TOP

1. Any material which is in breach of the prevailing criminal law. This includes any material judged to be obscene under the current interpretation of the Obscene Publications Act . This would include scenes of Bestiality, Necrophilia & defecation (“hardsports”). The authorities also (dubiously) contend that  fisting and urolagnia are also obscene. urolagnia is defined as urinating during a sex scene, or “watersports”. Urinating when not related to sex is acceptable.
2. Any material (including dialogue) likely to encourage an interest in sexually abusive material (eg paedophilia, incest, rape) which may include adults role-playing as non-adults.
3. The depiction of any sexual activity which involves lack of consent (whether real or simulated). Any form of physical restraint which prevents participants from indicating a withdrawal of consent (e.g. ball-gag). The infliction of pain or physical harm, real or (in a sexual context) simulated. Some allowance may be made for mild consensual activity. penetration by any object likely to cause actual harm or associated with violence
4. Any sexual threats, humiliation or abuse which does not form part of a clearly consenting role-playing game. Strong abuse, even if consensual, is unlikely to be acceptable.

• Aroused genitalia
• Masturbation
• Oral-genital contact including kissing, licking and sucking
• Penetration by finger, penis, tongue, vibrator or dildo
• Non-harmful fetish material
• Group sexual activity
• Ejaculation and semen

1. The S&M genre is a difficult area, as witnessed by the recent debate surrounding the 2007/8 Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill, the “possession of extreme porn” clauses of which are on the Statute Book but have not yet been implemented. Currently (as of May 2008) S&M is not prohibited in its entirety – some allowance is made for clearly consensual role-playing games where it is clear that no one suffers any real injury or significant pain. However, such material as is passed by the Censor is likely to be given an ‘R18’ certificate rather than an ‘18’ even in the absence of explicit sex, depending on the detail and treatment. The reason for this is given that its presence in general shops may offend public sensibilities. Focus on activities such as urination or bondage could confound public expectation at ‘18’ and/or encourage potentially harmful imitation on the part of uninitiated viewers.
2. Enemas. The Board's policy is that you can show enemas in 'R18' tapes. However, you must not see any faecal matter being emitted and the fluid from the enema must not be released onto (or into) another person. This position is based on the latest advice from the Police and the Crown Prosecution Service. There have been a number of recent cases in which videotapes depicting enemas were found to be obscene by juries.
3. Fisting. The BBFC routinely cut fisting as the authorities have defined fisting as obscene. They claim that juries regularly find such scenes to be obscene. The BBFC define fisting as penetration with all five digits beyond the last knuckle
4. Hot Wax. Again, on Police/CPS advice, the BBFC disallow scenes of hot wax dripping on genitals or the anus. There is no prohibition concerning less sensitive parts of the body.
5. “Squirting/female ejaculation”. The BBFC have stated that what has been often been presented to them as examples of 'female ejaculation' are in fact nothing other than straightforward scenes of urination masquerading as 'female ejaculation'. This, they suggest, has been confirmed by a female sexual health expert who the Board has consulted on a range of issues relating to videos intended for the 'R18' category. They consider “squirting” films as a cynical attempt on the part of porn distributors to get around the constraints imposed on “water sports” in sex tapes by the current interpretation of the Obscene Publications Act. It is worth noting that the kind of material that the Board has been cutting is widely available in other European countries (France, Germany, Netherlands, etc) where there is no equivalent legal restriction on the use of urine in sex videos. Indeed, although videos featuring “water sports” are very much in evidence on the continent, videos purporting to show 'female ejaculation'  seem to be invisible. Perhaps female ejaculation is less exciting (or profitable) to pornographers and their viewers than urination? The BBFC is of the opinion that “female ejaculation” videos neither inform nor educate about female sexuality but merely offer graphic (and grossly distorted) views of urination in a sexual context for the arousal of viewers. Because urination scenes are regularly found to be obscene by juries in the UK, the Board would not grant any form of certificate, not even an R18.
6. Titles. Any word such as “teen” or “teenage” in the titles of films intended for an adult audience is almost certain to be rejected. The rationale given for this is that the title of a work is likely to be seen by many members of the public who would never choose to watch the contents It will be displayed on packaging and promotional material, and will even appear on the BBFC's website database! The potential for offence is therefore significantly greater than for language which appears in the body of the work itself, which is encountered only by those who have chosen to view the work in question. The degree of offence likely to be caused will depend to some extent on how likely the public are to come across the title by accident.
   In addition to considerations of 'offence', the BBFC is also concerned about titles which apparently promise or suggest illicit pleasures even though the material itself is neither harmful nor illegal. In future, therefore, the BBFC are likely to insist on major changes to a title of a work if it falls into one of the following three categories:
   
