Over the last few years a number of events occurred that have caused a great deal of concern within the anime and manga communities, in the UK, Australia and in the USA.   The first major event was the 2006 arrest of Iowa based manga fan Christopher Handley after the US Postal Service intercepted a package from Japan containing 'obscene' material.   Initially charged with possession of child pornography under the PROTECT act, this was later reduced to a charge of 'receipt of obscene material' to which he pleaded guilty at the end of 2009.   The guilty plea was based on fears that he could not get a fair trial and that his life would be destroyed even further.   The final sentence was 6 months in prison and a $200 fine.

In 2007 the Ministry of Justice published a consultation paper on making the possession of 'non-photographic visual depictions of child sexual abuse' illegal in a similar way to the US PROTECT act.   The premise of this law was to close gaps in existing laws, the protection of children act 1978, which covers pictures involving actual children.  This had the potential for making an awful lot of anime and manga illegal to own in the UK and in turn grouping law abiding UK fans of Japanese media and culture alongside actual sex offenders.   The later response document makes for interesting reading.

This lead to some rather interesting claims made by the media and 'freedom groups'  (Although I'm not entirely sure what 'aneem' is) that graphic novels such as Alan Moore's 'The Lost Girls' and 'The Watchmen' would fall foul of the new laws. 

You could understand how 'The Lost Girls' might fall foul as even the author describes it as pornography.

If anyone has 'The Watchmen' the images in question are at the start of chapter 6 where Walter sees his mother in bed with a man.  

In 2009 the laws on the possession of 'non-photographic visual depictions of child sexual abuse', now dubbed the 'Dangerous Cartoons Act', where made part of the Coroners and Justice act 2009.   This was run through parliament pretty quickly and became law on the 6th of April 2010.

Less than a month later it appeared that the UK anime fans biggest fears had come true.   An episode of 'Code Geass - Lelouch of the Rebellion' had been cut by 1 second due to 'a young girl in the background of a shot suggesting sexual activity'.   This was the first cut to be made to a UK anime release since Paranoia agent was cut in 2006 and claims were made that this was a direct result of the 'Dangerous Cartoons Act'.

The 1 second in question is a static shot of a picture on a mobile phone screen. (Might not be work safe)

It was time to talk to the BBFC and discover if and how the new laws are affecting their work, as well as answer a few burning questions about charging and how they actually classify a video work.

The BBFC was originally established as the British Board of Film Censors in 1912 by the British film industry as an independent body to bring a degree of uniformity to film classifications.  In 1984 the UK government passed the Video Recordings Act, which requires all video recordings for sale or hire to have been classified by the BBFC.   In the same year the BBFC changed its name to the British Board of Film Classification to reflect its new role, a move away from censorship to a more important role of classification.   The BBFC remains independent of the UK government and continues to classify both film and video releases as well as some computer games.

Q) How long does it take to rate an average DVD (2hrs of main feature plus say 30mins of extras) and how many people are involved in the process?

A) The turnaround time for any work sent to the BBFC is ten days. When a DVD work is received, it is first catalogued, measured and scheduled for viewing. An examiner then watches it and writes a report, making a category recommendation before it is checked by a more senior examiner and issued a certificate.

Q) Is the final rating decided by a single person or is it a group process?

A) The final rating for an average DVD is made by a Senior Examiner based on the recommendation provided by the Examiner who first viewed the work. Works that raise more complex issues or specific concerns will usually be viewed by a further team of two examiners, sometimes by Senior Examiners and also on occasion by the Heads of Policy and Communications as well as the BBFC Director and Presidents. Ultimately the decision as to the final rating of these works rests with the Director but that will almost always be made on the basis of opinions and advice provided through a group process.

Q) Does the same person/group watch the entire DVD? (main feature, extras, trailers etc..)   And where a DVD is part of a series will each DVD be rated by different people/groups or will the same people be used to rate all the DVDs?

A) This depends on how the work has been submitted. If episodes and additional material that will appear together in a DVD box set are submitted as separate works then they will generally be viewed by different examiners. If however they are submitted together as one work, then a single examiner takes responsibility for the viewing.

Q) As pretty much every anime DVD has a Japanese audio track and subtitles are there any special procedures that you go through to ascertain that the audio track and subtitles are related?   For example if the original foreign language track contained offensive language that was not included in the subtitles.

A) Generally speaking we assume that the subtitles provided are a fair reflection of the Japanese audio track. We are after all classifying for the British public, only a small number of whom will speak Japanese. However, when viewing a contentious work, if a discrepancy between the two is suspected, the services of a translator will be sought.

Q) Have there been occasions where the overall rating has been increased due to the language in a commentary track or other extras found on the DVD?

A) This can occur, for example when a trailer for a different work is included as a DVD extra and demands higher classification than the main work.

Q) On some releases the English language audio has an 'on-screen sign and text' subtitle track.   Again how are these dealt with in terms of rating?   Is it included as part of the English audio rating or taken separately?

A) English language captions, if present, will be viewed with a work. Their content will be taken into account in the overall classification decision.

