BBFC News

  Amityville 4 The Evil Escapes is a 1989 USA horror by Sandor Stern
Starring Patty Duke, Jane Wyatt and Fredric Lehne

The demonic force lurking in Amityville for over 300 years escapes to a remote California mansion. It encounters a struggling family living together by uncertain means. The beast manipulates a little girl by manifesting itself in the form of her dead father. Soon it will be able to possess her completely... is it too late for a young priest to defeat the demon and end the curse?

UK: Passed 15 uncut for strong supernatural threat, bloody images, violence:

• 2021 Screenbound Pictures Ltd video

Amityville 1992 - It's About Time is a 1992 USA horror by Tony Randel
Starring Stephen Macht, Shawn Weatherly and Megan Ward

An architect brings home a mysterious old clock, not knowing that it's haunted by the demonic presence of the Amityville house. Soon, the clock begins to alter time and space and starts to possess members of the household.

UK: Passed 15 uncut for strong gore, violence, threat, language, sexual threat, sex:

• 2021 Screenbound Pictures Ltd video

Both films have had previous 18 ratings reduced by the BBFC to the current 15 ratings.

Local Hero is a 1983 UK comedy drama by Bill Forsyth
Starring Burt Lancaster, Peter Riegert and Fulton Mackay

The film has just been uprated from PG to 12A in 2021 with the BBFC citing 'infrequent partial use of strong language (eg "motherfu...")'.

The BBFC changed its strong language policy in 2021 to treat obscured strong language as if it had been fully voiced.

Summary Notes

An American oil company has plans for a new refinery and sends someone to Scotland to buy up an entire village, but things don't go as expected.

UK: Passed 12A uncut for implied strong language, moderate sex references:

• 2021 cinema release

 

Update: Motherfu...ing Stupidity: The BBFC And 'Implied Language'

28th June 2021. See article from reprobatepress.com

The British censor's curious decision to treat implied swearing no differently than if the actual word had been used.

The BBFC has released a new survey into attitudes towards swearing which shows that while the use of strong language is on the rise, parents are keen to protect their children and do not want to see increased use of strong language in media content.

The survey, carried out by Magenta, was commissioned to find out if parents would accept more frequent uses of strong ('fuck') and very strong language ('cunt') at the 12 and 15 categories, and to understand people's opinions and use of these words in their lives. The report showed that 60% say swearing is part of their daily life, with 30% saying they use strong language more than five years ago.

The survey showed that people think that the BBFC is getting it right when it comes to classification of strong and very strong language in films and TV content. People feel that there is a time and a place for using stronger language, and therefore do not want to see an increase in strong and very strong language at the 12 category.

61% agree that while they are comfortable using strong language with friends they refrain from doing so if children can hear. Only 20% parents say they're comfortable swearing in front of children under 16 at home because they are keen to shield their kids as long as possible.

The survey showed that how words are said raises more concerns than what is said. Language feels more problematic and/or adult when it is; directly targeted at an individual, or used in an aggressive way, especially when used by men towards women; used in a sexual context; used in a sexually violent way or referencing abuse, rape, coercion, or sexually aggressive behaviour.

David Austin, Chief Executive of the BBFC, said:

Children are watching more content on multiple screens, and their parents want to protect them from strong and very strong language wherever they can and for as long as possible. Parents told us they are keen for media industries to share the responsibility - and that's where we come in. Very strong language retains an innate shock value, and for some remains the last taboo. While it can occur in a variety of contexts, including comic and colloquial, it has a particularly distressing potency when used towards women - so it's reassuring to hear people think we are getting it right when it comes to classifying these words.

For the first time, the BBFC has also published a guide to what terms parents can expect to hear in films and TV shows in the U, PG and 12A/12 categories. The guide lays out common words that are permitted at the junior categories, and also includes sections on Hindi language.

David Austin added:

This research has underpinned our knowledge that parents are the gatekeepers when it comes to language at the lower age ratings, U, PG and 12A/12. This is why we've launched our guide to terms at the junior categories, so that parents can feel empowered and confident when choosing content that is right for their families.

Despite parents being keen to protect their children for as long as possible, there's a clear generational divide when it comes to swearing, with 46% of Gen Zs frequently using strong language daily, compared to only 12% of 55-64 year olds and 12% of over 65s. 25% of 16-24 year olds say they would never use strong language in public, compared to75% of over 65s.

When it comes to acronyms - for example WTF - people felt that the meaning is rarely lost on viewers, including children. In most cases, they are treated as if the word were spoken in full. Therefore, the BBFC will classify acronyms as if they are a use of strong language in full.

The BBFC's list of language vs age rating is as follows

	'damn', 'hell', 'God', 'Jesus Christ'. We know that some people find these words particularly offensive, but our research shows us that the majority of parents are comfortable with their children hearing them in U rated films. 'butt', 'jerk'. And, depending on the context, you may also hear the word 'screw' if it is used instead of 'messed up', eg. 'I screwed up'.
	At PG, we only allow mild bad language. If words are used in an aggressive or very frequent way, then this might result in the content being rated higher. 'bloody', 'bugger', 'son of a bitch', 'shit', 'arsehole', 'bastard', 'bollocks', 'piss', 'crap', 'arse', 'ass', 'sod', 'git', 'arse'.
	Prick, wanker, twat, bitch, whore, slag, slut, cock, Depending on context, frequency, and tone: fuck'

The Conjuring: The Devil Made Me Do It is a 2021 USA horror mystery thriller by Michael Chaves
Starring Vera Farmiga, Patrick Wilson and Julian Hilliard

Uncut and MPA R rated in the US. This was initially rated 18 uncut, by the BBFC but the distributors preferred a cut 15 rated version for 2021 cinema release. The film is rated 16 uncut  by IFCO for Irish cinema release.

Both the uncut 18 rated version and the cut 15 rated have just been passed for home video release but it is not yet clear which versions will be released on which formats.

Summary Notes

A chilling story of terror, murder and unknown evil that shocked even experienced real-life paranormal investigators Ed and Lorraine Warren. One of the most sensational cases from their files, it starts with a fight for the soul of a young boy, then takes them beyond anything they'd ever seen before, to mark the first time in U.S. history that a murder suspect would claim demonic possession as a defense.

Versions

category cuts cut:   run: 113m pal: 108m		UK: The UK edit was passed 15 for strong threat, horror, violence after BBFC category cuts: 2021 Warner Bros Entertainment UK Ltd video 2021 cinema release The BBFC commented: The distributor chose to reduce bloody injury detail in a suicide scene in order to obtain a 15 classification. An uncut 18 classification was available. Of course the BBFC is referring to vertical wrist slitting which is disallowed at 15.
uncut run: 113m pal: 108m	Ireland	UK: Passed 18 uncut for strong injury detail, horror: 2021 Warner Bros Entertainment UK Ltd video 2021 cinema release, unreleased as the distributors opted for a cut 15 release Ireland: Rated 16 uncut for very strong gory violence. It is reported that the Irish 16 rated cinema release is the uncut version running at 111:44s US: Uncut and MPA R rated for terror, violence and some disturbing images.

The BBFC discussed the classification of strong language at its board meeting in April 2021. The minutes note:

The BBFC commissioned Magenta to undertake research into people's views on strong and very strong language in media content. While the research revealed that usage of bad language, including strong language, has increased among the general population, there remains a desire to protect young people from over-exposure to strong and very strong language.

The findings indicated that people do not wish to see an increase in the allowance of strong language at 12A, or very strong language at 15. Aggravating and mitigating factors were highlighted, and correspond with current BBFC policy. However, in exceptional circumstances there is some increased allowance for isolated or infrequent use of 'motherfucker' at 12A.

The research also indicated that people prefer to be warned of spoken language as opposed to bleeped strong language, so BBFC short ratings info policies will be updated to accommodate this (e.g. if a work contains a bleeped use of 'fuck', but also a use of 'prick', short Ratings Info (RI) will read moderate bad language').

The research also indicated that acronyms (e.g. WTF) are generally understood by what word is being implied, and so should be treated as if the word is being spoken, unless there are sufficient mitigating factors to defend the acronym at a lower level.

The research also looked at reclaimed use of 'nigger', typically written as 'nigga', when used between members of the black community in a peer-to-peer context. There was some recognition that the term, when used in this context, was not the same as the racist iteration of the word, and nor was it the same as 'bad language/swearing'. The BBFC is therefore trialling racial language in short RI where this word is a category defining issue, but will look to the upcoming discrimination research to further develop our understanding.

Maya The Bee: The Golden Orb is a 2021 Germany / Australia animation adventure by Noel Cleary
Starring Benson Jack Anthony, Frances Berry and Christian Charisiou

The BBFC originally rated the film PG uncut for 2021 cinema release but the distributors preferred a cut U version.

Summary Notes

When Maya, a headstrong little bee, and her best friend Willi, rescue an ant princess they find themselves in the middle of an epic bug battle that will take them to strange new worlds and test their friendship to its limits.

Versions

advised category cuts run: 88m pal: 84m		UK: A pre-cut version was passed U very mild threat, violence, rude humour: 2021 cinema release Thanks to Scott: The cuts were to remove use of 'crap', a no-no at U.
uncut run: 88m pal: 84m		UK: Passed PG uncut for mild bad language: 2021 cinema release not released as distributors preferred a cut U rated release

The Conjuring: The Devil Made Me Do It is a 2021 USA horror mystery thriller by Michael Chaves
Starring Vera Farmiga, Patrick Wilson and Julian Hilliard

Uncut and MPA R rated in the US. This was initially rated 18 uncut, by the BBFC but the distributors preferred a cut 15 rated version for 2021 cinema release. The film is rated 16 uncut by IFCO for Irish cinema release.

Summary Notes

A chilling story of terror, murder and unknown evil that shocked even experienced real-life paranormal investigators Ed and Lorraine Warren. One of the most sensational cases from their files, it starts with a fight for the soul of a young boy, then takes them beyond anything they'd ever seen before, to mark the first time in U.S. history that a murder suspect would claim demonic possession as a defense.

Versions

category cuts cut:   run: 113m pal: 108m		UK: Passed 15 for strong threat, horror, violence after BBFC category cuts: 2021 cinema release The BBFC commented: The distributor chose to reduce bloody injury detail in a suicide scene in order to obtain a 15 classification. An uncut 18 classification was available. Of course the BBFC is referring to vertical wrist slitting which is disallowed at 15.
uncut run: 113m pal: 108m	Ireland	UK: Passed 18 uncut for strong injury detail, horror: 2021 cinema release, unreleased as the distributors opted for a cut 15 release Ireland: Rated 16 uncut for very strong gory violence. It is reported that the Irish 16 rated cinema release is the uncut version running at 111:44s US: Uncut and MPA R rated for terror, violence and some disturbing images.

A new survey by the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) has shown that parents expect British age ratings to be displayed on streaming services accessible by UK families. Many are concerned and angry at the prospect of platforms displaying generic global or European ratings which do not reflect their expectations of how issues including sex, drug misuse, eating disorders, sexual violence and injury detail should be classified.

The research, conducted by YouGov, (presumably commissioned by the BBFC) shows that 82% of parents want BBFC age ratings that reflect (the BBFC's view of ) UK sensitivities to be displayed on streaming services. The survey asked about subscription services such as Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, Apple TV+ and Disney+, and excluded TV on-demand services like the BBC iPlayer, All4 or ITV Hub.

Parents were shown five short clips from films, and were asked blind whether they agreed with two alternative age ratings (one assigned by the BBFC and the other by a European regulator) without being told which regulator had assigned the rating. In every case, the overwhelming majority (between 74% and 94%) of British parents agreed with the BBFC rating - and were able to identify the reasons why the BBFC has classified the content more restrictively than the alternative lower European rating, including depictions of eating disorders, sexual violence and drug misuse.

Parents reacted unfavourably at the prospect of platforms applying ratings that do not reflect UK classification standards and therefore potentially allowed children to access age inappropriate content. A majority said they felt concerned (54%), while others felt angry (21%), nervous (16%) and confused (15%).

Parents also want greater consistency online and offline, with 90% saying that they want to see the same age ratings on streaming services that they see in the cinema and on DVD and Blu-ray packaging.

David Austin, Chief Executive of the BBFC, said:

It's very clear from this research that parents in the UK want BBFC age ratings on streaming services to reflect standards that they know and trust. The UK public without prior knowledge instinctively agreed with the BBFC ratings in our research rather than those of another European regulator - be that because of concerns about sexual violence, content around anorexia or drug misuse. This result is predictable and understandable and reflects the fact BBFC ratings are based on UK public attitudes to harm and offence which inevitably differ to those in other countries. People trust and understand our ratings, which is important for child protection - and for parents' peace of mind. But as cinema, DVD and streaming services increasingly converge it is important that the standards on which ratings are based are applied as consistently and comprehensively online as they are offline.

The research also demonstrated that parents find generic age labels such as caution or guidance confusing and unhelpful when used on subscription streaming services. There was no consensus on what age content labelled guidance was suitable for, with 12% saying over 12s, 13% saying over 15s, 4% saying adults only, and one in ten saying they didn't know. When it came to caution, 20% thought this meant the content was suitable for over 12s, 28% for over 15s, 13% for adults only, and 11% said they didn't know.

There is a growing body of evidence that parents want to see BBFC age ratings online, with previous BBFC research showing that 83% of parents trust BBFC ratings, and 97% of people saying they benefit from age ratings being in place. Nearly nine in ten (88%) parents find BBFC ratings on Netflix useful.

David Austin added:

Parents have told us time and time again that generic age labels on subscription streaming services - like 'caution' and 'guidance' - are just not good enough, and that online ratings must align with the ratings they know and trust in cinemas and on DVD. We are calling on streaming platforms to give their UK customers what they want - BBFC age ratings on all content available. We are ready and willing to work with them.

New internet laws will be published today in the draft Online Safety Bill to protect children online and tackle some of the worst abuses on social media, including racist hate crimes.

Ministers have added landmark new measures to the Bill to safeguard freedom of expression and democracy, ensuring necessary online protections do not lead to unnecessary censorship.

The draft Bill marks a milestone in the Government's fight to make the internet safe. Despite the fact that we are now using the internet more than ever, over three quarters of UK adults are concerned about going online, and fewer parents feel the benefits outweigh the risks of their children being online -- falling from 65 per cent in 2015 to 50 per cent in 2019.

The draft Bill includes changes to put an end to harmful practices, while ushering in a new era of accountability and protections for democratic debate, including:

• New additions to strengthen people's rights to express themselves freely online, while protecting journalism and democratic political debate in the UK.

• Further provisions to tackle prolific online scams such as romance fraud, which have seen people manipulated into sending money to fake identities on dating apps.

• Social media sites, websites, apps and other services hosting user-generated content or allowing people to talk to others online must remove and limit the spread of illegal and harmful content such as child sexual abuse, terrorist material and suicide content.

• Ofcom will be given the power to fine companies failing in a new duty of care up to £18 million or ten per cent of annual global turnover, whichever is higher, and have the power to block access to sites.

• A new criminal offence for senior managers has been included as a deferred power. This could be introduced at a later date if tech firms don't step up their efforts to improve safety.

The draft Bill will be scrutinised by a joint committee of MPs before a final version is formally introduced to Parliament.

The following elements of the Bill aim to create the most progressive, fair and accountable system in the world. This comes only weeks after a boycott of social media by sports professionals and governing bodies in protest at the racist abuse of footballers online, while at the same time concerns continue to be raised at social media platforms arbitrarily removing content and blocking users.

Duty of care

In line with the government's response to the Online Harms White Paper , all companies in scope will have a duty of care towards their users so that what is unacceptable offline will also be unacceptable online.

They will need to consider the risks their sites may pose to the youngest and most vulnerable people and act to protect children from inappropriate content and harmful activity.

They will need to take robust action to tackle illegal abuse, including swift and effective action against hate crimes, harassment and threats directed at individuals and keep their promises to users about their standards.

The largest and most popular social media sites (Category 1 services) will need to act on content that is lawful but still harmful such as abuse that falls below the threshold of a criminal offence, encouragement of self-harm and mis/disinformation. Category 1 platforms will need to state explicitly in their terms and conditions how they will address these legal harms and Ofcom will hold them to account.

The draft Bill contains reserved powers for Ofcom to pursue criminal action against named senior managers whose companies do not comply with Ofcom's requests for information. These will be introduced if tech companies fail to live up to their new responsibilities. A review will take place at least two years after the new regulatory regime is fully operational.

The final legislation, when introduced to Parliament, will contain provisions that require companies to report child sexual exploitation and abuse (CSEA) content identified on their services. This will ensure companies provide law enforcement with the high-quality information they need to safeguard victims and investigate offenders.

Freedom of expression

The Bill will ensure people in the UK can express themselves freely online and participate in pluralistic and robust debate.

All in-scope companies will need to consider and put in place safeguards for freedom of expression when fulfilling their duties. These safeguards will be set out by Ofcom in codes of practice but, for example, might include having human moderators take decisions in complex cases where context is important.

People using their services will need to have access to effective routes of appeal for content removed without good reason and companies must reinstate that content if it has been removed unfairly. Users will also be able to appeal to Ofcom and these complaints will form an essential part of Ofcom's horizon-scanning, research and enforcement activity.

Category 1 services will have additional duties. They will need to conduct and publish up-to-date assessments of their impact on freedom of expression and demonstrate they have taken steps to mitigate any adverse effects.

These measures remove the risk that online companies adopt restrictive measures or over-remove content in their efforts to meet their new online safety duties. An example of this could be AI moderation technologies falsely flagging innocuous content as harmful, such as satire.

Democratic content

Ministers have added new and specific duties to the Bill for Category 1 services to protect content defined as 'democratically important'. This will include content promoting or opposing government policy or a political party ahead of a vote in Parliament, election or referendum, or campaigning on a live political issue.

Companies will also be forbidden from discriminating against particular political viewpoints and will need to apply protections equally to a range of political opinions, no matter their affiliation. Policies to protect such content will need to be set out in clear and accessible terms and conditions and firms will need to stick to them or face enforcement action from Ofcom.

When moderating content, companies will need to take into account the political context around why the content is being shared and give it a high level of protection if it is democratically important.

For example, a major social media company may choose to prohibit all deadly or graphic violence. A campaign group could release violent footage to raise awareness about violence against a specific group. Given its importance to democratic debate, the company might choose to keep that content up, subject to warnings, but it would need to be upfront about the policy and ensure it is applied consistently.

Journalistic content

Content on news publishers' websites is not in scope. This includes both their own articles and user comments on these articles.

Articles by recognised news publishers shared on in-scope services will be exempted and Category 1 companies will now have a statutory duty to safeguard UK users' access to journalistic content shared on their platforms.

This means they will have to consider the importance of journalism when undertaking content moderation, have a fast-track appeals process for journalists' removed content, and will be held to account by Ofcom for the arbitrary removal of journalistic content. Citizen journalists' content will have the same protections as professional journalists' content.

Online fraud

Measures to tackle user-generated fraud will be included in the Bill. It will mean online companies will, for the first time, have to take responsibility for tackling fraudulent user-generated content, such as posts on social media, on their platforms. This includes romance scams and fake investment opportunities posted by users on Facebook groups or sent via Snapchat.

