour: Just get out of my car.

16:22:31

Ramy’s date did not end well. Ramy is walking down the street when he notices an older man, Old Hajj, whom he met at his mosque at the beginning of the episode. Ramy sits down and starts talking to the man.

Ramy: And I believe in god. I really do, man. There’s too many signs. Like, one time this girl texted me two minutes after I jerked off to her Facebook photo. Like, we didn’t talk for months and then out of nowhere she texted me “ʼsup?”. Can you tell me this shit isn’t all connected? ... I know it is. And, yeah, I have sex even though I’m not married. And I’m probably going to try mushrooms one day. So what? That means I’m not a good Muslim? I can’t do it because I don’t follow all the rules and the fucking judgments that are always just being put on us. And then, I do the same thing. I put the same fucking judgments on everyone around me. I’m just, like, trying to be good. Do you, you really think god cares if I wash between my toes?

Old Hajj: [after long pause] You jerk off too much. It’s no good. No good at all. And wash between your toes.

The Right Kind of Wrong

January 13, 2021

3:25 pm

The Right Kind of Wrong is a 2013 Canadian comedy film about a man named Leo Palamino who falls for a woman, Colette, on her wedding day. The movie follows his efforts to win her affections.

At the beginning of the broadcast, the following words appear on screen:

The following program is rated

14+

Viewer discretion is advised

V - Violence

CL – Coarse Language

N - Nudity

MT – Mature Themes

At the same time, a voice-over states:

The following program is rated 14+ and contains scenes with violence, coarse language, nudity and mature themes. Viewer discretion is advised.

15:26:00

The 14+ AGVOT icon appears in the upper-left corner for 18 seconds.

15:36:36

Leo is depressed after separating from his wife. He lives across the street from a church. One day he sees a wedding party outside the church and is instantly smitten with the bride, Colette. He sneaks into the wedding. An older woman sits beside him and talks to him. The woman, Tess, gives him a ride to the reception. They are outside the reception venue talking. Tess explains she does not believe Colette is really in love with the groom.

Leo: So why’s she doing it?

Tess: Issues with her mother. Her dad was this handsome war journalist. Also her mom’s a professor. Also complete shit.

15:39:25

At the wedding reception, Leo is talking to Colette and Danny after they both realize Leo is not either of their friends.

Danny: You keyed my car.

Leo: Your Hummer. Yes.

Colette: You had a Hummer?

Danny: Just for a few months.

Leo: You have to be kind of a dick to drive a Hummer. And you should not be with a dick. You should be with me.

Danny: This is a joke, right?

Leo shakes his head no. Colette punches Leo in the face.

Leo: Holy shit, that hurt.

Leo tries to run away, but Danny and his friends chase him. They realize he is the ex-husband of the woman who recently got a book deal after writing a blog about how much Leo sucks. They discuss whether to beat Leo up.

Danny: Didn’t she get a book deal too? Bro, that’s gotta hurt.

Troy: Nothing like he’s going to hurt when I pulverise him, piece of shit.

15:45:02

Colette & Danny arrive back at their villa to find sunflowers all around. Colette is happy and assumes the flowers are from Danny, but he says they are not. Danny reads the card, which is signed “Leo Palamino”.

Colette: Is he out of his fucking mind?

Colette throws the sunflowers away.

The scene cuts to Leo’s friend Neil talking to Leo.

Neil: You are out of your fucking mind.

Neil’s wife Jill joins them. Neil shows Leo a photo on his cellphone. Leo leans forward to see better, then turns away in disgust.

Neil: Dude. Thanks to a congenital defect, she has three of those.

Leo [in voice-over narration]: Jill and Neil are obsessed with taking disgusting, way-too-intimate pictures of each other with their phones.

Jill & Neil make eyes at each other. Neil stands up to follow her.

Neil: Hey man, lock up. I have to violate my wife. [winks]

Neil & Jill playfully chase each other around.

Leo [in voice-over narration]: To be their friend is to be party to a lot of alarming foreplay for sex you’ll never have.

Neil has Jill pinned against a post in their house. Neil slaps her buttocks and then chases her into another room. Leo watches them go.

Leo: They make me believe in love.

15:46:56

There is a flashback to 14 months ago when Leo first broke up with his wife. He is at a bar and a woman in a cowboy hat is hitting on him.

Leo [in voice-over narration]: There were benefits to my notoriety. Notoriety aided by dollar-a-shot Wednesdays.

There is a very quick scene of the woman’s feet in the air wearing boots and her crying out in pleasure.

Leo [in voice-over narration]: Of which I am king.

Leo is at the bar with a different woman. The scene then cuts to Leo, shirtless, lying on bed. There is a woman straddling him and their movements and her groans indicate they are having intercourse, but the camera angle is such that the viewer does not see the woman. The scene quickly cuts to Leo with another woman, Kingsley. Kingsley is lying on a bed with bare breasts visible, groaning in pleasure. Leo’s head is between her legs, implying he is performing cunnilingus. Kingsley groans in climax and then lifts her head up to look at Leo.

Kingsley: You’re aces at that, mate.

The camera angle switches so Kingsley’s bare breasts are shown in profile and Leo’s bare buttocks are visible. Kingsley sits up and stands up, so that her bare buttocks are visible as she walks into the nearby bathroom. Leo sits up on the bed.

Kingsley: Okay. Gotta pee. Or I get wicked bladder infections.

Leo [in voice-over narration]: Yes, there are worse ways to mourn the loss of a relationship. But sex with strangers, even leggy, weirdly vocal ones with a blasé attitude is an alienating excuse for love.

15:50:32

Leo is at the tour company that Colette owns. She does walking tours of the town where they live. He spots Colette in her office. The woman at the counter shouts “Leo Palamino!”. Leo realizes it is Kingsley from the bar.

