News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Australian activist can't use encrypted apps, must let police access phone. Parent comment

Re:Australian activist can't use encrypted apps, must let po... by implements on Monday August 01, 2022 @06:42AM (#32304163)
The BBFC is a non-government organisation nevertheless required by the government to view and rate all films. Councils licence cinemas (originally for fire safety) and require cinemas to only show rated material to the public, but they also have a discretionary power to rate and therefore ban films themselves.

As an example, Life of Brian (1979) was only an “AA” (14 years+) but a moral panic made 28 councils raise to an “X” (18+) and 11 actually banned it completely.

(For clarity, a film is de facto banned when either the BBFC or a local council refuses to rate it. It can still be shown privately (eg at a film society) provided it doesn’t contain illegal material (ie it’s not obscene))

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Australian activist can't use encrypted apps, must let po... by OJFord on Monday August 01, 2022 @07:19AM (#32304428)
Yes, but what I'm saying is do they ever refuse to rate a film?

Life of Brian was another example I was thinking of, and as you say, same as I described there - rated, then banned.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Australian activist can't use encrypted apps, must let po... by alexwlchan on Monday August 01, 2022 @07:41AM (#32304609)
Apparently so: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_works_rejected_by_the_...

I’m surprised by how long the list is; I thought it was much rarer and more exceptional. The only time I’d heard of them rejecting a film was when it showed unsimulated animal cruelty, but I guess there must be other reasons.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Australian activist can't use encrypted apps, must let po... by OJFord on Monday August 01, 2022 @09:36AM (#32305747)
Huh, thanks for that. I had heard about requesting cuts now you mention it. (And this is also done to target a rating, if they want to get a 12A but as-is it's a 15 for example.)

I wonder if the ones never released are just because they didn't want to cut enough, preferring to abandon the project though.

> The only time I’d heard of them rejecting a film was when it showed unsimulated animal cruelty, but I guess there must be other reasons.

Porn, or rather it somehow going too far, seems to be a big one based on a lot of the titles there.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Australian activist can't use encrypted apps, must let po... by implements on Monday August 01, 2022 @10:23AM (#32306347)
Some films are so grim that if they cut out all the unacceptable stuff there’d be no film left worth seeing. Porn gets an R18 rating - provided it’s not dangerous, violent, illegal or obscene - and can shown at specially licensed sex cinemas.
[ Parent | on HN ]