The BBFC have to classify in accordance with UK law when making their decisions so that means a work that may fall foul of the OPA is likely to be cut or rejected. The BBF take their advice from the Obscene Publications Unit and also various leading QC's as to whether a work is likely to be found obscene by a court of law. The BBFC are not above the law, if they were to pass obscene material they could find themselves being prosecuted and also the dealers as well.
Personally I find the OPA more disturbing than the DPA. Films that are classified under the VRA are exempt from the DPA. Not the case with the OPA. In any case (and personally speaking) the DPA which applies to extreme pornographic work has no bearing on anything I watch. It is the stuff the BBFC already cut from R18's.
There is a great deal of work the BBFC are legally obliged to cut involving various legislation.
I think it is the cutting of sexual violence that always gets discussed the most and after all it is (almost) the only reason a film would be rejected today. This is what the BBFC had to say: "The BBFC operates on the precautionary presumption that particular violent scenes, with the potential to cause sexual arrousal, may encourage a harmful association between violence and sexual gratification".
In making these decisions "the BBFC often consults or carries out research involving experts in Psychology, Psychiatry, Law and Pornography".
And of course the VRA also requires the BBFC to intervene when there is a potential for harm to the viewer.
Now of course fortunately, the truth is the BBFC rarely ever cut scenes of sexual violence, the vast majority gets through without any problems, it's only really a tiny fraction that ends up getting cut.
 |