Censorship in the United Kingdom

There is a long history of censorship in the United Kingdom.

Table of contents

1 Obscenity law 1.1 The Obscene Publications Acts 2 Blasphemy law 3 Indecency vs. obscenity 4 Prior restraint 5 Self-regulation of publication 6 See also 7 External links

Obscenity law

Obscenity law in England and Wales is currently governed by the various Obscene Publications Acts, but obscenity law goes back much further into the English common law. The conviction in 1727 of Edmund Curll for the publication of Venus in the Cloister or the Nun in her Smock under the common law offence of disturbing the King's peace appears to be the first conviction for obscenity in the United Kingdom, and set a legal precedent for other convictions. These common law ideas of obscenity formed the original basis of obscenity law in other common law countries, such as the United States.

The Obscene Publications Acts

Since 1857, a series of obscenity laws known as the Obscene Publications Acts have governed what can be published. There have been several United Kingdom Acts of Parliament of this name: \n* Obscene Publications Act 1857\n* Obscene Publications Act 1959\n* Obscene Publications Act 1964 Of these, only the 1959 and 1964 acts are still in force in the UK, as amended by more recent legislation. They define the legal bounds of obscenity in the UK, and are used to enforce the censorship of obscene material. Note: Irish law diverged from UK law in 1929, replacing the OPA 1857 with a new Irish act: see Irish censorship law. Important events in UK obscenity law:\n* 1960: Lady Chatterley's Lover obscenity trial\n* 1971: Schoolkids' Oz obscenity trial\n* 1984: Gay's the Word prosecution

Blasphemy law

\nSee Blasphemy law in the United Kingdom. Blasphemy against Christianity has long been an important part of British censorship. It is uncertain whether the common law offence of blasphemous libel still exists; it was confirmed to be still active as of 1977 in the "Gay News" case Whitehouse v. Lemon, but more recent developments may put the continued viability of blasphemy prosecutions in doubt.

Indecency vs. obscenity

The terms "indecency" and "obscenity" are often used in the English language as if they were synonyms, or as if "obscenity" was a stronger form of "indecency". English law now appears only to use the word "obscenity" to refer to speech and other works, and to use the word "indecency" to relate to sexual offences against the person, as in "gross indecency".

more needed on this

Prior restraint

Beyond obscenity law, there have been a number of organizations whose main function was to approve material prior to distribution. \n* Plays and theatres had long been licensed by the Crown prior to 1737. Under the provisions of the Licensing Act of 1737 as extended by the Theatres Act of 1843, the Lord Chamberlain's Office was able to censor plays until 1968.\n* The British Board of Film Classification is the de facto film censor for films in Britain; since films not rated by the BBFC cannot be shown in most cinemas, or distributed as videos or DVDs, lack of BBFC approval generally makes productions of such films uneconomic.\n** In the case of films shown in cinemas, local authorities have the final legal say about who can watch a particular film. Almost always local authorities accept the Board's recommendation for a certificate for a film.\n** Under the Video Recording Act 1984, all video recordings must be classified by an authority chosen by the Home Secretary. This classification is then legally binding. Since the introduction of the Act, the BBFC has been the chosen authority. \n* The BACC pre-approves most British television advertising (under Ofcom rules, other broadcasters can also approve their own advertising content, but most rely on the BACC). The advent of Internet access has made the act of censorship more difficult, and there has been a relaxation of censorship in recognition of this. BBFC guidelines have been relaxed further to allow the limited distribution of hardcore pornography under an "R18" certificate, partially because of this, and partially because of a recognition that public attitudes have changed. Further comfirmation of this change in attitude was provided by the French film Baise-moi which was given an 18 certificate, despite showing scenes of actual sex. Ofcom is now the regulatory body for UK television, radio, and telecommunications services. Ofcom exerts its powers under the Communications Act 2003. The government's new requirements for Ofcom only require it to ensure adherence to "generally accepted standards" and prevention of harm, removing the former requirement to adhere to standards of "taste and decency".

Self-regulation of publication

A number of industries carry out what is known as self-regulation. Self-regulation seeks to keep content within the bounds of what is publicly acceptable, thus preventing government intervention to bring about official regulation. Some of the areas they are concerned about include obscenity, slander and libel. Some people believe that self-regulation amounts to self-censorship. Industry self-regulatory bodies include the Advertising Standards Authority and the Press Complaints Commission.

See also

• UK topics

External links

\n* Edmund Curll and his prosecutions\n* Liberty guide to the Obscene Publications Act\n* Theatrical Bill Inspectors and the Licensing Act of 1737\n* Ofcom website\n* OfWatch: a site critical of Ofcom\n* The Melon Farmers: anti-censorship website Category:British laws