BBFC News

The Hunger Games is a 2012 US Sci-Fi action film by Gary Ross. With Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson and Liam Hemsworth. See IMDb

A pre-cut version was further cut by 7s by the BBFC for a 12A rating for intense threat, moderate violence and occasional gory moments for:

• UK 2012 cinema release

The BBFC commented:

• The company chose to make cuts in order to achieve a 12A classification. A number of cuts were made in one scene to reduce an emphasis on blood and injury. These cuts, which were implemented by digitally removing sight of blood splashes and sight of blood on wounds and weapons, were made in accordance with BBFC Guidelines and policy.
  
  An uncut 15 classification was available.
  
  These cuts were made in addition to reductions already made following an earlier advice viewing of an incomplete version

The US release is PG-13 rated

Update: Pre-cuts Outlined

14th March 2012. See article from bbfc.co.uk

The BBFC have updated their page describing cuts to The Hunger Games. They have now outlined the pre-cuts.

The BBFC comments now more fully explain the cuts:

• This work was originally seen for advice in an unfinished form. The company was advised that the film was likely to receive a 15 certied 12A classification could be achieved by making a number of cuts and visual reductionont>

  When the finished version of the film was submitted for formal classification, cuts had been made in four scenes of violence and in one scene showing details of injuries. These reductions were implemented by a mixture of visual cuts, visual darkenings and the digital removal of sight of blood.

  In addition to the reductions already made during the advice process, the Board required further reductions in one scene following formal submission of the finished feature. A number of cuts were made in one scene to reduce an emphasis on blood and injury. These cuts, which were implemented by digitally removing sight of blood splashes and sight of blood on wounds and weapons, were made in accordance with BBFC Guidelines and policy.

  An uncut 15 classification was available.

Offsite Comment: 13-year-olds should be allowed to see splashes of blood

14th March 2012. See article from blogs.telegraph.co.uk by Brendan O'Neill

And secondly, the whole point of The Hunger Games is that it is bloody and gory and gross and mental. As anyone who has spoken to a teenage fan will know, the thing that adolescents love about this trilogy of books, written by Suzanne Collins, is their violence (and also their strongly anti-state undertone).

The reason teens love these books is because, unlike Twilight (which actually has lots of blood but absolutely no personality), they are quite violent and disturbing. The trilogy's army of young fans will be able to handle seven seconds of red stuff.

...Read the full article

Offsite: Daily Mail have been trawling Twitter and Mumsnet for comments from 'concerned parents'

27th March 2012.  See article from dailymail.co.uk

Some parents have complained the film scenes of murder and bloodshed were too graphic to be appropriate for children and suggested it should be rated 15.

Scenes that have upset some parents include one where a girl screams for her life as she stung to death by killer wasps, another when a young child is skewered with a spear, another battered with a brick and scenes were piles of bodies lay fallen after bloody battles between the combatants. The film's star, Jennifer Lawrence has defended the film's content

Some took to social networking sites such as Mumsnet and Twitter to voice their concern.

One mother said: It is really good, but I thought it was really stretching the 12 rating. [My 12-year-old] was so distressed at one particular part, not long before the end that we had to leave the cinema.

Another added: You don't see much gore but it's implied and some death scenes are quite shocking. You see a lot of dead faces and it's very realistic. There's one bit where the whole cinema rocked back in its seats and went "aaargh" together.

Others suggested it should have been rated 15 to avoid the risk of younger children being brought to see it by parents unfamiliar with the content.

...Read the full article

Offsite: Daily Mail find a couple of experts to whinge at The Hunger Games

28th March 2012.  See article from dailymail.co.uk

Geoffrey Beattie, professor of psychology at Manchester University, says watching teens killing each other will have a stronger effect on young people than adult battle scenes. He said:

If you identify with the characters then it is going to seem more familiar and ... the things that happen will feel more visceral and have a stronger emotional impact on you.

There is a danger that there is so much death or violence that teens become desensitised.

