tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-39138343037205800262024-03-05T14:36:37.348-08:00Claire's Regulation Blog.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17570974492334069268noreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3913834303720580026.post-59664658243872048572011-03-30T01:15:00.000-07:002011-03-30T01:15:11.815-07:00Overall change in BBFC history<ul><li>Guidelines have become specific, official and publicly available and approved</li>
<li>Age ratings for both cinematic and home entertainment have become more prolific, covering smaller age brackets</li>
<li>The BBFC has become more responsible and accountable - now rating cinematic films, home release and video games</li>
<li>The change and development through a variety of different Presidents and Directors have meant more leniency on film as an artistic expression</li>
<li>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</li>
</ul>.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17570974492334069268noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3913834303720580026.post-75955229261660059452011-03-23T12:32:00.001-07:002011-03-30T01:18:40.826-07:00History of BBFC: 2000s<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgFxVDr0_ZZyqZEPXiCB6sKBhzP62Y95EVQoJ-BGQO_wVctagkQUel_9pNaL6mYpJkYB0S7ZDUPUccmELBzeEd0ZM8o2uEySWJwISwIxDGQTK9VqaySAKrEnCPCmaEUg46HIBsAehzj6XA/s1600/2000s.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" r6="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgFxVDr0_ZZyqZEPXiCB6sKBhzP62Y95EVQoJ-BGQO_wVctagkQUel_9pNaL6mYpJkYB0S7ZDUPUccmELBzeEd0ZM8o2uEySWJwISwIxDGQTK9VqaySAKrEnCPCmaEUg46HIBsAehzj6XA/s1600/2000s.gif" /></a></div><br />
<strong><span style="color: #6fa8dc;">Wider social/political/cultural issues:</span></strong><br />
<ul><li>Vast increase in controversal European films caused concern in BBFC - fortunate relax of attitudes towards sex</li>
</ul><strong><span style="color: #6fa8dc;">Key films and issues they raised:</span></strong><br />
<ul><li>The Idiots (von Trier, 1998) normally cut but sexual activity brief and serious intention to film</li>
<li style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">New policy on sex references challenged in Baise-moi (Despentes, 2001) as explicit but also contained rape scene</li>
<li style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">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</li>
<li style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHw-k2uUB6BAiPQ6ULvViMZJOapuQfTCojy86JG3Si_KrHatGr8sCTUzjiMBXnePV-Tfnz-w74pbdRB2jJSSMlyI4rFHWxOdBiwYyyeuS1tYuraB6BVhghD5imCctUXRNcAOk202dQFoQ/s1600/2000s+films.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; cssfloat: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" r6="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHw-k2uUB6BAiPQ6ULvViMZJOapuQfTCojy86JG3Si_KrHatGr8sCTUzjiMBXnePV-Tfnz-w74pbdRB2jJSSMlyI4rFHWxOdBiwYyyeuS1tYuraB6BVhghD5imCctUXRNcAOk202dQFoQ/s320/2000s+films.gif" width="292" /></a>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</li>
<li style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">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'</li>
</ul>.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17570974492334069268noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3913834303720580026.post-14906208100431340512011-03-23T12:31:00.007-07:002011-03-30T01:18:27.123-07:00History of BBFC: 1990s<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8Pz3am2btvplYiX07R-BBSJwQu8LydBovV-Rw4M-G1vFaZ5JXCNUp6Q6J4WPackKYr3GkmvZxFQecuEndrp9dKe5JdfD9rF4AgsrGiy8yyB2zckU9CTT9eyTW1GkMBSgnl19nGOjYKs4/s1600/1990s.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" r6="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8Pz3am2btvplYiX07R-BBSJwQu8LydBovV-Rw4M-G1vFaZ5JXCNUp6Q6J4WPackKYr3GkmvZxFQecuEndrp9dKe5JdfD9rF4AgsrGiy8yyB2zckU9CTT9eyTW1GkMBSgnl19nGOjYKs4/s1600/1990s.gif" /></a></div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8bA7972GjhwKf5_Tz519JjRoWqob34Sa0m9_PM9sUQzwp-BWutYxm_UOLBbgMwe9g2EK4tpOaJUq6h1fQ9uYmmb3THIMFUQ44BE4GAfkdhhyphenhyphenmBRFktOo19iNdbCr-uw8f7Dhql2g4tyw/s1600/1990s+films.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; cssfloat: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><span style="color: #6fa8dc;"><img border="0" height="320" r6="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8bA7972GjhwKf5_Tz519JjRoWqob34Sa0m9_PM9sUQzwp-BWutYxm_UOLBbgMwe9g2EK4tpOaJUq6h1fQ9uYmmb3THIMFUQ44BE4GAfkdhhyphenhyphenmBRFktOo19iNdbCr-uw8f7Dhql2g4tyw/s320/1990s+films.gif" width="262" /></span></a><strong><span style="color: #6fa8dc;">Wider social/political/cultural issues:</span></strong></div><ul><li style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">Jamie Bulger case called for stricter standards on home video</li>
<li style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">Rapid development in digital media (e.g. computer games becoming more realistic)</li>
<li style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">Emphasis changed from preventing 'unusual weapons' to easily accessible weaponry (e.g. knives)</li>
</ul><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><strong><span style="color: #6fa8dc;">Key films and issues they raised:</span></strong></div><ul><li style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">Natural Born Killers (Stone, 1994) provoked most controversy at time of the harm effects debates</li>
<li>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</li>
</ul>.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17570974492334069268noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3913834303720580026.post-14875403477252034312011-03-23T12:31:00.003-07:002011-03-30T01:18:02.475-07:00History of BBFC: 1980s<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEitvjUIQjS8sbf-YPLxCNhg10LIV3LgsjcXBJLFStJSCrY2KPeVvkCyoP8XVUe3ETbrAmamZxFfX9uKjiJDnvvbIeE32eYkETvGkPGzHcfsMsW-PykNZm2RbAy0ZorOT3Yr1HdR8uoYrQs/s1600/1980s.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" r6="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEitvjUIQjS8sbf-YPLxCNhg10LIV3LgsjcXBJLFStJSCrY2KPeVvkCyoP8XVUe3ETbrAmamZxFfX9uKjiJDnvvbIeE32eYkETvGkPGzHcfsMsW-PykNZm2RbAy0ZorOT3Yr1HdR8uoYrQs/s1600/1980s.gif" /></a></div><strong><span style="color: #6fa8dc;">Wider social/political/cultural issues:</span></strong><br />
<ul><li>Development of video recorder created anxiety of home viewing (no legal classification requirement)</li>
