BBFC History: 2000

• new classification guidlines folowed after extensive public and institutional consultation and gathering of views. this found the greatest concern to parents was drug use and violence in junior categories - whereas generally sexual activity caused less concern
• european films challenged what was sexually accepted on the screen such as Seul Contre Tous - inwhich the scenes were deemed to explicit. however the consultation allowed the guidelines to be relaxed and show real sex in an 18 category.
• sexual violence wasnt seen in such a forgiving light. the Last House On The Left was rejected by BBFC as it was concerned with its eroticised seual violence, particularly in video format. this strict view was upheld by Video Appeal Committee (VAC), but was eventually passed as the possibility of harm was thought to be reduced
• government responsibility moved form the Home office department for Culture media nd Sport to Ofcom, but leaves the responsibility of film, video and DVD regulation to the BBFC (only one to see prepublication)
• new 12A rating introduced in 2002 allowing under12s to be accompanied by an adult giving parents more control with the introduction of consumer advice.
• consumer advice was always on website but appeared on posters and adverts for 12 A films being included by most film distributors
• David cooke was appointed Director after Robin Duvals retirement
• new guidelindes were made in 2005 and based on even more public opinion (7000 more)
• introduction of educational websites for specifically cbbfc for children and sbbfc for students (and later pbbfc for parents) containing extented classification
• some 18 films like Destricted contained explict images of real sex but were said to be justified by context and came very close to abolition of censorship but not classification
• famous rejection of Manhunt 2 as was concerened about callousness and sadism. after numerous attempts and modifications, it was eventually cleared in 2008
• new guidelines in 2009 were published with 8,500 people contributing - leading to 62% of public felt the BBFC was effective

BBFC History: 1990

• continuing strict standards for videos as scenes can be seen out of context and its easier for younger viewers to access- concerns over viewing of violent videos flared up with the Jamie Bulger case. this lead the Board requiring to look at a films potential harm
• at this time a flurry of violent drug filled films awaited classification - one of the most controversial being Natural Born Killers
• 1995 saw increased concern over protection of children in films like Kids which was seen as child pornography but contained 18+ actors
• lord Harewood resigned as President after 12 years. Andreas Whittaham Smith who replaced him wanted the BBFC to improve its openness and accountabilityby publishing its guidelines, introducing a website and gathering public opinions in roadshows
• as computer games developed, the BBFC had to classify realistic games with cruelty to humans or animals or sexual activity. this introduced a new style of examining films and lead to a non classification for Carmagedon as it "encouraged antisocial behaviour"  This which was later overturned as had parental lock settings
• Robin Duval replaced James Ferman as Director in 1999
• public opinion was shifting and other media forms like internet and satellite were developing alongside video and film. this lead to the reexamination of the Exorcists, which was unlikely to be harmful to the increasing sophistication of young viewers
• also saw removal of banning oriental weapons as were not very accessible, required training to use and were no longer the height of fashion
• the emphasis changed from this to focusing on the glamourisation of weapons such as knives - especially in younger categories

BBFC History: 1980

• establishment of stalk and slash genre
• generally much broader and liberal content including politically controversial material
• introduction of video recorders lead to a moral panic on "video nasties" concerned that children were going to watch adult only content as they did not have to be classified or "filtered " by BBFC. many films such as The Evil Dead were proscuted under obscene publications Act. this particualr film needed cuts to  violence and horror and eventually pleading guilty and was prosecuted and accquitted
• this massive issue lead to the Video Recordings Act in 1984 - which gave the BBFC responsibility for classifying all videos. this massively increased their workload as they had to classify previous and current titles.
• the Category system also got reformed as A was changed to PG, AA-15 and X-18. R18 was created for stronger sex films for exclusive members and licensed sex shops (which would have previously been unclassified). Uc was also created for videos to indicate that they were suitable for unsupervised young children. also a 12 category was created to bridge the gap between PG and 15, the first 12 film being Batman
• Caligua had massive issues when coming over from the US as it was very controversial and in danger of breeching UK law with sexually explicit material. many cuts were made to 6 months later to give it an X rating

