Tuesday 29 March 2011

1912-1949

  • In the past, the BBFC did not have any written rules or code of practice.
  • Policy evolved along practical lines, whilst seeking to reflect public attitudes. Since 2000, the BBFC has operated under a series of published Guidelines, available on the BBFC's websites. These Guidelines are flexible and stress the importance of taking into consideration the context of each individual work. They are reviewed on a regular basis, which entails a period of extensive public consultation, the most recent of which took place in 2008.
  • Standards have evolved throughout the Board’s ninety seven year history. 
  • The shifts in standards are linked to external changes - new legislation, developments in technology, the social and historical climate of the period, and the accompanying changes in social attitudes. This evolution must therefore be examined in the wider cultural and historical context. Here are some key stages in the Board’s early history.
 1916, T.P.O'Connor 

When T. P. O’Connor was appointed President of the BBFC, one of his first tasks was to give evidence to the Cinema Commission of Inquiry, set up by the National Council of Public Morals in 1916. He summarised the Board's Policy by listing forty-three grounds for deletion laid down for the guidance of examiners.
 
1. Indecorous, ambiguous and irreverent titles and subtitles
2. Cruelty to animals
3. The irreverent treatment of sacred subjects
4. Drunken scenes carried to excess
5. Vulgar accessories in the staging
6. The modus operandi of criminals
7. Cruelty to young infants and excessive cruelty and torture to adults, especially women
8. Unnecessary exhibition of under-clothing
9. The exhibition of profuse bleeding
10. Nude figures
11. Offensive vulgarity, and impropriety in conduct and dress
12. Indecorous dancing
13. Excessively passionate love scenes
14. Bathing scenes passing the limits of propriety
15. References to controversial politics
16. Relations of capital and labour
17. Scenes tending to disparage public characters and institutions
18. Realistic horrors of warfare
19. Scenes and incidents calculated to afford information to the enemy
20. Incidents having a tendency to disparage our Allies
21. Scenes holding up the King’s uniform to contempt or ridicule
22. Subjects dealing with India, in which British Officers are seen in an odious light, and otherwise attempting to suggest the disloyalty of British Officers, Native States or bringing into disrepute British prestige in the Empire
23. The exploitation of tragic incidents of the war
24. Gruesome murders and strangulation scenes
25. Executions
26. The effects of vitriol throwing
27. The drug habit. e.g. opium, morphia, cocaine, etc
28. Subjects dealing with White Slave traffic
29. Subjects dealing with premeditated seduction of girls
30. 'First Night' scenes
31. Scenes suggestive of immorality
32. Indelicate sexual situations
33. Situations accentuating delicate marital relations
34. Men and women in bed together
35. Illicit relationships
36. Prostitution and procuration
37. Incidents indicating the actual perpetration of criminal assaults on women
38. Scenes depicting the effect of venereal disease, inherited or acquired
39. Incidents suggestive of incestuous relations
40. Themes and references relative to 'race suicide'
41. Confinements
42. Scenes laid in disorderly houses
43. Materialization of the conventional figure of Christ

 The Years Between the Wars
  •  During this period the kind of material that caused concern included horror and gangster films, as well as those that dealt with aspects of sexuality.
  • Some councils were beginning to bar children from films classified 'A', even when they had been cut by the BBFC to achieve a certificate.
  • For example, the London County Council and Manchester City Council banned children from Frankenstein (1931), although a sequence in which the monster drowns a small girl had already been cut. In response to such material, the advisory category 'H' (for horror) was agreed in 1932, to indicate the potential unsuitability for children of the horror theme.
 1948m Arthur Watkins
 
Arthur Watkins was appointed Secretary to the Board in 1948, under the Presidency of Sir Sidney Harris. Many film-makers sought the Board's advice on scripts before films went into production. Watkins and Harris formulated new terms of reference for the Board based on three principles:
 
• was the story, incident or dialogue likely to impair the moral standards of the public by extenuating vice or crime or depreciating moral standards?
• Was it likely to give offence to reasonably minded cinema audiences?
• What effect would it have on children?

The effect on children was of major importance since, apart from the advisory 'H' category, from which some councils already chose to bar children, there was no category that excluded children. An 'adults only' category was increasingly seen as desirable, not only to protect children, but as an extension of the freedom of film-makers to treat adult subjects in an adult fashion.

1950s

  • The Fifties saw the end of rationing and a gradual increase in prosperity.
  • One development that stemmed from this apparent affluence was the emergence of 'youth' as a group with a defined identity and as a target for consumer goods, as young people with disposable income became an attractive proposition for those selling records, clothes and all the trappings of the teenager.
  • Controversial subjects on film were accommodated in the UK under the new 'X' category, introduced in 1951and incorporating the former advisory 'H' category given to horror films. As the growth of television ownership eroded the adult/family cinema audience, films like Rock Around The Clock(1956) drew teenage audiences. Cut for U, this film caused rioting in cinemas and fuelled increasing concern about teenage criminality, although there was in fact no evidence of a teenage crime wave as suggested by the popular Press. 
  • The new 'X' category excluded children under 16.
  • The Board did not allow anti-social behaviour and teen violence, and also had a long-standing policy against screen nudity, partly on the grounds that if they encouraged more nudity on screen, they would be inviting sexual exploitation. This nudity policy was overturned in 1958.
  • The topic of drugs exercised the BBFC to a considerable degree during the decade. The Code was amended in 1956 to allow for the treatment of narcotics as a theme. Devil's Weed was rejected in 1951, because the Board felt that the moral lessons about the evils of drugs use were not made sufficiently clear.

1960s

Liberalisation
  • Challenges to the Obscene Publications Act, in cases such as the successful defence in 1960 of the novel Lady Chatterley’s Lover, suggested a strong shift in public opinion, when a jury acquitted this work.
  • John Trevelyan, as Secretary to the Board, responded to the new spirit of liberalism by stating: "The British Board of Film Censors cannot assume responsibility for the guardianship of public morality. It cannot refuse for exhibition to adults films that show behaviour that contravenes the accepted moral code, and it does not demand that ‘the wicked’ should also be punished. It cannot legitimately refuse to pass films which criticise ‘the Establishment’ and films which express minority opinions".
  • However, the decade began with a challenge in the form of Michael Powell's Peeping Tom, which had been seen by the Board at the script stage and provoked a remark from Trevelyan about its 'morbid concentration on fear'. Various cuts had been suggested at script stage, and the film was passed 'X' in 1960 with cuts. Critics greeted the film with a torrent of abuse and it failed to please the public, damaging Powell's reputation. The video remained an '18' work until 2007 when it was reclassified and passed '15'.
  • New realism took hold in British films
  • As public tolerance increased in the sweeping social change of the sixties, films became more explicit, but in practice the Board still requested cuts, usually to verbal and visual 'indecency'. Ingmar Bergman's 1964 The Silence created a stir because of its treatment of sexual matters . After extensive consultation with the distributor and the director, Trevelyan passed the film 'X' with 35 seconds of cuts to sex scenes.  
 

