19.08.1999

The right to think

Democratic questions sometimes arise in unexpected contexts. On Monday of this week, an appeal by sex video distributors was upheld against the British Board of Film Classification, a decision with considerable ramifications.

For the last 15 years, the BBFC has had responsibility for the legally binding classification of retail and rental videos in the UK, ever since the ‘video nasty’ scare of the early 1980s; it operates as an arms-length state agency for this purpose. In that time, BBFC management policy has been based on the assumed fecklessness of parents - working class parents in particular - in not policing their children’s viewing of videos satisfactorily. In loco parentis, therefore, the BBFC has had to the job in their stead.

An amendment to the recent Criminal Justice Act permitted the BBFC to make its ‘parental’ role more codified, with a test of suitability for viewing in the home put in place. The exact nature of this test and the considerations to be used by the board day to day in its further restriction of videos - whether by raising their category vis-à-vis theatrical exhibition (ie, the film version shown in cinemas) or calling for cuts for the video version of works - was left largely to the BBFC. Although David Alton’s attempt to dumb down all available video to the PG level through amendments to the CJA was defeated, the censorious constituency of which he is part has clearly been noted by the BBFC.

However, two soft porn video distribution companies, Sheptonhurst and Prime Time, were dissatisfied with the treatment their product received at the hands of the BBFC and decided to appeal against its decisions. Legislation giving the BBFC its role over videos also includes an appeal procedure, via a video appeals committee. Although Sheptonhurst and Prime Time expect their product to be available only through registered sex shops under the BBFC’s ‘R18’ category for such material, they were not prepared to accept arguably damaging cuts demanded by the BBFC which were allegedly to protect children who might nevertheless see it.

Despite the fact that a majority of households in the UK contain no children, the BBFC has persisted in its mantra that it has a role in protecting children who might otherwise see material deemed unsuitable for them; and, since parents are perceived as incapable or unwilling to do it, the BBFC arrogates the job to itself. Its president Andreas Whittam Smith and general secretary Robin Duval, have been determined to continue with this policy until now. The video appeals committee thinks otherwise.

In its judgement, the VAC (by a majority of four to one) accepted “the argument that we do not, in general, prevent adults having access to material just because it might be harmful to children if it fell into their hands. We might have taken a different view if there was evidence that the effects were affecting more than a small minority of children or were devastating if this did happen.” Clearly, the devastation was felt by the BBFC’s honchos, who issued a press release immediately the result was public, in which they cavilled:

“Since the seven videos were clearly in breach of the board’s published classification guidelines for ‘R18’, the VAC decision also has serious implications for those guidelines … In the light of the video appeal committee’s decision, the board is considering how it should now proceed.”

The implications are important and potentially wide-ranging. No doubt the competition from satellite television on video distribution is having its effect. But, be that as it may, the current restrictions on what we can buy or rent from video stores has been shown by this successful appeal to be based on no generally agreed consensus even amongst those charged with oversight of our viewing.

This decision by the VAC opens up the whole question of state censorship once again. It is not only a question of the pornographic ‘R18’ material, available only in sex shops, but of the audiences for ‘12’, ‘15’, and ‘18’ category videos. Video works, mainstream or experimental, have been treated harshly by the BBFC, which operates the most stringent video classification system in Europe, apart from Ireland. The BBFC often upgrades cinema film categories (eg ‘15’ films raised to ‘18’ when transferred to video), precisely using the ‘suitability for home viewing’ test that this appeal failed to accept as legitimate. Quite apart from cuts to ‘R18’ material, adult, ‘18’ category mainstream films are cut to save us from ourselves. Young people of 16 and 17, of course, are not legally able to buy or rent ‘18’ videos (let alone ‘R18’ material, despite being able legally to carry out the sex acts most depict), even if married or living independently of their parents. Similar concerns apply to restrictions that the BBFC applies to what those below 15 are allowed to rent or buy, whatever their parents’ views. The appeal decision throws the BBFC’s previous stance out of the window and downgrades whatever moral authority it might have sought.

This decision by the VAC raises questions about the purpose of the legally enforced classification system: whether it is designed to protect minors, as its defenders claim; or whether it exists to carry the state’s authority into the cultural sphere - with the object of extending its control over what we are allowed to think.

Jim Gilbert