Satellite X

British newspapers recently ran with the headline that the film censors were 'tightening' their guidelines for violent films.

As always, the Daily Mail hyped up the news in the most outrageous terms:

"The long overdue decision comes following research which found widespread public concern over the increasing number of sexually depraved and barbaric films being fed to British audiences. The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) has announced it will tighten guidelines over such films which will see more banned, or scenes cut from the content to protect vulnerable viewers".

Actually the BBFC press release did not quite say that it was 'tightening' the guidelines. It actually used slightly more guarded language:

"The BBFC is to adjust sexual and sadistic violence policy to take into account key areas of public concern".

David Austin, Assistant Director, Policy & Public Affairs at the BBFC provided a little background to the BBFC announcement. He explained that BBFC censorship for adults is based on removing content that is illegal by law, and also content that is considered harmful.

He continued that the current basis for cutting sexual violence was research by psychologist Guy Cumberbatch. However this was now 10 years old, so the BBFC decided to embark on a project to update the guidelines. This culminated in a survey of the opinions of 35 film viewing members of the public.

Austin did not explain how the opinion of a small group of inexpert people could possibly define what films are actually harmful. Nor did he offer the alternative that the BBFC has now decided to censor films according to public opinion, rather than harm.

He moved on claiming that the surveyed views of 35 people were in fact 'public opinion'. I can't imagine that statistical analysis would support a sample size of 35 people being an accurate measure of public opinion.

The participants in the survey were certainly not given an easy ride. They were asked to view the most controversial films from the last couple of years. And they even got to see the uncut versions. The films that were viewed and rated by the group were:

• Wolf Creek (All agreed 18 uncut)
• The Killer Inside Me (Some agreed with 18 uncut, some wanted cuts)
• Martyrs (All agreed 18 uncut)
• Antichrist (All agreed 18 uncut)
• I Spit On Your Grave (2010 remake) (Some agreed 18 after cuts, others ranged from 18 uncut to a ban)
• The Human Centipede II (Some agreed 18 after cuts, some wanted a ban)
• A Serbian Film (Some agreed 18 after cuts, some wanted a ban)
• Grotesque (Most agreed with the BBFC ban)
• The Bunny Game (All agreed with the BBFC ban)

The films were discussed with the moderators and additional films clips were shown, notably 3D Sex & Zen, which was passed 18 after cuts.

The research report revealed that the moderators were rather putting ideas into the minds of the participants..For example, the survey report reads:

"When participants first watched this clip [from 3D Sex & Zen], there was a lot of laughter and ridicule of the scene. When the moderator pointed out the potential damage of a scene of rape turning into consensual sex, some participants agreed that this could be harmful".

Hardly what one would call unbiased research.

The end result was that the 35 participants would have treated 4 films from the list more harshly than the BBFC: The Killer Inside Me, I Spit On Your Grave, Human Centipede II, and A Serbian Film.


The BBFC 'explained' in a press release how the 35 lay opinions can determine what is harmful, when decades of scientific research has failed to identify much in the way of harm:

"There are difficulties both in carrying out such research and in translating findings from the laboratory to society. However, the difficulty of establishing broad and replicated findings from such research does not mean that there are no harm risks. The research literature, and reviews of it, often warn that certain works may pose certain risks for certain individuals in certain circumstances".

"What the public considers to be potentially harmful is also important. This is [partially] because members of the public may have practical experience of harm risks in operation in society which cannot easily be addressed in the lab".

The BBFC have now adapted their guidelines accordingly. But unfortunately not in a way that gives any clues as to the likely levels of censorship that will result. The new BBFC guidelines elusively just say that more factors (both for and against intervention) will be taken into account when making decisions.


David Austin was asked about the practical effects of the new guidelines on upcoming decisions. He refused to give direct examples of films that wound now be treated differently. But he did suggest that the answer lies in the list of 4 films that the participants classified more strictly than the BBFC.

So the best guess about the 'tightening' of BBFC guidelines is that a couple of the most controversial films of each year will now be more severely censored than before.

I know this is not a scientific analysis, it is just a guess based on inexpert opinion. But if this is good enough for the BBFC, then it is good enough for me!

At the beginning of every year, the American adult industry goes into party mode. The starlets and film makers dig out their ball gowns or tuxedos ready for some serious merry making, back patting and chin wagging.

Adult Video News (AVN) and the trade group XBiz both hold Oscar-like awards ceremonies where they applaud the successes of the year. But of course its not all glitz and glamour, there is also significant wheeling and dealing, along with plenty of industry stalwarts giving their views on the state of the adult nation.

And this year has seen some important society changes which are having a significant impact on the adult business.

But first here's a small sample of the winners that are surely worth looking out for on satellite TV,

XBiz Awards:

• Feature Movie of the Year: Wasteland (Elegant Angel)
• Parody Release of the Year - Comedy: Star Wars XXX: A Porn Parody (Axel Braun/Vivid)
• Parody Release of the Year - Drama: Inglorious Bitches (Marc Dorcel/Wicked Pictures)
• Male Performer of the Year: James Deen
• Female Performer of the Year: Brooklyn Lee
• Best New Starlet: Riley Reid

AVN Awards:

• Best 3D Release: Jailhouse Heat 3D (Digital Playground)
• Best Drama: Wasteland (Elegant Angel)
• Best Parody Drama: Spartacus MMXII: The Beginning (London Gunn/Miko Lee/Wicked)
• Best Actor: Steven St. Croix in Torn (New Sensations Couples)
• Best Actress: Lily Carter in Wasteland

The biggest talking point for the US adult industry is of course the state of the economy. The continuing recession, coupled with the availability of free internet porn, is an ongoing challenge for US businesses. But there's nothing new there. These pressures have been apparent for some time, and it does not look like there will be much in the way of immediate relief.

So anything that makes matters even worse is not well appreciated. The last 12 months has seen an aggressive anti-porn campaign win its case and convince Los Angeles council to impose condoms on the porn production capital of America.

Rather bizarrely the condom campaign is very little to do with the health of the performers. The existing regime of very intensive testing already made for a very safe working environment for those taking part. A condom based regime will be very unlikely to improve on the current procedures. But the campaign was perhaps more about the health of porn viewers. Presumably campaigners consider that viewing condomless porn encourages viewers to take risks, and that condom protected porn will encourage viewers to follow suit.

Of course it is not quite as simple as that. The worry for the US porn industry is that porn viewers will vote against condom porn with their wallets and buy porn made in other parts of the US or Europe.

