Ofcom Boss: Landmark UK Supreme Court Ruling On Definition Of A Woman 'May Affect' How Regulator Judges Complaints About TV Shows

Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience.
Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience.
Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience. Generate Key Takeaways
The landmark UK Supreme Court ruling on the definition of a woman could play a part in Ofcom's assessment of complaints about TV shows, according to the regulator's CEO.
Melanie Dawes acknowledged to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee (CMSC) today that last month's controversial judgement, which defines a woman by biological sex, 'is relevant and may affect how we approach any assessment of a complaint.'
More from Deadline
She stressed that Ofcom 'did not and does not give guidance to TV or radio companies about how they should handle questions of gender identity and sex-based rights.'
Several years back, Dawes was quoted chastising the BBC for its 'extremely inappropriate' decision to 'balance' appearances by transgender people on current affairs shows with activists from anti-trans pressure groups.
But today Dawes said 'I think there was a bit of confusion around that story' as she noted the complexity of the Supreme Court ruling.
In what was an extremely high-profile case, the Supreme Court ruled that women can only now be legally defined by biological sex, which has already led to rule changes in areas including trans women competing in sports.
Last week, Deadline revealed that the likes of The Last of Us star Bella Ramsey, Babygirl's Harris Dickinson and Bridgerton's Nicola Coughlan were among more than 400 industry professionals to sign an open letter calling for industry action on trans rights. Another signee, Paapa Essiedu, generated headlines over the weekend after staunch anti-trans campaigner J.K. Rowling – who celebrated the Supreme Court ruling on social media – said his advocating for trans rights would not impact his position in the upcoming Harry Potter HBO series.
Michael Grade, Ofcom Chair and an ex-BBC, ITV and Channel 4 boss, said there will be 'endless debates going on inside newsrooms, current affairs teams and doc-makers about how to make sure they don't fall foul of the [Supreme Court] act going forwards.'
'It is for them to decide,' he added. 'It is for us to step in post-transmission if there is a complaint, and we would look at that.'
'GB News has significantly improved'
GB News presenter Jacob Rees-Mogg
During a wide-ranging committee session, Dawes revealed that Ofcom will in a few days' time unveil the results of its consultation on the rules over politicians presenting news and current affairs programmes, which was sparked by various impartiality breaches by right-leaning firebrand network GB News.
Having lost a landmark legal battle against GB News over a report by presenter and ex-politician Jacob Rees-Mogg, Dawes sought to calm the waters today.
'GB News has had specific issues around the code but in the recent past their compliance record has been significantly improved,' she added. 'Ultimately that is what we are aiming for, to get compliance of the code and allow for free expression while safeguarding standards for the public.'
Dawes and Grade stressed the need to balance free expression with due impartiality several times during the CMSC hearing. While audiences do not want to see politicians presenting straight news shows, Dawes said they would not want to ban them from presenting current affairs chatshows.
The execs were also grilled on the rumors around foreign buyers Banijay and RedBird IMI taking interest in acquiring ITV or its production arm ITV Studios.
RedBird IMI, which is a state-funded enterprise of the United Arab Emirates, was blocked from buying British newspaper The Telegraph last year and Dawes said Ofcom may play a role 'depending on the circumstances' of any ITV takeover.
Grade pointed out that UK network Channel 5 is owned by a non-UK company in Paramount. He said Channel 5 is 'doing extremely well under its ownership, quite a bit better than it used to.'
Best of Deadline
Sign up for Deadline's Newsletter. For the latest news, follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Yahoo

an hour ago

• Yahoo

The sleeper Supreme Court decision that could have profound impacts on the Trump administration agenda – and restore faith in the high court

