Quote:
Originally Posted by marvinnashsear  Yeah, you're right it was a sarcastic reference. So, if that film did get a video release at R18 prior to the legislation that version would then be illegal? |
Yes. A BBFC classification won’t confer immunity from prosecution. I suspect what would happen in a case like this is that the BBFC would have to withdraw the original certificate, citing the change in the law as the reason.
Quote:
|
Also did you have anything to do with the DVD release of Sweet Sweetback? I've always found that situation interesting. When I watched it on Channel 4 I was surprised at the opening scene. I thought it was blatant that that was Mario Van Peebles who was clearly underage and the scene as uncut. IMDB claims Melvin Van Peebles lied to the bbfc about it being an older actor but it's often wrong.
|
That’s exactly what happened, and as soon as the truth about his son’s age came out the uncut version of the film became liable for prosecution under the 1978 Protection of Children Act - so the old 18 certificate wouldn’t have conferred any legal protection. Obviously, no label wants to get prosecuted, let alone jailed, for distributing what is legally child porn - and they wouldn’t be able to plead ignorance going forward.
(See also the mad panic that engulfed the porn industry in the US when Traci Lords’ real age was revealed. The second that story broke, they could no longer plead ignorance, and Reagan-era prosecutors were itching to nail them for something open and shut. People had to scour the proofs of soon-to-be-printed porn mags for the tiniest hint of her presence - and since she was a massive star at the time, she was
everywhere, not least in countless ads.)