BBFC History: 1970

• A category was split into A- (admitted children 5+) which, unlike a U, could contain potentially unsuitable material for pre 14s  - and the new AA- (admitted plus 14s only) to allow more adults material to be exhibited whilst still protecting children
• the age for an X rating reaised from 16 to 18
• new X rating in america raise concerns with the board that films might push the boudaries on sex and perversion
• pressure groups like the Festival of Light, put pressure on the BBFC to harshly rate or cut contraversial films. this was contradictory to the percieved liberalisation and the efforts of anti censorship campaigners
• Stephen Murphy was Secretary of the board from 1971-75 and was replaced by James Freeman. he permitted increasingly sexually explicit films but simaltaneously clamped down on sadistic violence.
• His views reflected a wider shift in concern over whether a film could have any possibly corrupting influence eg enjoying a victims pain in (sexual) violence
• both of the Secretaries agreed that violence and terroism espicailly towards women was unacceptable  - which lead to the unclassifcation of The Texas Chainsaw Masacre
• Obscene Publications Act came into law in 1977 - this allowed for more flexibility when considering scenes as a whole/in context rather than in isolation
• the Exorcist raised concerns over whether it had a psycologically damaging effects on youg people and A Clockwork Orange had a controversial rape scene and was linked to sex and violence

BBFC History: 1960

• with the sixties came a strong shift in public opinion which was reflected in new liberalism from the BBFC and John Trevelyan. they relaxed there responsibility over public morality and expressing minority opinions. public tolerance increased as films became more explicit
• realism and kitchen sink drama emerged
• however films like Saturday Night still expressed concerns over language violence and theme of abortion to the point where Warickshire Council requested that cuts be made to give it a local certificate
• wolfden reports recommended relaxing the laws on homosexuality, which the BBFC thought would not be favoured by a British audience
• Lady in A Cage generated concerns over violence as it was felt it might cause " invite and sitmulate juvenille violence and anitsocial behaviour" and recieved an X certificate

BBFC History: 1950

• increasing afluence after wars
• youth group became an attractive target for consumer goods (to brand teenager) as had disposable income
• 1951 introduction of the X category which excluded under 16s (incoporating old H category)
• board still holding on to role as protector of moral standards - giving films some restriction
• growing concerns of teenage criminality and hooliganism - raised issues with and "the wild one" which took 13 years to recieve  a classification as was seen as hooliganism that was influencing riots in seaside towns 
• BBFC longstanding policy on no nudity as thought would encourage sexual exploitation.
• controversial film Garden of Eden which contained nudity which BBFC didnt like initially but gave in and gave it an A rating as so many local authorites overruled them
• board still concerned over overall message of the film and its effect on society and how partents would react to films and still quite tight on language
• theme of capital punishment on agenda
• Arthur Watkins resigned and was replaced by John Nichols for 2 years, and the John trevelyan took over the role and wanted to shift the X category from horror and continental films to serious British Films
• soical and class upheaval after war
• introduction of Obscene Publications Act (1959)

BBFC History: 1912 - 1949

• created in 1916 with TP Oconor as a president
• first set of written codes/rules
• 43 strict rules to gian public trust. these now seem quite unreasonable to a modern day audience but were more appropriate for the time
• issues concerned horror and sexuality introducing "H" and beginging to be concerned about childrens viewings
• Arthur Watkins and Sir Sydney Harris introduced advisory role in pre production
• these focused on principles and messages such as "effect on children" - "impair moral standards" and likely to give offense" more subjective view of important issues of the time
• particular focus on effect on children  - tempted to create adult category to protect bhildren, but also increases freedom of filmmakers to treat adults as adults
• children banned from Frankenstein as too horific
• Battleship Potemkin