1970s

Changes in the Category System
  • During the sixties it was recognised that teenagers had specific concerns of their own which ought to be reflected in the category system.
  • The introduction of the 'AA' was finally approved by local authorities and the industry in 1970.The old 'A' (advisory) category was split to create a new advisory 'A' which permitted the admission of children of five years or over whether accompanied or not, but which warned parents that a film in this category would contain some material that parents might prefer their children under fourteen not to see, and a new 'AA' certificate which allowed the admission of those over 14, but not under 14, whether accompanied or not.
Sexual Violence and Other Controversies
  • A new ratings system in the United States included an uncensored 'X' category, left to the sole control of the criminal law.
  • The seventies therefore saw the release of a number of provocative films, in particular those that linked sex and violence, for example A Clockwork Orange (1971), which contained controversial rape scenes. In the case of this film the decision of the BBFC to award an 'X' was overturned by a number of local authorities. 
  • Stephen Murphy, who became Secretary of the Board in July 1971, resigned in 1975 and was succeeded by James Ferman. In an early interview, Ferman remarked that it wasn't sex that worried him but violence and, in particular sexual violence.  During his time at the BBFC, Ferman permitted increasingly explicit sexual material whilst clamping down on sadistic and sexual violence. One of the first films Ferman looked at was The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, which his predecessor had already refused to classify shortly before his departure.  Ferman agreed with Murphy that the violence and terrorisation in the film (directed largely towards a woman over a sustained period) was unacceptable.
  • Ferman's attitudes and policies reflected a more general shift of public concern during the 1970s, away from arguments about the explicitness of screen representations towards a consideration of any possible corrupting influence. 
  • Prior to 1977 the Obscene Publications Act did not apply to cinema films and films were judged on the basis of whether any individual scene might be considered 'indecent', regardless of context. The extension of the OPA to films in 1977 gave the BBFC more latitude when considering depictions of sex in films since they now had to be considered 'as a whole'. 
  • The OPA also required that the Board consider whether a scene might deprave and corrupt its likely audience.

1980s

Home Viewing

  • The development of the video recorder created new anxieties about the home viewing of feature films. Legally, there was no requirement that videos should be classified, which meant that films that had not been approved by the BBFC or which were suitable for adults only, were falling into the hands of children.
  • In particular the tabloid press led a campaign against so called 'video nasties'. This term was not always clearly defined, but there were 70 titles that had either been prosecuted by the DPP under the Obscene Publications Act, or were awaiting prosecution. Some of these were horror films that had never been submitted to the BBFC. Others had been cut for their cinema release, and the video versions sometimes included restored cuts.
  • The outcome of this concern was new legislation,The Video Recordings Act 1984, makes it an offence for a video work to be supplied if it has not been classified, or to supply a classified work to a person under the age specified in the certificate.  
  • One example is The House On The Edge Of The Park. It was rejected by the Board in 1981 for serious violations of the sexual violence standards. It was formally submitted on video for the first time in 2001 and cut for '18'.  Most of the cuts were made for sexual violence under the BBFC's Guidelines.
  • When former 'video nasties' like those above are submitted to the Board, they are examined under current Guidelines, and their legal history considered.  It is usually possible to make cuts to ensure a modern release, although many of them continue to test the Guidelines for sexual violence.

 1982 - Review of the category system
  • In 1982 'A' was changed to 'PG', 'AA' was changed to '15' and 'X' became '18'. A new category 'R18' was introduced which permitted more explicit sex films to be shown in members-only  clubs. 
  • Previously, such clubs had shown material unclassified by the BBFC, but a change in the law closed this loophole.  Since the mid 1980s most 'R18' material is released on video, only available from a limited number of sex shops which must be specially licensed by local authorities.
  • In 1985, at the request of the industry, the 'Uc' was introduced for video only, to identify works specifically suitable for very young children to watch alone.
  • In 1989 the BBFC introduced the '12' certificate on film, to bridge the huge gap between 'PG' and '15'. This was extended to video in 1994. The first film to be given a '12' rating was Batman.

1990s

The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act
  • The 1990s saw public concern about the influence of videos over aspects such as violence increasing, most notable following the Jamie Bulger case, which the media claimed was linked to the film Child's Play 3.
  • Subsequent enquires refuted this connection, but public opinion rallied behind calls for stricter regulation. This was supported in Parliament with a new act (the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994)introduced to the Video Recordings Act. It requires the Board to consider specific issues, and the potential for harm, when making video classification decisions. 
  • At the time that the new legislation was being discussed and implemented, the BBFC was being asked to look at a number of extremely violent and drug-filled films, which further fuelled the debate about media effects. 
  • While the Board waited to see what form the Criminal Justice Act would take, decisions on the video releases of a number of films were held up, although all five films were eventually classified, in some cases with additional cuts, reflecting the requirements of the new tests.
  • Perhaps the film that provoked the most controversy at the time was Oliver Stone's Natural Born Killers, whose video release was held up by its own distributor (despite having been classified by the BBFC) until 2001. 
 Other controversies

  • In 1997 the BBFC's President, Lord Harewood, stepped down after 12 years in the job.  His replacement, Andreas Whittam Smith, announced his intention to steer the BBFC towards a greater 'openness and accountability'. 
  • This included the publication of the BBFC's first set of classification guidelines in 1998, following a series of public 'roadshows' in which public views were canvassed and the launching of a BBFC website. 

Digital Media

  • The 1990s also saw rapid developments in the world of computer games, which seemed to become more realistic and sophisticated with each passing year.  Although the majority of video games were automatically exempt from classification, those that featured realistic violence against humans or animals, or human sexual activity, did come under the scope of the Video Recordings Act. 
  • From 1994 the BBFC started to receive some of the stronger video games for formal classification, which necessitated a different way of examining (because it was impossible to see everything that might happen in a game). 
  • In 1997, for the first time, the BBFC refused a certificate to the game Carmageddon, on the grounds that it encouraged anti-social behaviour.  This decision was later overturned on appeal, subject to the provison that the game must be fitted with a parental lock to prevent it being accessed by children.

