Censorship

[Nosferatu@Cult Labs]

In the case of Soulmate, the imitable behaviour argument is similar, but far from identical, to the area which covers press reporting of suicides. This prevents newspapers from going into detail about a particular case:

Important areas of public concern where the Code already applies include:
• Graphic images illustrating suicide methods were often upsetting to relatives and friends. Under the Code, such images would normally have to pass the ‘excessive detail’ test.
• The cumulative effect of repeated media inquiries to family members also caused unintended distress. Here, too, the PCC can help by passing on ‘desist’ messages via its arrangements for handling media scrums.
• Glorification of suicide: Stories presented in a way likely to romanticize suicide could have a serious influence, especially on vulnerable young people.

Full article here.

[Boo Radley]

Originally Posted by Nosferatu@Cult Labs

From my perspective, the BBFC have told a distributor what material would be acceptable for a 12A certificate and what would be permitted for a 15. If the distributor decides to leave the film as it is and have it released with a 15 certificate, all the BBFC have done is advised about classification, not forced any cuts to be made. If the distributor chooses to make changes to the film in order to secure a lower certificate (and therefore a larger audience), the censoring has been done by the distributor and not the BBFC, who have merely classified the film.

Classified the film using what guidelines, what law? If I say I want my film to be a 12a and the bbfc say it is a 15 because of one use of a word then they are forcing me to cut my film to fit into their parameters. As previously stated there are NO LAWS stating that anyone under 15 cannot hear a certain word. It is left up to the examiners to decide in THEIR OWN MORAL OPINION of what is acceptable at a given certificate. If I release my film at 15 it is classified as such. If I cut my film it is ONLY because the BBFC have demanded it. They have forced me to cut my film. There is a very simple test to this, look in the dictionary.
To wit; Classify. To arrange or organize according to class or category.
Censor. An authorized examiner of literature, plays, film or other material who may prohibit what he considers morally, politically or otherwise objectionable.

Even their own name is a lie, for goodness sake!!

[Boo Radley]

Originally Posted by Nosferatu@Cult Labs

In the case of Soulmate, the imitable behaviour argument is similar, but far from identical, to the area which covers press reporting of suicides. This prevents newspapers from going into detail about a particular case:

Important areas of public concern where the Code already applies include:
• Graphic images illustrating suicide methods were often upsetting to relatives and friends. Under the Code, such images would normally have to pass the ‘excessive detail’ test.
• The cumulative effect of repeated media inquiries to family members also caused unintended distress. Here, too, the PCC can help by passing on ‘desist’ messages via its arrangements for handling media scrums.
• Glorification of suicide: Stories presented in a way likely to romanticize suicide could have a serious influence, especially on vulnerable young people.

Full article here.

Really? So no one would commit suicide if we didn't have a movie to tell us how to slit our wrists? If we never saw a hanging in American Horror Story (Shown uncut on TV but CUT by the BBFC for DVD!!) then we wouldn't know how to do it. Bollocks!!

You could use that very same argument for any death in the movies. Because someone got shot in London we should ban all films with guns in it so that it can't happen again? This is no law, this - again - is judgement by the examiners and as such can be interpreted different ways by different examiners.

Can anyone explain why a suicide technique is fine to be shown uncut on the telly but cut for DVD release in the same country using the same "laws"??

[Nosferatu@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by Boo Radley

Classified the film using what guidelines, what law? If I say I want my film to be a 12a and the bbfc say it is a 15 because of one use of a word then they are forcing me to cut my film to fit into their parameters. As previously stated there are NO LAWS stating that anyone under 15 cannot hear a certain word. It is left up to the examiners to decide in THEIR OWN MORAL OPINION of what is acceptable at a given certificate. If I release my film at 15 it is classified as such. If I cut my film it is ONLY because the BBFC have demanded it. They have forced me to cut my film. There is a very simple test to this, look in the dictionary.
To wit; Classify. To arrange or organize according to class or category.
Censor. An authorized examiner of literature, plays, film or other material who may prohibit what he considers morally, politically or otherwise objectionable.

Even their own name is a lie, for goodness sake!!

My point is that in these circumstances, the BBFC is not censoring (prohibiting from public consumption) the films, but telling the distributors what age group the material will be best suited.

If they had said "remove the word 'mother****er' or the film will not be released", that would be a very different matter.