At this point readers may be wondering why the L.A. porn makers don't just move somewhere else. In fact there are not many places in the States where porn production is entirely legal. And any attempt to move the industry en-mass to another town will surely just nudge the destination town into enacting similar condom requirements to L.A. Other commentators have suggested that the industry may migrate to Europe, but modern economic realities means that porn is no longer profitable enough for most productions to go out on location.

Thankfully the last year has also brought some very positive new developments. The 50 Shades of Grey trilogy has highlighted an enormous potential for the adult business to expand into the female market. It seems unlikely that the literary merits of EL James's novels is single handedly driving the phenomenal sales. It seems far more likely that the demand has been growing for some time, and that the books were just a catalyst that enabled unfulfilled demand to find something to focus on.

Another growing indicator of female interest in porn can be found by a quick look at the most popular movies as recorded by the major US video on demand website, HotMovies.com.

The top 10 movies of the year are nearly all lesbian features. These are notable for appealing to both sexes. Genres dominated by male only viewers, eg gonzo and rough sex features are way down the list, as are anal themed titles which also appeal mostly to guys.

Of course it is the internet that has opened up the opportunity for female interest in porn. Social pressures have previously made sex shops and sex cinemas unlikely venues for many women to venture into, But the internet has provided opportunities that are just a couple of clicks away, whilst at the same time providing more than adequate privacy.

Perhaps my favourite indicator that attitudes are changing is from an Australian newspaper opinion piece by Emma Young. She writes in a very gender-charged style that I initially expected would descend into condemnation of porn and its male users. But no, she observes that the privacy and non accusatory character of the internet had enabled women to come round to enjoying porn.

She concluded by suggesting that now porn can be enjoyed by women, then it is about time that society became less judgmental about porn.

I think she deserves an AVN Award for providing hope that society's miserable attitude towards porn is about to change.

"The new Bond film is fantastic, but why the use of one f-word?". So reads a Twitter message that is currently doing the rounds.

There is actually a very simple answer. It is nothing at all to do with artistic integrity, nor the importance of the f-word being included at that particular juncture of the film. No, the f-word is included to ensure that the film gets the age rating that the distributors require to maximise their profits.

US film censors at the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) are very pedantic about counting f-words. Zero f-words gets a film a PG, one f-word gets a PG-13 , and two or more f-words gets the film an R (a 17A in UK terms).

UK film censors at the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) are a little bit more flexible, but f-words still count. Zero f-words gets a film a PG, one to four gets a film a 12A, and more than that qualifies for a 15, or even an 18 if the words are used in a very aggressive or sexual manner.

So returning to the question about the Bond movie Skyfall, the answer is that the film makers have included an f-word to ensure that the film gets a PG-13 or 12A rather than a PG.

Of course the follow up question is why do distributors not want a PG rating? Especially as PG,12A and PG-13 are all effectively general admission ratings that do not exclude viewers of any ages. Actually the UK 12A nominally restricts unaccompanied under-12s, but children that young are unlikely to be out visiting cinemas by themselves anyway.

The issue for distributors is that films rated PG have now become synonymous with children's films. The rating therefore tends to be off-putting to teenagers and above. Even the kids themselves now feel that there's a lack of street cred in a PG rated film.

A recent good example of the push for a PG-13/12A is Jack the Giant Slayer. This film is very much in the traditional PG zone, but it has been beefed up to ensure a more commercial PG-13/12A.

It rather looks like the PG rating is being squeezed out and can now only be used for films for very young children.


The BBFC now seem to be reconsidering this formulaic approach to strong language when determining age ratings. They are taking particular interest in what film goers think of the strong language in recent cinema and DVD releases. This is part of a large scale public consultation designed to ensure that the BBFC remains in step with public opinion. The consultation includes a survey on the BBFC website at bbfc.co.uk available during March and April.

Strong language is a difficult issue for film censors. Parents want to keep swearing down to a minimum in the forlorn hope that if kids don't hear it then they won't use it. However if the censors want to make their ratings credible then they have to accept that the kids will have heard it all, way before the official ages of 15, 17 or 18.

The BBFC survey is attempting to asses whether the public agrees with BBFC age ratings. The survey also asks whether viewers usually watch films with a particular age rating, (perhaps seeking to understand why viewers are shunning the PG rating as mentioned above).

The results of the online survey will be processed alongside the results of nationwide focus groups, telephone interviews and specialist research, In all, the BBFC is seeking the views of around 10,000 members of the public. The results of the exercise will be published at the end of 2013.


A couple of months ago, this column featured an announcement by the BBFC that classification rules were being changed as a result of rather unconvincingly research based on an unconvincingly small focus group.

The resulting rule changes were presented by the press as a 'tightening up' of censorship rules on violence and sexual violence. However what the BBFC actually wrote, was that more factors would be taken into account when deciding whether to censor violence and sexual violence. It was not clear from the BBFC documents what this would mean in practice.

However a couple of recent decisions have thankfully contradicted the newspaper notion that censorship is being 'tightened up'.

Maniac is a 2012 French/US crime horror by Franck Khalfoun.It is a remake of William Lustig's version that was banned by the BBFC from 1980 until 2002. The 2012 version made quite a splash on the film festival circuit for its violent content. It was therefore considered a bit of a test case for the BBFC's new rules. The test was passed with flying colours, the BBFC granted the film an 18 without any cuts.

However the sexual violence aspect of the new rules had to wait for another test case. Baise Moi is a 2000 French crime drama by Virginie Despentes and Coralie. The film is notable for its real sex passed at 18 and for a particularly brutal rape that also showed real penetration. This was cut from previous cinema and DVD releases in 2001 and 2002. However in 2013, under the new rules, the previous cuts were waived and the DVD was passed 18 without any cuts at all.


But don't let on to the tabloid press about this apparent lack of 'tightening up' of film censorship, They would go ballistic, and the inevitable strong language rant may hurt my sensitive ears!

"The most wonderfully deranged film in the history of British cinema is 'Psychomania'". So opined Andrew Roberts writing in the Independent on the subject of bad British films.

He explained further that this was the first ever zombie biker horror film to feature Beryl Reid. The male lead is an upper-class delinquent who still lives with his mummy and has many questions of Shadwell the butler (a profoundly unhappy-looking George Sanders), who manages to double as an agent of Lucifer.

All very droll, but I wonder what an American film distributor thought when he read the piece, given that he was releasing 'Psychomania' on DVD on the very same week.

Actually he was probably quite pleased about the publicity, particularly as his company, Cheezy Films, specialises in releasing films that are so bad, that they are good. It was not as if the distributor was paying any respect to the film anyway. The film was being released in a censored version called 'Death Wheelers'. This had been cut so as to qualify for a US PG rating.


It is always intriguing how notably bad films come about. Surely financiers make an effort to read the script before pumping money into a venture. One would also think that cast and crew would actively seek to avoid getting associated with a turkey.

