The document discusses censorship and regulation of media content across different rating systems used in the UK, including the Universal, Parental Guidance, 12, 15, 18, and R18 ratings. It outlines the types of content that may be depicted at each rating level, such as language, violence, sex, drugs, and more. The higher rating levels have fewer restrictions and can contain increasingly strong depictions of such content for older audiences.

2. CENSORSHIP: The effect of whatever is being published –
the need to cut a certain clip or scene out
REGULATION: Rules of what is right or wrong – assessing
whether it meets the rules
What is censored/regulated in media products:
- Drugs
- Sex
- Horrific Events/gore
- Violence
- Nudity
- Language
- Imitable Techniques
- Racial Issues
- Sexual Violence

3. As the power of the medium of moving pictures skyrocketed, a number of scandals rocked
Hollywood during the 1920‟s
The code was enforced in 1934, however ended in 1967 due to the revolving society – people
were pushing the boundaries and the code was no longer relevant as the 1950‟s was the
revolution of the T.V.
In 1968 the code was replaced by a rating system; G – for general audience, MPG – All ages
admitted by parental guidance suggested, R – no one under 16 admitted
However, the code did not apply to foreign films and the focus of the code was taken off
movies during the revolution of the television in the 1950‟s

5. A 'U' film should be suitable for audiences aged four years and over and should be set within a positive
moral framework, offering reassuring counterbalances to any violence, threat or horror. The Consumer
Advice will indicate whether the product is suitable for pre-school children.
Context of Certificate Universal:
- Discrimination: No discriminatory language or behaviour unless clearly disapproved of.
- Drugs: No references to illegal drugs or drug misuse unless they are infrequent and innocuous, or there is a
clear educational purpose or anti-drug message suitable for young children.
- Horror: Scary sequences should be mild, brief and unlikely to cause undue anxiety to young children. the
outcome should be reassuring.
- Imitable Behaviour: No potentially dangerous behaviour which young children are likely to copy. No
emphasis on realistic or easily accessibly weapons.
- Language: Infrequent use only of very mild bad language.
- Nudity: Occasional natural nudity, with no sexual context.
- Sex: Mild sexual behaviour (for example, kissing) and references only (for example, to 'making love').
- Theme: While problematic themes may be present, their treatment must be sensitive and appropriate for
young children.
- Violence: Mild violence only. Occasional mild threat or menace only

6. Parental Guidance means that the product is for general viewing, but some scenes may be unsuitable for
young children. The content should not disturb a child and parents are advised to consider whether the film
may upset younger or more sensitive children.
Context of Certificate Parental Guidance:
- Discrimination: Discriminatory language or behaviour is unlikely to be acceptable unless clearly
disapproved of or in an educational or historical context. Discrimination by a character with which children
can readily identify is unlikely to be acceptable.
- Drugs: References to illegal drugs or drug misuse must be innocuous or carry a suitable anti-drug message.
- Horror: Frightening sequences should not be prolonged or intense. Fantasy settings may be a mitigating
factor.
- Imitable Behaviour: No detail of potentially dangerous behaviour which young children are likely to copy.
No glamorisation of realistic or easily accessibly weapons.
- Language: Mild bad language only.
- Nudity: Natural nudity, with no sexual context.
- Sex: Sexual activity may be implied, but should be discreet and infrequent. Mild sex references and
innuendo only.
- Theme: Where more serious issues are featured (for example, domestic violence) nothing in their treatment
should condone unacceptable behaviour.
- Violence: Moderate violence, without detail, may be allowed, if justified by its context (for
example, history, comedy or fantasy).

7. Where material is suitable, in general, for those aged 12 and over. Works classified at this level may upset
children under 12 or contain material which many parents will find unsuitable for them. Exists only for video
works - no one younger than 12 may rent or buy a 12 rated video.
Features of Certificate 12:
- Discrimination: discriminatory language or behaviour must not be endorsed by the work as a whole.
Aggressive discriminatory language or behaviour is unlikely to be acceptable unless clearly condemned.
- Drugs: Any misuse of drugs must be infrequent and should not be glamorised or give instructional detail.
- Horror: moderate physical and psychological threat may be permitted, provided disturbing sequences are
not frequent or sustained.
- Imitable Behaviour: Dangerous behaviour (for example, hanging, suicide and self-harming) should not
dwell on detail which could be copied, or appear pain or harm free. Easily accessibly weapons should not be
glamorised.
- Language: Moderate language is allowed. The use of strong language (for example, 'f***') must be
infrequent.
- Nudity: Nudity is allowed, but in a sexual context must be brief and discreet.
- Sex: Sexual activity may be briefly, and discreetly portrayed. Sex references should not go beyond what is
suitable for younger teenagers. Frequent crude references are unlikely to be acceptable.
- Theme: Mature themes are acceptable, but their treatment must be suitable for young teenagers.
- Violence: Moderate violence is allowed but should not dwell on detail. There should be no emphasis on
injuries or blood, but occasional gory moments may be permitted if justified by the context. Sexual violence
may only be implied or briefly, and discreetly indicated, and must have a strong contextual justification.

