bbfc censoring of r18 video

[woodgnome]

no particular reason for posting this, except that i don't see that it can hurt to have censorship issues that still pertain highlighted.

on a positive note my original post was despatched on saturday and the reply arrived this morning (monday). so if anyone feels the need for an explanation as to why we are still infantalised by the state, through curtailment of our right to consensual self expression, you will at least have your concerns addressed promptly.


>>>>>>>>>

sir/madam,

please can you explain in more detail the reasoning behind your decision to edit a fisting scene and a scene involving dripping candle wax, from 'maxine's 2'.

my assumption is that the woman being fisted, is not actually being punched by anyone in the vagina but, rather, is being pleasured, by someones hand. to interpret a fist as innately violent because of it's symbolic as well as literal connotations, seems to be taking concerns over the interpolation of sex and violence, to unreasonable lengths.

an entire hand worked into someones body cavity may not be to everyones taste but your act of censorship seems illogical when applied to what is fundamentally, an esoteric form of consensual, non violent sex.

a similar case can be made for the use of hot, dripping, candle wax. i had to use candles during a recent power cut and inevitably spilled some wax on myself. it smarted for a brief period but certainly did not cause permanent damage to my skin or even temporary discoloration.

again, your decision to excise this scene seems motivated more by issues of symbology than actuality. in this case the dripping of candle wax may carry implications of sado-masochistic ritualism, even though no actual harm is being caused.

as with fisting, this may not be a mainstream practice but it is not injurious to any party involved, does not simulate injury to any party and it should therefore be permissible for the comsumption of adults.

i have not queried the cut involving a candle flame, as it's context is indeterminate.

can you also explain the process by which you might review your current definition of what is acceptable in the r18 guidelines (or any categorycome to that)?

do representations from members of the public such as myself, have any influence upon what changes might be brought to bear in the future?

a detailed response would be very much appreciated.

>>>>>>>>>



>>>>>>>>>

Thank you for your e.mail.

Cuts were required to MAXINE'S 2 because it contained scenes (of fisting and candle wax dripping onto the genitals) that are likely to be found obscene by UK courts under the Obscene Publications Acts 1959 and 1964. The BBFC regularly takes advice from enforcement agencies (the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, etc) about what kind of material is currently likely to fall foul of the law. Their most recent advice (including advice
received earlier this year) is that scenes similar to those shown in MAXINE'S 2 were likely to be successfully convicted under the Obscene Publications Act. The Board is not able to classify material that would be found against by the Courts.

Whilst the Board does seek to take account of public views, such as yours, we cannot ignore the fact that certain material is regularly found obscene by juries.

>>>>>>>>>


>>>>>>>>>

thank you for the speed of your reply.

your grounds for justifying the cuts are much as i expected but i wished to take the oppportunity of registering my objection to this censorship, as well as my reasoning for doing so.

for what it's worth, i anticipate that such scenes will become tolerated by juries putting the consensual, non violent nature of such to the fore.

sadly, little seems to happen by dint of rational debate in this island of ours but, over the passage of time, our attitudes do seem to be increasingly adult and less repressively judgemental.

>>>>>>>>>

[Flett]

