UK Child porn ban. 6th April.

[Project-2501]

The problem with the BBFC was for many years it was run by an American who was living in the 50s. It was him that refused to classify the texas chainsaw massacre etc.. Thankfully he is long gone and the BBFC have gone back to their proper job of classification.

However much people hate the BBFC they do act as a buffer between the knee-jerkers and the distros.

Thankfully the media are currently busy ripping Primark a fresh one over the padded bikinis for kiddies.....

And lets not forget, if you want censorship go watch on Crunchyroll!

 

[sic vita est]

Really short summary: if it doesn't have anything mentioned in subsections 6 or 7, it's fine. If it does, you're relying on the narrative defence in subsections 4 and 5. It's a reasonable assumption the "grossly offensive" test has already been failed at this point.

Subsections 6 and 7 are subject to how wide the definition of "portrays [...] an act" is cast though, although I interpret this as literally graphic, not implied. Subsections 4 and 5 are the ones with the "may" in and a definition of "narrative" that has yet to be defined in scope.

Disclaimer: not legal advice.

Outside of hentai there are very few anime or manga that would be affected by this. Even if the BBFC refused classification, it may still be legal due to the fairly specific definitions in this act.

The BBFC do have a thankless task at times, but they do a pretty good job at being the impartial buffer.

 

[Neferpitou]

BBFC are tasked with a near impossible job. As they needs so many staff as they are rating so many products in film and now video games it impossible to give fair rating across the board. As one thing a person considers deserves one rating another would think deserves another.

They still making some poor rating decisions now like giving the violent Dark Knight a 12 and passing Straw Dog uncut when that has rape scene where the victim is showing enjoyment.

With these laws so vague who to say what is acceptable or when is not when it broader line case. With how tiny a market anime/manga is in the UK a miscarriage of justice could easily happen to appease the bigger majority of people who loath even the hint of anything related to under-age sex.

The UK Anime licensing companies will have take notice and will hopefully not risk to license anything with the mere hint of under 18 involved in titillating sexual moments.

I hope fairness prevails but Christopher Handley never got that treatment.

 

[memorium]

Straw Dogs was originally reject though if i recall, but still highly controversial nonetheless

 

[Jaymii]

With a huge film like The Dark Knight, most of the BBFC would have decided that the film was fine to be a rated '12' and I'm fine with that rating. It would be an incredibly soft 15 otherwise. It's dark and menacing, yes, but its doesn't really show anything that a 12 year old couldn't take with relative ease. (The 12a situation is reliant on the parents).

Also, the overall "appeal" of something is very important to them. This might have had a hand in with TDK's rating. They see a superhero film, kids want to see it. They edit Ren & Stimpy DVD and take out a song about Hanging, because it was a kids show. Kids could see it on the shelf and watch it (it's a cartoon!). With something like Straw Dog, a four year old is never ever going to see the cover and think they need to see it. That's the difference.

Yeah, contradictory ratings are probably going to come up because more often than not its going to only be one person reviewing something anime.

 

[ilmaestro]

With a huge film like The Dark Knight, most of the BBFC would have decided that the film was fine to be a rated '12' and I'm fine with that rating. It would be an incredibly soft 15 otherwise. It's dark and menacing, yes, but its doesn't really show anything that a 12 year old couldn't take with relative ease. (The 12a situation is reliant on the parents).

I think this is an exceedingly tricky line to walk with a film like TDK. Age restrictions/editing/censorship that is put in place for the purpose of not letting children watch something is a very different beast to stuff put in place to stop adults from watching something. Also, I think people of certain ages would have vastly different opinions on what twelve or thirteen year old children should/"could" take with relative ease. Not to mention the fact that TDK is very clearly not a children's film, whether it's about a superhero or otherwise, so I don't think "intended audience" should really come into it. Spiderman and its 12A rating was a very different beast, as I think they were looking on that as a kids film and would agree it did have a hand in the rating the BBFC gave (not that it was on even remotely the same level as TDK, anyway).

 

[Jaymii]

Also, I think people of certain ages would have vastly different opinions on what twelve or thirteen year old children should/"could" take with relative ease.

