Overall change in BBFC history

• Guidelines have become specific, official and publicly available and approved
• Age ratings for both cinematic and home entertainment have become more prolific, covering smaller age brackets
• The BBFC has become more responsible and accountable - now rating cinematic films, home release and video games
• The change and development through a variety of different Presidents and Directors have meant more leniency on film as an artistic expression
• Increasing acknowledgment of the 'media sophistication' of (young) audiences allowing more films to be passed uncut as the possible effects of film are known and therefore are more sensibly treated

History of BBFC: 2000s

Wider social/political/cultural issues:

• Vast increase in controversal European films caused concern in BBFC - fortunate relax of attitudes towards sex

Key films and issues they raised:

• The Idiots (von Trier, 1998) normally cut but sexual activity brief and serious intention to film
• New policy on sex references challenged in Baise-moi (Despentes, 2001) as explicit but also contained rape scene
• Spiderman (Raimi, 2002) decision to make it 12 was overruled by some local councils as it was a family film - led to construction of 12A rating
• 9 Songs (Winterbottom, 2004) was criticised as 'the most sexually explicit film in British cinema', but passed '18' uncut as no discrimination of English/foreign language films and uncut European films had similar standard of controversy
• Shortbus (Mitchell, 2006) contained explicit images of real sex and received '18' certificate. French (The Observer) commented 'brought close the abolition of censorship but not classification'

History of BBFC: 1990s

Wider social/political/cultural issues:

• Jamie Bulger case called for stricter standards on home video
• Rapid development in digital media (e.g. computer games becoming more realistic)
• Emphasis changed from preventing 'unusual weapons' to easily accessible weaponry (e.g. knives)

Key films and issues they raised:

• Natural Born Killers (Stone, 1994) provoked most controversy at time of the harm effects debates
• Kids (Clark, 1995) described as 'child pornography' so board had to find age of actors - only minor cuts made to 'indecent' scenes of younger actors under Protection of Children Act

History of BBFC: 1980s

Wider social/political/cultural issues:

• Development of video recorder created anxiety of home viewing (no legal classification requirement)

Key films and issues they raised:

• The Krays (Medak, 1989) passed due to known infamy of gangland characters (actions not justified) however cuts to horrific mutilation scene
• The Evil Dead (Raimi, 1982) had 49 seconds of cut when brought in as video nasty

History of BBFC: 1970s

Wider social/political/cultural issues:

• Backlash against idea liberalisation went too far

Key films and issues they raised:

• Concern over sexual violence/rape in A Clockwork Orange (Kubrick, 1971)
• The Exorcist (Friedkin, 1973) accused of blasphemy and danger of psychological damage to children
• Trash (Warhol, 1970) was a key fight for BBFC to defend minimal cuts against anti-censorship campaigners
• Emmanuelle (Jeackin, 1978) extra cut demanded as despite not explicit, overall film breached Obscene Publication Act in terms of corruption due to rape scene appearing just

History of BBFC: 1960s

Wider social/political/cultural issues:

• Liberalisation - increased tolerance of explicit refences

Key films and issues they raised:

• Peeping Tom (Powell, 1960) ignored suggested cuts due to 'morbid concentration on fear' and failed to please public
• Alfie (Gilbert, 1966) compared to Victim (Dearden, 1961) passed uncut, contributing to the sexuality debate - increasing public tolerance
• The Trip (Corman, 1967) reignited fears of drugs and was banned due to showing both 'delights and drawbacks' of LSD - only reclassified 18 in 2002

History of BBFC: 1950s

Wider social/political/cultural issues:

• End of rationing
• Emergence of 'youth' as a social group - issue of juvenile delinquency (mods/rockers)
• Growth of television as family entertainment - eroding audience in cinema
• Moral panic about drug taking
• Last capital punishment (Ruth Ellis) in UK (1956)

Key films and issues they raised:

• Rock Around the Clock (Sears, 1956) & Rebel Without A Cause (Ray, 1955) fuelled concerns over teenage criminality
• The Wild One (Benedek, 1954) described as 'a spectacle of unbridled hooliganism' - showed biker gangs at time of Mod/Rocker riots - rejected until 1967 when dangers seen to be over
• Devil's Weed rejected (1951) as 'evils of drug taking not made clear'
• Yield To The Night (Thompson, 1956) had themes of death row, coinciding with Ruth Ellis therefore passed as 'X' despite tasteful presentation
• Room at the Top (Clayton, 1958) asked to soften language after accusation of "gross suggestiveness in costuming, dialogue and situations", despite its positive reflection of the upheaval of social/class boundaries in post-war UK

History of BBFC: 1912-49



Horror/gangster films caused particular concern



Wider social/political/cultural issues:

• Years between WW1 and WW2

Key films and issues they raised:

• Frankenstein (1931) banned from children by London County Council and Manchester City Council despite scene of drowning girl already being cut

Press Case Studies

KEY QUESTIONS:

• 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? If so, why?
• Could a public interest justification be made in any of these examples?