Writing about the film on her website, best-selling author and paediatrician Dr Meg Meeker said:

Kids process images they construct in their minds from written words differently than they process large, hyper-real images on a screen. Starlets: The film which stars Jennifer Lawrence and Liam Hemsworth grossed ?5million in the UK in its opening weekend

During the preteen and teen years, children's minds are mentally pliable. They are being hard-wired... So, when an image comes into a teen's brain it melds into that wiring and sticks.

Offsite: But Support from the Telegraph

30th March 2012.  See article from telegraph.co.uk by Robbie Collin

The BBFC have got the 12A rating spot on. There's nothing in The Hunger Games that a 12-year-old shouldn't see, but more importantly, there's a lot that they should.

...Read the full article

As the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) celebrates its 100th year, its director David Cooke reflects on some of the films that have challenged the censor over the decades.

One of the best examples is 1932's Island of Lost Souls, the first non-silent screen adaptation of HG Wells' Island of Dr Moreau, starring Charles Laughton and Bela Lugosi. Scene from Island of Lost Souls Island of Lost Souls was first rejected by the British censor in the 1930s

Originally rejected in 1933 - and again in 1957 - the film was eventually classified with an X certificate with cuts in 1958. In 1996 these cuts were restored and the film gained a 12 certificate.

In 2011, it was resubmitted for a new DVD/Blu-ray release and was passed as a PG - making it viewable by children, though it carries the warning: Contains mild violence and scary scenes.

When we had to classify it again last year, we went for PG on the basis of the comparison with the Doctor Whos and the Harry Potters, explains BBFC director David Cooke.

...Read the full article

Following unprecedented feedback from a testing panel during its beta phase, Alton Towers Resort has been compelled to seek advice from esteemed film classification body the BBFC, to help assess its new psychologically terrifying underground attraction, Nemesis Sub-Terra, which opens to the general public on 24th March 2012.

For the first time in history for a theme park attraction, the BBFC agreed to assess Nemesis Sub-Terra, so that Alton Towers Resort could protect its younger visitors from the intense and disturbing effects of the new attraction and consider appropriate restrictions.

Now in its 100th year of operation, until now the BBFC has only rated content in the form of film releases, DVDs/Blu-Ray, digital downloads and video games. The BBFC considered carefully the feedback and unique nature of the attraction (which is neither a ride, performance nor a maze) and agreed to lend their advice.

Murray Perkins, Senior Examiner at the BBFC commented:

The BBFC is seeing a real blur of the old boundaries of visual content and physical experience in both 3D and 4D cinema, and at theme parks. Applying our experience of the public's acceptability of moments of threat on screen, to more physical experiences, is something we have begun to do as cinema and other theatrical experiences evolve.

After experiencing the attraction first-hand, based on 100 years of experience and line with British public opinion, we would recommend that Alton Towers Resort classify the new Nemesis Sub-Terra a '12A'. The BBFC's Guidelines at '12A'/'12 allow moderate physical and psychological threat, provided that the disturbing sequences are not frequent or sustained. Nemesis Sub-Terra contains some intense moments, in some respects comparable with scary scenes which may be experienced in horror or science fiction films at '12A'/'12. But while some people will no doubt find this a frightening experience, the personnel monitoring the site are soon on hand to guide the public to safety.

Katherine Duckworth from Alton Towers Resort commented:

The classification advice from the BBFC is important for the Resort to ensure the wellbeing of our guests. We are aware the enforcements that will now be implemented will mean that many of our younger visitors are unable to experience Nemesis Sub-Terra, which we are obviously concerned about. However, the Alton Towers Resort prides itself on offering a variety of rides for all ages and we hope that those under the age of 12 will continue to enjoy our other attractions.

In their justification for passing this film with an 18 certificate, the BBFC stated that the film is, in tone and treatment, is distinguishable from a sex work.

