Does the BBFC offer the British Filmmaker a servic

[nachovx]

And thats why there should be no actual film censorship at all. Because the general law is there to prosecute you if you break it on a film set or elsewhere. Trouble is the UK in neither really in or out of Europe, we're only there for economic reasons and to put a spanner in the works for anything else. I've recently subscribed to an Albanian TV package (from the UK) which includes xxx channel, makes you think about the state of the UK. But nothing short of a revolution will change the attitudes of the establishment and the best way to deal with them is to ignore them and do what you want.

[joe king]

I don't understand how that would work. The BBFC are appointed by the government to censor ...

'1985 - BBFC Designated under the Video Recordings Act

The President and two Vice Presidents of the BBFC are designated "as the authority charged with making the arrangements specified in section 4(1) of the Video Recordings Act 1984 ..., in letters from the Secretary of State dated 26th July 1985."

The BBFC is deputed to classify video product. The category system now also applies to the video industry.

There was a consequent increase in staff to deal with a massively increased workload consisting of a backlog of titles already on the market and all new titles (e.g. in 1986 the Board classified 348 cinema films and 4464 videos works). '

[joe king]

Has this actually happened in America?

[eroticartist]

Nachvox,

I have always done what I wanted but have paid the price for supplying the people with a couple of sentences in prison. But I was trying to change the law not break it.

My solicitor said I could carry on as usual if I took two gay films I had made in 1982 (What a Gay Day and Dial a Guy) off the the market. He had a hotline to the Home Office.

I got 15 months after a hand picked geriatric jury,including eight old women had watched three gays fellating each other on video! They came out of the jury room very angry indeed. I said to my QC :It is all bent? He answered :Of course!

Next time I defended myself at the Old Bailey and got off.

Censorship is a minefield for the state and its all a matter of record.

Mike Freeman

[mk13]

Hi Dave,

Do you know when the VAC appeal is likely to be?

Regards

mk13

[eroticartist]

Officer Dibble,
Your memory fails you. You are right! Member states can censor certain material "on moral grounds" but this restriction of Article 10 ECHR, which deals with freedom of expression, only applies to broadcast material.

Mike Freeman

[nachovx]

Article 10 wording is this

ARTICLE 10 FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
While it does state "This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises' - this doesn't mean it is exclusively applied to broadcasting. Information and ideas can encompass any form of expression and equally applies to internet the written word and art. DVD and video productions are no different to paintings or books as far as the act is concerned.

[eroticartist]

Hi Sandie,

It would be easy to design a cover to show what was in the film. If all adult films were 18 then they would go on the top shelf or in an adult section of the shop.
Mike Freeman

[jobbydealer]

The BBFC is an independent body and not connected to the Government. This can be shown by the fact that that a BBFC certificate is not a defence in a Sec 2 trial under the OPA.

Therefore, should you be prosecuted under the OPA for selling an R18 film then you will be stood in the dock with the BBFC.

The guidelines that the BBFC issue with regard to what they will grant a certificate to are an assessment on 'their' part as to what they think they will get away with.

This post seems to focus attention on where an R18 can be sold and not the content and as such obscenity is not the issue.

To my mind the issue here is Article 30 and Article 36 and is the R18 certificate a barrier to trade.

Before going on to discuss Article 30 and Article 36 I should point out that these Article numbers have been changed but a search on Google should bring up the new Article numbers.

As I'm no longer following this type of case I'll leave it to you to find the new Article numbers but to assist you type into Google, Conegate Article 30 as a starting point.

Basically, Article 30 forbids any legislation that prevents free trade between community members.

As an example to a restriction on trade, Conegate imported into the UK a consignment of blow up love dolls that the Customs siezed as being indecent under the Customs Consolidation Act. Conegate appealed under Article 30 and the UK Government put forward a defence under Article 36 on moral grounds.

The EU found for Conegate in that it was not illegal under UK law to produce indecent articles.

To my mind this is relevant to the R18 certificate for this reason.

Let's say that PornUK Ltd have bought the UK rights to "Bush Fucks Blair" from the USA.

PornUK send the film to the BBFC and the BBFC pass the film as an R18 and while doing so make no cuts from the original movie.

PornUK print the covers for the UK market which have the R18 certificate displayed and also duplicate each film so that it shows the certificate number before the film starts.

In effect PornUK now have an added expenses before they can legally produce the film in the UK:

A new cover.
The BBFC approval.
The disc printed with the BBFC certificate.

PornUK now put the title out to the UK market for ?6.99 wholesale.

Meanwhile, PornDutch has also bought the film from the USA and they, without any changes (nor expense) start to sell it across mainland Europe for a price of ?4.99, the can sell it cheaper because they accruded no extra cost.

PornDutch suddenly realise that the 'exact' same film is being sold in the UK so they enter the UK market and offer the film for ?5.99 that being ?1 cheaper than the PornUK price.

Meanwhile the UK trading standards raid a licensed sex shop which has bought the film from PornDutch and prosecute the owner for selling films that do not carry an R18 certificate.

The question is this:

If the PornDutch movie is 'EXACTLY' the same as the PornUK movie and was being sold throught a licensed sex shop are PornDutch allowed to cite Article 30 as a 'technical' barrier to trade bearing in mind that the UK cannot use Article 36 as a defence as the 'EXACT' same film is being offered for sale.

The only difference in the films is the price so as such I think that the lack of an R18 display will fail.

Comments?

[eroticartist]

Hi jobbydealer,

Thank you for the infomation. I will check out what you say and get back to the forum.

Mike