Censorship

[Daemonia]

Originally Posted by vincenzo

If the act wasn't completely covered by the BBFC there would have been legal challenges from every distributor & filmmaker every time a film was cut under the Animals Act. However there haven't been.

Maybe it's simply assumed that the BBFC have the law behind them. But maybe -just maybe- they don't. What if the BBFC have simply been cutting on assumption when there's no real legal obligation to do so? If Arrow receives cuts to Inferno, maybe they should test my theory and challenge them...?

[Nosferatu@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by Daemonia

Maybe it's simply assumed that the BBFC have the law behind them. But maybe -just maybe- they don't. What if the BBFC have simply been cutting on assumption when there's no real legal obligation to do so? If Arrow receives cuts to Inferno, maybe they should test my theory and challenge them...?

Yes, but legal challenges cost money, and it depends how much money Arrow would be prepared to spend on releasing Inferno and whether the return justifies an expensive court case.

It be great if someone did do that as a test case, but they would need pretty deep pockets.

[vincenzo]

As they've been cutting said footage for over 20 years now I'm sure they've been challenged about it before. Probably by one of the bigger distributors. If they'd lost then they wouldn't be making the same cuts today.

The last legal challenge to the BBFC wasn't animal related (Last House On The Left) but ended up with a costly court battle, a victory for the BBFC, and additional cuts to the film.

[Daemonia]

Yes, I didn't seriously think Arrow would do this. But you perfectly illustrate the ridiculous situation we're in. The BBFC cut a film - they might not have any legal obligation to do so, but do it anyway - the distributor won't dispute it because it means shelling out more money, so the BBFC go constantly unchallenged (apart from rare occasions). And look what happens when they are challenged - we now have hardcore pornography legalised in this country, because a distributor challenged them and took it to Court. This just goes to show that the BBFC are pretty much a law unto themselves and when challenged in a court of law are invariably found to be in the wrong.

After doing some more reading I discover that the Cinematograph Act does only apply to films for theatrical screenings and that the BBFC simply 'consider this' when looking at video works. So there you have it - they have no real legal obligation to cut animal cruelty from home video works, they simply apply another law to it, which isn't legally required of them. I can understand their position - but then don't say it's a legal obligation when it's not. By all means say that you are erring on the side of caution, but don't hide behind a law that doesn't apply.

[vincenzo]

Simple solution. Email them and tell them you believe they are breaking the law in cutting animal cruelty for video & DVD.

Their reply will be an interesting (and pretty detailed) one.

[Daemonia]

Hmmm....I might do that actually (or will they send round the Boys in Blue to have a nose at my DVD collection???).

And I wouldn't say that they are breaking the law - they're given the power to make decisions at their own discretion. I simply believe that they have no obligation under law to cut such material from home video releases.

[Nosferatu@Cult Labs]

Well put -- I completely agree. There has to be a line somewhere as to what is legally allowed to be sold and what isn't and it appears, from what Daemonia has said, that animal cruelty isn't covered. That may open the floodgates to all sorts of discussing material being sold so there has to be someone to oversee what is on the DVDs and Blu-ray Discs distributed in the UK. The question is who, and what should be the extent of their powers?

[Daemonia]

And, furthermore, if the Cinematograph Act is going to be applied to the letter, then no part of any work that included animal cruelty in its making can be passed for public consumption. In other words, if a work contains animal cruelty then the law requires that that work, in its entirety, must be rejected. Now, I realise we're getting into the area of semantics and interpretations here, but that is exactly what the law is made up of.

I'm not even saying that the BBFC shouldn't cut such material - but I don't think that they actually have any legal obligation to do so.

[vincenzo]

I'm sure someone asked them this question a while ago over on WWDVD but it may have been on the old site. Possibly VRA-related (but unlikely) though I can't be 100% sure what their reply was.

Either way if they weren't obligated to cut animal cruelty from videos then they wouldn't do it, and would have been successfully challenged about it long ago.

[Daemonia]

Originally Posted by vincenzo

I'm sure someone asked them this question a while ago over on WWDVD but it may have been on the old site. Think it's VRA-related but I can't be 100% sure what their reply was.

Either way if they weren't obligated to cut animal cruelty from videos then they wouldn't do it, and would have been successfully challenged about it long ago.

You may well be right, Vin - I suspect there's something in the VRA. I've been reading that and not seen anything in there yet, though.....