</ul><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivO71xnTwXkJG6q-1eiSkjB8leNJ9Q4tJtHPTPdcvXv-qnSrXe6dS4SQ9bUbCbT2nxt-oWUzB8axroDCuU3LGi7LjZBJ4k9VqSV0cloPGsiDm2UXhhzBczHnx9RKYAhbYQ_4BQaic8Igc/s1600/1980s+films.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; cssfloat: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><span style="color: #6fa8dc;"><img border="0" height="301" r6="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivO71xnTwXkJG6q-1eiSkjB8leNJ9Q4tJtHPTPdcvXv-qnSrXe6dS4SQ9bUbCbT2nxt-oWUzB8axroDCuU3LGi7LjZBJ4k9VqSV0cloPGsiDm2UXhhzBczHnx9RKYAhbYQ_4BQaic8Igc/s320/1980s+films.gif" width="320" /></span></a><strong><span style="color: #6fa8dc;">Key films and issues they raised:</span></strong></div><ul><li style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">The Krays (Medak, 1989) passed due to known infamy of gangland characters (actions not justified) however cuts to horrific mutilation scene</li>
<li style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">The Evil Dead (Raimi, 1982) had 49 seconds of cut when brought in as video nasty</li>
</ul>.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17570974492334069268noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3913834303720580026.post-28494630209705086792011-03-23T12:31:00.001-07:002011-03-30T01:17:46.220-07:00History of BBFC: 1970s<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1GLikhpPPZvaq6Rn48rtfX158Gi_leARQVehqOoP1TJsuWnPwUPi3NMwjdnJkGOeQc1PyprcLSde4Qkin9f8DS7_JQ9eVH6uRkCY99zsVjvNJ2tTMJWtPZBk7OKbbvavPefh9P4fuLgI/s1600/1970s.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" r6="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1GLikhpPPZvaq6Rn48rtfX158Gi_leARQVehqOoP1TJsuWnPwUPi3NMwjdnJkGOeQc1PyprcLSde4Qkin9f8DS7_JQ9eVH6uRkCY99zsVjvNJ2tTMJWtPZBk7OKbbvavPefh9P4fuLgI/s1600/1970s.gif" /></a></div><br />
<strong><span style="color: #6fa8dc;">Wider social/political/cultural issues:</span></strong><br />
<ul><li>Backlash against idea liberalisation went too far </li>
</ul><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgX21zFQhQzcbuE5odhch3526HcilGuyr-A83NYsi9W-pRG1f86VRRQy-CICBeyRtivzHgTmS93tgIo9g1XAY0AMxjBmycafN9XLMhFxWNOisGuhRQP1e7yKDEoLKcZ6WfqwM3FudfVdpo/s1600/1970s+films.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; cssfloat: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><span style="color: #6fa8dc;"><img border="0" height="195" r6="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgX21zFQhQzcbuE5odhch3526HcilGuyr-A83NYsi9W-pRG1f86VRRQy-CICBeyRtivzHgTmS93tgIo9g1XAY0AMxjBmycafN9XLMhFxWNOisGuhRQP1e7yKDEoLKcZ6WfqwM3FudfVdpo/s200/1970s+films.gif" width="200" /></span></a><strong><span style="color: #6fa8dc;">Key films and issues they raised:</span></strong></div><ul><li>Concern over sexual violence/rape in A Clockwork Orange (Kubrick, 1971)</li>
<li style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">The Exorcist (Friedkin, 1973) accused of blasphemy and danger of psychological damage to children</li>
<li>Trash (Warhol, 1970) was a key fight for BBFC to defend minimal cuts against anti-censorship campaigners</li>
<li>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</li>
</ul>.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17570974492334069268noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3913834303720580026.post-42957026183383182862011-03-23T12:30:00.003-07:002011-03-30T01:17:33.343-07:00History of BBFC: 1960s<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjIgPV3gL-tDv0dlfSHMQm1vp0KjGzXe7K8PnhnlznNMy38som3Wz6SlUJTSQlpOENRKNk9bSRaDpoPA4V-qHXFCRT-yb_1WmxPJC2SIia2-s9zWlZvp_Hu0xPKWC5S_yGKJFhtjbvkDV8/s1600/1960s.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" r6="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjIgPV3gL-tDv0dlfSHMQm1vp0KjGzXe7K8PnhnlznNMy38som3Wz6SlUJTSQlpOENRKNk9bSRaDpoPA4V-qHXFCRT-yb_1WmxPJC2SIia2-s9zWlZvp_Hu0xPKWC5S_yGKJFhtjbvkDV8/s1600/1960s.gif" /></a></div><br />
<strong><span style="color: #6fa8dc;">Wider social/political/cultural issues:</span></strong><br />
<ul><li style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">Liberalisation - increased tolerance of explicit refences</li>
</ul><strong><span style="color: #6fa8dc;">Key films and issues they raised:</span></strong><br />
<ul><div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCXQXHPdsPB9R3Sq1uKBWaPMWJZltMnoJo5VWiWMvLI3jdzeS_Q_yLDlVpaXmjtQBAklzTWDYrP6TemnkCSZvTT90WitxTH4W08XKdVj9IWRedyHeFPa_L_9hwyDTVUPG77weJad84Z-A/s1600/1960s+films.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; cssfloat: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="170" r6="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCXQXHPdsPB9R3Sq1uKBWaPMWJZltMnoJo5VWiWMvLI3jdzeS_Q_yLDlVpaXmjtQBAklzTWDYrP6TemnkCSZvTT90WitxTH4W08XKdVj9IWRedyHeFPa_L_9hwyDTVUPG77weJad84Z-A/s200/1960s+films.gif" width="200" /></a></div><li style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">Peeping Tom (Powell, 1960) ignored suggested cuts due to 'morbid concentration on fear' and failed to please public</li>
<li style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">Alfie (Gilbert, 1966) compared to Victim (Dearden, 1961) passed uncut, contributing to the sexuality debate - increasing public tolerance</li>
<li style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">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</li>
</ul>.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17570974492334069268noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3913834303720580026.post-64272125914621920782011-03-23T12:30:00.001-07:002011-03-30T01:17:03.200-07:00History of BBFC: 1950s<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJ-5imLnqHgoG_Eno8eqaqo69zWmvBSC4yEl1FucUMi1mrEekhyjn9shIPpsLEiTOJ5WuIJI2OQmzpaY3sXBrmSfEsPKG-rmGkedyb9cBuxGcH299B2T6N6yDSVBTZcaTAeg9yRVVNn94/s1600/1950s.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" r6="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJ-5imLnqHgoG_Eno8eqaqo69zWmvBSC4yEl1FucUMi1mrEekhyjn9shIPpsLEiTOJ5WuIJI2OQmzpaY3sXBrmSfEsPKG-rmGkedyb9cBuxGcH299B2T6N6yDSVBTZcaTAeg9yRVVNn94/s1600/1950s.gif" /></a></div><br />
<strong><span style="color: #6fa8dc;">Wider social/political/cultural issues:</span></strong><br />
<ul><li>End of rationing</li>
<li>Emergence of 'youth' as a social group - issue of juvenile delinquency (mods/rockers)</li>
<li>Growth of television as family entertainment - eroding audience in cinema</li>
<li>Moral panic about drug taking</li>
<li>Last capital punishment (Ruth Ellis) in UK (1956)</li>
</ul><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgo1NiLc4wqVa0CYPgLHUe15yTxydle1RYydLBH3HACDxw09li2BAOe_cegop8ajIg5bbCOHBhTUXJDbQywm57ohn7AecbAuSqL7R5w-4eCMCQ2VFDlu-2vcr0Ru9yhCS6xgCVksdhET8Q/s1600/1950s+films.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; cssfloat: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" r6="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgo1NiLc4wqVa0CYPgLHUe15yTxydle1RYydLBH3HACDxw09li2BAOe_cegop8ajIg5bbCOHBhTUXJDbQywm57ohn7AecbAuSqL7R5w-4eCMCQ2VFDlu-2vcr0Ru9yhCS6xgCVksdhET8Q/s320/1950s+films.gif" width="268" /></a><strong><span style="color: #6fa8dc;">Key films and issues they raised:</span></strong></div><ul><li style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">Rock Around the Clock (Sears, 1956) & Rebel Without A Cause (Ray, 1955) fuelled concerns over teenage criminality</li>
<li style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">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</li>
<li style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">Devil's Weed rejected (1951) as 'evils of drug taking not made clear'</li>
<li style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">Yield To The Night (Thompson, 1956) had themes of death row, coinciding with Ruth Ellis therefore passed as 'X' despite tasteful presentation</li>
<li>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</li>
</ul>.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17570974492334069268noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3913834303720580026.post-32102319379523284462011-03-23T12:29:00.000-07:002011-03-28T07:17:23.417-07:00History of BBFC: 1912-49<div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhLRybU4p9pnqWLiVlzKbq-BubvBTDblcZ2BGqd-8HaaiJUFcMsGna_R6kqGGL5OnRH5x3Om9I8kCE_RzVBUdd0XjNYtdoTSbcIsGgIvVbwS437cCvsVxJeAelzcbzYLLcb5-s2XzStOZU/s1600/1912+-+1948.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" r6="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhLRybU4p9pnqWLiVlzKbq-BubvBTDblcZ2BGqd-8HaaiJUFcMsGna_R6kqGGL5OnRH5x3Om9I8kCE_RzVBUdd0XjNYtdoTSbcIsGgIvVbwS437cCvsVxJeAelzcbzYLLcb5-s2XzStOZU/s1600/1912+-+1948.gif" /></a></div> <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="clear: right; cssfloat: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://cache2.allpostersimages.com/p/LRG/19/1918/9ZM9D00Z/posters/frankenstein.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; cssfloat: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="200" r6="true" src="http://cache2.allpostersimages.com/p/LRG/19/1918/9ZM9D00Z/posters/frankenstein.jpg" width="158" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Horror/gangster films caused particular concern</td></tr>
</tbody></table> <div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><br />
</div></div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><br />
</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><strong><span style="color: #6fa8dc;">Wider social/political/cultural issues:</span></strong></div><ul><li style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">Years between WW1 and WW2</li>
</ul><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><strong><span style="color: #6fa8dc;">Key films and issues they raised:</span></strong></div></div><ul style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><li style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">Frankenstein (1931) banned from children by London County Council and Manchester City Council despite scene of drowning girl already being cut</li>
</ul><div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: center;"></div>.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17570974492334069268noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3913834303720580026.post-38419221507015441852011-03-14T08:42:00.001-07:002011-03-16T03:27:54.690-07:00Press Case Studies<strong><span style="color: #3d85c6;">KEY QUESTIONS:</span></strong><br />
<ul><li>Which clauses of the code are relevant to these cases?</li>
<li>Do you think that the Code of Practice was broken in any of these cases? If so, why?</li>
<li>Could a public interest justification be made in any of these examples?</li>
</ul><br />
<strong><span style="color: #3d85c6;">1. A man vs. Northwich Guardian:</span></strong><br />
<ul><li>Newspaper linked with YouTube video of group throwing a petrol bomb on a train</li>
<li>The father of a 15 year old complained it to be invasion of privacy of a child and his face should have been pixelated</li>
<li>Related issue: <em>(6) Children</em> should be free to complete school without intrusion/images of his welfare</li>
<li>The code wasn't broken as video was in a public domain</li>
<li>The newspaper argued for public interest as they have a right to know of the dangerous behaviour occuring </li>
</ul><strong><span style="color: #3d85c6;">2. A man vs. Zoo magazine:</span></strong><br />
<ul><li>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')</li>
<li>The man says his daughter has been ridiculed and her face should have been pixelated (as it was in other magazines)</li>
<li>Related issue: <em>(6) Children </em>under 16 require adult consent of photographs used</li>
<li>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</li>
<li>There is only public interest on grounds of the father's picture and the abuse in football crowds</li>
</ul><strong><span style="color: #3d85c6;">3. A man vs. The Sunday Times:</span></strong><br />
<ul><li>Journalist approached 14 year old boy with £1000 for a photo of a suspect of a fatal stabbing at his school</li>
<li>Parent claims the journalist spoke at length with their son and the boy's father has since removed him from school</li>
<li>Related issues: <em>(6) Children </em>must not be paid and have the right to complete school without intrusion, <em>(15) Witness in criminal trials </em>must not be paid</li>
<li>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</li>
<li>There is no public interest in this part of the case - when someone found guilty/other features of the murder may be of importance</li>
</ul><strong><span style="color: #3d85c6;">4. A woman vs. The Independent:</span></strong><br />
<ul><li>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</li>
<li>She has subsequently had a miscarriage and had not given her consent to the information being public</li>
<li>Relevant issue: <em>(3) Privacy </em>and respect of life and health</li>
<li>Code was breached as pre 3 months it is not public information as the pregnancy is less viable</li>
<li>No public interest as it is a private matter and no-one need no of her miscarriage</li>
</ul><strong><span style="color: #3d85c6;">5. A woman vs. The Sun:</span></strong><br />
<ul><li>Published photo of woman jumping to her death before her identity had been made known</li>
<li>Friend of woman complained photo was unnessecary and distressing and the newspaper was disgusting and voyeuristic</li>