It's a frankly ridiculous claim, and perhaps shows up the nonsensical situation that the British censors have dug themselves into with their facile distinction between sex works (erotic films they disapprove of) and non-sex works (erotic films they do approve of).

Because, as Peter de Rome himself cheerfully admits in the excellent documentary included here, his films are porn, made with the express intention of being masturbatory material -- the very definition the BBFC use to declare a film to be a sex work and so banished to the sex-shop-only R18 category if it contains real, explicit sex -- which this does, extensively.

...Read the full article

Clash of the Titans is a 1981 US fantasy by Desmond Davis. With Laurence Olivier, Harry Hamlin and Claire Bloom. See IMDb

Back in 1981 it was passed A (PG) after 9s of BBFC cuts for category for:

• UK 1981 cinema release

From cuts details on IMDb:

• Removed the close up of Calabos stabbing a man's back with a trident
• shortened the scene where Calabos is stabbed in the stomach by Perseus to remove sight of Calabos in agony.

Since then it was passed 15 uncut for:

• UK 1987 MGM VHS

And passed 12 uncut for moderate fantasy violence for:

• UK 2010 Warner R0 Blu-ray at UK Amazon
• UK 2006 Warner R2 DVD at UK Amazon

...Read the full article in which the BBFC publish several letters and documents about how they decided on the 1981 cuts.

Thankfully religion doesn't feature very often in British film censorship decisions. However the few instances that have been spotted to date have been gathered together onto this page.

Cuts and bans for blasphemy have been recorded for the following films:

• Belladonna: My Ass is Haunted. 2004 US adult video by Belladonna.
• The Big Bang. 1987 France/Belgium animated comedy Sci-Fi by Picha
• Catacombs. 1988 Italy/US horror by David Schmoeller.
• The Devils. 1971 UK drama by Ken Russell
• The Last Temptation of Christ. 1988 US/Canada drama by Martin Scorsese.
• Multiple Maniacs. 1970 US comedy crime film by John Waters.
• Visions of Ecstasy. 1989 UK erotic short by Nigel Wingrove.

See Detailed Cuts: Blasphemy at the BBFC

The BBFC have sparked a fair bit of web chatter of their rating for the first season DVD of The Secret World of  Alex Mack.

This was passed 15 uncut for potentially dangerous behaviour that may be copied.

For anyone who doesn't know, it's a sweet natured children's show that ran at 10am on Channel 4 in the 1990's.

The distributors seems to have advised retailers that it would be PG rated, so presumably that is what they were expecting.

Update: BBFC credibility takes a tumble

11th February 2012. See article from bbfc.co.uk

The BBFC added the following remark to their website page re the 15 rated Alex Mack decision:

One episode in this TV series contains a scene in which a child character hides inside a tumble drier. The presentation of this behaviour is comic and no negative consequences are shown which would warn young viewers of the potential dangers of hiding in such appliances. While fatal incidents of children trapped in washing machines or fridges are rare, there remains sufficient cause for serious concern.

• At U, BBFC Guidelines state No potentially dangerous behaviour which young children are likely to copy.

• At PG, the Guidelines state No detail of potentially dangerous behaviour which young children are likely to copy.

A cut was, therefore, advised if the work was to obtain the U category as requested by the distributor, or even a PG classification.

The BBFC has taken this approach with previous works aimed at children such as ROCKETMAN and LILO & STITCH. The distributor indicated that they would be happy to accept a higher certificate rather than cutting the episode. The TV series is rather dated and would not have much appeal to a young audience when compared to current children's TV programmes. In addition, as the work was being targeted at an adult nostalgia market, children would not be the natural audience.

The BBFC decided - given the work's history, the company's willingness to accept a higher certificate and that the work was not being aimed at children - to pass it 15 without cuts. This certificate sends a clear signal to parents that it contains material which may be harmful to younger viewers.

The BBFC considered the possibility of a 12 certificate, given that the scene is unlikely to be harmful to those over 12. However, given the potential dangers involved, it was considered less likely that parents might allow their children to view the work if it has a more restrictive classification.