But sometimes the film makers are well aware of the mess that they have created. One example is the iconic video nasty, 'Snuff'.

This film started life as a film called 'Slaughter'. The producers realised that the film was a disaster, and deemed it to be unreleasable. However someone had the bright idea to give it a new lease of life. The original film was presented as film within a film used as a set up for a snuff movie. A new ending was tacked on in which one of the actresses was tortured and brutally killed by the film crew.

Of course nothing was real. And even though the snuff murder was not particularly convincing, the film makers still had to prove their fakery by presenting the actress totally unharmed. But the hype was enough to get the film banned as a 'video nasty'. And somehow this tag has given the film a hint of immortality. The film will soon be re-released in the US on Blu-ray. Viewers will be able to watch an excruciatingly bad film, with a silly tacked on ending, all in glorious high definition. Unbelievable!


Meanwhile Jess Franco, a film maker with many a bad film attributed to his name, recently died after a stroke at the age of 82.

He was actually a very talented film maker and made some great sex and horror movies during his 199 film career. 'The Bloody Judge', 'The Awful Dr. Orloff', and 'Vampyros Lesbos' spring to mind. However his niche was in very low budget production and this often prevented his talents from shining through.

By the end of the 60's Franco had made 7 films with Christopher Lee. In typical style, Franco screwed up his relationship with the great man by secretly splicing sexy footage into 'Eugenie', one of their joint productions. Lee was not well chuffed when he found himself starring in a film playing in Soho sex cinemas.

Franco has done some great work winding up censors. Film distributor Nigel Wingrove revealed just how far Franco had annoyed the British Board of Film Classification. The BBFC banned at least 7 of Franco's works and Wingrove noted a few choice words from the BBFC.

Re the 1981 Women in Prison film, 'Sadomania', the BBFC banned the video saying:

"It is grossly unsuitable for viewing in the home. Few, if any, of the sex scenes are consenting... women that persistently refuse to succumb to the sadistic prison regime are systematically tortured, humiliated or degraded, often for the purpose of arousing the impotent male governor and through him the male viewer of the video work...There is no doubt in our minds that the erotic presentation of such scenes would be found depraving and corrupting by a British jury .

In the 1981 production, 'Demoniac', Franco stars as a kinky priest who serves his God by ridding the world of sinners with his Sword of the Lord. The BBFC commented:

"The work of this particular film maker has often fallen well outside the parameters of BBFC standards because of the manner in which it presents scenes of vicious sexual violence or of violence to women in a sexually arousing context, offering little pleasure to the viewer other than a conscious vicarious gratification of misogyny. Where such emotions focus on the harming of others, the Board must always consider drawing a line, as we have in refusing a video certificate to 'Demoniac'.


The BBFC may have rated Franco as the ultimate producer of what they consider as bad films, but of course that is just their opinion. I bet at least a few examiners enjoyed watching the films, and that the claimed 'badness' was really just political correctness.

In fact none of the films mentioned in this column can be considered so bad. All the film makers noted have got their films noticed, they have contributed spirit and anecdote. And to use the phrase coined by Andre Roberts, their films were "wonderfully deranged".

No, the really bad films have long since been forgotten, or maybe didn't even see the light of day at all.

South Africa's broadcasting regulator has spectacularly granted a local satellite television service permission to air the country's first hardcore pornography channels,

The Independent Communications Authority (ICASA) ruled that the licence application should be granted because there is no law prohibiting the production and distribution of adult content. TopTV will hopefully now broadcast three channels, Playboy TV, Desire TV and Private Spice. Programmes will run between 8pm and 5am.

This is surely enough to make a long suffering UK satellite X viewer green with envy. The UK's TV censor Ofcom has only ever allowed softcore porn, and doesn't look like budging any time soon.

But that is not the only reason for envy, the ICASA showed itself to be miles ahead of its British counterpart in its evidence based approach to the inevitable opposing voices.

Objections brought by several anti-porn groups were commendably dismissed by ICASA because they were: "Based on moral grounds, rather than research evidence to demonstrate some of the conclusive remarks linking pornography and gender-based violence".

Actually South African satellite X viewers are not going to be in for an easy ride. The Dutch auction process for getting a licence resulted in TopTV offering a very onerous package of child protection measures indeed.

In its licence application to ICASA, TopTV said that viewers watching porn will have to re-enter their PIN after every 30 minutes as a safeguard against a sex channel being left unattended. Sensibly the porn channels will have a separate PIN to the mainstream channels though.

TopTV has also said that their pay per view subscribers will not be able to gain access to it's porn bouquet. It will only be made available to monthly subscribers.


Actually Ofcom were asked to report on the harms of hardcore internet TV channels back in 2011. The government commissioned the report and the main scientific evidence considered tallied with the South African analysis.

Ofcom commissioned a report from Dr Guy Cumberbatch, an independent expert in the effects of media. This looked at the available evidence on the risk of harm from R18 hardcore material.

Cumberbatch concluded firstly, that existing research does not provide conclusive evidence that R18 material might seriously impair minors' development. Secondly, the research does not provide clear, conclusive evidence of a lesser degree of harm either.

But with a little nudging from the government Department of Culture, Media, & Sport, Ofcom came to a very different decision to the South African regulators. Ofcom decided to overrule Cumberbatch; generalise about other unspecified expert opinions; wave their hands a bit; come to the conclusion that its better to be safe than sorry; and so ban porn anyway.

Ofcom explained: "Some experts believe that there is evidence that exposure of minors to R18 material can have adverse effects. In short, this area remains highly controversial and in light of these considerations, it cannot be confidently concluded that sexually explicit material carries no risk of harm to the development of minors".

Thereafter Ofcom spoke of a 'precautionary' approach to porn and have banned it from the airwaves and from all but a very few British Video On Demand websites that impose unviably strict adult verification procedures.


It is interesting to note that such deep considerations of harm associated with pornography always seem to take place without actually specifying any examples of what sort of harms people are fearing. How can the depiction of something that is so commonplace; so central to life; so widely discussed; and so universally enjoyed, be so harmful anyway.


Perhaps sharing similar concerns about the voracity of claims about porn, Routledge publishers have just announced the launch of a new journal devoted to the study of pornography.

Titled Porn Studies, it will be the first dedicated, international, peer-reviewed journal to critically examine sexual and explicit media forms. Tellingly the announcement comments on the current approach to porn research: "Because pornography studies are still in their infancy we are also interested in discussions that focus on theoretical approaches, methodology and research ethics".


Actually porn and the internet has now been around for so long, that if there was anything at in all the doom mongering predictions of dire consequences from widespread easy access to porn, then surely the consequences would be becoming clear by now.