Woodgnome's stuff is always interesting, up front and thought provoking. I'm with you in your views on censorship.
A couple of thoughts that might be worth discussing. We have this ludicrous situation where R18 videos are subject to the assinine laws that have been discussed here meny times, whilst at the same time, we have a Government that recently reduced the age of consent for males to 16, bringing it into line with the age limit for females. It has to be said that this move was made at the behest of the homosexual lobby, but that is a side issue. So what we have is a situation where two sixteen year olds, be they male/male. male/female, female/female, are able to bump pee-pees qithout any inhibitions, and they could actually be paid for doing so by a producer of videos, and yet they could not acquire the end result via mail order, or go into a licenced sex shop to buy one, because they are "under age". That does strike me as being just a bit weird.
Joe King introduced a thread a few days ago regarding the release of locally produced movie called "Intimacy", and as usual, the response from Media Watch" was fire and brimstone. This is, however, one occasion when the BBFC deserves to be applauded. It could also be the equivalent of the 'lady Chatterley's Lover" case in the Sixties, a major move forward in the public's ability to accept what other people want as being their own business. To have on the big screen scenes of oral sex that are explicit is a mjaor break through. What is more important, though, is the response to Media Watch.
This is the organisation that got together with the Dail Mail a couple of years ago and went right over the top regarding the movie "Crash" starring Roseanne Arquette and James Spader. The implication was that if Crash was allowed to go on general release, we would all end up pranging our cars on the motorways just so that we could get our ends away. I have watched the press carefully since then, and I haven't yet seen a report about people humping themselves stupid immediately after an multi-car pile-up on the M1.
Meida Watch is losing its credibility by the day, and each time their spokesman comes out with his forecasts of mayhem to follow the release of something to which he objects, he and his oprganisaiton are made to look that much more stupid.
Anyone who has an interest in it could probably get a good laugh aout of listening to Lenny Bruce in Concert, recorded during the Fifites. His aarguments then about blue movies and violence are exactly in line with the problems that we hve right now.
Sorry to bore you, and thanks for your time.

[Matt]

Yeah, I'd second that. Totally cool post from 'Woodgnome'. Am I the only one though that actually think the BBFC is a pretty important organisation that does an important job? There is some pretty sick shit that gets produced and not all of it is healthy for us to watch. While I think the majority of stuff they censor should be available for those who want to watch it, sometimes I actually feel kind of safe that they would see fit to stop me from watching anything TOTALLY vile.

Whatever you think of them, the BBFC are improving. They are becoming more liberal and relaxed towards sex and, bar a nightmare vision of a horrible George Bush (snr) style crackdown from new home sec. Davey Blunkett, the future is looking better then the past, so thats a good thing.

Also, I think there is a case for saying we always want what is JUST out of our reach. If the BBFC encorporated the R18 cert. with 18 certs and made them freely available, we still wouldn't be happy would we?

I'm not suggesting any side is right or wrong, just adding more thoughts for discussion.

[pasta]

What I am interested in in the BBFC's response to Woodgnome's message is their old retreat to the "obscentity" position - i.e. going along with what the courts will find obscene.
However,this was their position till their own appeals committee and the subsequent court case forced them to change their policy-up to this point, (with the exception of a few pre-liberalisation "hard R18s" ) they were operating under the misconception that courts would find all explicit sex to be obscene.
Clearly, as numerous unsuccessful prosecutions have shown, most juries won't convict on obscenity where adult material is concerned. Yet still the BBFC defend the censoring of consensual adult sex acts by referring back to this concept. I applaud the liberalisation, even if they were forced into it, but I wish they would go further still.

I do think that, on balance, a body with a modicum of independence like the BBFC is preferable to the idea floated that video classification might be handled by a government department.

[joe king]

I've got a simple philosophy, who does the censoring? And why do you trust 'em?

the BBFC censor because the film is 'likely to be found obscene'. Why not let the courts decide? So the BBBFC is judge and jury again?

Recently an R18 (RUBBER NYMPHOS) was cut for having a ball-gag scene.
BBFC...
To obtain this category cuts of 2m 36s were required. The cuts were Compulsory.
Cut required to remove sight of masked man with ball gag in mouth and wrists strapped to chair which is in breach of BBFC Guidelines and Policy. These do not allow "the use of any form of physical restraint which prevents participants from withdrawing consent". 'R18' videos can only be sold in licensed sex shops.
)

ball-gags 'prevent participants from withdrawing consent' ?
Communication is (some percentage) more non-verbal than verbal. So if the actor waves his hand across his neck , does that not mean cut? Sorry, his hands were strapped, so he couldn't wave his hands. Lets experiment. I put a gag in my mouth. I can make some sort of noise. 1 blink for yes, 2 blinks for no. Do you withdraw consent?(2 blinks).