 1999, Robin Duval

Robin Duval became the Director on the retirement of James Ferman who had held the position since 1975.

  • Standards continued to evolve, with due consideration of recent relevant research, shifts in public attitudes, and the developments in comparable media such as terrestrial, satellite and cable television and the internet.  
  • 1999 also saw the removal of the BBFC's controversial policy on oriental weaponry (most notably chainsticks), originally implemented by Stephen Murphy in the early 1970s but continued zealously by James Ferman. Whilst the refusal to allow sight of exotic - and potentially easily manufactured - weaponry had been a reaction to real concerns back in the 1970s a total prohibition on sight of such weapons was no longer considered necessary or particularly constructive.  Such weapons were less prevalent than they had been in the past and information on them was in any case widely available in books, magazines and on the internet.
  • Emphasis was accordingly changed from removing all evidence of unusual weapons towards a policy of being concerned about the glamorisation of any weapons (but especially knives), particularly at the junior categories. 

2000s

New Guidelines 2000 

New Guidelines were introduced in 2000, following extensive public consultation in 1999. The process involved a series of public presentations across the UK, 2 cititzens' juries surveys and questionnaires as well as contributions from the film and video industry. Major outcome was that drugs/drug use was parents' greatest cause of concern, as well as violence in lower classification categories. Portrayal of sexual activity however caused less concern than previously.

Controversy
In 1999 the BBFC received three European films that challenged the Board's standards on sex.  All three films contained scenes of unsimultated sex that would not normally have been be acceptable at '18'.  However, as the Board moved into the new millennium it soon became clear that these were not to be isolated examples.  A whole generation of European film makers seemed determined to push the boundaries of what was sexually acceptable on the screen. Fortunately, the 1999-2000 consultation exercise had revealed a general desire on the part of the public that the BBFC should relax its attitudes to sex at '15' and '18'.  Accordingly the new guidelines stated that real sex may be permitted at '18' in the future, provided that the images were exceptionally justified by context (ie not purely there for titillation).

However, once sexual violence entered the equation, things became more complicated. One example was Baise-moi which included not only scenes of explicit sex but also a horrifying rape scene, which incorporated explicit detail.


The DCMS and Ofcom

In June 2001, governmental responsibility for film and video classification moved from the Home Office to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). Ofcom is the new regulator for television, radio, telecommunications and wireless communications services. The regulation of films, videos and DVDs does not fall under Ofcom's remit and remains the responsibility of the BBFC. The BBFC is still the only regulator which regulates material before it is seen by the public .

The '12A' rating

In 2002, the new '12A' category was introduced, allowing children under 12 to see a '12A' film, provided that they are accompanied throughout by an adult. This decision to was taken after a pilot scheme and research had been conducted to assess public reaction. The new category was also conditional on the provision and publication of Consumer Advice for '12A' films.  The Board considers '12A' films to be suitable for audiences OVER the age of 12, but acknowledges that parents know best whether their children younger than 12 can cope with a particular film. 

Consumer Advice

While the BBFC has been producing Consumer Advice for films which appeared on the website, it was the introduction of the '12A' category which saw its appearance on film posters, TV advertisements and in cinema listings for '12A' films.  A single line of information about the film's content indicates what viewers can expect to encounter in the film and therefore why it was given its rating.  This is particularly helpful for parents deciding what films are suitable for their children, and in particular whether to take children younger than 12 to a '12A' film.  In 2004, the majority of film distributors agreed to include the Consumer Advice in publicity for all films.

New Guidelines 2005

On 9 February 2005, the BBFC published a new set of Guidelines based on an even more extensive research programme than the one which resulted in the 2000 Guidelines.  Over 11,000 people contributed their views on the BBFC's Guidelines, Public support for the BBFC went up from 59% in 2000 to 63% in 2004.

Important 2006 Decisions

In 2006, landmark ‘18’ certificates were awarded to two high-profile films containing explicit images of real sex. The Observer’s Philip French stated that ‘The award of 18 certificates by the BBFC to Shortbus and Destricted has brought close the abolition of censorship, but not of classification.’

2007


2007 saw the introduction of Parents’ BBFC, a website designed to help parents and guardians make what they consider to be sensible choices for their children’s viewing. The website provides up -to -date information about films and video games in the junior categories, offering a brief plot summary and details of why the film or game received its U, PG or 12A/12. The purpose of the website is to take the guesswork out of making an informed decision about what is suitable viewing for any particular child, a decision best made by a parent or guardian.

New Guidelines 2009

On 23 June 2009, the BBFC published its most recent set of Guidelines based on another detailed public consultation exercise conducted in 2008-2009.  Over 8,700 people contributed their views on the BBFC's Guidelines, in the form of lengthy questionnaires and focus groups.  82% of the general public felt that the BBFC was ‘effective’, which is around the same figure as that produced by the 2004 research.

