Big Brother strikes again.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**LuciusAR**

Hmmm. Here's an interesting one.

The BBFC have denied a film classification on the grounds of sadistic content. To be honest I wouldn’t have watched this film, not my cup o tea. But I'm rather annoyed that this decision has been made on my behalf.

So to what extent should the state be allowed to decide what media should be restricted for the good of it's citizens? If we tolerate this whats next on the contraband list?

The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) have issued a rare rejection notice for a "disturbing and realistic" DVD called NF713.

A spokeswoman for the BBFC denied that the decision was in any way influenced by the new extreme porn law, adding that they did not feel it breached that legislation in any way. Opponents of that law immediately questioned whether the government had not now created an impossible legal position, according to which certain material that was not illegal to possess was nonetheless illegal to publish.

There is no doubt that NF713, directed visually by international photographer, China Hamilton, is a difficult film. According to the BBFC, it "takes the form of an extended sequence in which a man tortures a woman psychologically, physically and sexually. The woman is bound and restrained throughout. The man employs a variety of techniques ranging from invasive questioning about her body and her sexual life to genital torture with forceps and electricity, makeshift waterboarding, beatings and forced urination. The torture is unremitting and takes up the majority of the work’s 73 minute running time".

The BBFC deem it to be a "sex work", and defending their decision to reject it last Friday, they explain that their strict policy is not to issue classification to such works if they depict non-consensual sexual activity (whether real or simulated). They further point out that they are bound by law – the Video Recordings Act 1984 – not to issue a classification where there is a risk of potential harm from individuals viewing a work.

In this context, a ruling by Mr Justice Mitting in January 2008 is key. This "makes clear that harm is not to be interpreted narrowly as behavioural harm, but may also include more insidious risks, and the Board follows this approach in having regard to, for instance, moral harm and possible desensitisation."

Although this stipulation is most commonly thought of as applying to adult films, they have twice in the last year had to ask for changes to U-rated films on the grounds that they depicted behaviour that, if copied, could result in harm. One instance was in Bee Movie, featuring the voice of Jerry Seinfeld, which involved an incident where an aerosol was set alight.

We spoke to Niki Flynn, who plays the role of NF713 in the film, and also to China Hamilton, recently awarded the accolade of the "World’s leading photographer of the erotic". Flynn describes herself as a "spanking model" and a "BDSM actor". She concedes that many of the projects that she is involved in may be viewed by the general public as being about sexual arousal, but this is not the point.

She is interested in dark psychological places: in this instance, she and director Michael Stamp set out to explore the Stockholm Syndrome. This theme is touched on in mainstream films such as 1984 and explored in depth in Closet Land, in which Alan Rickman plays a a sadistic interrogator. The difference was a desire to make the experience as realistic as possible.

As she writes in her blog on the episode: "I was wrecked by the end of the shoot, still crying after the cameras stopped rolling".

There is clearly no meeting of minds. Both she and China Hamilton are adamant that this is not a film about sex or intended for sexual arousal.

Cataloguing a list of films that include unpleasant images of torture – from Hostel to V for Vendetta – China Hamilton describes the BBFC as "daft as a brush".

He says: "The BBFC has a long history of passing for release unpleasant films that boast of their extreme and violent content.

"The problem was that we did too good a job: this film was intended to be a disturbing and realistic film about a serious subject. The narrative echoes what was accepted with little difficulty in Closet Land, which also included extreme images of torture. The only difference lies in the extent to which the victim remains fully clothed and the fact that the BBFC seem to equate nudity with sexual arousal."

Both he and Niki Flynn are adamant that the BBFC position is hypocritical. Flynn, in particular, is scathing of an attitude that, she says, regularly permits depictions of male torture, but which sees women as somehow fragile and in need of extra protection. This attitude is "patronising and insulting".

The BBFC rejects this accusation, arguing that they are not imposing moral judgements, but merely applying the law. Their experience, gained from viewing hundreds of films every year, gives them a very clear insight into what constitutes material that is sexual in nature and potentially harmful. Their spokeswoman conceded that for a select audience attuned to BDSM values, this film may not be seen as sexual – but the role of the BBFC is to consider the likely effect of the film on a range of audiences, including young people with a far less developed view of sex.

She further pointed out that outright rejection was an extremely rare occurrence.

One last observation by Niki Flynn seems set to cause future mischief. The government, with its legislation on extreme porn, has now put in place a legal system whereby what is not obscene in law if viewed by an individual is obscene if published or put out on DVD. Far from restricting the availability of extreme material, the government may have just undermined existing laws on Obscenity.

A spokeswoman for the Ministry of Justice was unconvinced.