But no, if anything, Britain is becoming a more pleasant place to live.

The Institute for Economics and Peace, which defines peace as "the absence of violence or fear of violence", used Home Office data on crime, such as public disorder offences and weapons crime, to analyse crime in Britain..

It found the violent crime rate was down by about one quarter between 2003 and 2012. Perhaps a very comparable period to the period of massive expansion in internet use. The Institute found a similar trend across Europe, albeit at a lower average of crime decrease than the UK.

If porn is so harmful and so commonplace, how come Britain has become a less violent and more peaceful place to live?

"J-Lo's lewd dance routine on Britain's Got Talent provokes huge viewer backlash" So runs a typical Daily Mail headline feigning 'outrage' at a sexy stage performance by Jennifer Lopez.

Sexy music videos seem to be at the sharp end of a morality campaign to try and erase anything vaguely sexy from the public sphere.

Sexualisationists have been bending the government's ear for quite a while now. They are calling for 'something to be done' about the moral turpitude rife in the pop industry.


And now the government has capitulated. It has found a way to be seen 'doing something' about sexy pop music. Ed Vaizey of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has announced that the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) will extend its remit to cover some previously exempt videos. In particularly, documentaries, or videos featuring music, sport or religion.

The Video Recordings Act of 1984 (re-enacted in 2010 after it was discovered that it was not properly enacted in 1984), will be amended to reduce the current range of exemptions from classification. The change is scheduled to come into force in 2014.

But some of the sexy music videos being fretted about aren't actually exempt under the current law anyway. Music videos featuring sex or violence are already required to be vetted by the BBFC. However this refers to physical sexuality rather than just singing about it.


The new amendments (not yet finalised) will require anything likely to be 12 rated or higher to be vetted by the BBFC. This will now include lyrics with strong language, sex references, and lyrics considered to be glorifying violence or promoting drugs.

Music videos without any such content will continue to be exempt, so the London Philharmonic Orchestra won't be unduly affected.

At this point it is worth pointing out that the Video Recordings Act only applies to physical media, DVD's Blu-rays, VHS, flash drives, computer disks etc. It most certainly does not apply to online content. However Vaizey did allude to a possibly voluntary extension to the online world. He said:

"In order to help ensure parents can make more informed decisions about the material their children watch online, ministers are also calling on industry to develop solutions so that more online videos - particularly those that are likely to be sought out by children and young people - carry advice about their age suitability in future".

Cinema goers may also be interested to know that the BBFC will lose the job of censoring cinema adverts. The amended law will require that cinema adverts be answerable to the Advertising Standards Authority, as per all other forms of advertising.


The government will now go into a long huddle to get these laws, drafted, passed by parliament, and then enacted. But it is not so clear that the end result will be all that is hoped by moralist campaigners.

The BBFC is a pragmatic censor who tries to set consistent and practical rules that are largely in tune with the wishes of the public. The Board is proud of its reputation for decisions that are respected by parents and film viewers alike. The BBFC will certainly not be pandering to the Mary Whitehouses of the world, and it will be making decisions based on merit, not on moralist ideals.


I suspect that the vast majority of sexy pop star videos from the likes of Beyonce, Rihanna and Madonna will be rated 12.

The 12 rating allows for infrequent uses of strong language most notably, the word 'fuck'. It would take quite a stream of strong language before a 15 rating would kick in. (Of course Ozzy Osbourne is unlikely ever to be 12 rated).

Even sexy nudity is allowed in 12 rated works, but only when considered "brief and discreet". Videos featuring more prolonged nudity are likely to be 15 rated. Even that is probably less than the 18 that campaigners would be expecting.

Sexual references in lyrics are not necessarily going to attract high ratings either. The BBFC explains what is acceptable at 12:

"Sexual activity may be briefly and discreetly portrayed.Sex references should not go beyond what is suitable for young teenagers.Frequent crude references are unlikely to be acceptable"

If not 12, then most sex references will be accommodated at 15. Similarly for sexy dance moves. These are hardly likely to higher than 12 or 15. Content has to be properly pornographic, ie intended to sexually arouse, before it would qualify for an 18 rating.


In terms of violence, blockbuster action films are generally 12 rated. Horror films are often 15 rated and have to be quite nasty before an 18 rating kicks in. Not many music videos are going to be highly rated on grounds of violence.

There are a couple a genres of music videos that could qualify for an 18 rating though. Perhaps gangsta rap if the BBFC felt that videos were promoting violence. Similarly drug references could also easily become 18 rated if they are felt to be promoting drug taking.


I can confidently predict that when the new law comes in, morality campaigners will be well disappointed when Jennifer Lopez songs like those on Britain's Got Talent only get a 12 rating. They simply will not be banned as hoped.

The campaigners will surely be dancing with rage!

There's been a shrill cacophony of calls for censorship lately. Politicians, morality campaigners, feminists, and of course newspapers, have all been calling for 'something to be done about the internet'.

Inevitably, 'something to be done', means that censors need to be appointed. Accordingly several censor jobs have been put up grabs over the last few weeks. And the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) has scooped the lot.


I described last month how the BBFC has picked up the new job of sport and music censor for DVDs and Blu-ray. Previously these had been exempt from censorship, but now the government is working on changing the law to bring them into remit of the film censor.


However the BBFC has ambitions beyond mere DVD. It is eyeing the job of writing classification guidelines for YouTube.

Nobody is suggesting that the enormous quantity of video shared on the internet should be pre-vetted like film. The BBFC is merely suggesting that it should be given the task of writing guidelines that can be used by people posting on YouTube to self classify their offerings. In fact, film censors from three countries, the UK, Italy and the Netherlands, have been working together on the project.

Using a traffic light system of ratings, the group has proposed that green rated video would be suitable for all, amber for 12 year-olds and up, and red for adults only.

Video sharers would rate the films they post online according to national ratings categories, and the whole process would be policed by other users of the site. Participating websites would let viewers comment on the way that each film has been rated, alerting both users and the relevant national authorities to any serious transgressions.

David Austin, assistant director of policy and public affairs at the BBFC said:

"We already classify some 10,000 videos and films that are submitted to us for release every year and we will be using much the same classification model in the pilot for user-generated content".

"We felt that six categories would be too complicated, said Austin, so we have conflated U, which means suitable for all, with PG, parental guidance, and then the age category 12 with 15, and finally 18, suitable only for adults, with R18, which covers those adult works intended for licensed premises only".

Actually the scheme is quite worrying. The devil in the detail is in the merging of the 12 and 15 rating. In the current BBFC guidelines, the 12 rating is basically advisory, and indicates that parents should use their discretion when allowing 8 to 12 year old children to watch the film. All modern family blockbusters fit into this category.