Thursday 17 March 2011

PCC Case Studies

  • Which clauses of the Code are relevant to these cases?
  • Do you think that the Code of Practice was broken in any of these cases?
  • Could a public interest justification be made in any of these examples?
Case Study 1: A man vs. The Northwich Guardian
  • Clause 6 Children, Clause 3 Privacy and Clause 9 Reporting of Crime are all relevant to the case.
  • In my opinion, the Code of Practice was not broken in any of these cases: a * next to each of these clauses clearly states that the public interest is strong enough to overrule in cases involving the detection or exposion crime, and the protection of public health and safety.
  • It also states that "The PCC will consider the extent to which material is already in the public domain" (which the YouTube video undisputably already was, and was uploaded by the boys themselves).
  • For this reason I think that the comlaint was upheld.
Case Study 2: A man vs. Zoo magazine
  • Clauses 3 and 6 are the most relevant to this case.
  • I do not think that Code of Practice was broken - their loud behaviour and obscene gestures meant that they were already drawing attention to themselves, and that the father was not at that point concerned about other members of the public or who else could see them. Furthermore, her welfare is not in concern, and they were in a public place.
  • For this reason I think that the complaint was upheld.
Case Study 3: A man vs. The Times
  • The relevant clauses are Clause 4, Harrasment, and Clause 6. Clause 4 states that "journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment or persistent persuit", and Clause 6 goes on to state that "A child under 16 must not be interviewed or photographed on issues involving their own or another child's welfare unless a custodial parent or similarly responsible adult consents".
  • This therefore means that the journalist was clearly in breach of the code, as he persisted in following the boy to an internet cafe and allegedly texted and called him, and I do not think public interest would overrule in this case. None of his comments or photographs were published, however.
  • Upheld
Case Study 4: A woman vs. The Independent
  • Clauses 1 Accuracy and 3 are the most relevant, stating that "everyone is entitled to his or her private and family lives, home, health and correspondence. Editors will be expected to justify intrustions into any individual's private life without consent", and that "the press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information".
  • She had not told her family so the report was in breach of both of the above clauses.
  • Upheld - they offered to print an apology, and apologized privately.
Case Study 5: A woman vs. The Sun
  • The relevant clause is Clause 5, Intrustion into Grief or Shock.
  • The coverage was brief and factual, treating the matter sensitively, and the event occured in a public place.
  • For this reason I believe that the complaint was not upheld.
Case Study 6: A woman vs. The Eastbourne Gazette
  • Harrassment, Hospitals, and Intrustion into Grief or Shock are the relevant three clauses.
  • The journalist was very firmly in breach of all three of these clauses - he was asked several times to desist, and persisted in telephoning and visitng, and enters the hospital without indentifying himself.
  • For this reason I believe that the complaint was upheld.
Case Study 7: A Police officer vs. The Sunday Telegraph
  • Clandestine devices and subterfuge is the Clause in question, however public interest could be perceived to be a mitigating factor.
  • I think that although, yes, the police offer is in the public eye and it is in public interest to obtain details about anything that may "sit uneasily" with members of the public, this is no excuse for the way in which the journalists acted, which I think was shameless, and asking to use the toilet in no way makes the information publicly available.
  • I think personally that the complaint should have been upheld - although I'm not sure if it would have been.
Case Study 8: Paul McCartney vs. Hello! magazine
  • Privacy and Intrustion into Grief or Shock is the Clause in question, although the fact that he was in a public place could be mitigating.
  • I think that at such a difficult and sensitive time of their life however should have been respected and the journalists behaved shockingly.
  • For this reason I believe that the complaint was upheld - an apology was sent directly to McCartney.  

BBFC Seminar

Caitlin, a lady who works on the BBFC board of comissioners who came to speak to us about her job, was extremely friendly and I learnt alot from her about the way film classification works. I was not aware that the BBFC are also responsible for the classification of games (although this responsibility is being transfered to Pegi next year, which Caitlin said she was disappointed about), and that they receive cheats and "god-modes" to help them unlock all of the levels when they test them out. It was a lot of fun debating our own opinions on age-ratings for recent films, and voicing our own views about the system. It was interesting to learn that the cheif comissioners' decision can overrule that of all of the other comissioners, and to find that they do not always get it right - for example with Juno, which they rated too low. A lot of the clips we had already been through in class so the seminar was also useful for revision and securing the basis our knowledge of the BBFC, and it was helpful and informative to receive an inside opinion.

The PCC Trip

I found the trip to the PCC really useful and informative. Because it is a voluntary set-up which the public don't pay for it came as a suprise for me to realise just how high-profile it was. We were given a talk in a board room by one of the commissioners. It was interesting working through the case studies with her and learning that the conclusions that they came to were not always obvious, and to learn just how many factors come into play during deliberation. What I found the most surprising of all is that there is no set precedent to determine whether freedom of expression, privacy, or public interest overrules. I was impressed to learn that they deal with requests over a maximum of 35 days, and also that editors subscribe up quite voluntarily, and on the whole do not attempt to breach the code, although in some instances they take large risks.

Tuesday 15 March 2011

Code of Practice

The Code of Practice was updated in 2011.
  1. Accuracy
  2. Oppurtunity to reply
  3. Privacy *
  4. Harrassment *
  5. Intrusion into grief and shock
  6. Children *
  7. Children in sex cases *
  8. Hospitals *
  9. Reporting of crime *
  10. Clandestine devices and subterfuge *
  11. Victims of sexual assult
  12. Discrimination
  13. Financial journalism
  14. Confidential sources
  15. Witness payments in criminal trials
  16. Payment to criminals *
* = There may be exception to the clauses marked * where they can be demonstrated to be in the public interst.