<li>Relevant issues: <em>(5) Intrusion into grief and shock </em>involving cases of grief/shock and excessive details of suicide, <em>(3) Privacy </em>and respect for life and health</li>
<li>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</li>
<li>No public interest as issue is private at this time</li>
</ul><strong><span style="color: #3d85c6;">6. A woman vs. Eastbourne Gazette:</span></strong><br />
<ul><li>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</li>
<li>Relevant issues: <em>(3) Privacy </em>of health/life, <em>(4) Harassment </em>and no questioning when asked to desist, <em>(8) Hospitals </em>must obtain permission from executive before entering</li>
<li>Breach of code as victim asked to desist and journalist invaded privacy of his health and the hospital</li>
<li>No public interest angle can be claimed</li>
</ul><strong><span style="color: #3d85c6;">7. A police officer vs. The Sunday Telegraph:</span></strong><br />
<ul><li>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</li>
<li>He accused paper of reported private comments and she accused them of taking unconsentual photos of her house</li>
<li>Relevant issues: <em>(3) Privacy </em>of health/life/home, <em>(10) Clandestine devices and subterfuge</em></li>
<li>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</li>
<li>Public interest to know the racist views of a police officer/associated sympathies with extreme views as the BNP</li>
</ul><strong><span style="color: #3d85c6;">8. Paul McCartney vs. Hello!:</span></strong><br />
<ul><li>Photos taken of him and his children in Paris as well as him lighting a candle/meditating for his deceased wife Linda</li>
<li>He accused them of "highly intrusive photographs of us in our most private moments at this very difficult and private in our lives"</li>
<li>Relevant issues: <em>(3) Privacy, (5) Intrusion into grief or shock</em></li>
<li>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</li>
<li>No public interest in knowing his actions</li>
</ul>.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17570974492334069268noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3913834303720580026.post-14239568210994602862011-03-14T08:40:00.001-07:002011-03-16T03:34:10.314-07:00BBFC and PCC seminars<strong>Why were they useful?</strong><br />
<div></div><div></div><ul><li>Put the PCC into context seeing the offices where they work</li>
<li>Meeting acutual examiners/employees of the companies open me to see the offices on a day-to-day basis</li>
<li>A chance to ask relevant, up to date questions to the representatives from the PCC and the BBFC</li>
</ul><strong>What have you learnt?</strong><br />
<ul><li><span id="goog_360573781"></span><span id="goog_360573782"></span><span id="goog_360573783"></span><span id="goog_360573784"></span><span id="goog_360573785"></span><span id="goog_360573786"></span><span id="goog_360573789"></span><span id="goog_360573790"></span>The BBFC have to watch and report on 5hr41mins of footage each day</li>
<li>There is debate in both offices over what decisions should be made - not as clear cut as I thought</li>
<li>Other information largely re-affirming revision of what we've learnt so far</li>
</ul><strong>Anything unexpected/surprising?</strong><br />
<ul><li>Surprising how much influence the PCC has in preventing harassment, even prior to publication of information</li>
<li>The Dark Knight and King's Speech were both initially15 rated before being lowered on grounds of context</li>
</ul>.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17570974492334069268noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3913834303720580026.post-62032703052673233772011-03-08T12:55:00.000-08:002011-03-08T13:31:45.668-08:00PCC Code of Practice<strong>16 clauses of code of practice:</strong><br />
<br />
<div></div><table border="1"><tbody>
<tr><th><span style="font-size: large;">Clause</span></th><th><span style="font-size: large;">Details</span></th></tr>
<tr><td>Accuracy</td><td><ul><li>Publishing inaccurate, misleading or distorted information/pictures</li>
<li>Must distinguish between comment, conjecture and fact</li>
</ul></td></tr>
<tr><td>Opportunity to reply</td><td><ul><li>Fair opportunity to reply to inaccuracies</li>
</ul></td></tr>
<tr><td>* Privacy</td><td><ul><li>Respect for private/family life, home, health and correspondence (inc. digital communication)</li>
<li>Unacceptable to photograph individual in private place without consent</li>
</ul></td></tr>
<tr><td>* Harassment</td><td><ul><li>Engaging in intimidation, harassment & persistent pursuit</li>
<li>No questioning/photography when asked to desist</li>
</ul></td></tr>
<tr><td>Intrusion into grief/shock</td><td><ul><li>Cases involving personal grief/shock must have sympathy approach with suitable discretion</li>
<li>Avoid excessive detail about method used in suicide</li>
</ul></td></tr>
<tr><td>* Children</td><td><ul><li>Young people should be free to complete school without intrusion</li>
<li>Under 16s need adult consent to do interviews/photographs when involving issues of their/another child's welfare</li>
<li>Minors must not be paid</li>
<li>Fame/notoriety/position of parent doesn't justify publishing details of child's private life</li>
</ul></td></tr>
<tr><td>* Children in sex cases</td><td><ul><li>No identification of victims of sex offences under 16</li>
<li>The word 'incest' can't be used where child may be identified</li>
<li>No implications the child is responsible</li>
</ul></td></tr>
<tr><td>* Hospitals</td><td><ul><li>Obtain permission from executive before entering non-public areas of hospital (or equivalent)</li>
</ul></td></tr>
<tr><td>* Reporting of crime</td><td><ul><li>Relatives/friends of convicts should not be identified without consent unless relevant to story</li>
<li>Particular regard to vulnerability of children who are witnesses/victims</li>
</ul></td></tr>
<tr><td>* Clandestine devices and subterfuge</td><td><ul><li>Must not seek to obtain/publish material acquired via hidden cameras, clandestine listening devices, intercepting phone calls</li>
<li>No accessing unauthorised digitally-held private information without consent</li>
<li>Engaging in misrepresentation/subterfuge (inc. by agents or intermediaries) can only be justified in public interest</li>
</ul></td></tr>
<tr><td>Victims of sexual assault</td><td><ul><li>Press not likely to publish identites of victims or material likely to contribute to identification</li>
</ul></td></tr>
<tr><td>Discrimination</td><td><ul><li>Avoid prejudicial reference to an individual's race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation or physical/mental illness or disability</li>