Revealed: How parents control children's access to adult media

A new online survey conducted by the website ParentPort reveals that, of those parents surveyed whose children watch films at home, 40% had allowed their children to watch a film classified above their age.

The survey of 1,800 respondents from the UK's two largest online parenting communities --Mumsnet and Netmums - reveals the challenges and pressures parents face when it comes to keeping the media their children see age-appropriate.

Of those parents surveyed whose children play video games, a quarter (25%) had allowed their children to play games classified above their age.

Furthermore, 16% of parents surveyed said they had bought their children a device or gadget -- such as a games console or MP3 player -- which they themselves did not fully understand how to use.

However, the parents surveyed did not just give into their children's appetite for the media -- many also closely supervise what their children see and use. In fact, 82% of the parents surveyed claimed they always know what films and television programmes their children watch, and 77% said they always or usually know what websites their children visit.

Meanwhile, the survey also uncovers parents' boundaries when it comes to media, with one in eight of the parents surveyed reporting concern that Christmas presents their child had received were inappropriate for their age. Some reported being worried their youngsters would have unsupervised access to the internet through smartphones and laptops given as gifts. Others cited well-meaning friends and family overstepping the mark -- with examples of pre-teens unwrapping presents of 18-rated video games, and under-tens receiving 12-rated DVDs.

Overall, the parents surveyed recognised the contribution the media makes to their children's lives. Over half (52%) of the parents surveyed thought films and DVDs generally played a positive role in their children's lives. Forty-nine per cent cited television as also having a positive effect, and 48% believed the internet also made a good contribution to their children's lives. ParentPort website

ParentPort was set up last October to make it easier for parents to complain about material they see or hear across the media, communications and retail industries.

It was jointly developed by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), the Authority for Television On Demand (ATVOD), the BBC Trust, the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC), the Office of Communications (Ofcom), the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) and the Video Standards Council (VSC)/Pan-European Game Information (PEGI).

Of those parents completing the survey who knew about ParentPort, 94.7% rated the website as a very useful or quite useful tool for them as a parent, guardian or carer; while 93.9% said they would recommend ParentPort to others.

Ed Richards, Ofcom's Chief Executive said: This survey reveals the challenges facing parents when it comes to their children's use of the media. ParentPort now gives parents an easy way to register their concerns with the media regulators who work to protect children from inappropriate material.

Guy Parker, ASA Chief Executive said: Parents, carers and guardians play an important role as the first line of defence in deciding what's appropriate for their children to see. But quite rightly, they expect support from media regulators, which is why ParentPort is such a valuable resource to help us understand parents' views. We encourage parents to take full advantage of it.

Martha Lane Fox, UK Digital Champion, said: The world of media is speeding up and changing shape and anything that helps people navigate the new landscape is to be welcomed.

Following Salo, Ai No Corrida and Cannibal Holocaust, the BBFC has recently granted another notorious banned film, Visions of Ecstasy, an 18 certificate.

The film was outlawed for 23 years in this country for fear of its release breaking UK blasphemy laws, but following the repeal of those laws and the film's subsequent resubmission to the Board, it will finally be issued legally and fully uncut in the UK later this year.

One of the most puzzling things about censorship from the public's point of view is the apparently arbitrary way in which films are cut, banned and un-banned in Britain. For instance, the video nasties of the early 1980s were once the subject of media hysteria and bans, but today almost all of them can be bought entirely legally in your local DVD emporium. What's changed? Why are they no longer a threat to society?

[...er because 25 years is an awfully long time...]

...Read the full article

Visions of Ecstasy is a 1989 UK erotic short by Nigel Wingrove. With Louise Downie, Elisha Scott and Dan Fox. See IMDb

It was originally banned by the BBFC for a 1989 Axel VHS. It was the only film banned in the UK solely on grounds of blasphemy.