Kingsley: Last time I saw you, you were downtown.

Leo: Yeah.

Kingsley: Between my legs.

Leo: Yep.

Kingsley: Sucking my oyster.

Leo: I like to keep the disturbing euphemisms to the heat of the moment. I’m kind of old fashioned that way.

Kingsley: Yeah, yeah. Got it, mate. But if there was a licensing board for muff diving –

Leo: Can I get a ticket?

Colette is giving her tour and Leo has bought a ticket for it. She gives city councillor Debrugan the middle finger.

15:54:19

Leo and Neil are standing outside watching Jill hang glide.

Neil: My wife flies. That’s cool. Also she made my ball sack a Twitter account.

Neil sends Leo a link to the Twitter account via their cellphones. Leo looks at his phone and reads, “Hi, I’m Neil’s ball sack.” He looks in disgust at the phone screen.

Leo: That’s just wrong, man. I don’t want your balls on my phone.

Neil: If they say wiser, hilarious things you do. [Neil types something else into his phone]

Leo: [looks at his phone again and reads] “It’s dark in here and Neil’s jeans stink.”

Neil tries to hold in his laughter while Leo gives him a look implying he does not find it funny.

15:58:54

Neil is sitting in his vehicle outside the art gallery where Jill is talking to Troy Garnet, spying on them. Garnet is helping Jill show her work and was also one of the groomsmen at Danny & Colette’s wedding. Leo has pulled up beside Neil on his bicycle. Jill notices Neil outside.

Neil: Ah, ff [car horn beeps]. Shit! They saw us. Great. Move your bike. Just try not to act like the dick who crashed his best friend’s wedding.

16:00:04

Leo is at work at the restaurant where he works as a dishwasher. He is talking to his co-worker Mandeep about trying to win over Colette.

Mandeep: When I met Pooja, she was betrothed to a bricklayer’s son cum internet millionaire.

Leo: So what did you do?

Mandeep: Challenged him to a duel.

Leo: Jesus! You duelled him?

Mandeep: No. I just love how you believe any crazy shit I say about India.

16:00:39

Colette and Kingsley are at the tour company. Kingsley is going through the mail.

Kingsley: I’ve got some new ideas for the tour. That woman wrote in again about her racy doll collection. And another guy sent in a picture of his penis. And times it’ll be available for viewing.

16:04:59

Colette & Danny are with Danny’s friends reading the blog that Leo’s ex-wife wrote about him.

female friend: Wait, “Horny and Inappropriate Places”. That’s funny. “Places that make my husband horny”. My nephew’s baptism.

Danny: Of course.

female friend: The dealership where we refinanced our Toyota. My aunt’s funeral.

Troy Cooper: Sick.

Danny: Yeah, that’s totally sick.

16:06:05

Danny is golfing with his two friends Troy Garnet and Troy Cooper, along with Cooper’s younger brother, Sean. Sean uses a slingshot to hit a golfer in the distance.

golfer: [?] you little shit!

[...]

Cooper: Anyhow, as I’ve been saying all along, what Leo Palamino needs is a shit-kicking.

Danny: No, Coop. I will not concede the moral high ground to this asshole. We are adults and adults do not shit-kick.

16:07:52

Sean Cooper and his friends have surrounded Leo in an alleyway at night. Leo tells them they are nice kids who will go on to do great things.

kid: Is that sarcasm?

Leo: Yeah. The way you’re blindly following this dipshit, I see remedial classes and meth mouth.

The boys kick and punch Leo.

16:10:50

Leo is at a bar with Neil and Mandeep getting drunk. Neil informs Leo that there is a drinking game whereby if people see him at a bar and hear him say “I love you”, they drink. A group at a nearby table has been playing the game all night. Leo gets up on the bar and points at the group.

Leo: You’re assholes! You know that? But I love you.

Everyone in the bar cheers and takes a drink.

16:14:06

Colette sees that Leo is in line for her tour again.

Colette: Kingsley, I told you not to sell him anymore tickets! Kingsley, you’re my front line of defence against this idiot.

Kingsley: I know. But he got beat up. Also, I slept with him last year. So I might be a sort of compromised front line of defence. Great at oral.

Colette: Didn’t ask.

Kingsley: But you wanted to. And I’m not talking about a little booty kiss to say I’m a giver, let’s ball.

16:16:05

Danny and his friends are discussing how to get at Leo. Cooper’s younger brother, Sean, comes over to them.

Sean: You didn’t tell me he’s a drug dealer, dick.

16:26:26

Troy Cooper & a policer officer are at Leo’s door.

Leo: Officer. Prettier of the Troys.

Cooper: Fuck you, dishwasher.

The officer tells Leo to get rid of his marijuana plant.

Leo: I probably won’t. Just being honest.

Officer: And I probably won’t give a shit.

16:18:52

Leo is on Colette’s tour again. He asks her why she stole the New York Times newspaper from the café.

Leo: Your little “fuck you” to the man?

16:21:05

Leo overhears two women talking about him based on his wife’s book.

Leo: Yes, I’m him. Yes, I make snap judgments. Yes, I walked from a publishing deal. Yes, one very humid day after way too much sangria, I shit myself in Paris!

16:23:28

Leo is talking to Colette’s mother, Tess.

Tess: If I were twenty years younger and not in a committed polyamorous relationship with some people in Anchorage, I would, I’d fuck you.

Leo: That is the nicest thing the mother of anyone I’ve loved has ever said.

[...]

Tess: My ex-husband, the asshole who broke my heart, no, eviscerated my heart, when he was in the field reporting on some African dictator, he would focus on proving just one of the dictator’s claims as fraud. Because if you can disprove one thing a person in power says, people will question everything else they say. Just a thought.