The American public's trust in the Supreme Court has fallen precipitously over the past decade. Many across the political spectrum see the court as too political. This view is only strengthened when Americans see most of the justices of the court dividing along ideological lines on decisions related to some of the most hot-button issues the court handles. Those include reproductive rights, voting rights, corporate power, environmental protection, student loan policy, worker rights and LGBTQ+ rights. But there is one recent decision where the court was unanimous in its ruling, perhaps because its holding should not be controversial: National Rifle Association v. Vullo. In that 2024 case, the court said that it's a clear violation of the First Amendment's free speech provisions for government to force people to speak and act in ways that are aligned with its policies. The second Trump administration has tried to wield executive branch power in ways that appear to punish or suppress speech and opposition to administration policy priorities. Many of those attempts have been legally challenged and will likely make their way to the Supreme Court. The somewhat under-the-radar – yet incredibly important – decision in National Rifle Association v. Vullo is likely to figure prominently in Supreme Court rulings in a slew of those cases in the coming months and years, including those involving law firms, universities and the Public Broadcasting Service. That's because, in my view as a legal scholar, they are all First Amendment cases. Why the NRA sued a New York state official In May 2024, in an opinion written by reliably liberal Sonia Sotomayor, a unanimous court ruled that the efforts of New York state government officials to punish companies doing business with the NRA constituted clear violations of the First Amendment. Following its own precedent from the 1960s, Bantam Books v. Sullivan, the court found that government officials 'cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors.' Many of the current targets of the Trump administration's actions have claimed similar suppression of their First Amendment rights by the government. They have fought back, filing lawsuits that often cite the National Rifle Association v. Vullo decision in their efforts. To date, the most egregious examples of actions that violate the principles announced by the court – the executive orders against law firms – have largely been halted in the lower courts, with those decisions often citing what's now known as the Vullo decision. While these cases may still be working their way through the lower courts, it is likely that the Supreme Court will ultimately consider legal challenges to the Trump administration's efforts in a range of areas. These would include the executive orders against law firms, attempts to cut government grants and research funding from universities, potential moves to strip nonprofits of their tax-exempt status, and regulatory actions punishing media companies for what the White House believes to be unfavorable coverage. The court could also hear disputes over the government terminating contracts with a family of companies that provides satellite and communications support to the U.S. government generally and the military in particular. Despite the variety of organizations and government actions involved in these lawsuits, they all can be seen as struggles over free speech and expression, like Vullo. Whether it is private law firms, multinational corporations, universities or members of the media, all have one thing in common: They have all been targeted by the Trump administration for the same reason – they are engaged in actions or speech that is disfavored by President Donald Trump. Protecting speech, regardless of politics The NRA, an often-controversial gun-rights advocacy organization, was the plaintiff in the Vullo decision. But just because the groups that have been targeted by the Trump administration are across the political divide from the NRA does not mean the outcome in decisions relying on the court's opinion will be different. In fact, these groups can rely on the same arguments advanced by the NRA, and are, I believe, likely to win. Vullo isn't the only decision on which the court can rely when considering challenges to the Trump administration's efforts targeting these groups. In the wake of World War II, Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson took a leave from the court and served as a prosecutor in the Nuremberg trials of Nazi leaders. Prosecuting them for their atrocities, Jackson saw how the Nuremberg defendants wielded government authority to punish enemies who resisted their rise and later opposed their rule. Once he returned to the court, Jackson wrote the majority opinion in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, where the court found that students who refused to salute the American flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance at school could not be expelled. Jackson's opinion is a forceful rejection of government attempts to control what people say: 'If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.' If some of the cases testing the state's power to force fidelity to the executive branch reach the Supreme Court, the cases could offer the justices the opportunity to, once again, speak with one voice as they did in NRA v. Vullo, to demonstrate it can be evenhanded and will not play politics with the First Amendment.