<li>Irrelavent details to be avoided</li>
</ul></td></tr>
<tr><td>Financial journalism</td><td><ul><li>Must not use financial info they recieve in advance of general publication for own profit</li>
<li>No writing about shares/securities in whose performance they know without disclosing interest to the (financial) editor</li>
<li>Must not buy/sell shares or securities which they have recently written about or intend to</li>
</ul></td></tr>
<tr><td>Confidential sources</td><td><ul><li>Moral obligation to protect confidential sources of information</li>
</ul></td></tr>
<tr><td>Witness payments in criminal trials</td><td><ul><li>No payment/offer to a witness in any case once proceeding are active</li>
<li>Contempt of Court Act 1981</li>
<li>Any payment/offer made even if prior to start of court proceedings must by disclosed to prosecution and defence</li>
<li>Witness must be advised on their requirements</li>
</ul></td></tr>
<tr><td>* Payment to criminals</td><td><ul><li>No direct payment (or via agents) of material which seeks to glorify crime in general or exploit a particular crime</li>
<li>No payments to convicts, confessed criminals or their associates</li>
<li>Editors must demonstrate reasonable public benefit for publishing material under this issue </li>
</ul></td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
<br />
<strong>The public interest:</strong><br />
<ul><li>May be exception to clauses marked with *</li>
<li>Detection/exposure of crime or serious impropriety</li>
<li>Protecting public health and safety</li>
<li>Preventing public from being misled by action/statement of an individual or organisation</li>
<li>Freedom of expression</li>
<li>When public interest invoked, editors required to defend why they think public interest was served</li>
<li>PCC considers extent material is already in public domain/will become so</li>
<li>When involvement of under 16s, exceptional public interest must be demonstrated to over-ride normally paramount interest of the child</li>
</ul>.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17570974492334069268noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3913834303720580026.post-78702120890529150272011-03-08T11:40:00.000-08:002011-03-08T12:42:45.108-08:00Press Complaints Commission<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://cdn.mos.bikeradar.com/images/news/2009/03/19/1237461900018-1bbe1r50704xk-280-75.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" q6="true" src="http://cdn.mos.bikeradar.com/images/news/2009/03/19/1237461900018-1bbe1r50704xk-280-75.jpg" /></a></div><br />
<strong><span style="color: cyan;">What the PCC does:</span></strong><br />
<ul><li>Independent body</li>
<li>Deals with complaints about editorial content of magazines/newspapers and their websites</li>
<li>16 clause Code of Practice to which editors/journalists must adhere</li>
<li>Investigates complaints from people with belief code has been breached</li>
<li>Acts as mediator between editor and complainant to find resolution (e.g. apology, public correction, clarification), seeking 'sufficient remedial action'</li>
<li>If case isn't resolved simply, PCC assesses evidence in an adjudication, reasoning whether to uphold or reject complaint</li>
</ul><strong><span style="color: cyan;">How the system works:</span></strong><br />
<ul><li>Not legal or government run</li>
<li>Voluntary agreement of newspaper/magazine to be regulated by independent body</li>
<li>Code of Practice drawn up by editors</li>
<li>Commission run by majority public ('lay') members (10/17 including chairman)</li>
</ul><strong><span style="color: cyan;">Code of practices:</span></strong><br />
<ul><li>Covers 4 main areas - accuracy, privacy, news gathering & protecting the vulnerable</li>
<li>Editor expected to take responsibility for stories/photographs complying with the code</li>
<li>Editor can defend publication and its behaviour as 'in public interest'</li>
<li>Doesn't cover issues of taste/decency as in democracy publications should be free to choose style</li>
<li>Understands individuals choose to look at a newspaper and can make their own decisions</li>
<li>Contrasts to more public mediums (e.g. billboards) may be ruled inappropriate on taste</li>
</ul><strong><span style="color: cyan;">Funding:</span></strong><br />
<ul><li>Through body called 'Press Standards Board of Finance' (PressBof) who are responsible for collecting money from newspapers/magazines in UK</li>
<li>Press agreed to pay amount in proportion to no. of readers in circulation</li>
<li>No public/government funding</li>
</ul><strong><span style="color: cyan;">History:</span></strong><br />
<ul><li>Set up in 1991, replacing Press Council</li>
<li>In 1980s, a small no. of publications failed to observe basic ethics of journalism leading to MPs loss in confidence in Press Council</li>
<li>Government then appointed Calcutt to consider "measures needed to give protection to individual privacy...improving recourse of press for citizens"</li>
<li>House of Commons Culture, Media & Sport select committee concluded "non-statutory regulation can work effectively"</li>
<li>Belief employed that self regulation prevents authoritarianism and undermining democracy</li>
</ul><strong><span style="color: cyan;">Who complains to the PCC and why:</span></strong><br />
<ul><li>Anyone who believes an article involving them breaches the Code</li>
<li>1.5% came from those in public eye, 95.8% from general public (2007)</li>
<li>Special protection to vulnerable groups (e.g. children, hospital patients)</li>
<li>Majority of complaints about regional newspapers</li>
</ul><strong><span style="color: cyan;">Importance of the PCC:</span></strong><br />
<ul><li>In a democracy the press shouldn't be stringently controlled by law/government</li>
<li>Maintains democracy as it is independent and voluntary</li>
<li>Doesn't allow free from accountability - wrongs must be righted</li>
<li>PCC committed to protecting public by ensuring broken rules are resolved asap</li>
<li>Fast - deals with complaints in average of 35 days</li>
<li>Free - costs nothing to use service</li>
<li>Fair - independent from industry it was set up to regulate</li>
</ul>.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17570974492334069268noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3913834303720580026.post-17154545821023742552011-02-28T09:36:00.000-08:002011-03-01T02:50:21.152-08:00Current Classification System<table border="1"><tbody>
<tr><th><span style="font-size: large;">Pros :) </span></th><th><span style="font-size: large;">Cons :(</span></th></tr>