The BBFC decision was subsequently appealed to the Video Appeals Committee, who upheld the ban. Then director Nigel Wingrove then took his case to the European Court of Human Rights, but again lost his case.

In 2008, section 79 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act abolished the common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel. And now the film has been passed 18 uncut for a 2012 4Digital home video release.

But don't expect too much. Director Nigel Wingrove was a bit defensive when talking to the BBFC:

If I made the film now I would make it very differently, I was exploring areas of dark eroticism, but I had worked chiefly in prints, not films.

People say I should put it out, but on a personal level I have reservations. If I did release it, I would need to put it into context and perhaps release a documentary to accompany it.

The film has now been passed 18 uncut for nudity and sex involving religious images for:

• UK 2012 4DigitalRedemption R2 DVD at UK Amazon for release 26th March 2012

The BBFC have explained their decision to unban the film in a press release:

Visions of Ecstasy is a 19 minute short film, featuring a sequence in which a figure representing St Teresa of Avila interacts sexually with a figure representing the crucified Christ. When the film was originally submitted to the BBFC in 1989, for video classification only, the Board refused to issue a classification certificate. This decision was taken on the grounds that the publication of the film, which the issue of a BBFC certificate would permit, might constitute an offence under the common law test of blasphemous libel.

The Board is required, as part of the terms of its designation under the Video Recordings Act 1984, to seek to avoid classifying any work that might infringe the criminal law. Therefore, the Board had no alternative at the time but to refuse a classification. The Board's decision to refuse a classification to the film was subsequently upheld by the independent Video Appeals Committee.

In 2008, section 79 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act abolished the common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel. This means that the BBFC is no longer entitled to consider whether the publication of the film might comprise a blasphemous libel.

The BBFC has carefully considered Visions of Ecstasy in terms of its current classification Guidelines. These reflect both the requirements of UK law and the wishes of the UK public, as expressed through regular large scale consultation exercises. With the abolition of the offence of blasphemy, the Board does not consider that the film is in breach of any other UK law that is currently in force. Nor does the Board regard the film as likely to cause harm to viewers in the terms envisioned by the Video Recordings Act.

The Board recognises that the content of the film may be deeply offensive to some viewers. However, the Board's Guidelines reflect the clear view of the public that adults should have the right to choose their own viewing, provided that the material in question is neither illegal nor harmful. In the absence of any breach of UK law and the lack of any credible risk of harm, as opposed to mere offensiveness, the Board has no sustainable grounds on which to refuse a classification to Visions of Ecstasy in 2012. Therefore the film has been classified for video release at 18 without cuts.

MP Andrea Leadsom has long been campaigning that kids are shown sex education material that is too mature for them. She is suggesting that BBFC should rate such material prior to its use in schools etc. She is probably onto a loser though, as the BBFC would surely give a well considered rating, with no room whatsoever for any moral/religious/decency angle  that Leadsom may be hoping for. It is hard to imagine that the BBFC would be far out of line with the education experts that are currently approving the material for school use anyway.

Nevertheless Leadsom has had a meeting with the BBFC to discuss the possibility of the body rating school sex education material.

The BBFC were reported to have expressed surprise that the BBC do not have their sex education material rated when they voluntarily have programmes such as The Blue Planet rated, despite there being no sensitive or controversial content and no requirement to have it rated as it is a documentary.

Leadsom said:

It seems bizarre that when some parents are so deeply concerned at what they consider to be sensitive material being shown to their children, the BBC and Channel 4 have chosen not to have their SRE material rated by an independent agency.

The latest episode 3 of the BBFC podcast series features the latest film and BBFC news.

The topic for discussion is classifying sex and sex references, across the age categories.

The BBFC published it's decision to make cuts to the R18 adult DVD titled The Best of Lucy Law. It cut 2:35s with the comment:

Cuts were required to remove the clear indication that one woman is licking urine from another, penetration with an object with potential to cause physical harm, and dialogue encouraging an interest in breath restriction. Cuts made in line with current interpretation of the Obscene Publications Act 1959, BBFC Guidelines and policy, and the Video Recordings Act 1984.