CS 3 - a man vs Sunday Times

• clause 6 is broken as he 14 year old was disturbed during his school education and he shouldnt have been interviewed involving another childs welfare (potentially). similarly if the claim about the money is true and information was found the minor could not have been paid for material about childrens welfare. even though no stories were published  - the method of gaining material are breeching the code
• possible clause 9 would come into effect as if the suspect was a child - looking for a photo of them may well not considering his vulnerable position as a witness of a crime - although arguably the public right to know could have overruled this
• whilst there is quite alot of public interest and no information about the minor or photo of the accused was published - the claimed methods of gaining the information they wanted did breech the code - so at least a warning or a private apology should be issued

CS 8 - Paul McCartney vs Hello!

• arguable clasue 3 of privacy has been breeched as whilst it is a well known celebrity it an relativly public place - as it is a personal moment of their private life and not an overwhelmingly public right to know - the privacy clause was probably breeched especially as his less public family and cildren were also included in the picture - so their private life must be considered
• clause 5 is also relavant as its intrusion into grief or shock it should be handled carefully - which i think the article did but the intrusive picture maybe wasnt

CS 7 - a police officer vs the Sunday Telegraph

• clause of 3 privacy states that everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private life - which would therefore have meant a breech of the code as they took picture within a private place withoout permisson
• whilst their is some right to know with regard to the public image of the police woman - her husband is not in the public eye. therefore i think his right to privacy is not overwhelmed by the right to know
• clause 10 about clandesine and subterfuge has been broken as the press misrepresented themselves to get into private home. whilst they claim there has been some attempt to gain info by other means and there is to some extent a public right to know - i still think the press did break the code as the public right to know did not overrule this

CS 6 - a woman vs eastbourne gazette

• potential harassment clause 4 - paticularly if the family had requested that the journalist left them alone as it was repeated attempts to gain information
• clause 8 hospital code has definetely been breeched as he did not identify himself and didnt grant permisson. this was especially inapproproate as the man was not in a state of giving information.
• whilst the claims of harassment could be seen as good journalism, it was probably a bit much to soon and wouldnt have resulted in any information being given.
• the public right to knowwould not outweight this as it is a private matter of an individuals health  - it would be more suitable to gain info at a later date

CS 5 - a woman vs the Sun

• the main clause here is clause 5 intrusion into grief or shock where it specifically states that in cases of suicide details about how it happened should be avoided. the photos clearly demonstrated the method of suicide so broke the code.
• similarly the fact that it was so soon after her death (before it had been publicly annonced) would indicate that it wasnt dealt with with much sensitivity
• the public could have a right to know about the event as it is shocking but they could have waited until the death had been formerly announced and did not have to include the contraversial picture of her falling to her death becuase of taste and decency 

CS 4 - a woman vs independent

• definete intrusion into privacy as it was her private life and the right know did not over power it
• also issue of now intrusion into grief or shock and inaccracy which is relevant after the miscarriadge
• defamation of character slightly as it implies unproffesional attitude as she has wuit previous shows
• i think that a private and public apology is appropriate as the paper did break the code on a few counts

CS 2 - a man vs Zoo mag

• children clause 6 relavant
• defamation of character (text) law rather than code
• even though she was in public place she was underage and so had used photgraph without consent. context of article could have given her grief and thus impacted on her welfare, which would have broken the code
• not massive public right to know as is a general issue rather than specific to the two individuals 
• whilst father didnt really protec this daughter or prevent her from making the gestures he probably didnt realsie it was going to be photographed and reported. however as they were in a public place they should maybe have been more concerned and responsible for there behaviour 

C.S. 1 - a man vs Northwich Guardian

• clause 6 children relevant as people in video under 16
• clause 3 for privacy as it was private act?
• as the material was in the public domain already - privacy is not an issue
• material was posted by the children in the clip so the childrens clause act isnt relavant
• public right to know as obvious footage of a crime being commited
• there own responsivility of putting themselves in public eye by uploading video to youtube