The producers of NF713 now have 42 days in which to appeal. As far as we are aware, they have not yet decided whether or not to do so. ®

**Frazzled**

Sounds like a snuff film. I have a better idea-reinvent penal levies, put a collar on the director and drop him amongst the Taliban?

Edit: I think in the US that would meet criminal definitions of several felonies.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

As much as I love my extreme gore flicks, from the above article, I am struggling to see the point of this exercise beyond mindless, tasteless titilation.

Stockholm Syndrome is an interesting psychological tick, but this is hardly the way to explore it.

**Frazzled**

They are not trying to explore-thats total BS.

**LuciusAR**

True enough it does sound like a awful and unpleasant film. Not sure if snuff movie is the right term (Weren't snuff movies revealed to be nothing more than an urban myth a while ago?) What I'm asking though, is no matter how sadistic or naff the film may be, as long as all participants in its making are consenting adults, should the state have the power to prevent its distribution? My opinion is definate no. A few naff movies on the shelves of HMV are a small price to pay to avoid the slippery slope to censorship.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

Kind of my point.

Take Ichi The Killer. Exceedingly violent film, with a central theme of Sado Masochism, but with the roles blurred and odd. Really good, and violent as it is, it's within the context of the film.

But this? As I said, smacks of mindless titilation dressed up as 'art'

**George Spiggott**

As I understand it such unlicenced material may be owned so an individual could legitimately purchace this film over the internet (for example) from another country. Is this correct?

I'm not sure the high street it the right place for this, perhaps there needs to be another rating band for such material, like the old 'sex shop only' rating.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

LuciusAR wrote:True enough it does sound like a awful and unpleasant film. Not sure if snuff movie is the right term (Weren't snuff movies revealed to be nothing more than an urban myth a while ago?) What I'm asking though, is no matter how sadistic or naff the film may be, as long as all participants in its making are consenting adults, should the state have the power to prevent its distribution? My opinion is definate no. A few naff movies on the shelves of HMV are a small price to pay to avoid the slippery slope to censorship.

Slippery Slope is twaddle.

I am tempted to try and see this film so I can see what all the fuss is about. However, do bare in mind that the BBFC is normally pretty good about letting things through with the right cuts. But from what I read in your first post, it seems that the film itself, beyond showing tits, fannies, bums and pain, is utterly devoid of content.

**Frazzled**

LuciusAR wrote:True enough it does sound like a awful and unpleasant film. Not sure if snuff movie is the right term (Weren't snuff movies revealed to be nothing more than an urban myth a while ago?) What I'm asking though, is no matter how sadistic or naff the film may be, as long as all participants in its making are consenting adults, should the state have the power to prevent its distribution?

yes

My opinion is definate no. A few naff movies on the shelves of HMV are a small price to pay to avoid the slippery slope to censorship.

Your opinion is wrong.

**The Dreadnote**

Gonna have to agree with fraz and grotsnik here. Whilst I agree with your general sentiment, you take it to such extremes it becomes laughable.

**George Spiggott**

LuciusAR wrote:...should the state have the power to prevent its distribution?

Control yes, prevent no.

**Frazzled**

Yes and yes

At least in the states, the State has always had the ability to block what is called obscene materials. This is lower grade junk than pornagrpahy and other free speech, and is very transaction specific. Its where you get the phrase "I'll know it when I see it" from a Surpreme Court Justice. I'm sure Polonius can give you a legal definition, its been a few hundred years since I left law school.

"I knew Dracula, and son, you're no Dracula" Frazzled.

Here we go. Its not Black's Legal definition but should prove illuminating:

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/o002.htm

The exhibition of an obscene picture is an indictable offence at common law, although not charged to have been exhibited in public, if it be averred that the picture was exhibited to sundry persons for money.

For something to be "obscene" it must be shown that the average person, applying contemporary community standards and viewing the material as a whole, would find (1) that the work appeals predominantly to "prurient" interest; (2) that it depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way; and (3) that it lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

An appeal to "prurient" interest is an appeal to a morbid, degrading and unhealthy interest in sex, as distinguished from a mere candid interest in sex.

**Destrado**

Frankly, if they think it isn't adequate for the general population, fine.
But not giving it a classification is denying a movie a chance to be appreciated, regardless of it's content. It's not like whomever is going to pick this movie up isn't going to be informed about it's contents and frankly the rating system is there to prevent kids from being influenced by the more hardcore scenes in movies like "Irreversible".

There are lots of movies without content that are approved, anyway, the difference being this one has sex, torture etc, but frankly how is that different from, say, Saw or some other horror movies? The fact that it's realistic? Then what about the movies where you see someone's arms being cut, or a war movie where someone gets blown to pieces?