Of course there are exceptions, and some 12 year old's might not enjoy the film but there's no question of them not being able to "handle" the film in my mind. They are in secondary school at this age, mind.

Not to mention the fact that TDK is very clearly not a children's film, whether it's about a superhero or otherwise, so I don't think "intended audience" should really come into it.

Intended audience does come into their rating. Around last year I saw a presentation by them and how they rate things, citing individual cases such as a film being banned (or needed to be edited or something) due to a kid getting inside a washing machine. Other cases include animal cruelty and such. Whether it should is another matter entirely. It's simple recognition to know whether kids are going to see the film. They could be a fan of Batman: The Brave and the Bold on Cartoon Network and wanted a film to watch and see there's a Batman film.

(I have a feeling I'm misinterpreting what your trying to say.)

I also have to add that I believe the BBFC would have been moaned at no matter what rating they gave the film.

 

[ayase]

I find it bemusing that people debate the manner in which their freedom to view fictional material should be restricted by authority. It shouldn't be. Parents should be responsible (or not, their choice) for what their children watch 'til about age 14-16. After that people shouldn't be restricted at all - so nothing should be cut in an 18 certificate. It's like admitting someone knows better than you do what's best for you as an individual.

 

[Kirrimir]

I find it bemusing that people debate the manner in which their freedom to view fictional material should be restricted by authority. It shouldn't be. Parents should be responsible (or not, their choice) for what their children watch 'til about age 14-16. After that people shouldn't be restricted at all - so nothing should be cut in an 18 certificate. It's like admitting someone knows better than you do what's best for you as an individual.

Didn't think about it like this but wise words if ever there were.

 

[Neferpitou]

With something like Straw Dog, a four year old is never ever going to see the cover and think they need to see it. That's the difference.

Its not children seeing straw dog in general the problem, anyone seeing it is the issue. Having a rape scene in general would be fine but having one where the victim is enjoying it just doesn't feel right. It maybe heavy handed to ban because of it but I can't see it good ever idea to have even slightness message from scene that the victim of the rape enjoy it. Its certainly a factor in real life that the person causing the rape believes in their own mind their victim going to enjoy it. A film should never be adding to a myth like that.

 

[ayase]

Odd as it may seem to you and me Dave, some people do have rape fantasies where they are the victim. Fantasies and fetishes are virtually limitless and everybody has them - taste and decency don't enter into them. Most people keep this stuff in their heads or act it out with consenting partners; The people who are compelled by fiction into causing real harm to others must already have a disturbed mental state to begin with. We shouldn't stop 99.9% of the population from seeing something just in case one nutter in ten million decides to copy what he sees on the TV screen. It's not as though the film actively incites people to commit rape, just as Grand Theft Auto (where the player is actually acting crimes out) hasn't turned 120 million people into violent sociopaths.

 

[Otaku-san]

I find it bemusing that people debate the manner in which their freedom to view fictional material should be restricted by authority. It shouldn't be. Parents should be responsible (or not, their choice) for what their children watch 'til about age 14-16. After that people shouldn't be restricted at all - so nothing should be cut in an 18 certificate. It's like admitting someone knows better than you do what's best for you as an individual.

implying people can think for themselves

 

[Neferpitou]

Odd as it may seem to you and me Dave, some people do have rape fantasies where they are the victim. Fantasies and fetishes are virtually limitless and everybody has them - taste and decency don't enter into them. Most people keep this stuff in their heads or act it out with consenting partners; The people who are compelled by fiction into causing real harm to others must already have a disturbed mental state to begin with. We shouldn't stop 99.9% of the population from seeing something just in case one nutter in ten million decides to copy what he sees on the TV screen. It's not as though the film actively incites people to commit rape, just as Grand Theft Auto (where the player is actually acting crimes out) hasn't turned 120 million people into violent sociopaths.

I bet people who been victims of rape in the past would be happy with that trail of thought .
Its a lot more than just 1 in 10 million rape by the way its closer to 85,000 each year in the UK, so a very serious problem.