8. No one younger than 15 may see a '15' film in a cinema. No one younger than 15 may rent or buy a '15' rated
video work.
Features of Certificate 15:
- Discrimination: The work as a whole must not endorse discriminatory language or behaviour.
- Drugs: Drug taking may be shown but the film as a whole must not promote or encourage drug misuse. The
misuse of easily accessibly and highly dangerous substances (for example, aerosols or solvents) is unlikely to
be acceptable.
- Horror: Strong threat and menace are permitted unless sadistic or sexualised.
- Imitable Behaviour: Dangerous behaviour (for example, hanging, suicide and self-harming) should not
dwell on detail which could be copied. Easily accessible weapons should not be glamorised.
- Language: There may be frequent use of strong language (for example, f***). The strongest terms (for
example, c***) may be acceptable if justified by the context. Aggressive or repeated use of the strongest
language is unlikely to be acceptable.
- Nudity: Nudity may be allowed in a sexual context but without strong detail. There are no constraints on
nudity in a non-sexual or educational context.
- Sex: Sexual activity may be portrayed without strong detail. There may be strong verbal references to sexual
behaviour, but the strongest references are unlikely to be acceptable unless justified by context. Works whose
primary purpose is sexual arousal or stimulation are unlikely to be acceptable.
- Theme: No theme is prohibited, provided the treatment is appropriate for 15 year olds.
- Violence: Violence may be strong but should not dwell on the infliction of pain or injury. the strongest gory
images are unlikely to be acceptable. Strong sadistic or sexualised violence is also unlikely to be acceptable.
There may be detailed verbal references to sexual violence but any portrayal of sexual violence must be
discreet and have a strong contextual justification.

9. Suitable only for adults only. No one younger than 18 may see an '18' rated film at the cinema or rent or buy
an '18' rated video. In line with consistent findings of the BBFC's public consultations and The Human Rights
Act 1998, at '18' the BBFC's guideline concerns will not normally override the principle that adults should be
free to choose their own entertainment. Exceptions are most likely in the following areas:
- Where the material is in breach of the criminal law, or has been created through the commission of a
criminal offence.
- Where material or treatment appears to the BBFC to risk harm to individuals or, through their
behaviour, society - for example, any detailed portrayal of violent or dangerous acts, or of illegal drug
use, which may cause harm to public health or morals. This may include portrayals of sexual or sexualised
violence which might, for example, eroticise or endorse sexual assault.
- Where there are more explicit images of sexual activity which cannot be justified by context. Such images
may be appropriate in 'R18' works, and in 'sex works' would normally be confined to that category.

10. To be shown only in specially licensed cinemas, or supplied only in licensed sex shops, and to adults of
not less than 18 years
The „R18‟ category is a special and legally restricted classification primarily for explicit works of consenting
sex or strong fetish material involving adults. Films may only be shown to adults in specially licensed
cinemas, and video works may be supplied to adults only in licensed sex shops. „R18‟ video works may not
be supplied by mail order. The following content is not acceptable:
any material which is in breach of the criminal law, including material judged to be obscene under the
current interpretation of the Obscene Publications Act 1959
material (including dialogue) likely to encourage an interest in sexually abusive activity (for
example, paedophilia, incest or rape) which may include adults role-playing as non-adults
the portrayal 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
the infliction of pain or acts which may cause lasting physical harm, whether real or (in a sexual context)
simulated. Some allowance may be made for moderate, non-abusive, consensual activity
penetration by any object associated with violence or likely to cause physical harm
any sexual threats, humiliation or abuse which does not form part of a clearly consenting role-playing game.
Strong physical or verbal abuse, even if consensual, is unlikely to be acceptable.

11. Casino Royale – „torture of Bond‟ scene:
The BBFC required the film to be cut to remove a bit from the torture scene where
bond is first sitting in the chair and has the draped over his shoulders, the removal
of lingering shots of the rope and close shots of Bond‟s facial expression and a
substitution of a more distant shot of the beating – the BBFC stated, “there is no
dwelling on detail or emphasis on injury” claiming that they found these changes
acceptable and were able to classify the film as a 12A.nOn the other hand, although
these changes were put in place, it was still questioned whether the classification
was too low as some scenes which included violence and nudity were still included
in the film.
Human Centipede 2:
The BBFC originally banned this film on the grounds that there was too much sexual
violence and that it was on the verge of obscenity. The directors agreed to make the
advised 32 cuts before it was classified by the BBFC as a certificate 18 in 2006.