The Press Complaints Commission

What does the PCC do?
  • An independent body which deals with complaints about the editorial content of newspapers and magazines in the UK and their websites.
  • It administers a sixteen clause Code of Practice which acts as the "rules" to which editors and journalists must adhere.
  • They investiage complaints from people believe that the Code has been breached, either in a published article or in the way a journalist obtained the material.
  • When there is a problem under the Code of the PCC acts as a mediator to help the editor and the comaplainant agree on a way to resolve the dispute, for example, by way of a published correction, apology and clairification.
  • If the problem cannot be settled in this way, the Commission will assess the evidence and information provided by both sides in the dispute and will issue a formal judgement ("adjudication") on the complaint. The adjudication sets out the reasons why the complaint, the newspaper or magazine in question must publish the text of the PCC's critical adjudication in full, and in a prominent place in the newspaper.
  • In some cases, the PCC will consider that during the course of its investigation, the publication has made an offer of remedial action that is satisfactory under the terms of the Code, and that therfore no further action is necessary. This might, for example, include the publication offering to publish a correction; writing a private letter from the editor to the complainant; or publishing a follow-up letter from the complainant.
How does the system work?
  • The system of regulation administered by the PCC is not a legal one, nor is it run by the government.
  • It is based on a voluntary agreement by the newspaper and magazine industry to allow itself to be regulated by an independent body.
  • While the Code of Practice is drawn up by a committee of editors, the Commission itself has a clear majority of public members.
  • 10 of the 17 Commissioners including the Chairman have no connection to newspapers/magazines.
  • None of the PCC's staff are connected to the industry either.
What does the Code of Practice cover?
  • The Code of Practice has 16 sections and covers four main areas:
  1. Accuracy
  2. Privacy
  3. News Gathering
  4. Protecting the Vulnerable
  • An editor is expected to take responsibility for all the stories and photographs that appear in his or her publication and to ensure that they comply with the Code.
  • Sometimes an editor may want to defend his publication or the behaviour of a journalist as being in the "public interest".
  • The Code sets out the circumstances in which an editor may mount such a defence.
  • The Code does not cover issues of taste and decency because the PCC recognises that in a democratic society, newspapers must have the freedom to choose the style in which they publish material in keeping with the Code of Practice.
  • The Commission understands that people choose to look at a newspaper. They can therefore make an informed decision about which newspaper fits their own tastes.
  • By contrast, advertising billboards, for instance may be on public view and so rules on taste may be appropriate.
How is the PCC funded?
  • The PCC is funded through a body called the Press Standards Board of Finance which is responsible for collecting money from newspapers and magazines in the UK.
  • The press has agreed that each newspaper or magazine should contribute an amount in proportion to the amount of people who buy it and read it (circulation) - so a large, national newspaper like the Sun will have to pay much more money than a small, local paper like the Stourbridge News, for example.
  • Members of the public do not have to pay for the service either directly or indirectly through their taxes.
  • The PCC does not receive any money from the government.
What is the history of the PCC?
  • The PCC was set up in 1991 and replaced the Press Council, which had been set up in 1953 with the aim of maintaining high standards of journalism as well as protecting press freedom.
  • During the 1980s, a small number of publications failed to observe the  basic ethics of journalism and this led many MPs to lose confidence in the Press Council, which they thought was weak and ineffective.
  • Some politicaians believed it would be preferable to introduce a new regulatory authority which would come under government control and would have the power to enforce legal punishments.
  • The Govermnets appointed a Departmental Committee under David Calcutt QC to consider the matter. Its task was "to consider what measures (whether legislative or otherwise) are needed to give further proection to individual privacy from the activities of the press and improve recourse against the press for the individual citizen".
  • The report that followed did not recommend new statutory controls but proposed a new Press Complaints Commission which would have to prove "that a non-statutory regulation can be made to work effectively".
  • A committee of national and regional editor was duly set up. They produced a formal Code of Practice for the Press Complaints Commission to administer. The Press Standards Board of Finance was set up to organise funding.
  • Despite some inital teething problems, the PCC has continued to grow in respect and influence. The current Government has made it clear its support for effective self-regulation and for the work of the Press Complaints Commission.
Who complains to the PCC and what do they complain about?
  • The PCC accepts complaints from anyone who believes an article involving them breaches the Code in some way. A number of celebrities have used the PCC's service in recent years, but most complaints are ordinary people.
  • In 2007, 1.5% of complaints came from people in the public eye,  but the vast majority (95.8%) came from ordinary members of the public.
  • The Code provides special protection to particularly vulnerable groups of people such as children, hospital patients and those at risk of discrimination.
  • The majority of complaints to the Commission are about regional  newspapers, perhaps as a demonstration of the importance readers attach to the publication which will be seen by most people in their locality.
Why is the PCC important?
  • In a democracy, the press should not be subject to stringent controls by law or government. The PCC, being an independent, voluntary organisation, protects against this possibility simply by its existence.
  • However, being free does not mean the press should not be accountable - there has to be a balance. It is vital that there be some mechanism which sets out what people can expect from the press; and by which wrongs can be righted when the occur. The PCC is committed to protecting the public by ensuring that when the rules are broken it can put things right as soon as possible. It is fast (dealing with a complaints in an avergae of 35 days); it is free (it costs complainants nothing to use the service) and it is fair (the Commission is independent fom the industry it was set up to regulate).

Thursday 3 March 2011

The UK's Current Classification System

Do you think the way films are regulated is sensible, useful to society, and acheives its aim of protecting the vulnerable and upholding the law?

I think film regulation is completley necessary, most importantly because it is the easiest way for parents to decide for themselves what they will and won't allow their children to see, both in the cinema and on DVD. The certificates are sensible in that they provide a rough guideline based on what most children would be comfortable with at given ages, gaging the distress that is likely to be caused to children at each age group. I believe that the law is upheld effectively, as breiching of criminal law is strictly forbidden at all age ratings, and further to this any complaints that an audience or viewer may have may be taken up with their local council who, with enough complaints, can decide to prevent a cinema from screening a film Ultimately, however, film regulation can only be viable as regulation for parents to a certain extent: parents cannot expect to follow these guidelines religiously, as it is down to them to decide what they think will affect their child. The BBFC cannot regulate what parents allow their children to watch in the home.

What are the pros and cons?

Pros:

  • Gives parents information so they can decide what to let their children watch.
  • The vulnerable are protected.
  • Local authorities can overthrow decisions made by the BBFC and prevent a film from being screened.
  • The guidelines are updated and maintained in keeping with society's constantly changing beliefs.
Cons:
  • Regulation is not enforced strictly (often shops and cinemas do not demand ID)
  • What children will be affected by is subjective. You cannot generalize about the mental state of a child at a given age and what will/won't distress or upset them.
  • It could be argued that regulation is in place to protect governments and companies rather than the people.
  • Books, newspapers and other media are not censored.. why film?
  • "Nanny state" - people relying on film companies to tell them what is suitable for their child.
 How do you think the system could be improved?


There are obvious flaws in the system but I find it hard to point out exactly where it is that these flaws should be improved - having a set certification system is obviously an extremely difficult and subjective task, and given the complexity of the issue, I think that BBFC have done a reasonable job. I think it is unfair to assume that age determines maturity, and for this reason perhaps there should be more information provided on actual content (perhaps a "H" for horror, an "S" for Sexual Behaviour, and so on). I also think that the parents website is not at all well advertised, and if parents were more aware of it this would be helpful. Aside from this though, I think that it is not down to the BBFC to act as parents - they merely provide a rough guideline. I do not think that they can be held accountable for the minute percent of the population who would, for example, watch an 18 film and imitate dangerous or violent behaviour they saw, or for a young child who watches an 18 film behind their parents back.

Differences Between Ratings

U > PG
- Discrimination may be allowed in an educational/historical context
- Infrequent drug references are allowed where an anti-drugs message is clear
- Unprolonged horror scenes are acceptable. Fantasy settings are mitigating.
- Where treated appropriately, or when clearly condoning behaviour, more adult themes are acceptable
- Violence is permitted but must lack detail and be justified by context.
- No imitable behaviour
- Mild bad language and very occasional natural nudity is acceptable


PG > 12A
- Where condemned, discriminatory behaviour or language can be more aggressive
- Infrequent and unglamorized drug misuse can be portrayed
- Prolonged horror is acceptable, as long as it is infrequent
- Mature themes are acceptable
- Violence can be stronger, but not dwelled upon. Sexual violence (with strong contextual justification) may be referred to.
- No imitable behaviour
- Discreetly portrayed sexual activity is acceptable, as well as brief and discreet nudity (including nudity in a sexual context)
- Moderate bad language is acceptable (eg. infrequent use of the "f" word)

12A > 15
- Discrimination is allowed, as long as it is not endorsed
- Drug use can be more frequent (although it still must not be glamorized, encouraged, or shown in detail - imitable behaviour)
- Stronger threat/horror is acceptable (as long as it is not sexualized/sadistic)
- No theme is prohibited, as long as it is treated in a way that is suitable for 15 year olds
- Frequent violence is acceptable where it does not dwell on the infliction of pain or injury (sexual violence can be strongly referred to, but any portrayal must be discreet and justified strongly by context)
- Nudity in a sexual context is permitted although it cannot be dwelled upon
- Strong language is acceptable, (for example the "c" word) but must be justified by context

15 > 18
- Viewers are now adult and so are at liberty to choose what they watch
- Illegal drug use is not acceptable
- Clear images of real sex are still not permitted
- No criminal laws may be breached, and there must be no footage that causes risk of harm to society (particularly in relation to Sexualized Violence)

18 > R18
- No criminal laws may be breached
R18s are only for sale in licensed sex shops and may only be viewed in licensed cinemas.They normally involve explicit works of consenting sex, and sexual fetish material.

Sunday 27 February 2011

Film Classifcation: R18


R18 films are to be shown only in specially licensed cinemas, or supplied in licensed sex shops, and to adults of no less than 18. It is primarily for explicit works of consenting sex or strong fetish material involving adults, and may not be supplied by mail order.

THE FOLLWING CONTENT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE:
  1. Any material which is in breach of the criminal law (material judged obscene under the Obscene Publications Act)
  2. Material including dialogue likely to encourage interest in sexually abusive activity (for example paedophelia or rape) which may involve adults role- playing as non adults
  3. The potrayal of any sexual activity which involves lack of consent/any form of physical restraint which they cannot indicate withdrawal of consent
  4. The infliction of pain or acts which may cause lasting physical harm
  5. Penetration by any object associated with violence or likely to cause physical harm
  6. Any sexual threats, humiliation or abuse which does not form part of a clearly consenting role-playing games
These guidelines will be applied to the same standard regardless of sexual orientation

Film Classification: 18



18 films are suitable only for adults, and no-one younger may rent or buy an 18 or see on in the cinema. BBFC's guideline concerns will not normally override the principle that adults should be fee to choose their own entertainment. Exceptions are most likely in the following areas;

  • where the material is in breach of the criminal law, or has been created through the commission of a criminal offence
  • wher material or treatment appears to the BBFC to risk harm to individuals or, through their behaviour to society - for example, any detailed portrayal of violent or dangerous acts, or of illegal drug use, which may cause harm to public health or morals. This may include portrayals of sexual or sexualised violence which might, for example, eroticise or endorse sexual assault
  • where there are more explicit images of sexual activity which cannot be justified by context. Such images may be appropriate in 'R18' works, and in 'sex works' would normally be confined to that category
In the case of video works (including video games), which may be more accessible to younger viewers, intervention may be more frequent than for cinema films

Sex works at '18'
Sex works are works whose primary purpose is sexual arousal or stimulation. Sex works containing only material which may be simulated are generally passed '18'. Sex works containing clear images of real sex, strong fetish material, sexually explicit animated images, or other very strong sexual images will be confined to the 'R18' category. Material which is unacceptable in a sex work at 'R18' is also unacceptable in a sex work at 18.

Sex education at '18'
Where sex material genuinely seeks to inform and educate in matters such as human sexuality, safer sex and health, explicit images of sexual activity may be permitted

Friday 18 February 2011

Film Classification: 15


Suitable only for 15 years or older, and noone younger may be entered to see a 15 film in a cinema, or buy/rent a 15 rated video work.
  • The work as a whole must not endorse discrminatory language or behaviour
  • Drug taking may be shown but the film as a whole must not encourage or promote drug misuse. The misuse of easily accesibly and highly dangerous substances is unlikely to be acceptable.
  • Strong threat and menace are permitted unless sadistic or sexualised.
  • Dangerous behaviour eg.suicide and self-harm should not dwell on detail which could be copied. Easily accesible weapons should not be glamorized.
  • There may be frequent use of strong language (for example, 'fuck'). The strongest terms (for example, 'cunt') may be acceptable if justified by context. Aggresive or repeated use of strongest language is unlikely to be acceptable.
  • Nudity may be allowed in a sexual context but without strong detail. There are no constraints on nudity in a non-sexual or educational context.
  • Sexual activity may be portrayed without strong detail. There may be strong verbal references to sexual behaviour, but the strongest references are likely to be acceptable outside of context. Works whose primary purpose is sexual arousal or stimulation are unlikely to be acceptable.
  • No theme is prohibited, provided the treatment is appropriate for 15 year olds.
  • Violence may be strong but should not dwell on the infliction of pain or injury. The strongest gory images or strong sadistic/sexualised violence are unlikely to be acceptable. There may be detailed verbal references to sexual violence but any portrayal of sexual violence must be discreet and have a strong contexual justification.

Film Classification: 12(A)



12A/12 is suitable for children aged 12 years and over. The 12A category exists only for cinema films, and no one younger than 12 may see a 12A film unless accompanied by an adult, and are not recommended for a child below 12. An adult may take a child if, in their judgement, the film is suitable for that particular child.

  • Discriminatory language or behaviour must not be endorsed by the work as a whole. Aggressive, discriminatory language or behaviour is unlikely to be acceptable unless clearly condemned.
  • Any misuse of drugs must be infrequent and should not be glamorised or give instructional detail.
  • Moderate physical and psychological threat may be permitted, provided distrubing sequences are infrequent or sustained.
  • Dangerous behaviour eg. suicide and self-harm should not dwell on detail which could be copied, or appear pain or harm free. Easily accesible weapons should not be glamorized.
  • Moderate language is allowed. The use of strong language (for example, 'fuck') must be infrequent.
  • Nudity is allowed, but in a sexual context and must be brief and discreet.
  • Sexual activity may be briefly and discreetly portrayed, and suitable for young teenagers.
  • Mature themes are acceptable, but their treatment must be suitable for young teenagers.
  • Moderate violence is allowed but should not dwell on detail. There should be no emphasis on injuries or blood, but occasional gory moments may be permitted if justified by context. Sexual violence may only be implied or briefly and discreetly indicated, and must have strong contextual justification.

Film Classification: PG



"PG" stands for Parental Guidance. General viewing, but some scenes may be unsuitable for young children. A "PG" film should not disturb a child aged around eight or older. Parents are advised to consider whether the content may upset younger or more sensitive children.
  • Discriminatory language or behaviour is unlikely to be acceptable unless clearly disapproved of or in an educational or historical context.
  • Referneces to illegal drugs or drug-misuse must be innocuous or carry a suitable anti-drug message.
  • Frightening scenes should not be prolonged/intense, although fantasy settings are a mitigating factor.
  • No detail of potentially dangerous behaviour which young children are likely to copy, and no glamorisation of realistic or easily accesible weapons.
  • Mild bad language only.
  • Natural nudity, with no sexual content.
  • Sexual activity may be implied but should be discreet and infrequent. Mild sex references and innuendo only.
  • Where more serious issues are featured unacceptable behaviour should not be condoned.
  • Moderate violence without detail and in context may be allowed.