In terms of their remit, doesn't that come from the government so, basically, it is the government which demands classification and the BBFC to draw up guidelines based on what is socially acceptable. That obviously differs from person to person and things which would have given a film a 15 certificate five years ago now means it is eligible for a 12 certificate shows the BBFC is willing to change with the times and differing moral standards in society.

[Nosferatu@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by Boo Radley

Classified the film using what guidelines, what law? If I say I want my film to be a 12a and the bbfc say it is a 15 because of one use of a word then they are forcing me to cut my film to fit into their parameters.

The flip side of the argument is that if the BBFC allowed a certain word into a 12A film which would be better suited in one with a 15 certificate, they would no doubt be inundated with complaints (as they were with Woman in Black which, ironically, was pre-cut by the distributor to secure the lower certificate) so, when advising a distributor about the likely certificates, it is sometimes the case that they are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

[Boo Radley]

Originally Posted by Nosferatu@Cult Labs

In terms of their remit, doesn't that come from the government so, basically, it is the government which demands classification and the BBFC to draw up guidelines based on what is socially acceptable. That obviously differs from person to person and things which would have given a film a 15 certificate five years ago now means it is eligible for a 12 certificate shows the BBFC is willing to change with the times and differing moral standards in society.

No, not at all. What it shows is that the guidelines and laws can be interpreted quite differently from one examiner to the next, proving that it is up to an individual choice based on their upbringing and morals rather than set in stone rules that have to be obeyed.

[Nosferatu@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by Boo Radley

No, not at all. What it shows is that the guidelines and laws can be interpreted quite differently from one examiner to the next, proving that it is up to an individual choice based on their upbringing and morals rather than set in stone rules that have to be obeyed.

I believe it is up to a group of senior examiners, rather than one individual, to watch and evaluate each film. As there is a turnover in staff, guidelines (and their interpretation) will undoubtedly change. In my opinion, this is preferable to having something set in stone and not at all adaptable as time progresses and society's attitude towards language, violence, nudity and sex changes.

[Boo Radley]

Originally Posted by Nosferatu@Cult Labs

I believe it is up to a group of senior examiners, rather than one individual, to watch and evaluate each film. As there is a turnover in staff, guidelines (and their interpretation) will undoubtedly change. In my opinion, this is preferable to having something set in stone and not at all adaptable as time progresses and society's attitude towards language, violence, nudity and sex changes.

3 examiners at a time, which if they don't agree goes to the top man for a decision. His word, as in the case of Ferman, is the final judgement, no appeal, no argument, no rational debate. His morals and standards are forced onto us if we agree or not. One man. And if that one man happens to be an egotistical maniac, just like Ferman, we have no recourse.

The guidelines (which do not exist by the way, try and find them, I wrote to the BBFC years ago asking for them and was told it is the examiners discretion utilizing their years of experience and MORAL opinion that forms them!) and laws have not changed one bit over the last ten years so a film like Cannibal Holocaust was totally banned due to these laws and guidelines. THEN WITH NO CHANGE IN THE LAW OR GUIDELINES whatsoever it is deemed acceptable. How can that be? Nothing has changed. We still use the same laws today as we did back then.
Either the BBFC were vastly overstepping their authority ten years ago or are totally disregarding it now. They are opposites where there has been no change, they cannot be compatible, it is impossible.
Also the AHS suicide. What guideline or law states suicide can be shown uncut on TV but cut for DVD. There is none - because they decide on their own moral stance on the subject.

At least if we had set down laws about exactly what was acceptable or not we wouldn't be debating now, it would be clear and precise, not at the whim of an examiner who believes this film is a work of art and directed by a renowned director so should be let through uncut but this other one is a cheap exploitation flick therefore has no merit in the examiners eyes and should be cut or banned. Elitism at its finest based on personal opinion. Our censorship body!

[Boo Radley]

Okay, I'm back!!
Hopefully I didn't annoy and upset too many people (Nos, cough, SShaw, cough, ) with my rants over the weekend but at least we debated and talked about stuff rather than just posting the latest film we've bought, and that got me thinking.....
So leaving behind the destruction of my beloved horror films, I'd like to dip my toes into even murkier water to see what the "general attitude" to porn is like out there.....
First let me put forward my stance on the subject. I was brought up in Africa, like some of you know, and back in the '70's porn was completely forbidden in any form. You know that song from Rocky Horror, Touch-a touch-a touch me, I wanna be dirty.... (Listen to that echo around your head, now!!) well, even that was completely cut out of the film in the cinema, so I never saw any porn till well into my 20's. Perhaps because of that it is not a thing I indulge in very often at all, I much prefer to lol at blooper clips than sit staring at two people doing the body bump. But, in my opinion, two consenting adults can do what they like to each other and if they want to film it and let people view it, then I also see nothing wrong with that.
So I wrote to the BBFC asking them their laws and guidelines on extreme pornography and have been told that they actually have real laws on this subject, unlike our previous discussion. They told me to look at Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 c. 4 Part 5 Pornography etc. Section 63 (Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008) so I did!