12. The Falling Man – 9/11 censorship:
The photograph, shown on the right gives the impression that the man is falling straight down. However, this is one
in a series of photographs of his fall, and viewed with the others it is evident that he is tumbling through the air.
The photographer has noted that, in at least two cases, newspaper stories commenting on the image have attracted a
barrage of criticism from readers who found the image "disturbing”. Regarding the social and cultural significance of
The Falling Man, theologian Mark D. Thompson of Moore Theological College says that "perhaps the most powerful
image of despair at the beginning of the twenty-first century is not found in art, or literature, or even popular music.
It is found in a single photograph.“
“was bright and totalizing and some of us said it was unreal. When we say a thing is unreal, we mean it is too real, a phenomenon
so unaccountable and yet so bound to the power of objective fact that we can’t tilt it to the slant of our perceptions.”
The images of 9/11 (including the photo of the Falling Man) were seen as so disturbing and upsetting that they were
promptly banned from American television almost as soon as they were broadcast, and viewers in the U.S. only had
access to them via the internet and media circulations on other continents. There are two things, however, that made
the image different: On the one hand, it started an intensive (and partly excruciatingly frustrating) search for the
identity of the victim which got many people involved in the individual story.
On the other, the image seemed to possess an almost „aesthetic‟ quality and certainly was received by many viewers
as an „abstraction of real terror‟ and thus, as a aestheticization of the attacks and their tragic effects.
Despite this censorship, “the falling man” rapidly gained a velocity of its own as a charged image, an icon
The image, its story and its cultural resonance have been turned into a film that adds a very powerful dimension to
the documentation of 9/11 since it not only follows the factual events but shows how immediately after the
attacks, the sheer violence of the experience and its resistance to representation necessitated and even enforced the
creation of narratives, of icons and of [yes!] artworks that would endow the event with meaning. Not just any
meaning, to be sure, and certainly not the meaning intended ostensibly by the terrorists.
http://www.blogs.uni-osnabrueck.de/dondelillo/the-fiction/falling-man/

13. Cinematograph Act was enforced in 1909 to help regulate media products
Harder to regulate the internet nowadays due it‟s global nature etc., for
example, impartiality – differences between the UK and US, and in Sweden
its not an offence to possess what in the UK would be deemed unlawful
Has led to a move towards self – censorship/regulation
BBC guidelines for online writers: “Swearing is not big and its not
clever, so avoid it as much as possible. If it‟s in a quote, always star the
following, c***, f***, w***, f******* and w*****”
Broadcasting Standards Commission (later replaced by Ofcom) even rated
swear words in 2002 – however, they rated normal swear words more
offensive than racists ones
Films and increasingly video games, are still being blamed for violence in
society today...

14. The Virginia Tech massacre was a school shooting that took place on April 16, 2007, on the campus of
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia, United States. Seung-Hui Cho
shot and killed 32 people and wounded 17 others in two separate attacks, approximately two hours
apart, before committing suicide (another 6 people were injured escaping from classroom windows). The
massacre is the deadliest shooting incident by a single gunman in U.S. history. It was also the worst act of
mass murder of college students since Syracuse University lost 35 students in the bombing of Pan Am Flight
103.It is also the second-deadliest act of mass murder at a school campus in the United States, behind the Bath
School bombing of 1927.
Cho, a senior English major at Virginia Tech, had previously been diagnosed with a severe anxiety disorder.
During much of his middle school and high school years, he received therapy and special education support.
After graduating from high school, Cho enrolled at Virginia Tech. Because of federal privacy laws, Virginia
Tech was unaware of Cho's previous diagnosis or the accommodations he had been granted at school. In
2005, Cho was accused of stalking two female students. After an investigation, a Virginia special justice
declared Cho mentally ill and ordered him to attend treatment. Lucinda Roy, a professor and former
chairwoman of the English department, had also asked Cho to seek counselling. Cho's mother also turned to
her church for help.