This decision was published after the R v Peacock case where a jury unanimously cleared films depicting full on urolagnia of obscenity.

Sergio enquired of the BBFC whether anything has changed regarding the R V Peacock case and received an email from the BBFC:

The role of the BBFC is not to decide the law but to enforce it, and in this we will be guided by the law enforcement agencies. In relation to this case, the CPS have stated that the fact that a jury has acquitted someone does not mean that the guidance is incorrect.

There are no current plans to revise our Guidelines.

Yours sincerely,

J L Green
Chief Assistant (Policy)

The Woman in Black is a 2012 UK/Canada/Sweden ghost story by James Watkins.
With Daniel Radcliffe, Janet McTeer and Ciarαn Hinds. See IMDb.

The film has been passed 12A after 6s of BBFC category cuts for intense supernatural threat and horror for:

• UK 2012 cinema release

The BBFC commented:

Distributor chose to reduce moments of strong violence / horror in order to achieve a 12A classification. Cuts made in line with BBFC Guidelines and policy. A 15 classification without cuts was available.

Update: More

24th January 2012. See article from huffingtonpost.co.uk

The Huffington Post adds a little more detail without explaining:

Substitutions were also made by darkening some shots and by reducing the sound levels on others.

Update: Confirmed

24th January 2012.

Thanks to Gavin Salkeld who confirmed that from the BBFC:

In addition to the 6 seconds of visual cuts, substitutions were also made by darkening some shots and by reducing the sound levels on others.

 

The BBFC have just published it's decision to make cuts to the R18 adult DVD titled The Best of Lucy Law.

It cut 2:35s with the comment:

Cuts were required to remove the clear indication that one woman is licking urine from another, penetration with an object with potential to cause physical harm, and dialogue encouraging an interest in breath restriction. Cuts made in line with current interpretation of the Obscene Publications Act 1959, BBFC Guidelines and policy, and the Video Recordings Act 1984.

So even after such a resounding decision to find urolagnia to be not obscene in the only jury case in recent memory, then the BBFC is still citing bollox that licking urine could somehow deprave and corrupt R18 viewers.

Methinks the censors have watched a few too many golden showers movies themselves.

Update: And Another

20th January 2012. See article from bbfc.co.uk

Slam It! in a Slut.

The BBFC cuts 20s commenting:

A cut was required to remove sight of a female performer expelling urine directly onto a man underneath her. Cut made in accordance with current interpretation of the Obscene Publications Act 1959.

Eldordo is a new UK comedy horror by Richard Driscoll with Steven Craine, Darren Morgan, Peter O'Toole, Steve Guttenberg, Daryl Hannah

The publicity material reads:

The evening was going to be a normal Blues Brothers tribute show for Oliver and Stanley Rosenblum, The Jews Brothers till their agent JJ decides to send them to a mythical western town called Eldorado. With Cannibals, music and dancing this is not what Oliver and Stanley expected, especially when they find out that they are the main course of the day.

Intriguingly Richard Driscoll notes on the movie's Facebook page:

Due to an ongoing battle with the BBFC for an 18 certification, Eldorado's initial release on Jan 30th will be in 2D only. We have also decided to postpone the premiere until the 25th June, the date of the exclusive Blu-ray 3D release, as we feel that the premiere should be enjoyed in 3D.

Update: Hype

25th January 2012.

The latest Facebook entry by Richard Driscoll reads:

Great news...after much deliberation the BBFC have given Eldorado a 15 certificate with no cuts! However the time taken to reach a decision has meant that the scheduled release will be delayed by a week.

The BBFC have rated Clint Eastwood's J. Edgar as 17 for infrequent strong language.

The decision is explained in the Extended Classification Information:

J. EDGAR is a biopic of J.Edgar Hoover, the founder and head of the FBI. It was classified 15 for infrequent strong language.

