It may be helpful to keep in mind that censorship of audiovisual images has a long history in the United Kingdom.
LinkQUOTE
The BBFC was established in 1912 as the British Board of Film Censors by the film industry (who would rather manage their own censorship than have national or local government do it for them).
. . . .
Historically the Board has faced strong criticism for an over-zealous attitude in censoring film. Prior to the liberalising decade of the 1960s, films were routinely and extensively censored as a means of social control. For example, Rebel Without a Cause was cut in order to reduce the "possibility of teenage rebellion". Ingmar Bergman's Smiles of a Summer Night was cut to remove "overtly sexual or provocative" language.
Not all the films which have been censored by the Board are "nice," of course.
QUOTE
. . . two films from the 1970s, Love Camp 7 (rejected in 2002) and Women in Cellblock 9 (rejected in 2004), both of which contain substantial scenes of sexual violence, have remained completely banned following a re-submission since 2000.
The current controversy reminds me of the "video nasties" affair of the 1980's:
LinkQUOTE
Video nasty was a term coined in the United Kingdom in the 1980s that originally applied to a number of films distributed on video that were held by some to be unfit for domestic viewing. Many of these "video nasties" were low-budget horror films produced in Italy and the United States. The furore created by the moral crusade against video nasties led to the introduction of the Video Recordings Act 1984 which imposed a stricter code of censorship on videos than was required for cinema release. Several major studio productions ended up being banned on video, falling foul of legislation that was designed to control the distribution of video nasties.
Maybe you don't feel much sympathy for the makers of cheap gore movies, but perhaps you don't want the government telling you can't rent certain films which are otherwise legal.
QUOTE
In particular, The Exorcist, which was made available by Warner Home Video in December of 1981, was not granted a video certification by the BBFC and was withdrawn from shelves in 1986. Similarly Straw Dogs was also denied video certification and removed from video stores.
Let's be clear here; pornographic material which depicts
real acts of violence and abuse which are inherently illegal are, of course, not allowed under the law. Nobody is arguing about that. What sets off alarms in my head are the words "appears to be." Such words would seem to make it possible to ban any film which realistically portrays
simulated acts of sexual violence. This, it seems to me, goes too far.
Yes, much of this material is repulsive. Yes, there will be some deranged individuals who will inspired to evil acts because of it. Yes, there should be age restrictions on access to this material. Yes, people should speak out against material which eroticizes violence. This does not mean that I support a complete ban on such material.
The connection between violent pornography and sexual violence is a complex question. You can easily find data to support just about any hypothesis. I found it interesting that a conservative Christian organization, although it makes as strong a case against pornography as possible, admits that a casual relationship between pornography and violence cannot be proven.
LinkQUOTE
Proving cause and effect in pornography is virtually impossible because ethically researchers cannot do certain kinds of research. Researcher Dolf Zillman says, "Men cannot be placed at risk of developing sexually violent inclinations by extensive exposure to violent or nonviolent pornography, and women cannot be placed at risk of becoming victims of such inclinations."
The most that anti-pornography groups can claim is that violent criminals often had an interest in violent pornography before they committed their crimes.
So what can be done to combat sexual violence? I believe that all would agree that the proper use of law enforcement is a key factor. Freely discussing the nature of sexual violence, rather than keeping the facts hidden in the dark, is important. State as often and as strongly as possible that violence is not erotic.
A goverment ban on otherwise legal violent pornography, no matter how horrifying the material might be, would, I believe, be of little benefit. Of course, private groups are free to organize voluntary boycotts of businesses as they please.