Not having seen the movie or read any review, I wasn't completely against it being denied a classification but the truth is, if it's made by adults, with mutual accordance, etc, the audience should be given an opportunity to see it.

**George Spiggott**

Films like this should be licenced like other dangerous things such as firearms, dogs and televisions.

I could apply that legal definition to several legal depictions of sex. I deem such laws as flawed in that they are too subjective. At the same time I feel that there are many groups of people who should not be allowed to see it. A blanket 'everyone in the UK' would not be one of those groups.

**LuciusAR**

I don’t wish to defend this on any sort of artistic level, its sounds crap. I just think that, as a grown man, I am perfectly capable of making that decision for myself. I don’t want the state telling what I should find repulsive and therefore should not watch. I don't wish to take things to illogical conclusions and I don’t seriously think that if we allow this they will be after our copies of Robocop next. But there is just something about the concept of a group of people watching each new film and then deciding if the masses are capable of handling it that just doesn’t sit right with me. it just seems very…Big Brothery.

Classify/ Restrict it = fine. Prohibit it? = Hell no.

I don’t think that’s wrong or taking things to extremes.

**Frazzled**

Where do you draw the line?

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

LuciusAR wrote:I don’t wish to defend this on any sort of artistic level, its sounds crap. I just think that, as a grown man, I am perfectly capable of making that decision for myself. I don’t want the state telling what I should find repulsive and therefore should not watch. I don't wish to take things to illogical conclusions and I don’t seriously think that if we allow this they will be after our copies of Robocop next. But there is just something about the concept of a group of people watching each new film and then deciding if the masses are capable of handling it that just doesn’t sit right with me. it just seems very…Big Brothery.

Classify/ Restrict it = fine. Prohibit it? = Hell no.

I don’t think that’s wrong or taking things to extremes.

Restrictions do precious little. All it does is delay the viewing of people too young to go to the Cinema to see it.

It sounds like this film is utterly devoid of artistic merit, and as I said, is just tits, fannys and torture. Therefore, the people likely to seek it out will do so for sexual gratification, and that means it comes under the obscene publications act.

**LuciusAR**

Frazzled wrote:Where do you draw the line?

1)Where all participants in the films manufacture consenting adults (or have parental consent should a child actor be involved)?

2)Was nobody harmed during the films production?

3)Is the nature of the content made clear on the films packaging/marketing?

4)Is the film classified appropriately so that children may not obtain a copy (through the standard channels anyway)

As long as the answer to all of the above is yes I see no reason for prohibiting the films release.

**Frazzled**

LuciusAR wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Where do you draw the line?

1)Where all participants in the films manufacture consenting adults (or have parental consent should a child actor be involved)?

2)Was nobody harmed during the films production?
***Then you lose. You're missing the discussion from the "actress."

3)Is the nature of the content made clear on the films packaging/marketing?

4)Is the film classified appropriately so that children may not obtain a copy (through the standard channels anyway)

As long as the answer to all of the above is yes I see no reason for prohibiting the films release.

So suicide films are ok? Didn't the UK just prohibit some guy from entering because of his anti-Islam rants?

**Polonius**

I was summoned!

Frazzled wrote:
LuciusAR wrote:True enough it does sound like a awful and unpleasant film. Not sure if snuff movie is the right term (Weren't snuff movies revealed to be nothing more than an urban myth a while ago?) What I'm asking though, is no matter how sadistic or naff the film may be, as long as all participants in its making are consenting adults, should the state have the power to prevent its distribution?

yes

My opinion is definate no. A few naff movies on the shelves of HMV are a small price to pay to avoid the slippery slope to censorship.

Your opinion is wrong.

Well, first off, while opinions can be wrong, simply stating that somebody's opinion is wrong on a controversial topic is, at best, narrow minded.

Secondly, while I'm not sure he's totally correct, in the US at least the trend in 1st amendment jurisprudence is to strike down restrictions that could also be used against protected speech. Meaning, in other words, that the courts are in general more worried about banning too much than in banning too little.

Frazzled wrote:Y
At least in the states, the State has always had the ability to block what is called obscene materials. This is lower grade junk than pornagrpahy and other free speech, and is very transaction specific. Its where you get the phrase "I'll know it when I see it" from a Surpreme Court Justice. I'm sure Polonius can give you a legal definition, its been a few hundred years since I left law school.

"I knew Dracula, and son, you're no Dracula" Frazzled.