The BBFC's Guidelines at 12A/12 state The use of strong language (for example, 'fuck') must be infrequent. The film contains only one use of 'f***ing', which would have been permissible at 12A. However, it also contains two uses of cruder language (in this case 'c***sucker') that were more appropriately classified at 15 where the Guidelines state There may be frequent use of strong language. None of the language is personally directed or accompanied by violence, but is spoken in a derogatory manner about political opponents who are not present at the time.

The film also contains some moderate violence during shootouts between police and mobsters. However, the violence is almost always bloodless and lacking in injury detail.

...

The film also contains some mild bad language, such as damn and Jesus Christ. There are a couple of uses of the term negro, although the term is not used in a pejorative sense, simply reflecting the common terminology of the period in which the film is set. The historical nature of the term and the lack of intent to offend is reinforced by sight of Martin Luther King using it himself in a televised speech.

Seems a bit harsh, but the US film censors seemed to agree that J. Edgar went beyond PG-13 and rated the film as R.

Interesting to note the inconsistent use of asterisks in the BBFC piece. It let one 'fuck' through but censored the next. Is this the BBFC keeping the page itself down to a 12 rating?

R v Peacock

Michael Peacock has been acquitted of all charges after a unanimous jury decision to find Peacock not guilty on 6 counts of obscenity.

Michael Peacock (referred to in the gay porn world as Sleazy Michael) had been charged for distributing supposedly obscene DVDs including representation of gay fisting, urolagnia and BDSM.

The trial was heard before the Southwark Crown Court. The films in question feature: gay fisting (the insertion of five fingers of the fist into the rectum of another male); urolagnia (in this case men urinating in their clothes, onto each others' bodies and drinking it); and BDSM (in this case hard whipping, the insertion of needles, urethral sounds and electrical torture). Also there was an example of a staged non consensual scene.

The Obscene Publications Act 1959 features the contentious and ambiguous deprave and corrupt test, whereby an article (for example a DVD) is obscene if it tends to deprave and corrupt the reader, viewer or listener. The Test is defined in Section1 of the Act as:

An article shall be deemed to be obscene if its effect or (where the article comprises two or more distinct items) the effect of any one of its items is, if taken as a whole, such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it.

Peacock was represented by Nigel Richardson and Sandra Paul of Hodge Jones and Allen

Myles Jackman, a solicitor specialising in obscenity law, said this outcome was a significant victory for common sense suggesting that the OPA has been rendered irrelevant in the digital age.

In a tweet, Jackman said that SCD9, the Metropolitan Police unit dealing with human exploitation and organised crime, will meet with the Crown Prosecution Service and the British Board of Film Classification to review guidelines on obscenity.

And of course the authorities will be considering whether the law itself now needs changing. No doubt nutter campaigners will now be pushing for something new to replace the OPA now that it no longer supports their censorial views.

Speculation: So what may be the outcome at least in terms of BBFC censorship of R18s?

The BBFC have been cutting all such material citing the current interpretation of the Obscene Publications Act. But now of course this will change. The BBFC will still be at liberty to cut scenes off their own bat. And indeed the board has been regularly cutting scenes involving penetration by objects that could possibly result in harm justified via its own guidelines.

I think there will be a few changes welcomed by all sides. The current prohibition of female squirting leaves everyone totally baffled as to why. This prohibition can now be rapidly dropped. Perhaps urolagnia can now be generally allowed albeit with restrictions when it is considered by the censors to be degrading.

Perhaps something similar with fisting which could be generally allowed with a proviso that it must not be seen to be causing any discomfort to those participating.

The BDSM issue is not going to be easy. The current ban is at least easy to explain. To allow any level of hurt beyond trifling may prove very difficult to define. Maybe it is still banned by legislation examined during the notable Spanner Case, the judgement of which basically disallows people from giving consent to be hurt. So perhaps the BBFC will just switch justifications but continue to ban BDSM.

