May 7, 2015 3:06 PM PDT    Text size: 

LONDON — Mistress R’eal, the dominatrix whose scenes on Clips4Sale.com were the subject of a recent ATVOD probe and determination, has appealed the U.K. video-on-demand regulator’s decision that she breached Rule 14.

Under Rule 14, which stems from the Audiovisual Media Services Regulations (AVMS) 2014 law placed into law in December, video-on-demand website content that would be denied a British Board of Film Classification certificate can't be streamed in the U.K.

ATVOD’s ruling against Mistress R’eal for Rule 14 violations was one of two announced Tuesday. Glasgow Mistress Megara Furie, who also was fingered for similar violations, closed her service with three days of a probe by the regulator.

With her appeal, Mistress R’eal also is challenging the legitimacy of the AVMS 2014 law. Currently, she faces a £10,000 fine and a ban on streaming online.

ATVOD in its complaint against Mistress R’eal noted a number of  preview and paid-for-content scenes that breached Rule 14: “A Bullwhipping in the Woods,” parts 1 and 2, and “Double Domme CBT and Pegs.”

The scenes are explicit in the films, but they are like most BDSM content shown on a countless number of websites.

For example, in “Double Domme CBT and Pegs,” "a man is retrained against a cross and has weights attached to his bound scrotum, several pegs attached to his body, and a violet wand played over his genitals," according to ATVOD.

“While his arms appear to be free initially, it's implied (and seems to be the case) that his wrists are restrained quite early in the clip. He is also gagged (and appears to be unable to speak with any real clarity) and has his legs bound. Hence his means of clearly indicating a withdrawal of consent is not apparent,” ATVOD said in its ruling over Rule 14 violations.

Mistress R’eal yesterday appealed against ATVOD’s ruling that her site is in breach of regulations on the basis that the AVMS 2014 is not valid.

Her appeal, according to SexAndCensorship.org, says the following:

“I submit that the Audiovisual Media Services Regulations 2014, which introduced sections 368E(2) and (3) into the Communications Act 2003, were made ultra vires the Secretary of State’s power to pass secondary legislation under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. Section 2(2) gives the Secretary of State the power to pass secondary legislation for the purpose of implementing any EU obligation or for the purpose of dealing with matters arising out of or related to EU obligations. I note that the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (2010/13/EU) imposes an obligation on Member States to prohibit hate speech on ODPS (Art. 6); by contrast, it does not contain any obligation to ban content that may be harmful to minors from ODPS, only an obligation to ensure that access to such content is appropriately restricted (Article 12). In the premises, I fail to see how the 2014 Regulations (and, by extension, section 368E(2) & (3) of the 2003 Act), could be said to implement an obligation in the AVMS Directive or to deal with matters arising out of related to that Directive. The 2014 Regulations plainly go well beyond the scope of the directive — and, in doing so, subvert the appropriate democratic process for dealing with an important human rights (free speech) issue. In light of the foregoing, I submit that the 2014 Regulations and sections 368E(2)-(3), CA2003 are void — as so, by extension, is ATVOD’s Rule 14, which is based solely on the aforementioned sections of the Communications Act 2003.”