BBFC

• surprised how much material is watched each day and year by how little people
• surprised by how few rejections and cuts there are
• interested how they use bilingual workers/deal with all of the non-english speaking material
• interesting to see the hierarchy and how it is used with  more contraversial decisions

PCC seminar

• useful to look at real case studies on a personal level to see details on what specifics break the code
• interesting to see what sections of the code seem to come up more often than others (accuracy, privacy and children)
• useful to find out why the PCC is still working and respected as a self regulatory system
• useful to see how the code is used as an objective guidline as oppose to the more subjective BBFC guidelines

why is the PCC important

an independent volentary organisation helps protect the press and those in publicaitons without controls or laws enforced by the government. th PCC also opperate a system where a problem or issue can be righted and overcome - which is fast free and fair often resolving a complaitn within 35 days

Who Complains and Why?

anyone can complain including celebrites but 96% of complaints are from ordinary members of the public. the majority of complaints are for regional newspapers rather than larger nationals. they can complain if they think any of the clauses are broken - this is often in relation to the vulnerable (children, people in hospital and those likely of discrimination)

History

replaced the Press Council in 1991 (originally set up in 1953). in the 80s some politicians lost confidence in the Press Council as thought it was ineffective. so a departmental Commmittee with David Calcutt QC to protect individual privacy and improve recourse against the press. soon after a group of national and regional editors produced the Code of Practice and the PCC which has grown in influence and respect. It is self regulated and supported by the House of Commons culture

Funding?

through Press Standards Board of Finance - so it is not paid for by the government or the public. the press also gives a proportional amount of money according to circulation figures

What does the code of practice cover

sixteen points covering accuracy, privacy, news gathering and protecting the vulnerable.  covers all text and photos that are published. most of these factors can be trumped by the publics right to know -but it msut be justified. but they still accept that newspapers ahve the freedom to choose there style - and the public choose to read this style

How does the System Work

the PCC acts when they recieve a complaint after a publication (unlike the BBFC who check over everything pre-publication). it is a vollentary mutual agreement between the newspaper and magazine industry and the PCC/public. it is not run by the government to keep information open. to keep the PCC independent none of the 17 editors work in the industry - but are knowledged about newspaper and magazine publication

What Does the PCC Do?

the Press complaitns commission are in charge of regulating the press and actinf as a mediator between editor and complainants. it works on  a 16 rules of guidance and imposes sacntions on the party in the wrong - such as publishing a correction or policy

The PCC Code of Practice

16 points of the Code

• accuracy
• Oppourtunity to Reply
• Privacy*
• Harassment*
• Intrusion into Grief or Shock
• Children*
• Children in Sex Cases*
• Hospitals*
• Reporting of Crime*
• Clandestine Device and Subterfuge*
• Victims of sexual Assault
• Disscrimination
• Financial Journalism
• Confidential Source
• Witness payment in Criminal Stats
• Payment to Criminals*

Main Arguments for Film Classification in Britain

PROS

• guidelines for what is suitable or harmful for children - protects them
• does screen/reduce number of younger people seeing inapproprate/explict material
• as its reguired by law has more power and influence than guidelines
• reputable source which is relatively unbiased and representative
• is keeping updated and moving with current issues
• open information on how classified material

CONS

• makes a judgement over what is suitable for children to see
• takes control and responsibility out of parents hand which can lead to disagreement over what is suitable
• quite subjective boundaries between categories
• pressumes that people are scared by different things at different ages rather than on personal experience and individuality
• impossible to prove potential harm - hard to prove potential harm for anything
• whilst information on the classification gap is publised freely is not well known about

Arguments

• is age a good variable for what exposure people should get
• should responsibility lie with the parents or government? should BBFC be guidelines rather than law
• are there too many or too few gategories
• wheter realism/realistic effects should be judged more, less or equally as harshly as real life action
• are age ratings for lower children for the benefit of the children or the adults who take them