Vogue

an hour ago

• Vogue

55 Thoughts I Had While Watching ‘The Gilded Age' Season 3 Premiere

All right, I confess; I didn't keep up religiously with Season 2 of The Gilded Age—maybe because I was getting my Cynthia Nixon fix from And Just Like That… and my Carrie Coon fix from The White Lotus (and my Christine Baranski fix from obsessively rewatching Mamma Mia!, but I digress). Now, though, the HBO show is back for its third season, and I am absolutely locked in, even if I'm having a little trouble remembering some of the characters' names and/or general deals. Let's dive in, shall we? Horse-drawn carriages! Mr. Russell's beard is so on-point. Ah, the picturesque majesty of snow in New York, before it turns to slush and gets completely disgusting. Would be nice right about now! 'We've had some changes.' I'll say! Time for Cynthia Nixon's temperance meeting! Yes, Christine Baranski! Call it 'absurd'! Get her ass! Christine and Cynthia are really showcasing the range of bangs types here (straight vs. curly). Oh, hell yeah, 'Mr. Sargent' is coming by to paint! This is like when they casually reference Picasso in Titanic. Taissa Farmiga's little fur capelet is fabulous. No offense, The Gilded Age props/set design team, but this snow looks fake as hell. There's our girl Louisa Jacobson! In powder blue, no less! New York used to be so pretty before we, as a culture, ruined it. Miners' strike? There is power in a union, baby! 'I prefer to pick them off one by one.' Likely thing for a union-busting boss to say! It's weird that some people on this show are doing Little Period Voices and some aren't. Obsessed with Mr. Sargent's naughty little smock. Portrait of Madame X shoutout! One of the all-time art-historical babes! Yay, Denée Benton's novel is getting published! I need a supercut of just Cynthia and Christine fighting. 'Those who partake in alcohol are destined to the fury of hell.' Welp! God, Louisa's looking blonde as hell. OMG, this corset top over a turtleneck? Go off, Gladys. Ugh, Aurora, I hate your husband. You should, too! She's exactly right in not granting him a divorce, IMO. Was the word 'shady' being used in this context back then? 'I never thought I would be glad to have no children.' It happens! 'If you want to marry me and I want to marry you, we're already engaged.' Well, not exactly, bro. Where's the ring? Hot lemon and honey sounds so good right now. Cynthia dropping the hammer on her lodger! I love it. LMAO at Christine saying that the 'Female Normal and High School' sounds like a mistranslation. Aw, I love this brother-sister chat moment. Kind of weird that it's in Gladys's bed, but I guess they didn't have that many places to hang out? In…their mansion? I'm obsessed with the various and sundry robes of The Gilded Age. See, Denée and Louisa hanging out in a bedroom I can totally get behind. (Not in a gay way! Just in a gal-pals-at-a-sleepover way!) Oh no, someone's snitching on Gladys! 'In this house, nothing is accepted that isn't proposed by Mrs. Russell.' Tea. These boots Adelheid is lacing are sort of…gorgeous? Man, talk about laying down the law. 'In America, you don't have to live like your parents lived.' In theory, sure. Never has a man looked so sad in a bowler hat. Oh no, Denée definitely isn't feeling better! Was consumption still a thing during this time period? Man, I really should have studied for, like, any of my history classes throughout my 16 years of education. Jesus, the doctor's too racist to treat Denée? Even with all of these women's money? 'What I feel for Billy is real.' Sure. 'I'm not a girl! Not anymore! When will you see that?' What an ideal time for a Britney needle drop. Damn, Carrie calling Billy a 'worthless nonentity' goes crazy hard. I need to interview the horse actors on this show. And with that…it's a wrap on Episode 1 of Season 3! Welcome back, my little women!

The Hill

2 hours ago

• The Hill

Qatar closes airspace as Iran threatens US retaliation

Qatari officials temporarily closed the nation's airspace on Monday as Iran threatens to retaliate for U.S. strikes on three of its nuclear sites this past weekend. 'The competent Qatari authorities announce the temporary suspension of air traffic in the country's airspace out of concern for the safety of citizens, residents, and visitors,' Qatar's ministry of foreign affairs posted on the social platform X on Monday. In a corresponding statement, the Qatari foreign ministry said the move is one of several 'precautionary measures taken based on developments in the region.' 'The Ministry of Foreign Affairs affirms that official authorities are closely and continuously monitoring the situation, assessing developments in coordination with regional and international partners, and will provide the public with updated information in a timely manner through official channels,' the statement read. Earlier on Monday, the U.S. Embassy in Qatar advised U.S. citizens in the country to 'shelter in place until further notice,' saying the alert was issued 'out of an abundance of caution.' The developments come as the world braces for Iran's response after President Trump on Saturday evening ordered U.S. strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites: in Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow, the last of which is in a mountain. Fears are running high that Iran could retaliate against any of the 40,000 U.S. forces in the Middle East or through other means and targets. Qatar is home to the largest U.S. military base in the Middle East, Al Udeid Air Base. The BBC reported that there is a 'credible threat' to a U.S.-run air base in Qatar.