And I don't suppose that the non-consensual scene will impact BBFC guidelines at all. This will no doubt continue to be banned from R18s.

The 3rd January 2012 marks the first day of the most significant obscenity trial of the decade; which will ultimately clarify the law on the representation of gay fisting, urolagnia as well as BDSM.

The defendant in the case, Michael Peacock, is charged on indictment with numerous offences under the Obscene Publications Act for distributing supposedly obscene DVDs.

The Obscene Publications Act 1959 features the contentious and ambiguous deprave and corrupt test, whereby an article (for example a DVD) is obscene if it tends to deprave and corrupt the reader, viewer or listener. The Test is defined in Section1 of the Act as:

An article shall be deemed to be obscene if its effect or (where the article comprises two or more distinct items) the effect of any one of its items is, if taken as a whole, such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it.

In this trial, which will be heard before the Southwark Crown Court, the films in question feature: gay fisting (the insertion of five fingers of the fist into the rectum of another male); urolagnia (in this case men urinating in their clothes, onto each others' bodies and drinking it); and BDSM (in this case hard whipping, the insertion of needles, urethral sounds and electrical torture).

These activities feature on the current list of what the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) currently consider to be obscene. Ultimately though, it is a matter for a jury to decide whether these acts are obscene by virtue of whether they deprave and corrupt the viewer.

Interestingly this case seems to have found unofficial tacit support from the BBFC; and the Metropolitan Police's Abusive and Extreme Images Unit (the Met's old obscene publications squad is now part of SCD9): on the basis that this case will establish whether the depiction of fisting and urination pornography is legal or not.

Hence, if the jury decides that such pornography is not obscene, on the basis that it does not deprave and corrupt the viewer; then it is entirely likely that both the producers and distributors of pornography will make such material available for sale, for example via licensed sex shops.

Consequently, this significant obscenity prosecution will either reaffirm or rearrange the boundaries of obscenity law.

Mr Peacock is represented by  Hodge Jones and Allen LLP..

...Read the full article

Update: Follow Live on Twitter

5th January 2012.  See article from lawandsexuality.blogspot.com

The #ObscenityTrial involving the issue of fisting (among others) goes into day three today.

If you're not already doing so, be sure to follow on twitter the excellent activist and scholar, @lexingtondymock. I'd also suggest following the journalist @NichiHodgson. Both have been providing fascinating coverage through their live tweets from the courtroom.

Many of the exchanges today would be comical, were they not so serious.

The BBFC has added BT Vision to the roster of platforms that use the BBFC.online classification service.

From January 2012, BT Vision subscribers will see the same classification symbols and content information next to films as those the BBFC provides for cinema releases and DVDs. A BT Vision and BBFC co-branded electronic black card, similar to those UK cinemagoers see before theatrical releases, will also be run before each film begins.

David Cooke, Director of the BBFC, said We're delighted to welcome BT Vision to our BBFC.online service. Parents have told us it's important for them to see the classification symbols they recognise before they download or stream a film for family consumption. We asked parents for their views and 82% said they would prefer to download films that are classified with the trusted BBFC symbols and Consumer Advice.

Jacob Ahlin, Head of Film said BT Vision are delighted to become a member of the BBFC, enabling us to clearly label the hundreds of blockbuster and classic films, which are available on BT Vision and giving our customers peace of mind when choosing what to watch with their family.

BBFC.online was launched in 2008 to provide the BBFC's trusted and recognised classifications, category symbols and Consumer Advice to set-top box, video-on-demand and online content providers. The BBFC worked closely with the home entertainment industry to develop the voluntary regulatory service to bring the benefits of the DVD classification system to digital content that is delivered online.

BT Vision join other key industry members working with the BBFC including Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment Europe, Warner Bros., 20th Century Fox, Paramount and platforms including BlinkBox, Picturebox and Talk Talk, bringing the total number of members to 34.