Film Classification: U

U stands for "Universable", suitable for all. A 'U' film should be suitable for audiences aged 4 qand over. They should be set within a positive moral framework and should offer reassuring counterbalances to any violence, threat or horror.

  • No discriminatory language or behaviour unless clearly disapproved of, and only infrequent use of very mild bad language.
  • No drug references, unless infrequent and innocuous, or there for clear educational purposes or to give an anti-drug message that can be interpreted by young children.
  • Horror should be mild, brief and unlikely to cause a child anxiety, with a reassuring outcome.
  • No potentially dangerous behaviour which young children are likely to copy or emphasis on realistic/easily accsesible weapons.
  • Mild sexual behaviour and references only
  • Treatment of problematic themes must be sensitive and appropriate for children.
  • Mild violence only.
There is also a "Uc" rating which is only available for DVDs which means that the film will be suitable for a child under 4 to watch unaccompanied.

The 13 Issues

1. Discrimination
2. Drugs
3. Horror
4. Imitable behaviour
5. Criminal behaviour (grouped with imitable behaviour post)
6. Weapons (grouped with imitable behaviour post)
7. Language
8. Nudity
9. Sexual references (grouped with nudity post)
10. Sex
11. Theme
12. Violence
13 Sexualised violence (grouped with violence post)

Wednesday 16 February 2011

Video Games

Video Games are classified udner the same Guidelines and uing the same categories as 'linear' works such as film or DVD. The BBFC acknowledge the difference between watching a film or DVD and the more interactive experience of playing a game, but recognises that, to date, limited research has been done into whether 'interactivity' has any significant effect on the potential for harm.

In addition, the interactivity inherent in video games may, in certain contexts, lead to a greater potential for some content to be considered unsuitable for certain age groups. The ability of a game to make a young player complicit in behaviour, for example, sex drugs or realistic violence, may be as important to as the level of detail shown, especially where such behaviour forms a major component of the game, and where the level of interactivity is high.

Frequency is difficult to quantify as it often depends on levels.

Given the lack of research, especially in relation to harm, the BBFC may take a more cautious approach when a video game lies on a borderline between two categories.

Trailers/Advertisements

Trailers
Audiences actively choose to see a full length feature based on expectations of the particular genre at the given classification and on the Consumer Advice and Extended Classification Information provided by the BBFC. In contrast, audiences have no choice about the accompanying trailer/advertisements which may be very diffrerent in tone/context to the film that the audience has chosen to view.

Because trailers and advertisements are often short and self-contained, boreerline material is less likely to be justified by context and more likely to cause offence.

For this reason, classification is more restrictive for trailers and advertisements than in the main feature.
For example:
  • Strong language is not permitted in trailers or advertisements at any category below '15'.
  • Only one use of strong language is permitted in a trailer or advertisement at '15' and must be neither threatening nor aggressive.
Advertisements
  • Advertisements for alcohol of any type can be passed at any category. However these may receive a more restrictive classification if there are overt attempts to associate alcohol with sexual prowess and/or a glamourous and sexual lifestyle.
  • Advertisements for tobacco are prohibited by law.
  • The BBFC is not reponsible for the exhibition of cinema trailers and advertisements, including alchol advertising, and has no involvement in deciding which films they apear before. This process is the resposnsibility of the cinema.
  • Public information advertisements/charity advertisements: where an advertisement is part of a public information campaign or has a charitable purpose, the more restrictive approach set out above will normally not apply. However potentially shocking or offensive content in such advertisements must not go beyond what is likely to be acceptable to the particular audience.

Photo or Pattern Sensitivty, Motion Sickness, and Reactions to Low Frequency Sound

  • A small number of viewers are sensitive to flashing and flickering light, or some shapes and patterns, and may experience seizures or other serious physical effects. I
  • In addition, some viewers experience feelings of motion sickness or other symptoms when viewing works which feature hand held or otherwise moving camerawork, or which feature very low frequency sounds.
  • Such effects are not normally taken into account during classification as it is the responsibility of film makers and distributors to identify works in which this occurs.

Titles

  • If the title of a work incites hatred on grounds of race, religion or sexual orientation, or incites other criminal behaviour, or encourages an interest in abusive or illegal sexual activity changes will be required as a condition of classification.
  • If the tital of the work is likely to cause significant offence to a signifcant number of people if displayed in a public place, the distributor will be advised to consider carefully the places in which is likely to be seen and take appropriate action, for example by obscuring certain works on packaging and marketting material.
  • This advice is not given in relation works classified 'R18'.
  • In extreme cases, assurnaces on public display of the full title or changes to the title, may be required as a condition of classification.

Violence

Classification decisions will take into account the degree/nature of any violence in a work, as it has always been a feature of entertainment for children and adults.

Works which feature the following are likely to receive more restrictive classifications:
  • Portrayal of violence as a normal solution to problems
  • Heroes who inflict pain and injury
  • Callousness towards victims
  • Encouragement of aggressive attitudes and content which depicts characters taking pleasure in pain or humiliation.
Sexualised violence or works which glorify or glamorize violence and rape is applied. Content which might eroticise or endorse sexual violence may require cuts at any classification level. Any association of sex with non-consensual restraint, pain, or humiliation may be cut.

Theme

  • Classification decisions will take into account the theme of a work, but will depend significantly on the treatment of that theme, and especially the sensitivty of its presentation.
  • Most problematic themes include:
Drug abuse
Sexual Violence
Paedophilia
Inticement to racial hatred or violence

And these are unlikely to be appropriate at the most junior levels of classification.
  • There is no reason in principle why most themes, however difficult, could not be presented in a manner which allowed classification at '18' or '15'.

Sex

Sexual activity can range from kissing and verbal references to 'making love' or details or reail of sex. The classification system allows progressively stronger portrayals in each category.

  • Sex works whose primary purpose is sexual arousal are likely to be passed only in the adult categories. Sex works containing only masterial which may be simulated are generally passed '18'.
  • Sex works containing clear images of real sex, strong fetish material, sexually explicit animated images, or other very strong sexual images will be confined to the 'R18' category, which may be supplied only in licensed sex shops and shown in specially licensed cinemas.
  • These guidelines apply regardless of sexual orientation.