The definition Frazz providing was actually slightly (but importantly) incorrect. The key case for Obscenity is the Miller v. California from 1973, and it includes the infamous Miller test. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test

There are two big differences between the US and the rest of the world in this stuff. First, the feds do very little obscenity work, it's almost all state and local. Secondly, prior restraint (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_restraints ) is almost impossible to pull of the US (it hasn't succeeded in over 75 years. Prior restraint is the notion that speech needs to be "approved" by some aspect of the state prior to publication, or "before the fact". A ban on a book would therefor almost never occur in the US, what can happen instead is that the sale of the book can be punish, "after the fact."

So, what this means is that if this film were sold in the US, it wouldn't have to get approval from anybody, any merchant coudl simply offer it for sale. It is possible that the sale of such a film would violate a state or local obscenity law, making it a crime to sell such materials. This is where things get interesting, and the Miller test get's applied.

The primary rule in any law that restricts speech is "it must be narrowly tailored." This means that a city cannot simply ban "films that show sexual activities," as that would ban far too much. This is where the question "Where do you draw the line" stops being an amusing aspect of internet discussion and a really hard part of making law.

Under Miller, to qualify as obscenity material needs to meet all three of the following:
* Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
* Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law,
* Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. (This is also known as the (S)LAPS test- [Serious] Literary, Artistic, Political, Scientific.)

The first element essentially asks, "would the average person in this community, based on the values of that community, find this to basically just be of interest only to a fairly perverted mind?"

The second element requires that the material depict fairly graphic functions, but these functions need to be defined by law. For example, you can ban, say, scat porno in your state, but you have to make it clear what you are banning.

The third element replaces the older, infamous "no redeeming social importance" test by requiring that material have "serious" value.

In the case of the film, the second element seems easy to prove. The third element is arguable, actually, as depending on how it is written and staged it could make a solid argument as a look into the psychology of torture. The first element is also arguable, because you have to prove that not only was this disgusting, but that it appealed to a sexual interest. It's crass and horrifying and all kinds of other bad things, but is it meant to appeal to a sexual interest? It's an interesting discussion.

I think that that it depends on the focus of the film. If it's about getting off on a girl getting tortured, then it could easily be classified as obscenity, but if it's about a more detached view of the torturer/victim relationship, the psychology of it, etc. then I think it would be protected.

**Frazzled**

Polonius wrote:
Well, first off, while opinions can be wrong, simply stating that somebody's opinion is wrong on a controversial topic is, at best, narrow minded.

So?

**LuciusAR**

Frazzled wrote:

2)Was nobody harmed during the films production?
***Then you lose. You're missing the discussion from the "actress."

It take it your referring to:

As she writes in her blog on the episode: "I was wrecked by the end of the shoot, still crying after the cameras stopped
rolling".

To be honest the context of that quote is at best unclear. There is no mention that the actress came to any physical or psychological harm whilst making the film. That she is also quoted later of being critical of the BBFC's decision would seem to rule out any indication that she was mislead about the films nature or had any regrets about participating in it.

Frazzled wrote:So suicide films are ok?

If you mean films showing real people committing actual suicide then of course not. I'm not sure where you got the impression I was suggesting they would be ok from.

If you mean films about the theme of suicide then I see no reason why not. Many films have tackled the theme of suicide in the past.

Frazzled wrote:Didn't the UK just prohibit some guy from entering because of his anti-Islam rants?

Yes they did and I disagreed with that as well.

**Frazzled**

I mention suicide as it could meet all of your criteria.
If torture is not harmful then suicide shouldn't be harmful.

**ShumaGorath**

I wonder if the passion of the christ was censored like this.

**LuciusAR**

Frazzled wrote:I mention suicide as it could meet all of your criteria.
If torture is not harmful then suicide shouldn't be harmful.

LuciusAR wrote:

2)Was nobody harmed during the films production?

How exactly would suicide meet this criteria?

**Destrado**

Polonius.

Wins.

**Polonius**

Destrado wrote:Polonius.

Wins.

Heh, actually I just took a class in 1st amendment law last spring, and the Wikipedia article is really good.

**FITZZ**

ShumaGorath wrote:I wonder if the passion of the christ was censored like this.

I wonder that as well,I know many people saw that film as spiritual,uplifting,belife affirming,I however saw a guy getting the

beat out of him for an hour and a half.
I guess it's all in the eye of the beholder.

**sebster**

Fraz, are you trying to claim actual torture went on the making of this film?

Meanwhile, I find it all rather odd that people are up in arms over a DVD release about an violent bondage movie. Controlling DVD releases doesn’t restrict anyone’s access to this stuff, if that’s your kink you can as much of it as you want because it’s all over the internet.

**Destrado**

Polonius wrote:

Heh, actually I just took a class in 1st amendment law last spring, and the Wikipedia article is really good.

Still you're the one who quoted it and your last paragraph, in my opinion, sums it up.

Kudos, I think you've nailed it pretty well.