So it appears that the ratings scheme only offers 3 choices: suitable for kids under 8; suitable for kids from 8 to 12 allowing for parental guidance; or adults only. This will rather force even the most innocuous content, such as a sexy music video, into the adult category.


The BBFC have also picked up the job to write classification guidelines for internet and audio visual content on mobile phones.The task includes guidelines for the blocking of websites in the name of child protection.

Again it won't be the job of the BBFC to work through all the world's websites and give them a rating, it is just to define the rules that mobile companies should follow when classifying websites.

It is a fascinating concept that internet censors should follow proper rules when blocking websites. Up until now they have arbitrarily banned websites for no apparent reason, perhaps because of a little strong language. But if the BBFC propose that blocking rules should generally follow film censorship logic, then infrequent strong language should actually be allowed (a couple of 'fucks' are allowed in movies rated 12).

It will be a major challenge to internet censorship companies to actually have to adhere to accurate guidelines, rather than ban anything remotely adult on grounds that it is better to be safe than sorry.

It will also raise some very difficult questions that no-one has ever felt the need to address before.

If websites can now be accurately classified as 12, 15 or 18, then at what level should they be blocked in the name of child protection? Most horror films are now rated 15. These would be too scary for an 8 year old, yet they are not actually adult content.So should they be blocked?

What rating would be applicable to horse racing coverage? It doesn't actually facilitate gambling but surely it does promote gambling. It features enthusiastic pundits having a great time analysing races, it shows the betting complete with a commentary such as "8/1 Get on now!". And it shows people massively enjoying winning. Surely an 18 rating, so should it be blocked?

Reading the Sun as an app would probably qualify for a 15 rating. Page 3 is probably just a bit too sexy for a 12 rating. So should it be blocked?

What about the rating of a What Satellite app? No page 3 nudity, but it does carry non pornographic adverts for pornographic channels. This would probably qualify for an 18 rating. So should it be blocked?

We shall just have to ask the BBFC!

And I confidently predict that many won't be happy with the answers!

David Cameron has published a long list of anti-porn proposals in response to the Daily mail's intensive campaign for internet censorship.

Press coverage of the proposals has focused on ISPs providing a censored internet feed to customers unless they specifically ask for an uncensored service. But little was reported about quite wide ranging restrictions to internet TV, which the government now calls connected TV.


The most detailed document so far on government policy is called 'Connectivity, Content & Consumers', published by the Department for Culture, Media & Sport. The report explains the government's basic concerns:

"We want to ensure that the living room remains a safe space for children.But increasingly, set-top boxes and TVs connected to the internet enable programmes and films to be viewed on-demand. These can fall outside of regulatory frameworks. People tend to consider connected TVs to be a TV-like experience and expect to be more protected than they are from content accessed through PCs and laptops. Yet, the technology means that it is easy to flick between regulated and unregulated spaces. Since this is not always clear, this increases the risk of people inadvertently accessing content that may be offensive, inappropriate, or harmful to children".


The first policy point is that the government would like to see child protection locks more widely adopted for channels sourced from the internet. At the moment catch up TV services implement controls to prevent post watershed TV being seen by children before that time. Presumably all internet TV channels will be required to implement something similar for age restricted content.


But age ratings are not the only concern about internet TV. Even channels that are nominally child friendly may need additional controls, so as not to shock or offend viewers. For example Ofcom TV censorship rules require that news should be fair and balanced, whereas news on the internet certainly isn't. Viewers used to the News at Ten may be get easily 'outraged' should they stumble on a shock-jock on Fox News.

The Government's second policy point is therefore to suggest that the TV via the electronic programme guide should differentiate between 'regulated' channels, perhaps coloured green, and unregulated internet TV channels perhaps coloured red. Maybe the government would also like to see warning messages when an internet TV channel is selected, eg: "Warning: you are now leaving safe TV space and are entering the twilight zone".


Of course porn viewing is going to be tough to accommodate in this overly fearful new vision for connected TVs.The government writes:

"In hard copy, content rated R18 by the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) is only available in licensed sex shops and content that was even stronger is banned outright. We want to make sure that regulation of on-demand content is as robust as regulation of content on a DVD, bringing the online world into line with the high street. We will legislate to ensure that material that would be rated R18 by the BBFC is put behind access controls on regulated services and we will ban outright content on regulated services that is illegal even in licensed sex shops".

At least the government looks set to tolerate hardcore pornography on internet TV, an improvement over cable and satellite where similar material is currently banned.

Although the report mentions the BBFC, careful reading suggests that internet TV films will not actually have to be vetted by the BBFC. This is good job as there are actually very few adult films that are certificated by the BBFC. It costs way too much money and few adult films are popular enough to make this a worthwhile investment.

It seems more likely that internet TV and Video on Demand services will be able to self certify. Presumably the censors of ATVOD or Ofcom, will investigate complaints about transgressions of BBFC rules.


The point that films outside of the BBFC guidelines should be banned from internet TV is very worrying. The BBFC currently cut about 20% of all standard hardcore films submitted. Some of the reasons for cuts seem pretty trivial and would be difficult for adult services to know where to draw the line to stay legal. Some of the commonplace material currently cut includes, gagging during oral sex, dialogue about gagging, hair pulling and squirting.

In fact this prohibition would make it very difficult for foreign porn services to appear on internet TV as they would have so many titles that are banned by these new restrictions.

On a more positive note the government has framed these new restrictions as only applying to connected TV. Hopefully accessing foreign websites on one's laptop will continue to be legal.


But I'm not too worried about this new TV censorship, it looks likely that the scheme will turn out like the American child protection scheme called the 'V' chip. It took so long to get the legals, the technicals, and the morals to line up, that the idea was outdated before it started.

Anyway it would seem likely that the Daily Mail will have changed its mind about what should be censored well before this new scheme has had time to come to fruition.

Miserable Westminster Council is trying to hide Soho's colourful heritage by ordering a restaurant to remove nostalgic signs recalling the area's former glory as London's red light district.

Neon signs, proclaiming 'peep show' and 'adult video', were installed outside a fashionable restaurant called La Bodega Negra. The signs were intended as a homage to the area's heritage, but Westminster City Council didn't agree and so they were banned.

Restaurant owner Will Ricker argued that the neons were a remnant of a vanishing, golden era that should be celebrated, not forgotten.


So it was good to see Deep Throat getting the heritage treatment with the release of Lovelace, the biopic of its star Linda Lovelace. To mark the occasion, the uncut version of the 1972 porn film Deep Throat was screened for the first time in a mainstream West End cinema, albeit at a private launch party. Prior to the showing, a panel of experts debated the cultural and social impact of the movie. Definitely an event showing due respect for a major milestone in porn history.