18 ~ R18

• R18 =sex works containing images of real sex, strong fettishes, explicit animated images or strong sexual images so generally stronger and more specific activity than normal 18
• 18 can be of educational value which is rarer for R18 eg R18 activites not often justified by context

15 ~ 18

• themes treatment suitable for 15 +
• stronger sexual behaviour/references
• strongest language allowed
• general content suitable for a more adult audience rather than 15-17 year olds

12A ~ 15

• move to allowing stronger discrimitory language - so long as not endorsed
• can show taking drugs
• moderate - strong threat/horror
• stronger and more frequent language allowed from moderate
• nudity moves to allowed in sexual context
• openning up of themes
• moderate to strong language, verbal reference to sexual violence

PG ~ 12A

• can contain more discrimination but not endorsed
• can show infrequent drug misuse without antidrug message
• move from infrequent to moderate violence
• concern moves from younger copying behavoiur to concern over dangerous acts
• mild to maderate lang
• nudity un to acceptable
• strengthening sex references and implication for young teens
• more mature themes allowed
• moderate violence allowed without context - stronger stuff must have conext - mild implication of sex violence 

U ~ PG

• some discrimination allowed in educational context
• short frightening sequences allowed
• (no detail) of imitable behaviour or glamourised weapons
• Infrequent to mild bad language
• no treatment condonning unacceptable behaviour
• mild vio - moderate with justified context

R18

restricted category for only aspecially licensed cinemas and licensed sex shops

*most unrestricted only few extreme exceptions*

• strong sexual images involved in sexworks
• NOT illegal activity including obscenity (obscenity law in 1954)
• NOT stuff encourage sexually abusive activity
• NOT sexual activity with no consent
• NOT showing pain causing lasting physical harm
• NOT penetration of violent object
• NOT strong physcial or verbal abuse inc. seual threat, humilation or abuse

18

highest rating in the cinema - targets adults excluding children - quite close boundaries between this and R18

*believes on whole adults should choose own entertainment as much as possible*

• nothing against the law
• harms test - material that may cause harm to individuals or society eg in portrayls of drug use, violent acts or sexual assault
• gratuitous or very sexplicit sexual imagry is not allowed except if its to inform or educate
• only some sex works allowed (which may be stimulated)

15

targets mainly 15-18 year olds - context can allow for stronger themes and content eg if educational or factual rather than gratuitous

• not endorse discrimination
• drug taking can be shown but not endorsed - harsher on easily accessible areosols and solvents
• strong threat allowed unless sexualised
• no detail of dangerous behaviour - no glamourising weapons
• frequent strong language is fine - but not aggressive or repeated very strong language
• nudity fine - but no strong detail if sexual
• sexual activity cant have strong detail but can have strong verbal references - but not the strongest references or if primary purpose is stimulation
• all themes is ok for 15s
• strong violence and detailed verbal reference is allowed - strongest gory images and sadistic violence not ok - sexual violence must be discreet

12A

12 or under12 with adult supervision - targets mainly 8-14 year olds - newest rating - can be controversial with comic/cartoon films like spiderman, superman and batman

• discrimination cant be condoned - heavy discrimination unlikely to pass
• drug use infrequent, non glamourised and non instructional
• moderate threat with infrequent disturbing sequences
• no detail for dangerous behaviour - pain should not appear harm free
• moderate language and infrequent strong
• brief if in sexual context
• discreet sexual activity, suitable for young teens, not too crude
• mature themes must be suitable for young teens
• moderate violence with no detail of blood or injuries; sexual violence implied IF context is justifies it

PG

Parental guidance - one of widest/best selling viewings

• no identifiable discrimination unless disapproved oreducational (moral context)
• drug references if only anti-drug message
• no prolonged or intense horror
• no glamourisation of weapons or details on dangerous behaviour
• mild bad language
• natural nudity but nothing sexual
• sex only discreetly implied and mild
• nothing should condone unacceptable behaviour
• non detailed moderate violence

*context may give more more leaniant classification eg fantasy or historical setting*