Who does the censoring? And why do you trust 'em?

[David J]

I must admit I didn't realise the BBFC were following the obscenity definition under the Obscene Publications Act - I assumed the licensed sex shop regime was given special treatment under the legislation - otherwise what is the point of it? If in fact the BBFC are right (and I guess they know the law on this better than most of us, better than me anyway), then I think we are lucky they are approving as much as they do under R18! Can you imagine a jury in Eastbourne (say) finding a Rocco Siffredi video 'not guilty' on a 'deprave and corrupt' test??

[joe king]

ROCCO'S TRUE ANAL STORIES XIII
yahoo!(boo! to yahoo)

Stupid title of the week SKATE-BOARDERS DO IT FROM BEHIND
(R18 gay)

[pasta]

> [snipped previous]
> ball-gags 'prevent participants from withdrawing consent' ?
> Communication is (some percentage) more non-verbal than
> verbal. So if the actor waves his hand across his neck , does
> that not mean cut? Sorry, his hands were strapped, so he
> couldn't wave his hands. Lets experiment. I put a gag in my
> mouth. I can make some sort of noise. 1 blink for yes, 2
> blinks for no. Do you withdraw consent?(2 blinks).

I have often thought that if you showed someone signing a consent form with a lawyer present before the ball-gag is applied, they would still cut it because the BBFC seem obsessed with the conotations of such devices and acts as much as the reality of the presentation in the movie.

They fail to take into account the fact that the apparent helplessness of the WILLING particpant is what helps make this all so exciting. Or so I am told...

[pasta]

David J wrote:
>
> I must admit I didn't realise the BBFC were following the
> obscenity definition under the Obscene Publications Act - I
> assumed the licensed sex shop regime was given special
> treatment under the legislation - otherwise what is the point
> of it? If in fact the BBFC are right (and I guess they know
> the law on this better than most of us, better than me
> anyway), then I think we are lucky they are approving as much
> as they do under R18! Can you imagine a jury in Eastbourne
> (say) finding a Rocco Siffredi video 'not guilty' on a
> 'deprave and corrupt' test??

Interesting point - but I think that in fact juries in conservative towns elsewhere in the UK have already decided that some pretty hard continental porn is not obscene.

I do agree that it is great that they are approving movies like this today. It's way better than I could have imagined. It is just a shame that they are still resorting to the "obscenity" argument to draw a pretty sketchy line between what is and isn't accepted.

[Flett]

Having grown up in country where censorship was firmly in the hands of the government, I shudder at the prospect of seeing the BBFC relinquish its role to what would be one of Jack Straw's departments.
We would all prefer to be totally free of any sort of control over what we read, view, say and think. Sadly, we livae in a country where the barriers that we resent are taking an awfully long to break down. So, to break down the barriers let's look at where we are, where we have been, and what has to be done to get where we want to be. Take the top shelf department as an example. Who would have forecast, fifteen years ago, that there would be the profliferation of saucy titles on display, albeit on the top shelf, of quite so many bookstores and newsagents around the country? Who would have forecast that we would all be getting pissed off, in a publicly accessible forum, because certain video outlets seem to be ripping us off over the quality and supply of hardcore pornography? We have come a helluva long way since the mid Eighties, and from what I read in this forum, a fairly large percentage of the people who post here have their roots in the eighties. We aren't where we should be, not by a long chalk, but the fact that debates of this sort are taking place indicates how far we have come.
I have a particular problem with the whole censorship thing, and I am not in the least bit original in asking this question - if what is cut out of a video or movie would be likely to corrupt me, why has it not corrupted the ceonsor? And where is the home that old censors go to? Can you inagine what that place must be like?!!!
What we have is about the best that we can hope for, but there is no question that it is changing. Slowly, but it is changing. And with Andreas Whitham-Smith involved, there is no question about the increasing pace of change. It will be a long time before we can expect to see a lat of the stuff that we are currently denied openly on sale, but getting it is actually getting easier. In spite of characters like IV and gradgrind!