   
   1. It suggests that sexual participants may be under 18 or that illegal sexual activity (eg. incest, rape) is being depicted. Words such as schoolgirl, scout, teenage, very young and child are unlikely to be acceptable if the title has sexual connotations unless the title as a whole makes it clear that the content is not concerned with the presentation of sex involving under-18s.
   2. It suggests that the content may be degrading, dehumanising or humiliating. Words such as 'bitch', 'whore' and 'slut' may be unacceptable if used in a context which appears to degrade women.
   3. It is likely to cause unusual offence to a significant proportion of those who are likely to come across it. The use of pornographic language in a title is unlikely to be acceptable at 18. Particularly crude or explicit titles are unlikely to be acceptable even at R18.

Supplying porn
There are a number of legal restrictions relating to the supply of pornography. Under the Video Recordings Act 1984 it is illegal to offer to supply an 'R18' classified video work other than in a licensed sex shop. This prohibition includes offers to supply by mail order from websites based outside the UK: making the offer in the UK is an offence in itself even if the supply would originate from abroad.

It is also illegal to offer to supply an unclassified video work unless that work is exempt from classification. Hardcore pornography is, by its nature, not exempt from classification.

Some video works include references to postal or website addresses, a kind of advertising commercial, and BBFC legal advice is that they are entitled to cut these if they constitute part of an offer to supply R18 material or its equivalent (or stronger). Legal advice further suggests that whether a reference to an address constitutes part of an illegal offer to supply will depend on both the nature of the reference and the nature of the video in which it appears. A website or postal address with no suggestion that goods or services relating to R18 material or its equivalent (or stronger) can be purchased from it will normally be passed  uncut.

A website or postal address accompanied by a suggestion (verbal, text or pictorial) that goods or services relating to R18 material or its equivalent (or stronger) can be purchased from it will normally be cut if a visit to the website reveals that it appears to be offering R18 material or its equivalent (or stronger) by mail order.
Sending pornographic material through the UK postal service is an offence. However, “mail order” involves an offer to sell a tape, disc, chip or other storage device by means of the post or a parcel or courier service or similar. An offer to supply hardcore material by video-on-demand (streaming, downloads, etc) or other manner in which no physical product changes hands does not presently count as mail order supply of a video work; this may change to take electronic mail into account.

Acknowledgements are due to the BBFC www.bbfc.co.uk and especially to the censorship watch organizations Melon Farmers www.melonfarmers.co.uk and Backlash www.backlash.co.uk

R. v. Peacock 2012.

Michael Peacock was acquitted on January 6th 2012 at Southwark Crown Court on six counts of distributing obscene DVDs under the Obscene Publications Act 1959, the same legislation under which Penguin Books were historically prosecuted for publishing Lady Chatterley’s Lover.
The acts shown in Peacock's DVDs, such as fisting and urination, are not in themselves illegal but their depiction in publications and films is likely to fall within the scope of the 1959 Act if a jury considers this could “deprave or corrupt” the reader, viewer or listener.
After watching large parts of the DVDs the jury found it was not the case here and found Michael Peacock not guilty.
As a result of the trial, SCD9, the Metropolitan Police unit dealing with human exploitation and organised crime, was due to meet with the Crown Prosecution Service and the British Board of Film Classification to review guidelines on obscenity.

The OPA is looking very dated in the internet age, especially as regards the interpretation of "deprave and corrupt". The fact that the material may "shock" the general viewer no longer appears to be sufficient grounds for a successful prosecution; indeed, the argument that those who either buy or pay a subscription to view such material know perfectly well what they are letting themselves in for. However, we should be wary of assuming, in the light of the Peacock case, that there will be no more prosecutions under the OPA; a different jury in a different place might well have returned a different verdict. Much will depend on whether or not the Crown Prosecution guidelines and policy regatding obscene publications are re-appraised in the light of this judgement.

For more details on the case and the background to it see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Peacock