15. The attacks received international media coverage and drew widespread criticism of U.S. laws and culture. It
sparked intense debate about gun violence, gun laws, gaps in the U.S. system for treating mental health
issues, the perpetrator's state of mind, the responsibility of college administrations, privacy laws, journalism
ethics, and other issues. Television news organizations that aired portions of the killer's multimedia manifesto
were criticized by victims' families, Virginia law enforcement officials, and the American Psychiatric
Association.
The massacre prompted the state of Virginia to close legal loopholes that had previously allowed Cho, an
individual adjudicated as mentally unsound, to purchase handguns without detection by the National Instant
Criminal Background Check System (NICS). It also led to passage of the first major federal gun control measure
in more than 13 years. The law strengthening the NICS was signed by President George W. Bush on January
5, 2008.
In August 2007, the Virginia Tech Review Panel Report recommended that the state's General Assembly adopt
legislation "establishing the right of every institution of higher education to regulate the possession of firearms
on campus if it so desires" and went on to recommend campus gun bans, "unless mandated by law." The report
also recommended gun control measures unrelated to the circumstances of the massacre, such as requiring
background checks for all private firearms sales, including those at gun shows. Governor Kaine made it a
priority to enact a private sale background check law in the 2008 Virginia General Assembly, but the bill was
defeated in the Senate Courts of Justice Committee. Pro gun rights parties viewed this larger move as an
unwarranted expansion and as a possible prelude waypoint akin to full gun registration for all gun sales.
The incident and its aftermath energized student activist efforts seeking to overturn bans that prevent gun
holders (both 'open carry' and 'concealed carry permit' holders) from carrying their weapons on college
campuses. Thirty-eight states throughout the U.S. ban weapons at schools; sixteen of those specifically ban
guns on college campuses. A new group, Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, formed after the massacre;
as of March 2008, it claimed to have 16,000 members at 500 campuses nationwide. Several states are weighing
legislation to allow gun permit holders to carry concealed firearms on university campuses. They cite cases of
actual successful neutralization of active campus shooters by armed students to advance their cause. Another
attempt by Delegate Gilbert to pass a law to allow concealed weapons on college campuses in Virginia was
defeated in March 2008. This law was for the sake of students and faculty members only since the AG ruled
that it did not apply to non-students and non-faculty on campus who could conceal carry without restriction on
campus. This law would have only mostly affected students at or above the age of 21 (seniors and some juniors)
since younger persons are not allowed to purchase handguns.

16. They claimed that Seung-Hui Cho was mentally unstable and „hooked‟ on violent video
games, which led to the debate of why such video games were not regulated in the first
place if it was going to influence gamers to mimic actions.
“The game he's talking about is "Counter-Strike," a massively popular team-based tactical shooting
game that puts players in the heavily armed boots of either a counter-terrorist or terrorist. But
whether Seung-Hui Cho, the student who opened fire Monday, was an avid player of video games
and whether he was a fan of "Counter-Strike" in particular remains, even now, uncertain at best.
Meanwhile, in the aftermath of the school shootings and the finger-pointing that followed, game
players and industry advocates say they're outraged that the brutal acts of a deeply disturbed and
depressed loner with a history of mental illness would be blamed so quickly on video and computer
games. They say this is perhaps the most flagrant case of anti-game crusaders using a tragedy to
promote their own personal causes...While Thompson concedes that there are many elements that
must have driven Cho to commit such a brutal act, he insists that without video games Cho
wouldn't have had the skills to do what he did. He might have killed somebody but he wouldn't
have killed 32 if he hadn't rehearsed it and trained himself like a warrior on virtual reality. It can't
be done. It just doesn't happen.“ (Jack Thompson, Florida Attorney)
After the accusations of Cho‟s motives for the attack, video games were closely analysed
and soon regulated due to the possible influences and un-moral messages they gave out to
younger children and adults. This was in aid of hoping that nothing like the VT shootings
would be repeated ever again.
Other related articles: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/may/12/games

17. ASA is a UK independent regulator of advertising across all media. They apply the Advertising
Codes, which are written by the Committees of Advertising Practice.
Call of Duty (Modern Warfare) Trailer – the debate:
After COD was released, there were many complaints to
ASA about the controversy behind the trailer. People
thought that the ad reinforced negative stereotypes of the
soldiers that were being portrayed as „senseless killers‟
and it trivialised the true responsibility of soldiers today. It
was believed that the game was giving a mixed real
life/game image – almost too realistic and that there is a
blurred line between reality and fantasy. After the
complaints, ASA regulated and censored the
trailer, stating “that the campaign contained scenes of extensive
gunfire, explosions and destruction that were accompanied by a
dramatic soundtrack”. However, the BBFC saw no issue
with the video game ad and rated it a PG, saying that
“some scenes may be unsuitable for younger children”. On the
other hand, due to it being an advert, ASA had the final
say and decided to make dramatic cuts in hoping that it
would be more acceptable for universal viewing. This also
leads to the question of self-regulation, believing that it is
under our own control to decide what we watch and how
we interpret what is being shown. We have to decide what
is real and what is virtual.