U

suitable for age 4 and over - universal - youngest rating in cinema - protecting children against undue anxiety, fear or inappropraite behaviour

• No discrimination
• no drug use unless educational or innnocous
• mild brief horror with reassuring outcome
• no potentially dangerous behaivour or/with accessible "weapons"
• very mild language
• no sexual nudity - mild natural
• very mild sex references - kissing
• sensitive treatment of themes suitable for youngsters
• mild threat and violent

13 Issue: SEXUALISED VIOLENCE

• often confined to R18 as is considered strong sexual image
• a restrictive rating will be applied if sexual violence is glamourised or glorified or may have to be cut all together (eg mistreatment of rape scenes)
• bit more leaniant on verbal description of sexual violence - but still adult rating (18)

13 Issue: SEXUAL REFERENCES

• references can be left in if younger viewers will not understand it eg Beowolf
• sex references can have lower classification if educational
• consider verbal and visual references
• can range from milder images of ksising and nudity

13 Issue: WEAPONS

• cant have glamourisation of weapons for children
• need to be careful over acessible weapons for children
• context relavant - fantasy or mindless

13 Issue: CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR

• cannot show too much instructional detail (eg Uma Thurman in Pulp Fiction shooting up)
• some issuses over showing crimes relating to young people (eg underage sex or drug use)
• drug and alcohol abuse cannot appeal to children

SENSITIVITY

• some special effectsmay cause afew viewers to experience side effects like seizures eg fickering lights or low frequency sound
• as responsibilty iswith the filmmakers to identify these - it is not often recognised by the BBFC as a term for classfication- but do sometimes put warnings inplace

VIDEO GAMES

• use sameguidelines as film but differencesin format areacknowledged
• limited research into potential harm
• interactivity may increase harm
• levelof detail important for level of violence
• repeated events could increase potential harm
• progression in technology etc may lead to a more cautious rating

TITLES

• titles of films are not allowed to incite hatred or encourage drug use or illegal activity
• may have to be changed if offensive

TRAILERS AND ADVERTISMENTS

• public has less choice and control over wat is seen/expected so have to  be monitored carefullyand more strict
• trailers and adverts match age rating of feature film
• no adverts for drugs or alchol
• cinema is responsible not BBFC

13 Issue: THEME

• very dependent on treatment of theme rather than actual theme
• problematic themes are unlikely for under 12s/15but beyond that most stuff goes
• example of Juno - bit of disagreement over easy/nonjudgemental theme of teen pregnacy

13 Issue: IMITABLE BEHAVIOUR

• great concern over easily accessible weapons as easier to copy/acess particularly regarding younger uninformed children (Rocket Man)
• context and message important - moral framework
• no promotion of illegal behaviour
• linked to detail of drugs
• harms testing

13 Issue: HORROR

• particularly sensitive regarding scary sequences for younger children - so have to be quite brief and reassuring eg Bambi
• debate over what diferent people find scary
• older horror is such classified to protect 'young and vulnerable' from detailly horror

13 Issue: DRUGS

• no details/instructions on how to use drugs incase informative
• cannot promote it in a moral sense - cant have all positive experiences
• no glamourisation of drug misuse particularly aimed at children

13 Issue: DISCRIMINATION

• most recent issue added in 2008
• no discrimination for gender, race, seuality etc
• nothing to promote any hate crime

13 Issues: LANGUAGE

• issues over what is brief and infrequent - one word over and over or range of different words
• context - if justifies (juno giving birth)
• iffy is related to and explict about sex and violence and discrimination etc

13 Issues: NUDITY

• context  -whether its sexualised or just in natural context
• nothing of children (simpsons)
• finer line between animation nudity and actual person nudity (Beowulf)

13 Issues: VIOLENCE

• whether its of easy acessible things
• focus on detail of injury eg blood/facial pain expression
• difference between animated and real life

13 Issues: SEX

• distinction between what is actually shown and what is implied (beowulf)
• what is considered brief and mild
• context
• non judgemental in terms of theme
• often edited for parents embarassed rather than childrens knowledgement/protection