1. A man vs. Northwich Guardian:

• Newspaper linked with YouTube video of group throwing a petrol bomb on a train
• The father of a 15 year old complained it to be invasion of privacy of a child and his face should have been pixelated
• Related issue: (6) Children should be free to complete school without intrusion/images of his welfare
• The code wasn't broken as video was in a public domain
• The newspaper argued for public interest as they have a right to know of the dangerous behaviour occuring

2. A man vs. Zoo magazine:

• Photo and comments of a 10 year old girl and her father making offensive hand gestures in the crowd of an FA Cup match (described as 'terrace bigotry')
• The man says his daughter has been ridiculed and her face should have been pixelated (as it was in other magazines)
• Related issue: (6) Children under 16 require adult consent of photographs used
• The code was broken as despite being a public space, it is her father who is in the wrong, she doesn't deserve to be ridiculed. Her father also didn't give consent
• There is only public interest on grounds of the father's picture and the abuse in football crowds

3. A man vs. The Sunday Times:

• Journalist approached 14 year old boy with £1000 for a photo of a suspect of a fatal stabbing at his school
• Parent claims the journalist spoke at length with their son and the boy's father has since removed him from school
• Related issues: (6) Children must not be paid and have the right to complete school without intrusion, (15) Witness in criminal trials must not be paid
• The code was breached however the newspaper denies what the complainent accuses, and no photos/comments of the boy were published, therefore the PCC have no obligation to uphold the complaint
• There is no public interest in this part of the case - when someone found guilty/other features of the murder may be of importance

4. A woman vs. The Independent:

• Article of a West End actress published about her unproffesionality in withdrawing from a play due to pregnancy, despite her not telling anyone other than partner/producer/agent
• She has subsequently had a miscarriage and had not given her consent to the information being public
• Relevant issue: (3) Privacy and respect of life and health
• Code was breached as pre 3 months it is not public information as the pregnancy is less viable
• No public interest as it is a private matter and no-one need no of her miscarriage

5. A woman vs. The Sun:

• Published photo of woman jumping to her death before her identity had been made known
• Friend of woman complained photo was unnessecary and distressing and the newspaper was disgusting and voyeuristic
• Relevant issues: (5) Intrusion into grief and shock involving cases of grief/shock and excessive details of suicide, (3) Privacy and respect for life and health
• Code was breached as the photos are insensitive at a distressing time (Sun published condolences and apologies for distressed caused), however minimal unpleasent details of death
• No public interest as issue is private at this time

6. A woman vs. Eastbourne Gazette:

• Family of motorcycle accident have been approached by reporter, and despite him coming out of a coma and asking to desist the journalist left a message and phoned
• Relevant issues: (3) Privacy of health/life, (4) Harassment and no questioning when asked to desist, (8) Hospitals must obtain permission from executive before entering
• Breach of code as victim asked to desist and journalist invaded privacy of his health and the hospital
• No public interest angle can be claimed

7. A police officer vs. The Sunday Telegraph:

• An officer posted on his FaceBook 'our lot have killed again, s*** happens' and was reported in a case of a policewomans husband being a nazi sympathiser
• He accused paper of reported private comments and she accused them of taking unconsentual photos of her house
• Relevant issues: (3) Privacy of health/life/home, (10) Clandestine devices and subterfuge
• The code wasn't in breached on grounds of subterfuge in his case as he added the journalist as a friend, however in her case they didn't respect her private life and home
• Public interest to know the racist views of a police officer/associated sympathies with extreme views as the BNP

8. Paul McCartney vs. Hello!:

• Photos taken of him and his children in Paris as well as him lighting a candle/meditating for his deceased wife Linda
• He accused them of "highly intrusive photographs of us in our most private moments at this very difficult and private in our lives"
• Relevant issues: (3) Privacy, (5) Intrusion into grief or shock
• Code was breached as he was going through a hard emotional time through recent death and his celebrity status should be irrelavent in his privacy at this time
• No public interest in knowing his actions

BBFC and PCC seminars

Why were they useful?

• Put the PCC into context seeing the offices where they work
• Meeting acutual examiners/employees of the companies open me to see the offices on a day-to-day basis
• A chance to ask relevant, up to date questions to the representatives from the PCC and the BBFC

What have you learnt?

• The BBFC have to watch and report on 5hr41mins of footage each day
• There is debate in both offices over what decisions should be made - not as clear cut as I thought
• Other information largely re-affirming revision of what we've learnt so far

Anything unexpected/surprising?