And just to fill in a little of the film's history in the UK: the uncut version was banned in the UK until 2000 when it received an R18 rating allowing it to be sold in licensed sex shops.

Unfortunately satellite X viewers weren't accorded the same respect as the Soho launch party attendees. They had to 'celebrate' the opening of Lovelace with a horrendously cut, softcore version shown on Television X. It seems a shame that 40 years on, we are still not allowed to see a heritage porn movie uncut on an adults only, encrypted film channel.


Adult films are still going fine, but sadly we may soon need 'adult heritage centres' to preserve examples of other porn media that seem to be on the decline.

Firstly lads' mags seem to be under the cosh of late. Mostly due to the readership drifting away, but partly because of campaigners calling for the magazines to be banned from shops in the name of political correctness.

In particular campaign groups, Object and Feminista have been directing their shrill voices at supermarkets, trying to get them to ban the magazines. A recent day of protest saw small groups of campaigners protest outside several branches of Tesco's.

The Co-op previously agreed to listen to the few campaigning voices ahead of the thousands of people who buy, and presumably enjoy, the magazines, The supermarket looks set to ban several titles that are refusing to cover up in a modesty bag.

This censorship is a bit of a shame, particularly because the campaigners seem to be largely failing to attract much public support. For instance the Daily Mail, well known for getting onboard moralist bandwagons, itself publishes material just a little too close to lads' mags content for comfort, and so has been generally negative about the Feminista campaign. Similarly the lads' mags material is also a little close to sexy celebrity material that is so widely enjoyed by the general public.


Secondly sexy hotel room TV looks likely to end up in a museum of porn. Religious and family campaigners have long been trying to pressurise major US hotel chains into giving up the big bucks generated by hotel room porn. Marriott hotels have been particularly targeted, as the campaigners feel that the owner is one of their own kind and should know better.

Actually the general availability of the internet has diminished the profitability of hotel porn, and this has given the opportunity for hotels to claim a few brownie points by announcing bans just ahead of the natural demise through internet competition. Marriott has announced the phasing out of the adult service. Also the company providing the hardware, Lodgenet, has filed for bankruptcy protection.

Meanwhile in Europe, the Nordic Choice hotel chain has also announced an end to in-room porn. Bizarrely the porn channels will be replaced with interactive TVs offering "art on demand". This consists of a choice of nine works of contemporary video art, including Sam Taylor-Wood's Still Life from 2001". This is a film showing a bowl of fruit slowly going rotten. I for one will be sticking to 'Bring Your Own Porn' on my laptop.


Of course the adult history of Soho is also getting the heritage treatment. Director Michael Winterbottom's The Look of Love is a biopic of Paul Raymond, played by Steve Coogan, who so famously bought up a lot of Soho property and established an adult industry there.

The Raymond family business is still going strong in the adult world, but there has been a gesture towards a more straight laced approach. The family has submitted plans to the local council to change the use of the once world famous Revuebar into a serious theatre.

I was thinking that it would be a far better idea to change the venue into a porn heritage centre. It could feature a library of porn and lads' mags. I can visualise it now: impossibly high book shelves accessible only via ladders; thousands of dusty tomes; and an appreciative gathering of enthusiastic scholars, all trying to work out what life was really like in the 20th century. Perhaps also a few mad scientists, wondering how the clitoris managed to move from the throat, to below the navel, in a mere 40 years of human evolution.
 

Playboy TV has been under the cosh a bit of late. The satellite broadcaster is being picked upon by both the TV censor, Ofcom, and the Video on Demand censor, ATVOD.

Ofcom has called in Playboy TV for a word about its compliance procedures, Ofcom were responding to a complaint about the free to air babe channel, Playboy TV Chat (Channel 902 on the Sky EPG).

A female presenter was reported to be pretending to perform oral sex with an imaginary man hidden from view behind a door. The segment appeared just after midnight, but the late hour did not prevent Ofcom from claiming that the scene would 'cause serious or widespread offence against generally accepted moral, social or cultural standards'

Ofcom have clear rules against simulating sex on a free to air babe channel, so perhaps Playboy were lucky that Ofcom didn't impose sanctions beyond being incarcerated in Ofcom's re-education camp for a few hours.

After all, the last time Playboy were up in front of Ofcom, the company was fined £100,000. The company's Video On Demand (VOD) websites were found to be not following the onerous child protection rules specified by ATVOD.

These rules are proving very problematic for the British adult industry, including many adult satellite companies who also run related websites.

In particular ATVOD Rule 11 says: "If an on-demand programme service contains material which might seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of persons under the age of eighteen, the material must be made available in a manner which secures that such persons will not normally see or hear it".

ATVOD has unilaterally decided that legal hardcore porn seriously impairs children. Any websites with hardcore video material must therefore hide such material behind an age verification check. Self declared ages are certainly not considered to be acceptable. Websites must either do an online ID check, or else insist on a credit card payment. Debit cards are ruled insufficient as they are available to under 18s, Credit cards, at least in the UK, require the holder to be 18+.

It sounds fair enough, but in reality these restrictions make many businesses unviable. It is very difficult to sell a product without potential buyers being able to see the product on offer. Asking people to type in their credit card details before being able to take a look round is a non starter. Porn sites haven't exactly got the best of reputations for security, so taking a look round is a very important step when considering signing up, even if only to convince the prospective customer that the site is for real.

These problems are doubly difficult when foreign competitors allow users to look round for free, and even to see a few free videos first to convince them that they like the product.In fact some of the most successful sites in the business allow people to see hardcore videos for free, namely the so called 'tube' sites.

This has left British sites in a very difficult position. Some websites offer a product that customers choose to buy via external advertising or perhaps associated with a known product such as a satellite channel, These can continue, but have to do without customers who don't hold a credit card. Some businesses have recognised the situation as unviable and have simply closed down. The remainder have elected to move offshore out of ATVOD's grasp.

In fact two of Britain's biggest VOD businesses have taken this last option. Strictly Broadband sold up to a US company, and Playboy TV moved its website from the UK to a Canadian subsidiary. This wasn't as simple as it sounds. ATVOD refused to believe that the business was moved to the Canadian company. Playboy had to appeal to Ofcom, who checked the facts and confirmed that editorial control of the website had indeed been moved abroad.

To some extent ATVOD have recognised that rules are destroying British business and are trying to level the playing fields. The censor is now trying to convince the banks to block all, or at least UK, payments to those foreign competitors which are not complying with ATVOD's rules. This all seems highly unlikely to work out well. Legal porn is very popular and makes a lot of money. Denying card payments could shift porn into less desirable business models than the status quo, which is at least open to scrutiny by the authorities..