Acting out a Rape fantasy is far away from being anything close to a real rape as both are consenting to take part. So it could never replicate the experience of being rapist and the victim. You won't never ever able to replicate the motivation the rapist must feel force someone against there will when the victim is just playing a part and is consenting to the act.

As People are not born as rapists but become them through later life experiences its just not good idea to demonstrate that any rape victim would wrongly would enjoy the act. People very easily fall into their urges be it sexual or violent ones. You can see this through people become Rapists, sex addicts, people cheating, football violence, gang violence, wife beating or lynch mobs.

Theres a difference between so called realistic movie like straw dogs and fantasy open world game like GTA. In GTA its obvious that its just fantasy game, its not like can die and you can never play again as just reloaded from a save. If you get arrested & convicted you don't have to wait years jail before you carry on with the game. If there was magical reset button in real life people would no question act out lot more of there desires with no fear repercussions. But there isn't one so games just stay fantasy.

While a movie like straw dog is trying wrongly to portrayal real life events. People aren't that Knowledgeable a lot of the time to differentiate what in a film is fact and what is fiction. A lot people still believe that all frog go ribbit when it fallacy caused by the frog that the only one to make that sound happens to be native Hollywood. With it being the only frog sound heard in Hollywood films for years that false belief stuck.

 

[Mohawk52]

Odd as it may seem to you and me Dave, some people do have rape fantasies where they are the victim. Fantasies and fetishes are virtually limitless and everybody has them - taste and decency don't enter into them. Most people keep this stuff in their heads or act it out with consenting partners; The people who are compelled by fiction into causing real harm to others must already have a disturbed mental state to begin with. We shouldn't stop 99.9% of the population from seeing something just in case one nutter in ten million decides to copy what he sees on the TV screen. It's not as though the film actively incites people to commit rape, just as Grand Theft Auto (where the player is actually acting crimes out) hasn't turned 120 million people into violent sociopaths.

Ah! But your missing the main concern with your self-centred analysis, which is no one knows which of that 100% are the .1% who are going to ignite into a serial rapist/killer by a spark such as the ones highlighted. It could even be you for all any one of us know, or in the same way it could be me. We are all affected in some way by what we see, and hear, even if it is fiction. Unless one is severely autistic, the mind has to tell itself that it is only fiction to get back to reality so as not to adversely over react, or go into shock as if it were real. Reality check anyone? For some it might be a fantasy to be the victim, and that has issues of its own, but for society it is the one who fantasises in being the perpetrator that is of concern. Remember those two young thugs up in Doncaster? They were left to watch and play such things by their irresponsible parents. We simply don't know, so society will think it is best to err on the safe side, and I have to agree as well having a wife and teenaged daughter of my own.

 

[chaos]

I wanted to know how many of the convited criminals actually used to watch / collect violent / pornographic material when compared to the rest of society.

Only way to me to understand the restriction of liberties is through facts.

Would it be the case that there are more criminals consuming this than the rest of the civilian population?

Also, in proportion - how did these violent crimes grew in the last 50 year? I do have a guess that rape has grown, but basically because now the victims are a bit less afraid to report than they were years ago, but for something like murder, I dare say that the percentual rate must have fallen.

I could be wrong or I could be right, but right now, I'm just a bit lazy to do this research.

 

[ayase]

@Dave - I meant that it is probably close to one in ten million who is compelled to commit a violent crime after viewing a work of fiction.

These people tend to be the easily influenced, such as children and people with immature mindsets who find it harder to distinguish between fantasy and reality. Adults can think for themselves, but parents should be responsible for telling their children the difference as well as teaching them not to cause harm to others. If they don't and their kids commit violent crimes, take them into care and give them a decent upbringing. If there has been a serious case of negligence on the part of the parents, throw them in the slammer for a few years (where they could work for nothing so no-one has to pay for their upkeep). Why should responsible parents and those without children suffer because some aren't taking their responsibilities seriously? The burden of responsibility needs to rest on the individual, not society as a whole.