I found it fascinating. An extreme pornographic image is pornographic IF said image is made solely for the intent of sexual arousal and is (Section 6b) grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character. (Section 7a-d)
An image falls within this subsection if it portrays, in an explicit and realistic way, any of the following—
.an act which threatens a person's life,
.an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person's anus, breasts or genitals,
an act which involves sexual interference with a human corpse, or
a person performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive) and a reasonable person looking at the image would think that any such person or animal was real.

I wrote back to them asking what criteria or scale is used to decide if something is grossly offensive, disgusting and obscene, after all, my aunt thinks all of those criteria about the Sun's page 3 and it pretty much covers every painting Rick Melton (Stunner) has ever done....How can you tell if an image is all or one of these things? So far, no reply.

Then if we go through the 4 examples given by The Criminal Justice Act, a lot of questions come up. "Threatens a persons life..." I'm struggling to think of a sexual act that does this apart from strangulation which I'm reliably informed is enjoyed by a few. However to threaten somebody's life by doing this would mean that you would have to carry on strangling them for more than a couple of minutes after they had lost consciousness which is no longer a sexual act but one of murder. Or would a line of dialogue be enough to trigger this law?

Then we get "...results in, or is likely to result in, serious injury to anus, genitals and breasts." The kicker here is, "likely to..." A needle through a nipple, is that a serious injury? A sown up vagina? Fisting? Prolapsing? A man who sticks a jam jar up his anus that breaks, leaving blood pouring from his rectum?
Who decides if whatever action is taking place "..is likely to..." ? A Doctor? A lawyer? BBFC Examiner? (Soz! Couldn't resist!) and what precedents are involved?

Sex with a human corpse. Okay. I know that this has happened in various morgues around the world. One chap was caught just the other week in USA. But I have never, ever heard of an actual porno flick ever going this far. For real, I mean, not Nekromantik, Aftermath or Lucker, and how is it possible for Nekro to get a release under this law? Is it because the corpse is not real?

Animals.....I remember back in the day a tape did the rounds that was known as Animal Farm. It kicked off with Bodil and scenes from A Summers Day and then went into a load of clips of horrendous stuff. NEVER have I heard of anyone (admitting!!) this stuff sexually aroused them - a prerequisite of a pornographic image. People watched it (once!) for the pure jaw dropping insanity of it and to see if the rumours were true. The reaction to it made reactions to 2 girls 1 cup look like nothing. It was "lolz..." (OK, bad choice of words!!)

Also while we're here and it's in my head, I've heard of people being done by the law for cartoon porn. You know the stuff, like The Simpsons, Family Guy, etc, how can these be described as obscene or is it only if Bart, Lisa, Millhouse, etc are involved and then comes under child pornography? Or Brian the dog, does he count as bestiality? It seems a bit of a stretch of reasoning to me, but hey, what do I know, that's why I'm asking. If I drew a picture of Nelson making the beast with the two backs with Marge would that be obscene, disgusting and offensive or just funny? Would, could, anyone be sexually aroused by said image?

Now don't get me wrong and twist my words, I'm NOT saying that I disagree with these laws like I do about fantasy horror films, but what I'm asking is how and who decides and where is the line drawn? It all looks a bit fuzzy and again, open to interpretation of the person viewing it. My aunt....MTDS....Me.....You, yes you, we all have differing tolerances for what we perceive as obscene.

Anyone want to share thoughts on this.......