As one would expect, the adult industry is not very happy with ATVOD regulation and is setting up some opposition. Jerry Barnett, previously with Strictly Broadband, has created a Facebook group called Sex and Censorship (facebook.com/SexAndCensorship) which has recently coordinated the first industry wide meeting on the ATVOD issue.

Hopefully this new group can provide media commentary to counter newspapers and pro censorship campaigners that have been given an easy ride so far. Also an industry wide campaign may be able to afford some of the legal challenges that are needed to keep ATVOD in its place. An industry group should also be able to work on age verification technologies that protect children, without needing to destroy UK adult business in the process.

And the clock is ticking...Several of the key players have already emigrated, others have closed down, and many of those that are left, are suffering from terminal poverty.
 

The world has gone censorship crazy. It is a fashion to dream up ever more bizarre or trivial reasons to get offended, and so call for something to be banned.

For instance, who'd have ever thought that people would be calling for Mr Bean to be banned. Well the Philippines Movie and Television Review and Classification Board have demanded that a TV network account for a daytime showing of Rowan Atkinson's imbecilic alter ego.

The offending episode had Mr Bean losing his clothes and legging it down a corridor with just a signboard for cover.

MTRCB chairman Eugenio Toto Villareal complained: "We were shocked by the scene where Mr. Bean came running through a corridor only using a signage board to cover his private parts".

In fact the sign board proved more than adequate cover, and nothing untowards was actually seen.


Perhaps the authorities should start asking those who call for censorship, to provide measurable estimates about the benefits to the country of the requested censorship. Would a ban on Mr Bean reduce crime rate by 1% or make the country 1% happier, or 1% richer..

The same questions could also apply to British censorship. For example, when calling for David Cronenberg's Crash to banned. Campaigners should provide estimates of exactly how many new road accidents would occur when drivers crash into other vehicles for their personal pleasures. Of course any answer above zero would be cause for derision, and the answer zero would make the ban redundant.


Real world statistics are not exactly good friends with censorship campaigners. As far as I can judge from personal experience, and from published statistics, life in Britain is continuing pretty much as usual, except for a little less money in people's pockets. If anything, crime rates seem to be on the decline.

So it would seem a good time to ask moralists to justify their claims. Take for instance internet porn. Campaigners are always quick to point out that anyone of any age can get to see hardcore porn with just a few clicks of the mouse. And this has been the case for several years now. Surely this is the Armageddon scenario for moralists. Everyone can view as much porn as they want, as often as they want, and mostly for free.

Similarly games players have been playing spectacularly violent computer games for as long as I can remember.

So how come life is continuing pretty much as before?


Given that mass porn access is ubiquitous, and that incredible amounts of players are taking violent games in their stride, then perhaps moralists should be careful what they wish for when disturbing this status quo.

For example, how many campaigners ponder what gamers would do instead if their favourite games were to be banned? Perhaps teenage boys, who currently spend most of their time in their bedrooms playing violent games, would instead socialise in gangs on street corners. Daily Mail readers would soon be calling for a restoration of games so that the youngsters would return to their virtual bedroom worlds.

Similarly I suspect that banning porn websites won't have quite the consequences that moral campaigners are hoping for. Even if measures to block porn were to prove effective, then there is already enough porn sloshing round on people's hard drives to last several life times. People will soon find other ways to get it distributed, even if it is as simple as mates passing it around on memory sticks.

Moralists will be defeated because the internet means that nobody has to listen to them anymore. There are internet communities supporting every conceivable faction of life. Internet users simply don't bother listening to morality lectures from do-gooders, they simply log onto a forum of like minded people who share and support their own particular interests in life, not oppose them.


And then there is the recent move to call for the censorship of sexy music videos in the name of anti-sexualiation. The underlying sexualisation message seems to be that musicians should be judged on talent rather than attractiveness. Hence giving a fairer chance to the average, and not so attractive.

But from my perspective this is simply not real life. In my personal choice of music the appearance of the performers has indeed no bearing on my enjoyment, and musical talent is king. However when browsing outside of my tastes, say when channel hopping through music channels, then everything is different. My zapper will surely pause on the most attractive performers, or perhaps the most outrageous. Musicianship is simply not so important when you are not a fan of the genre.

I suspect that most people follow a similar approach when browsing YouTube or TV. Hence sexy, attractive, or even outrageous performers grab the lion's share of attention from large amounts of viewers who are just passing time. The final result is that singers like Miley Cyrus, Rihanna and Lady Gaga will always gain many more views than the rest. It's just real life. Not everyone watches music videos for the musicianship.

It would seem a shame if anti-sexualisation means that kids are not properly informed about the realities of life. Just imagine how they'll turn out with an endless TV diet of the likes of Mr Bean.

Riddle me this. What country in the world defines its adults-only film rating without mentioning the word 'adult' or the age of adulthood?

America of course! Its adults-only film rating is named 'NC-17' and is defined as: "No one 17 and under admitted". It is exactly the same as the British Board of Film Classification 18 rating, straightforwardly defined as: "Suitable only for adults".

The reason underlying this elusively worded US rating is the word 'adult' has been claimed by the country's massive porn industry. Any use of the word 'adult' on a mainstream film has to be avoided as it will be assumed to mean porn.

Also a large majority of US businesses like to think of themselves as 'family friendly', This basically means that anything that is adults only is banned. Presumably the US film censors think that they may be able to shake off the porn association and perhaps also not get noticed by family friendly retailers.

The acceptable face of films with adult content, eg horror or violent action films, is to get an R rating. This is in UK terms a 17A rating. 17 year olds can view a film in their own right, but younger people can also see the film if accompanied by their parent or guardian,

The fact that young people can see R rated films rather makes the rating unsuitable for material that is intended to be sexually arousing. Practically all American film makers understand well the system and the vast majority of films are tailored for US ratings up to R.

Across in Europe, there is no such taboo against an adult rating. Mainstream films can be made with quite sexy content without it being considered pornographic. And it these European conceived films that prove controversial in the US as they do not quite fit in the system.

There are currently three major films that are testing the US system.


Blue is the Warmest Colour by the Tunisian-French director Abdellatif Kechiche is about a lesbian relationship between two French teenagers. It features an explicit six-minute sex scene between actresses Lea Seydoux and Adele Exarchopoulos, that is very realistic thanks to special effects, but is not actually real.