Reflections on Lesson 2

• was interested ro find out more about the debate of whether censorship should beenforce or if people should make up their own mind via more information?
• when trying to regulate U films - you are assuming that children are scared by the same things - whereas some would be scared of things that arent on the censorship criteria
• found ManHunt 2 interesting case where the BBFC were overuled by the courts on account that you cant prove potential harm - raises the question then how can you prove any harm for any category / age classification

Overriding Factors

• can be overuled by the local authorities as they have the power to allow the cinemas to show what they think is suitable in their district - however for the most part the bbfcs recomendation is respected
• bbfc only have limited control on who sees what on account of varying opinion on obeying the certificates. especially with the increase in power in the internet, it is possible for people to see alot of 'unsuitable' or 'inapprpriate' material in their own homes
• context is very relevant - lesser ratings may be given to educational or fantastical text
• expectations of audience and apparent intention of film is also consider with regard to tone and impact eg moral perspective
• date of the production is also relevant
• format of work is also relevant for reasons like repeatabilty and accessibility

Legal Considerations

• the bbfc will generally not classfiy anything that breaks the law but has some exceptions - for example if an old western contains some scenes of animal cruelty then it could still be allowed on accounts that its outdated/wasnt breaking the law at the time
• in some cases they have to make a decision on if something which is perhaps borderline is breaking the law - for example swallowing a goldfish in Jackass
• similarly it has to constantly move with the times and new technologies and new scenarios to make sure that it can give a consistant message of what is or isnt illegal

RELAVANT LAWS

• Human Rights Act 1998 - right to freedom of expression and respect
• The Licensing Act 2003 - required by cinemas to limit under 18 viewing
• Video Recording Act 1984 - all videos, DVDs and similar storage devices must be classified
• The Obscene Publications Act 1959 and 1964 - illegal for work to be obscene
• Criminal Justice and Immigrations Act 2008 - banning extreme pornographic image
• The Protection of Children Act 1978 - no real or pseudo pictures of indecent children
• The Sexual Offences Act 2003 - illegal to indecently expose self, or record unconsenting party
• The Public Order Act 1986 - illegal for material to stir up hatred over race, religion or sexuality
• The Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act 1937 -  illegal to show cruelty to animals
• The Animal Welfare Act 2006 - illegal to show animal fight in GB since 2007
• The Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002 - cant advertise tobacco/cigarettes

General Principles Followed

• they obey the laws of the land and so screen any thing illegal
• opperate as guidelines but can be overruled/answer to local authority  - who can bend on public demand
• constantly update their laws, acts and regulation criteria in order to keep up with modern issues eg hate crime - which is reletavley recent
• although was set up by government - is independent from it so doesnt have to comply with its views
• works should be allowed to reach widest audience
• adults should be allowed a lawful freedom of choice
• considers if theres conflict in the law;whether material may cause harm or whether availabilty is inappropriate for age group concerned
• uses uptodate research and expert opinion and collective expertise to judge material

Who are the BBFC

• a independent organisation funded set up by the government to regulate and classify all film, tv and video games.
• they are funded partly by the industries which they regulate as it is a legal requirement for example all films to be classified so they can charge film institutions for each film that they give a certificate
• they are also funded partly by the government who set them up - but only have one employee to keep impartiality

Relfections on lesson 1

• i found it interesting to find out the specific criteria for what makes something be a certain certificate eg. that a U has to have good triumph over evil so it doesnt confuse/disturb children
• I was/will be interested to see how the classification system is different for Film, TV and video games compared to both each other and other art forms
• It was interesting to find out who was in charge of classifying such material and how much control they actually have on blocking/screening material. for example in the spicerman case where the local authority overuled the bbfc
• what then happens to unclassified material? is it changed or brought to the public via other means - are all unclassified films then illegal?
• found it surprising that it was such a small group or people who classify all film/dvds/tv etc (30 people)