Videos ruling defies censor
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.FILM CENSORS may have to redraw guidelines after a successful legal challenge against their decision to withhold certificates for seven sex videos.
The Video Appeals Committee, an independent body, ruled yesterday that the British Board of Film Classification should have rated the films R18 to allow them to be sold in sex shops.
Sheptonhurst, a video dealer, and distributor Prime Time Promotions brought the case after the films - featuring real, penetrative sex - were rejected. The ruling could mean that certificates are granted to stronger material featuring genuine, rather than simulated, sex in the 80 licensed adult shops around the country - 50 of which are run by Sheptonhurst.
By a four to one majority the committee allowed the appeals. In its ruling the majority said: "We accept 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."
The committee also thought the BBFC was "precipitate in introducing new regulations without adequate consultation or adequate warning to the industry". That followed a decision by the board to loosen restrictions during part of 1997, but then to reinstate them.
In a statement, the BBFC said the decision had serious implications for its guidelines. And it pointed to the different attitudes about obscenity.
Robin Duval, the BBFC's director, said last night: "Nothing is absolutely inevitable from the findings. One of the likelihoods is that we might find that it's appropriate to give R18 certificates to this material."
Asked if the BBFC guidelines might have to be rewritten he said: "It's certainly a possibility."
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments