see more crazy cat pics

Bratz
CITV, 15 March 2006, 16:30
ITV, 28 April 2006, 16:00

Introduction

Two viewers complained about the use of the word "spaz" in these episodes of the children's series Bratz.

Both complainants felt that the word is a 'deeply offensive' and 'derogatory' term referring to a disability. They were particularly concerned that it was used as an insult in a programme made specifically for a child audience.

Response

ITV said that it had reviewed the tapes prior to transmission. In the programme of 15 March 2006, it had considered the term to be borderline but within the bounds of acceptability because it was used as a derogatory term by one of the 'bad' characters in the series. In addition, it was not a reference to an actual disability. Later in the same scene the insulted character demanded an apology and was given one a few seconds later. The broadcaster therefore initially felt that, on balance, the use of the term was acceptable because it was not used by a 'role model' and was seen to merit an apology and was therefore clearly 'wrong'.

However, after being made aware of viewer concern about the term, ITV had since undertaken a review of all episodes of Bratz and removed any terminology which might be considered unacceptable.

ITV had also taken steps to remind colleagues handling similar material to take particular care with language in this area, especially in relation to US acquired material that on occasion contained terms that had more scope for offence in this country [Great Britain] than the US.

Decision

Ofcom's research (Language and Sexual Imagery in Broadcasting: A Contextual Investigation - 2005) indicated that respondents considered the word 'spastic' to be very offensive to most people, although a few thought that it was permissible to use the word 'spas' or 'spaz'.

Rule 1.16 of the Broadcasting Code states that:

"Offensive language must not be broadcast before the watershed, or when children are particularly likely to be listening, unless it is justified by the context. In any event, frequent use of such language must be avoided before the watershed'.

The word 'spaz' does not necessarily cause the same level of offence in America and therefore its use in acquired programmes such as this series presents UK broadcasters with editing and scheduling judgements.

In this instance ITV had considered the first of the two instances borderline but justified by the fact that the character who used the term was known to be a 'bad' character, had been made to apologise and the word was not used as a reference to a specific disability.

Judgements about the inclusion of such words are particularly complex when used within a programme for younger children who will not necessarily have the maturity to understand the associated context. The fact that the word "spaz" was not used in reference to a specific disability may not negate its potential for causing offence.

We note the action taken by ITV to try to avoid similar future occurrences, and consider the matter resolved.

Resolved