Photo by Elmo Love (Flickr: Ferrachu. 382) [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0">CC-BY-2.0]

I hate to be rattling on again so soon about the new government restrictions on British porn, based on BBFC guidelines, but I feel I have to. The reaction to the new law has been fascinating, and if David Cameron thought he would be (golden) showered with praise for his stand against the evil pornographers, he must be feeling very confused right now. Even the porn-hating Daily Mail couldn’t muster much enthusiasm for the laws, and in reader polls in the Metro and the Mirror, around 90% of people felt the law was unfair and unnecessary. This in a country where media hysteria about the dangers of porn has been relentless for the last few years.

Much was also made of the fact that the new rules unfairly target independent and - ahem – ‘ethical’ porn producers, who are both more likely to produce the sort of kink now banned and less able to afford ATVOD’s fees or provide a system that only accepts credit, not debit cards. Many of these businesses are female run, and many of the acts banned involve female pleasure acts, another fact not lost on observers, many of whom questioned why swallowing semen was OK while female ejaculation is banned. Or why a certain amount of throat gagging on cock was okay, but face sitting wasn’t.

Of course, one effect of this law has been to shine a light on the BBFC’s own rules, previously unknown to most people outside porn DVD distributors. And the BBFC has come in for major criticism. After all, the government may have passed the law, but the BBFC are the organisation that set the rules.

That so many people are appalled by these rules seems to have rather shaken the BBFC. After all, they pride themselves on their feminist credentials, and consider many of the acts and images they forbid as acts of sexual violence, mostly against women. To be told that they are being sexist and patriarchal by banning spanking movies must genuinely baffle them. The Board hit back yesterday, with this piece The Guardian by Senior Examiner Murray Perkins. It has a rather unfortunate and blatantly untrue headline and strapline, which of course will be the fault of Guardian sub-editors rather than the writer. Still, his actual piece, while an interesting and mostly factual account, rather skirts around the issue of why these rules are needed and the evidence supporting them, and contains some eyebrow raising claims. For instance, he says that British producers will benefit “from the application of UK law and the expert legal and medical advice which informs BBFC decisions.” Except that UK law does not specifically outlaw any of the images now forbidden, and the ‘expert’ advice that the BBFC use often seems questionable, given the wealth of conflicting evidence out there.

He also states that “We regularly consult both the Crown Prosecution Service and the Metropolitan police to understand and keep up to date with the types of content which are subject to prosecution and conviction. Consequently, we may not classify any material which may be subject to prosecution.” Well, I'm sorry - but prosecution doesn’t mean conviction. Surely they should only be outlawing material that has consistently been found guilty in court, not images and acts that the CPS and police simply don’t approve of. Given how few obscenity cases (a) take place and (b) are defended in front of juries, this cosy arrangement between official bodies, none of whom have to back up their claims with actual facts, seems incredibly dodgy – especially when the only case in recent years to actually be defended ended with a very fast acquittal. And let’s not forget, until the end of the 1990s, the CPS and police still maintained that vanilla hardcore sex was legally obscene, again flying in the face of actual jury decisions. Still, I suppose the best way to avoid embarrassing acquittals is to simply not prosecute in the first place.

So in light of all this, I have ten simple questions for the BBFC.

1. How many medical experts are consulted about the dangers of fisting or the existence of female ejaculation, and is equal weight given to varying opinions?

2. Can they tell us the last time an obscenity trial ended with a guilty verdict from the jury based solely on the presence of pissing scenes? And how long ago do these convictions have to be before they are considered irrelevant, give the old ‘ten year rule’ * involving video nasties was shown to be unnecessary?

3. How regularly is ‘regularly’ when it comes to consulting the police and CPS, and do you ask them to back up their claims with evidence or simply take their word for it that certain acts are still obscene?

4. Can they point out a single confirmed fatality (given claim of a “clear and well-documented risk of harm”) involving face sitting?

5. If “context is always considered”, why is there a list of specifically forbidden images in BBFC guidelines for R18?

6. Why is a ‘sex work’ seen as automatically more dangerous than a ‘non-sex work’ featuring explicit sex and forbidden images, and is the distinction between the two anything more than an arbitrary decision based on whether or not the Board and the examiners approve of the film or filmmaker?

7. If the acts now forbidden were illegal under the OPA, why have no UK websites hosting such material been prosecuted?

8. Given that online porn sites will not be submitting to the BBFC but instead expected to ensure that their material conforms to current rules, how are they to know if they are transgressing the grey areas (i.e. 'moderate, non-abusive consensual activity' – and who will be deciding if they have crossed the line?

9. Is there any evidence that simple dialogue in a porn film has ever encouraged an interest in 'sexually abusive activity' that wasn’t already pre-existing? And why are porn viewers seen as being inherently more easily influenced / corrupted than the viewers of other films?

10. Is there any hard evidence to suggest that anyone, ever, has been ‘depraved and corrupted’ by pornography? Or any evidence that pornography causes harm? If so, have you shared with the government, as they have been unable to find any.

For the record, here are the BBFC R18 guidelines. Little room for context to play a part here, as you will see.

The following content is not acceptable:

• 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 which may include adults role-playing as non-adults

• the portrayal of sexual activity which involves real or apparent lack of consent.

• 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

• sexual threats, humiliation or abuse which do not form part of a clearly consenting role-playing game. Strong physical or verbal abuse, even if consensual, is unlikely to be acceptable

* for a long time, the BBFC claimed that they could not pass any film convicted of obscenity (even if the case was an uncontested guilty plea involving several films) for ten years. They eventually had to concede that this was not the case.