Nudity

  • Natural nudity with no sexual context is acceptable at all classifcation levels, but will not occur more than occasionally at the lowest level.
  • Nudity with asexual context will receive a more restrictive classification, and strong detail will only be passed in the adult categories.

Language

Many people are offended, some of them deeply, by bad language, specifically the use of expletives with a sexual, religious, or racial association, offensive language about minority groups and commonly understood rude gestures.

The extent of that offence varies according to:
  • Age
  • Gender
  • Race
  • Background
  • Beliefs and expectations
  • Context
For this reason it is impossible to define a specific list of words, expressions or gestures which are acceptable at each category. The advice at different classification levels, terefore, provides general guidance taking account of the views expressed in public consultation excersise.

Imitable Behaviour

  • Any detailed portrayal of criminal and violent techniques, and any glamorization of easili accesible weapons such as knives will be taken into account.
  • Anti-social behaviour such as bullying portrayed in an uncritical way are likely to receive a more restrictive classification.
  • Works which as a whole actively promote illegal behaviour will be cut or rejected.
  • Portrayals of potentially dangerous behaviour eg. suicide and self harm which are likely to be copied will be cut if a more restrictive classification is not appropriate.

Horror

  • The use of frightening elements which may scare or unsettle an audience is a main feature in horror.
  • Many children enjoy the excitement of scary sequences, but where films are targeted at a younger audince, classification decisions will take into account factors such as frequency, length, and detail of scary scenes.
  • Horror effects such as music and sound will be taken into account, as well as whether or not there is a swift/reassuring outcome.

Tuesday 15 February 2011

Drugs

  • No work may promote the misuse of drugs
  • Any detailed portrayal of drug misuse likely to promote or glamorize it may be cut.
  • Emphasis on the dangers of drug misuse may lead to less restrictive classifications.
  • Smoking, and alcohol or substance misuse in works which appeal to children will be taken into account.
  • Classification decisions will take into account any promotion/glamorization of such activities.

Discrimination

Potentially insulting content relating to matters such as:
  • Race
  • Gender
  • Religion
  • Disability
  • Sexuality
The classification takes into account the strength or impact of the above factors, and is also influenced by the context. Where discriminatory language and behaviour against such content is clearly criticized/challenged, or is obviously dated, it may receive a less restrictive category.

Tuesday 8 February 2011

BBFC: Overriding Factors

  • There are certain overarching factors that may influence a classification decision at any level and in connection with any issue.
  • These factos are of particular importance when a work lies on the borderline between two categories.
  • The guidance set out under "The Categories" should therefore be read in the light of the more general advice offered here and under "Main Issues" and "General Principles".

BBFC: Legal Considerations

  • Human Rights Act 1998 Rights established under this Act include the respect for private and family life and freedom of expression.
  • The Licensing Act 2003 Cinemas require a license from the local of authority in which they operate including a condition on children under 18. The objectives of the Act are:
  1. The prevention of crime and disorder
  2. Public safety
  3. Prevention of public nuisance
  4. Protection of children from harm
  • The Video Recordings Act 1984 Video works must be classified by the BBFC unless they fall within the definitions of an exempted work.Must take into consideration:
  1. Criminal behaviour
  2. Illegal drugs
  3. Violent behaviour or incidents
  4. Horrific behaviour or incidents.
  5. Human sexual activity
  • The Obscene Publications Act 1959 & 1964 It is illegal to publish a work which is obscene. No offence is commited if publication is justifid as being for the public good.
  • Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 It is illegal to be in posession of an extreme pornographic image.
  • The Protection of Children Act 1978 It is illega to make, distribute, show or possess indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of a child.
  • The Sexual Offences Act 2003 It is illegal to expose oneself with intent to cause alarm or distress.
  • The Public Order Act 1986 It is illegal to distribute, show or play to the public a recording of visual images or sounds which are theatening, abusive, or insulting.
  • The Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act 1937 It is illegal to show any scene 'organised or directed' for the purpose of the film that involves actual cruelty to animals.
  • The Animal Welfare Act 2006 It is illegal to supply, publish, or show or possess with intent to supply a video recording of an 'animal fight' that has taken place in GB since April 2007.
  • The Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002 It is illegal, in the course of a business, to publish a tobacco advertisment.

BBFC: What general principles do they follow?

  • There are two guiding principles:
  1. That works should be allowed to reach the widest audience that is appropriate for their theme and treatment.
  2. That adults should, as far as possible, be free to choose what they see, provided that it remains within the law is not potentially harmful.
  • When applying these guiding principles, there are three main qualifications:
  1. Whether the material is in conflict with the law, or has been created through the commission of a criminal offence.
  2. Whether the material may cause any harm at the category concerned (incl. "moral harm")
  3. Whether the availability of the material, at the age group concerned, is clearly unacceptable to broad public opinion.
In assessing legal issues, potential harm or acceptability to broad public opinion, the BBFC takes account of relevent research and expert opinion.

BBFC: Who are they, what is their role, and how are they funded?

  • BBFC stands for British Board of Film Classification.
  • An independent, non-governmental body.
  • Funded through the fees it charges to those who submit films and video works for classification (incl. video games, films, and programmes released on DVD, Blu-ray, or downloaded/streamed on the internet).
  • Classify films on behalf of the local authorities, who license cinemas under the Licensing Act 2003.
  • They will not classify material which they believe to be in breach of criminal law.
  •  They carry out responsibilites, where possible, through appropriate use of the classification categories, paricularly in order to protect children from any harm which may be caused. If necessary they may cut or even reject a film or video work.
  • The Guidelines, and the BBFC's practice in applying them, have particular regard to any changes in public taste, attitues, and concerns; changes in the law; or new evidence from research or expert sources; and will be reviewed periodically.
  • The Guidelines are not a legal document and should be interpreted in the spirt of what is intended as as in the letter.

Reflections on Lesson 1

I found learning about the classification process and the BBFC very interesting, specifically:

  1. That the BBFC was first formed following government interference into the issue of film classification. The film industry disagreed with this idea as it would have been incredibly biased, and set up the BBFC so that it could become a self-regulating industry.
  2. That 12A ratings were created as a response to local authority over-throwing the 12 certificate awarded to Spiderman. This decision was based made on market research to re-evaluate the aims of film certificates, and to make sure that the public were getting what they wanted, following thousands of complaints of parents who had children who had been waiting months to see the new "kids" film.
  3. That "The Harm Test", the start of video-licensing, was created as a result of the Jamie Bulger/Chuckie case. A judge ruled that regulation was needed following claims from the Sun and the Mirror that the act of murder/grevious bodily harm commited by the two young boys was mimicking the actions of Chuckie, the doll.