<tr><td>Protection of children is a priority</td><td>Applying guidelines is a subjective process</td></tr>
<tr><td>Provides information for parents</td><td>Impossible to predict harm/upset of sensitive viewers</td></tr>
<tr><td>Helps audiences make informed decisions</td><td>Implies age brackets key feature in determining response</td></tr>
<tr><td>Society needs some form of rules</td><td>Sees children as having only uninformed emotional responses to what they see</td></tr>
<tr><td>Cross section of examiners representing a diverse society</td><td>Suggests children are passive victims of media</td></tr>
<tr><td>Guidelines are relatively robust and clear</td><td>Films forced to take role of moral guidance</td></tr>
<tr><td>Examiners take work very seriously</td><td>Encourages parents to relinquish role and rely on 'nanny state' to control</td></tr>
<tr><td>Uses public research and current affairs when redefining guidelines every 4 years</td><td>Only 60% of households have children but all films are regulated</td></tr>
<tr><td>Enforces that some issues are negative and unacceptable in our society</td><td>Discourages production of challenging, alternative children's films</td></tr>
<tr><td>Provides protection for children with irresponsible parents</td><td>Realism in films is problematic and subjective</td></tr>
<tr><td>Enforced by governmental guidelines and laws</td><td>Internet is unsupervised and unregulated</td></tr>
<tr><td>Independent and has the films best interests - wants to promote the industry</td><td>Little or no evidence to support age ratings actually work</td></tr>
<tr><td>Local councils have the final say over the BBFC (e.g. Spiderman)</td><td>Scapegoat film industry - why not classify plays/books?</td></tr>
<tr><td>It means parents do not have to view a film prior to showing it to their child</td><td>No representation of children/teen age group in examiners</td></tr>
<tr><td>Employs the 'Just In Case' method to protect the vulnerable from possible reactions to a film</td><td>Audiences mostly unaware of info on BBFC website, including parents and those responsible</td></tr>
<tr><td></td><td>Masks the real problem within society (perhaps of poor parenting) as classifications give people false ideas children are protected</td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
<strong>Is film regulation sensible, useful to society, achieving its aim of protecting the vulnerable and upholding the law? </strong><br />
<div></div><div></div><ul><li>Film regulation is sensible as it seeks to protect the vulnerable, however, it does mask the problem of why these children apparently do not know right from wrong and prevents helping the situation (e.g. the importance of helping parents socialise children)</li>
<li>It is useful for society in that it maintains and upholds values and moralities within society, enforcing what is acceptable</li>
<li>Within exhibition in cinemas i believe it is achieving its aim of protecting the vulnerable, however, because of Internet streaming and accessibility of DVDs/Blu-ray etc. at home most children have seen a film beyond their age bracket</li>
<li>Because of classification, parents do not feel responsible to watch a film first and generally don't know of the BBFC website, so a child could see a film upsetting for that individual (e.g. a child of recently divorced parents may be more upset by a 12A with those themes than another)</li>
<li>The guidelines are very successful in upholding the law as they follow what/what isn't illegal and maintain legal principles</li>
</ul><strong>Improving the system?</strong><br />
<ul><li>Perhaps encourage information over classification. E.g. label a film 'horror' or 'bad language' so parents can prevent their child from seeing if they know they are particularly vulnerable</li>
<li>Promote the BBFC website to show parents the vast amounts of info available to prevent children seeing unsuitable films (especially 12As) and then complaining to the councils/BBFC</li>
<li>Increase teenage/child representation in the examiners or at least amount of consultations with them to improve sceptical views on the majority of children's maturity levels</li>
<li>Encourage people to think carefully for themselves when seeing a film or letting an underage see it to put the power back into the responsible parent's hands over the film makers/industry</li>
</ul>.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17570974492334069268noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3913834303720580026.post-24622366705868712172011-02-28T09:35:00.001-08:002011-03-08T13:32:39.420-08:0018 > R18<strong>R18 allows:</strong><br />
<ul><li>'Sex works' - material seeking to sexually arose/stimulate</li>
<li>Moderate, non-abusive inflictions of pain within consensual sexual activity</li>
<li>Explicit sexual imagery</li>
</ul>.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17570974492334069268noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3913834303720580026.post-59691666779790371282011-02-28T09:34:00.000-08:002011-03-08T13:32:39.421-08:0015 > 18<ul><li>18 is no longer governed by guidelines on principle adults should be free to choose their own entertainment</li>
<li>Still prevention of criminal offences, sexual violence and works seeking to sexually arouse</li>
</ul>.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17570974492334069268noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3913834303720580026.post-15696905950065108492011-02-28T09:32:00.005-08:002011-03-08T13:32:39.421-08:0012A > 15<strong>15 accepts:</strong><br />
<ul><li>Drug taking without promoting misuse</li>
<li>Strong threat/menace unless sadistic/sexualised</li>
<li>Frequent use of strong language and infrequent of strongest</li>
<li>Nudity in sexual context without strong detail</li>
<li>Strong reference/portrayal to sexual behaviour without strong detail</li>
<li>All themes</li>
<li>Strong violence not dwelling on infliction, pain or injury</li>
</ul>.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17570974492334069268noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3913834303720580026.post-72354655397802195612011-02-28T09:32:00.003-08:002011-03-08T13:32:39.422-08:00PG > 12A<strong>12A accepts:</strong><br />
<ul><li>Discriminatory language/behaviour with readily identifiable character</li>
<li>Infrequent drug misuse</li>
<li>Moderate physical/psychological threat</li>
<li>Weapons if not easily accessible</li>
<li>Infrequent strong language</li>
<li>Sex references suitable for young teens</li>
<li>Mature themes</li>