The film was duly rated NC-17 as it is a little too sexy for an R rating. The NC-17 inevitably restricted to film's distribution to a few cinemas that allow NC-17 films to play. NC-17 film releases are generally unprofitable due to the lack of theaters and so such releases are incredibly rare. So rare in fact that there are no policy precedents to apply and cinemas have to decide how they will play the rules.

Also to add to the controversy, it turns out that US film censorship rules are not underpinned by law, and are essentially advice for theatre owners to follow if they want to.

Notably one major New York theater, the IFC Center, announced that it would not enforce the adults only rule. John Vanco, senior vice president of the IFC Center said that the film:

"Is not inappropriate for mature, inquiring teenagers who are looking ahead to the emotional challenges and opportunities that adulthood holds. High-school age patrons would be admitted to the movie".

Maybe it sounds a little outrageous to let 15 year olds watch an 18 rated film but for a little perspective of the age classification, the film is only 12 rated in France. For another comparison the film is 18 rated in the UK.


The second sexy film creating chatter is Nymphomaniac by Lars Von Trier. It is a European co-production featuring mainstream actors enjoying hardcore sex. Of course not everything is quite as it sounds, as the real sex was filmed by porn actors and CGI effects are used to fake the scenes so it looks like the star are having sex.

It sounds most unappealing to have CGI hardcore as reality is a major characteristic of real hardcore. After all the so called money shot plays such an important part in establishing that the actors were actually enjoying real sex. As a porn watcher I am always quickly aware of faked scenes and body doubles etc and I found the fakery a real turn off.

But I don't suppose this is really anything to worry about. The director's films are always totally unique and the faked sex won't actually be intended to be the focus of the film.
 
In fact the director is creating a softcore version of the film too. It will be interesting to see what will be distributed in the US, particularly as the US censor's rules don't allow two different officially sanctioned versions of a film to run simultaneously in theatres.


The third test for US sensitivity to sexy film is of course, Fifty Shades of Grey. This will be a major Hollywood adaptation (but still with a European flavour as is based on a British novel).

But of course a major Hollywood production requires a lot of cinemas to show the film for a decent monetary return. This will more or less require an R rated cut of the film. And therein lies a major quandary. An R rated film is open to kids, albeit accompanied, and so really can't have much in the way of sex. How can you film such a well read sex book without having any sex. Of course there is much talk of having both an R rated version and an NC-17 version perhaps for home video. But once you know a film is primarily R rated then you know its going to be more or less filled up with plot and even when they extend some of the sex scenes with a little more nudity, then its probably not going to make it a whole lot sexier

I rather suspect that anything produced by a film industry that can't even call an adult film an adult film is going to turn out pretty coy. I predict that Hollywood will manage to convert the best selling sex novel of our time into a film suitable for 12 year olds, (at least in France).

I do enjoy reading a good 'outrage' story in the tabloid newspapers. And the Daily Mail is surely the 'outrage' champion of them all..


Recently Beyonce caught the attention of the press when she released her latest album straight to iTunes. The lyrics and accompanying videos were marginally more sexy than her previous works so The Daily Mail was inevitably 'outraged'. The paper rounded up a few tweets and sound bites from their usual panel of moralists and claimed that the singer's fans were as 'outraged as the Daily Mail was.

The paper claimed that: "Beyonce faced a backlash on social networking sites over vile lyrics and pornographic videos on her new album".

But later on in the same piece, that paper had to admit that the Beyonce's 'vile lyrics and pornographic videos' were actually immensely popular:

"The singer's surprise album launch brought down the website as millions of fans rushed to download her latest work with 80,000 copies selling in three hours".

So much for the 'backlash' then.


Censors are often so convinced that they are right, that they rush into implementation without thinking through the likely consequences.

A good example is the Australian censorship of computer games. For years Australian politicians tried to ban violent games by setting the top age classification at 15. Presumably the politicians thought that the more violent games would simply not come to Australia, as they would be banned if they tried.. Of course things didn't turn out quite as expected. Some of the most popular computer games of all time are internationally rated as adults only, And Australians were just as keen to the play these as everyone else.

Rather than being banned, the games ended up being cut for a 15 rating. And it wasn't as if they were cut down to the levels of a typical 15 rated game. No, they were cut by the absolute minimum amount to get them just inside the 15/18 boundary. Australia ended up with the most violent 15 rated titles in the world!

After years of criticism for this policy, the government eventually decided to allow a proper adults only rating. This came into force at the beginning of 2013.

But there has been a recent coda showing that even now, the politicians are having trouble with the real world. John Rau the Attorney General of South Australia felt that games censorship wasn't quite panning out as he expected. He felt that now an 18 rating was available, then these historically violent 15s should now be up rated to 18. So he asked Australia's Censorship Review Board to reconsider 12 examples games, with a view to upgrading them to 18.

Thankfully the review board rebuffed the political interference and turned down the request. After all, the games are still correctly rated as just on the 15 side of the 15/18 boundary. Perhaps the producers could now resubmit the uncut version and get an 18 rating, but computer games soon get out of date with advancing technology, so there is little commercial gain in revisiting old games.


Another example of things not quite turning out as expected is in the US range of film classifications. There are just 3 ratings in common usage. PG for children's films; PG-13, an advisory 13 rating equivalent to the UK 12A; and an R which covers both the UK 15 and 18.

Recently a study by the Annenberg Public Policy Center and Ohio State University revealed that there is more gun violence in PG-13 movies than in R-rated movies. American newspapers went to town on the supposedly surprising findings. But in fact the findings are pretty obvious.

The PG-13 has the characteristic that it is open to everybody. Practically all blockbusters are released with this middle rating. It has the benefit that it appeals to the under 13s who feel a bit more grown up watching films recommended for the over 13s. And for the older generation, the PG-13 confirms that it is not actually a kid's movie.

Most action blockbusters are probably a little more violent than the PG-13 really allows, but the producers opt for the absolute minimum of cuts just to edge into the desired side of the PG-13/R boundary. The net result is that the PG-13 category has become more violent than originally intended with lots of action films sitting just inside the PG-13/R boundary.

The research findings then become inevitable. Plenty of totally non violent films get an R rating often for coarse humour or strong language. In fact plenty of serious dramas also qualify for an R rating, maybe just for a few f-words.The distributors don't push for a lower rating, simply because they are not the sort of films that would appeal to kids anyway. Even horror films at the top end of the R rating, don't often feature much gun violence. There is no point in having a quick gun kill in a movie like Saw!


So just a couple of examples show where things don't turn out quite the way that was intended. Next time you hear David Cameron or Claire Perry banging on about populist censorship ideas, then listen out for them thinking through the actual likely consequences of their policies. I bet you don't hear a thing. As long as the Daily Mail and moralist campaigners are happy, then that's job done. It's an Outrage!