Romance fraud occurs when a victim is tricked into thinking that they are striking up a relationship with someone, often through an online dating website or app, when in fact this is a fraudster who will seek money or personal information.

Analysis by the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau found in 2019/20 there were 5,727 instances of romance fraud in the UK (up 18 per cent year on year). Losses totalled more than £60 million.

Fraud via advertising, emails or cloned websites will not be in scope because the Bill focuses on harm committed through user-generated content.

The Government is working closely with industry, regulators and consumer groups to consider additional legislative and non-legislative solutions. The Home Office will publish a Fraud Action Plan after the 2021 spending review and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport will consult on online advertising, including the role it can play in enabling online fraud, later this year.

The BBFC has just re-rated two Indiana Jones films as 12A compared with all previous releases being PG.

Raiders Of The Lost Ark is a 1981 USA / UK action adventure by Steven Spielberg
Starring Harrison Ford, Karen Allen and Paul Freeman

A 2021 cinema release has been passed 12A uncut for moderate violence, threat, horror.

Indiana Jones And The Last Crusade is a 1989 USA / UK action adventure by Steven Spielberg
Starring Harrison Ford, Sean Connery and Alison Doody

  A 2021 cinema release has been passed 12A uncut for moderate violence, horror, threat.

It seems that the BBFC is inflating ratings, especially when there is  some sort of fashionably woke concern. Perhaps parents will now subtract a rating level to get a more realistic rating estimate.

The BBFC arbitrates on contested decisions on decisions that mobile phone companies make on blocking websites to customers who have not verified themselves as over 18.

One such decision shows that the BBFC are imposing their woke morality on such decisions. A notable case is the website is Christian Voice. This group has long features on Melon Farmers for being a pretty standard christian group with a pet peeve about gay people, considered something of a biblical abomination, citing a famous verse from the Bible in the book Leviticus.

The BBFC writes about two christian websites:

Christian Voice - christianvoice.org.uk

The BBFC viewed the website on 29 March 2021. The URL leads to the UK-based campaign group which advocates for legal and political reform through a literal interpretation of the Bible. Numerous articles on the site make negative generalisations about particular groups of people (for example, transgender people) which could be interpreted as having the potential to encourage discriminatory and harmful views.

As a result, we would classify the site at least 18.

The Good News About God - goodnewsaboutgod.com

The BBFC viewed the website on 15 January 2021. We noted that the site presents as a religious blog discussing faith and health. Numerous articles on the site make negative generalisations about particular groups of people (for example, Jewish people) which could be interpreted as having the potential to encourage discriminatory and harmful views.

As such, we did not consider the website to be suitable for people under the age of 18 and would classify it at least 18.

The BBFC have also pronounced that two rather political websites that are very critical of islam and judaism should also be banned to under 18s:

The Religion of Peace - thereligionofpeace.com

The BBFC viewed the website on 17 February 2021. We noted that the site presents as a current affairs website discussing news concerning Muslims and Islam. Numerous articles on the site make negative generalisations about particular groups of people (for example, Muslims) which could be interpreted as having the potential to encourage discriminatory and harmful views.

 As such, we did not consider the website to be suitable for people under the age of 18 and would classify it at least 18.

Jihad Watch - jihadwatch.com

The BBFC viewed the website on 17 February 2021. We noted that the site presents as a current affairs website discussing news concerning Muslims and Islam. Numerous articles on the site make negative generalisations about particular groups of people (for example, Muslims) which could be interpreted as having the potential to encourage discriminatory and harmful views.

As such, we did not consider the website to be suitable for people under the age of 18 and would classify it at least 18.

Heritage and Destiny - heritageanddestiny.com

The BBFC viewed the website on 22 March 2021. The URL leads to a political site with articles and reviews expressing an ethno-nationalist perspective. During our sampling of the site we noted uncritical examples of Holocaust scepticism, anti-Semitism and discrimination, all of which could be interpreted as encouraging harmful attitudes towards particular groups (for example, Jewish people).

As such we would classify this site at least 18.