[Make Them Die Slowly]

Originally Posted by Boo Radley

Okay, I'm back!!
Hopefully I didn't annoy and upset too many people (Nos, cough, SShaw, cough, ) with my rants over the weekend but at least we debated and talked about stuff rather than just posting the latest film we've bought, and that got me thinking.....
So leaving behind the destruction of my beloved horror films, I'd like to dip my toes into even murkier water to see what the "general attitude" to porn is like out there.....
First let me put forward my stance on the subject. I was brought up in Africa, like some of you know, and back in the '70's porn was completely forbidden in any form. You know that song from Rocky Horror, Touch-a touch-a touch me, I wanna be dirty.... (Listen to that echo around your head, now!!) well, even that was completely cut out of the film in the cinema, so I never saw any porn till well into my 20's. Perhaps because of that it is not a thing I indulge in very often at all, I much prefer to lol at blooper clips than sit staring at two people doing the body bump. But, in my opinion, two consenting adults can do what they like to each other and if they want to film it and let people view it, then I also see nothing wrong with that.
So I wrote to the BBFC asking them their laws and guidelines on extreme pornography and have been told that they actually have real laws on this subject, unlike our previous discussion. They told me to look at Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 c. 4 Part 5 Pornography etc. Section 63 (Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008) so I did!

I found it fascinating. An extreme pornographic image is pornographic IF said image is made solely for the intent of sexual arousal and is (Section 6b) grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character. (Section 7a-d)
An image falls within this subsection if it portrays, in an explicit and realistic way, any of the following—
.an act which threatens a person's life,
.an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person's anus, breasts or genitals,
an act which involves sexual interference with a human corpse, or
a person performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive) and a reasonable person looking at the image would think that any such person or animal was real.

I wrote back to them asking what criteria or scale is used to decide if something is grossly offensive, disgusting and obscene, after all, my aunt thinks all of those criteria about the Sun's page 3 and it pretty much covers every painting Rick Melton (Stunner) has ever done....How can you tell if an image is all or one of these things? So far, no reply.

Then if we go through the 4 examples given by The Criminal Justice Act, a lot of questions come up. "Threatens a persons life..." I'm struggling to think of a sexual act that does this apart from strangulation which I'm reliably informed is enjoyed by a few. However to threaten somebody's life by doing this would mean that you would have to carry on strangling them for more than a couple of minutes after they had lost consciousness which is no longer a sexual act but one of murder. Or would a line of dialogue be enough to trigger this law?

Then we get "...results in, or is likely to result in, serious injury to anus, genitals and breasts." The kicker here is, "likely to..." A needle through a nipple, is that a serious injury? A sown up vagina? Fisting? Prolapsing? A man who sticks a jam jar up his anus that breaks, leaving blood pouring from his rectum?
Who decides if whatever action is taking place "..is likely to..." ? A Doctor? A lawyer? BBFC Examiner? (Soz! Couldn't resist!) and what precedents are involved?

Sex with a human corpse. Okay. I know that this has happened in various morgues around the world. One chap was caught just the other week in USA. But I have never, ever heard of an actual porno flick ever going this far. For real, I mean, not Nekromantik, Aftermath or Lucker, and how is it possible for Nekro to get a release under this law? Is it because the corpse is not real?

Animals.....I remember back in the day a tape did the rounds that was known as Animal Farm. It kicked off with Bodil and scenes from A Summers Day and then went into a load of clips of horrendous stuff. NEVER have I heard of anyone (admitting!!) this stuff sexually aroused them - a prerequisite of a pornographic image. People watched it (once!) for the pure jaw dropping insanity of it and to see if the rumours were true. The reaction to it made reactions to 2 girls 1 cup look like nothing. It was "lolz..." (OK, bad choice of words!!)

Also while we're here and it's in my head, I've heard of people being done by the law for cartoon porn. You know the stuff, like The Simpsons, Family Guy, etc, how can these be described as obscene or is it only if Bart, Lisa, Millhouse, etc are involved and then comes under child pornography? Or Brian the dog, does he count as bestiality? It seems a bit of a stretch of reasoning to me, but hey, what do I know, that's why I'm asking. If I drew a picture of Nelson making the beast with the two backs with Marge would that be obscene, disgusting and offensive or just funny? Would, could, anyone be sexually aroused by said image?

Now don't get me wrong and twist my words, I'm NOT saying that I disagree with these laws like I do about fantasy horror films, but what I'm asking is how and who decides and where is the line drawn? It all looks a bit fuzzy and again, open to interpretation of the person viewing it. My aunt....MTDS....Me.....You, yes you, we all have differing tolerances for what we perceive as obscene.

Anyone want to share thoughts on this.......

Blimey Boo, how did you get hold of my bucket list!