• Surprising how much influence the PCC has in preventing harassment, even prior to publication of information
• The Dark Knight and King's Speech were both initially15 rated before being lowered on grounds of context

PCC Code of Practice

16 clauses of code of practice:

Clause	Details
Accuracy	Publishing inaccurate, misleading or distorted information/pictures Must distinguish between comment, conjecture and fact
Opportunity to reply	Fair opportunity to reply to inaccuracies
* Privacy	Respect for private/family life, home, health and correspondence (inc. digital communication) Unacceptable to photograph individual in private place without consent
* Harassment	Engaging in intimidation, harassment & persistent pursuit No questioning/photography when asked to desist
Intrusion into grief/shock	Cases involving personal grief/shock must have sympathy approach with suitable discretion Avoid excessive detail about method used in suicide
* Children	Young people should be free to complete school without intrusion Under 16s need adult consent to do interviews/photographs when involving issues of their/another child's welfare Minors must not be paid Fame/notoriety/position of parent doesn't justify publishing details of child's private life
* Children in sex cases	No identification of victims of sex offences under 16 The word 'incest' can't be used where child may be identified No implications the child is responsible
* Hospitals	Obtain permission from executive before entering non-public areas of hospital (or equivalent)
* Reporting of crime	Relatives/friends of convicts should not be identified without consent unless relevant to story Particular regard to vulnerability of children who are witnesses/victims
* Clandestine devices and subterfuge	Must not seek to obtain/publish material acquired via hidden cameras, clandestine listening devices, intercepting phone calls No accessing unauthorised digitally-held private information without consent Engaging in misrepresentation/subterfuge (inc. by agents or intermediaries) can only be justified in public interest
Victims of sexual assault	Press not likely to publish identites of victims or material likely to contribute to identification
Discrimination	Avoid prejudicial reference to an individual's race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation or physical/mental illness or disability Irrelavent details to be avoided
Financial journalism	Must not use financial info they recieve in advance of general publication for own profit No writing about shares/securities in whose performance they know without disclosing interest to the (financial) editor Must not buy/sell shares or securities which they have recently written about or intend to
Confidential sources	Moral obligation to protect confidential sources of information
Witness payments in criminal trials	No payment/offer to a witness in any case once proceeding are active Contempt of Court Act 1981 Any payment/offer made even if prior to start of court proceedings must by disclosed to prosecution and defence Witness must be advised on their requirements
* Payment to criminals	No direct payment (or via agents) of material which seeks to glorify crime in general or exploit a particular crime No payments to convicts, confessed criminals or their associates Editors must demonstrate reasonable public benefit for publishing material under this issue

The public interest:

• May be exception to clauses marked with *
• Detection/exposure of crime or serious impropriety
• Protecting public health and safety
• Preventing public from being misled by action/statement of an individual or organisation
• Freedom of expression
• When public interest invoked, editors required to defend why they think public interest was served
• PCC considers extent material is already in public domain/will become so
• When involvement of under 16s, exceptional public interest must be demonstrated to over-ride normally paramount interest of the child

Press Complaints Commission

What the PCC does:

• Independent body
• Deals with complaints about editorial content of magazines/newspapers and their websites
• 16 clause Code of Practice to which editors/journalists must adhere
• Investigates complaints from people with belief code has been breached
• Acts as mediator between editor and complainant to find resolution (e.g. apology, public correction, clarification), seeking 'sufficient remedial action'
• If case isn't resolved simply, PCC assesses evidence in an adjudication, reasoning whether to uphold or reject complaint

How the system works:

• Not legal or government run
• Voluntary agreement of newspaper/magazine to be regulated by independent body
• Code of Practice drawn up by editors
• Commission run by majority public ('lay') members (10/17 including chairman)

Code of practices:

• Covers 4 main areas - accuracy, privacy, news gathering & protecting the vulnerable
• Editor expected to take responsibility for stories/photographs complying with the code
• Editor can defend publication and its behaviour as 'in public interest'
• Doesn't cover issues of taste/decency as in democracy publications should be free to choose style
• Understands individuals choose to look at a newspaper and can make their own decisions
• Contrasts to more public mediums (e.g. billboards) may be ruled inappropriate on taste

Funding:

• Through body called 'Press Standards Board of Finance' (PressBof) who are responsible for collecting money from newspapers/magazines in UK
• Press agreed to pay amount in proportion to no. of readers in circulation
• No public/government funding

History:

• Set up in 1991, replacing Press Council
• In 1980s, a small no. of publications failed to observe basic ethics of journalism leading to MPs loss in confidence in Press Council
• Government then appointed Calcutt to consider "measures needed to give protection to individual privacy...improving recourse of press for citizens"
• House of Commons Culture, Media & Sport select committee concluded "non-statutory regulation can work effectively"
• Belief employed that self regulation prevents authoritarianism and undermining democracy

Who complains to the PCC and why:

• Anyone who believes an article involving them breaches the Code
• 1.5% came from those in public eye, 95.8% from general public (2007)
• Special protection to vulnerable groups (e.g. children, hospital patients)
• Majority of complaints about regional newspapers

Importance of the PCC:

• In a democracy the press shouldn't be stringently controlled by law/government
• Maintains democracy as it is independent and voluntary
• Doesn't allow free from accountability - wrongs must be righted
• PCC committed to protecting public by ensuring broken rules are resolved asap
• Fast - deals with complaints in average of 35 days
• Free - costs nothing to use service
• Fair - independent from industry it was set up to regulate