<li>Sexual violence with contextual justification</li>
</ul>.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17570974492334069268noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3913834303720580026.post-53180475277565610192011-02-28T09:32:00.001-08:002011-03-08T13:32:39.422-08:00U > PG<strong>PG accepts:</strong><br />
<ul><li>Themes can be more acceptable</li>
<li>Sex/relationships can be joked about with discreet reference</li>
<li>Violence/threat can be a little strong</li>
<li>Horror can be scary but not prolonged</li>
<li>Discrimination allowed with educational/historical context</li>
</ul>.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17570974492334069268noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3913834303720580026.post-79120079947174983402011-02-18T01:01:00.010-08:002011-03-08T13:32:39.423-08:00R18<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.madeformums.com/uploads/images/Medium/16283.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; cssfloat: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="164" l6="true" src="http://www.madeformums.com/uploads/images/Medium/16283.jpg" width="200" /></a></div><em>R18 (Restricted 18) - Only shown/supplied in specially licensed cinemas/sex shops and to adults over 18</em><br />
<br />
<strong>Overview:</strong><br />
<ul><li>Legally restricted classification primarily for explicit works of consenting sex/strong fetish material involving adults</li>
<li>May not be supplied by mail order</li>
<li>Guidelines applied regardless of sexual orientation</li>
</ul><strong>Unacceptable content:</strong><br />
<ul><li>Material in breach of criminal law</li>
<li>Material judged as obscene under Obscene Publications Act (1959)</li>
<li>Encouraging material (including dialogue) of sexually abusive activity (e.g. paedophilia, incest, rape) include adult role-play as non-adult</li>
<li>Non-consensual (even simulated) sexual activity</li>
<li>Physical constraints preventing indication of withdrawal of consent</li>
<li>Infliction of pain or lasting physical harm (real/simulated) - allowance made for moderate consensual activity</li>
<li>Penetration by object associated with violence/likely to cause physical harm</li>
<li>Sexual threats, humiliation or abuse outside of consensual role playing game</li>
<li>Strong physical/verbal abuse even if consensual</li>
</ul>.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17570974492334069268noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3913834303720580026.post-41173103209981294222011-02-18T01:01:00.008-08:002011-03-08T13:32:39.423-08:0018<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.worldstopbrands.com/_mm/_d/_ext2/57213/big_Bbfc%2018%20Certificate%20Uk01.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; cssfloat: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" l6="true" src="http://www.worldstopbrands.com/_mm/_d/_ext2/57213/big_Bbfc%2018%20Certificate%20Uk01.gif" width="200" /></a></div><em>18 - Suitable only for adults</em><br />
<br />
<strong>Overview:</strong><br />
<ul><li>No-one younger than 18 may see in cinema or rent/buy video work</li>
<li>In line with public consultation and Human Rights Act (1998) as the BBFC will not normally override principle adults free to choose their entertainment</li>
</ul><strong>Exceptions:</strong><br />
<ul><li>Material in breach of criminal law or made through commission of criminal offence</li>
<li>Appears to risk harm to individuals/society through their behaviour</li>
<li>Explicit imagery of sexual activity contextually unjustified (if considered a sex work maybe R18)</li>
<li>Sex material allowed when seeking to inform/educate (e.g. in maters of sexuality, safer sex/health)</li>
</ul>.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17570974492334069268noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3913834303720580026.post-2933272422122204822011-02-18T01:01:00.006-08:002011-03-08T13:32:39.424-08:0015<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100225225807/gtawiki/images/4/4f/BBFC_15_Rating.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; cssfloat: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" l6="true" src="http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100225225807/gtawiki/images/4/4f/BBFC_15_Rating.png" width="200" /></a></div><em>15 - Suitable for 15 years and over</em><br />
<br />
<strong>Overview:</strong><br />
<ul><li>No one younger than 15 may seethe film in the cinema</li>
<li>No one younger than 15 may buy/rent the video work</li>
</ul><br />
<br />
<br />
<strong>Issues:</strong><br />
<br />
<table border="1"><tbody>
<tr><td>Discrimination</td><td>No endorsement of discriminatory language/behaviour</td></tr>
<tr><td>Drugs</td><td>May be shown without encouragement of misuse. Misuse of accessible dangerous substances (e.g. aerosols/solvents) unlikely to be accepted</td></tr>
<tr><td>Horror</td><td>Threat/menace permitted unless sadistic/sexualised</td></tr>
<tr><td>Imitable behaviour</td><td>No dwelling/glamorisation of accessible weapons/dangerous behaviour (e.g. hanging, suicide, self harm)</td></tr>
<tr><td>Language</td><td>Frequent strong language permitted and strongest (e.g. cunt) if justified in context and not repetitive/aggressive</td></tr>
<tr><td>Nudity</td><td>Allowed in sexual context without strong detail</td></tr>
<tr><td>Sex</td><td>Behaviour/language allowed with no strong detail. Primary purpose of sexual arousal likely to be unacceptable </td></tr>
<tr><td>Theme</td><td>No prohibition if age appropriate</td></tr>
<tr><td>Violence</td><td>May be strong with no dwelling on infliction/pain/injury. Strong sadistic/sexualised violence unacceptable. Sexual violence allowed when discreet and with strong contextual justification</td></tr>
</tbody></table>.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17570974492334069268noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3913834303720580026.post-331846544346162092011-02-18T01:01:00.004-08:002011-03-08T13:32:39.424-08:0012A/12<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/87/BBFC_12A.svg/490px-BBFC_12A.svg.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; cssfloat: right; float: right; height: 157px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; width: 170px;"><img border="0" height="200" l6="true" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/87/BBFC_12A.svg/490px-BBFC_12A.svg.png" width="200" /></a><em>12A/12 - Suitable for 12 years and over</em></div><br />
<strong>Overview:</strong><br />
<ul><li>Works may upset children under 12</li>