Ah! But your missing the main concern with your self-centred analysis, which is no one knows which of that 100% are the .1% who are going to ignite into a serial rapist/killer by a spark such as the ones highlighted.

No, you're quite right. we don't know. But I don't believe in restricting the freedoms of the vast majority to stop a very small amount of incidents occurring. I can't find statistics for the UK, but in Scotland last year there were 114 homicides. Let's say one of those was a murder committed by someone inspired by a work of fiction. Yeah, the clear answer to cutting violent crime is to ban fictional depictions of murder. :roll:

I'm willing to take the one in a million chance I could be murdered by some lunatic after they have watched a slasher flick if it means saying no to thoughtcrime entering UK law. It's a lot more likely that I'd be murdered by someone who isn't inspired by fiction. We could legislate forever and ban everything which might have the slightest ill effect on people, there would still be rape and murder. Frankly I think living in a police state would make plenty of people feel rather more compelled towards violence than films, comics or computer games.

 

[Neferpitou]

Sadly even adult are very easily influenced not just children. Just look back in history of how the Nazi got to power in Germany through there well marketed campaign of propaganda. Turn the average person into doing unspeakable things just because of person different religion or cast.

The power of propaganda still has massive power even today as you see with the latest must get gadget, film, game, etc regardless if any good or not.

You need to have some form of Censorship otherwise we end with pro Nazi or Pro Klu klux klan media.

If a film has Rape scene then that fair enough but not one when the victim is enjoying it when the majority of rape victim find it horrific experience.

If you want to carry on debating this might be idea to create a topic on Random Chit-Chat as this get way off topic.

 

[ayase]

I think we're still kinda discussing the topic at hand, which is after all banning and censorship. But if anyone wants to move / split then they're more than welcome to.

Sadly even adult are very easily influenced not just children.

But by fiction? Claims made in propaganda, advertising and PR may be entirely invented, but it is very different to fiction because it is designed to twist facts to play on people's emotions and make them think a certain way or subscribe to certain beliefs. Very few works of fiction are designed for that purpose - indeed, the only ones I can think of are propaganda films by totalitarian states.

You need to have some form of Censorship otherwise we end with pro Nazi or Pro Klu klux klan media.

But we have biased media now! Look at the Tory rags all last week bashing Nick Clegg after he trounced Cameron in the first leaders' debate. I might not like that happening, but I have every right to disagree with what they say, just as Nick Clegg has every right to defend himself, just as you have every right to disagree with statements on a BNP flyer which will probably come through your door whether you like it or not. I don't think they should be banned or censored, just that the people who disagree need to speak up and make their voices heard - that is the very essence of free speech.

 

[HdE]

After having surveyed this page, I'd like to chip in with a somewhat specific perspective.

I've known people in the past who were victims of horrific sexual and physical abuse. This has led to me gaining some first-hand knowledge of the issues involved.

People - yes, even adults - can absolutely be influenced by outside suggestion, even from fiction. It accounts for a good number of abusive acts, believe it or not. That was a factor and had some bearing on the cases I know of, in fact.

Something we have to bear in mind - and this is one reason why I'm in favour of some kind of regulation of entertainment material, be it censorship or otherwise - is that cases for argument seem to be made on an 'ideal circumstances' basis.

By that, I mean that some arguments against censorship or restriction of entertainment media pre-suppose, for example, that everybody in society functions at the same level of mental health. Or that everybody in society is as susceptible / insusceptible to suggestion from outside influence as the person standing next to them.

That, frankly, isn't the case.

We're living in an era where mental health problems, social handicaps and all manner of psychological ailments are at an all time high. It's just not possible to accurately predict how two different people will respond to ANYTHING that they're given to watch, read or listen to.

Not intending for this post to come off as argumentative, or even authoritative. But I think it bears remembering that this is the real-world situation we (and the government, and regulatory agencies) have to acknowledge.

 

[Mohawk52]

Well put. It's just on that situation I was pointing too. Too many arm chair sociologists believe that the world is an ideal utopian globe and that rationality is the norm rather than the opposite, and even the rational man, or woman, can be influenced by what they desire. Emotions are mostly irrational.