<li>May contain material which many parents will find unsuitable for under 12s</li>
<li>12A only for cinema and 12 for video works</li>
</ul><br />
<strong>Issues:</strong><br />
<br />
<table border="1"><tbody>
<tr><td>Discrimination</td><td>Language/behaviour mustn't be endorsed. Aggressive/discriminatory unacceptable unless clearly condemned</td></tr>
<tr><td>Drugs</td><td>Infrequent misuse with no glamorisation or instructional detail</td></tr>
<tr><td>Horror</td><td>Infrequent, sustained and moderate physical/psychological threat permitted</td></tr>
<tr><td>Imitable behaviour</td><td>Dangerous behaviour (e.g. hanging, suicide, self harm) should not dwell or appear pain/harm free. Easily accessible weapons not to be glamorised</td></tr>
<tr><td>Language</td><td>Infrequent strong language (e.g. 'fuck')</td></tr>
<tr><td>Nudity</td><td>Sexual context allowed if brief/discreet</td></tr>
<tr><td>Sex</td><td>Brief/discreet with no frequent crude reference</td></tr>
<tr><td>Theme</td><td>Mature themes acceptable but suitable for young teens</td></tr>
<tr><td>Violence</td><td>No dwelling on detail/injuries/blood unless contextually just. Sexual violence only implied with strong contextual justification</td></tr>
</tbody></table>.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17570974492334069268noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3913834303720580026.post-75792012913463128482011-02-18T01:01:00.002-08:002011-03-08T13:32:39.425-08:00PG<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b5/BBFC_PG.svg/584px-BBFC_PG.svg.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; cssfloat: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="161" j6="true" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b5/BBFC_PG.svg/584px-BBFC_PG.svg.png" width="200" /></a><em>PG (Parental Guidance) - General viewing but some scenes may be unsuitable for young children</em></div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><br />
</div><strong>Overview:</strong><br />
<ul><li>Unaccompanied children of any age may watch</li>
<li style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">Should not disturb a child aged around 8 or older</li>
<li>Parents advised to consider whether content may upset younger/more sensitive children</li>
</ul><strong>Issues:</strong><br />
<br />
<table border="1"><tbody>
<tr><td>Discrimination</td><td>Language/behaviour unlikely to be acceptable unless educational/historical context</td></tr>
<tr><td>Drugs</td><td>Illegal drugs/misuse must be innocuous or carry anti-drug message</td></tr>
<tr><td>Horror</td><td>Frightening sequences can't be prolonged/intense (fantasy setting may mitigate)</td></tr>
<tr><td>Imitable behaviour</td><td>No detail of potentially dangerous behaviour which could be copied. No glamourisation of realistic/accessible weapons</td></tr>
<tr><td>Language</td><td>Mild bad language (e.g. ‘shit’ or ‘son of a bitch’) but the context and delivery are always important.</td></tr>
<tr><td>Nudity</td><td>Natural nudity, no sexual context</td></tr>
<tr><td>Sex</td><td>Activity/references may be implied but discreet/infrequent</td></tr>
<tr><td>Theme</td><td>More serious issues (e.g. domestic violence) should condone unacceptable behaviour</td></tr>
<tr><td>Violence</td><td>Moderate without detail violence thats justified in context (e.g. history, comedy, fantasy)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17570974492334069268noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3913834303720580026.post-84486321971469289602011-02-18T01:01:00.000-08:002011-03-08T13:32:39.425-08:00U<em>U (Universal) - Suitable for all. </em><br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/88/BBFC_U.svg/200px-BBFC_U.svg.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; cssfloat: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="160" j6="true" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/88/BBFC_U.svg/200px-BBFC_U.svg.png" width="200" /></a></div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><strong>Overview:</strong></div><ul><li style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">Should be suitable for audiences aged 4 and over</li>
<li style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">Set within positive moral framework</li>
<li style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">Offers reassuring counterbalances to any violence, threat or horror</li>
<li>Could say in consumer advice when film particularly suitable for pre-school child to view alone</li>
</ul><strong>Issues:</strong><br />
<br />
<table border="1"><tbody>
<tr><td>Discrimination</td><td>No discrimatory language unless clearly disapproved of</td></tr>
<tr><td>Drugs</td><td>No reference to illegal drugs/misuse unless infrequent or a clear anti-drug educational message</td></tr>
<tr><td>Horror</td><td>Scary sequences should be mild, breif and unlikely to cause anxiety</td></tr>
<tr><td>Imitable behaviour</td><td>No potentially dangerous behaviour that young children are likely to copy or emphasis on realistic/easily accessible weapons</td></tr>
<tr><td>Language</td><td>Infrequent use of mild <span style="font-family: inherit;">bad language (eg ‘damn’ and ‘hell’). Occasionally, bad language such as ‘bloody’ or ‘bugger’ may be included, where justified by the context.</span></td></tr>
<tr><td><span style="font-family: inherit;">Nudity</span></td><td><span style="font-family: inherit;">Occasional natural nudity with no sexual context</span></td></tr>
<tr><td><span style="font-family: inherit;">Sex</span></td><td>Mild sexual reference (e.g. 'making love') or behaviour (e.g. kissing)</td></tr>
<tr><td>Theme</td><td>Problematic themes must have sensitive treatment</td></tr>
<tr><td>Violence</td><td>Occasional mild violence/threat/menace only</td></tr>
</tbody></table>.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17570974492334069268noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3913834303720580026.post-50423664348213155092011-02-16T08:35:00.001-08:002011-03-08T13:32:46.111-08:00Overview of BBFC Guidelines<span style="font-family: inherit;"><u>The 13 issues are as follows:</u></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">1. Discrimination<br />
2. Drugs<br />
3. Horror<br />
4. Imitable behaviour <br />
5. Criminal behaviour <br />
6. Weapons<br />
7. Language<br />
8. Nudity<br />
9. Sexual references <br />
10. Sex<br />
11. Theme<br />
12. Violence<br />
13 Sexualised violence</span><br />
<br />
*4.5.6 are combined under imitable behaviour<br />
*12.13 are combined under violence.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17570974492334069268noreply@blogger.com0