Q) The UK anime market is very small with many titles selling only a few hundred DVDs.   Even the best selling titles manage 10-15,000 copies sold.   Compared to mainstream titles such as Avatar, which sold over 200,000 copies in the first day, is it fair that such low selling DVDs are charged the same amount by the BBFC as a blockbuster that will sell millions of copies? (Author's note: I am aware that the charging is set out by the Video Recordings act.)

A) Because we have set charges it means that everyone is treated exactly the same.  If larger distributors paid more they would expect preferential treatment or even insist on having the category they want rather than the one required by the guidelines.  It is also worth pointing out that the cost of classification is not so great that it stops anime distributors making money on the titles they do release.

Q) It has also been suggested by some anime fans that the process of charging twice for a DVD that has both Japanese audio with subtitles and an English audio track unfairly penalises anime releases further.   Can you see any way this process could be made simpler and cheaper without removing content?

A) There will sometimes be a discrepancy between English audio content and the subtitled Japanese version which can affect the classification of a work. The most obvious example would be the prevalence of strong language. Clearly it is part of our responsibilities under the VRA to view both versions.

Q) When there is a commentary track accompanying a video release, how is this treated by the BBFC?   Is it treated as an extra audio track and charged at full rate?

A) Yes.

Q) The USA is the largest English speaking market for anime at this time.   In the USA DVD releases are self certified under a voluntary classification scheme which makes the release process faster and cheaper.   Could you see a similar system ever being introduced in the UK?

A) Not while there's a Video Recordings Act (VRA).

Q) Although the role of the BBFC has moved to classification you do still make the odd cut.   There have been a number of cuts made to UK anime releases over the years, mostly to hentai (sexually explicit) titles such as 'Legend of the Overfiend', and even a refusal of classification for 'La Blue Girl' in 1996.   The latter requiring substantial edits before its release in the USA.   In the more mainstream anime titles the most notable cuts have been to 'Paranoia Agent' where a scene involving a young girl trying to hang herself was removed and most recently 'Code Geass - Lelouch of the Rebellion' episode 10 where a static image was removed for the reason 'likely to encourage an interest in underage sexual activity'. As this rating was issued just a month after the introduction of the 'dangerous cartoons act', did the new law have any influence on the decision?

A) When considering whether to award a classification certificate to a work, or whether to classify a work at a particular category, the BBFC is required by the VRA to have special regard (among the other relevant factors) to the likelihood of works being viewed in the home, and to any harm that may be caused to potential viewers or, through their behaviour, to society by the manner in which the work deals with:
· criminal behaviour
· illegal drugs
· violent behaviour or incidents
· horrific behaviour or incidents
· human sexual activity.
In considering these issues the BBFC has in mind the possible effect not only on children but also on other vulnerable people.
Both the cuts to 'Paranoia Agent' and episode 10 of 'Code Geass - Lelouch of the Rebellion' were therefore made as a result of these responsibilities under the VRA. The decision to cut 'Code Geass - Lelouch of the Rebellion' was not influenced by April's new Coroners and Justice Act.

Q) Laws in general, and it seems UK laws in particular, are worded in a very vague manner.   Would you say that the BBFC is in a better position to interpret existing and new laws compared to a film distributor?   Do you ever seek guidance from the CPS or department of Justice on classification matters?

A) Legislation is not in fact vague.  It is deliberately drafted that way in order to cover a wide range of eventualities, both now and in the future.  The BBFC is a world leader in its field. Our Guidelines are based on the most extensive public research conducted by any media regulator anywhere. We also commission expert research on important issues and seek specialist advice when required. We are also in regular contact with the CPS. This puts us in as good a position as anyone to interpret existing and new laws.  It is also true to say that the BBFC is consulted by the relevant Government department before the bill is drafted where it is relevant to our work.

Q) On the subject of censorship, we now live in an era where almost all media can be found on the internet, by either downloading (legally or not) or by mail order from other countries.   This gives viewers a means to bypass pretty much any censorship.   And in the case of Code Geass many UK anime fans have now purchased the un-cut US version.   Does this global access to media make the act of censorship on a per country basis a bit of a fruitless task?

A) Well, you could always have said that because people have always got round the VRA by getting films from abroad.  However, for the majority of customers buying in the UK or from UK online sites is preferential from buying online from overseas suppliers, so the BBFC's role remains important, particularly when dealing with material aimed at children.  UK sites sell BBFC rated material.  If Anime distributors did not have a market in the UK for BBFC classified material, they would not bother submitting to us and in fact it is one of the expanding parts of our business.  

Q) Anime often has a very stylised look where some body features are over or under emphasised or where clothing is used to convey a more child like or 'cutesy' look; does this cause problems when trying to give a rating?   For example determining the real age of a character.

A) The visual symbolism of anime is often quite complex and in classification terms this can be a bit of a puzzle. For example one might come across a work that looks targeted at a Shonen audience only to discover it contains surprising more adult orientated content. In such cases examiners will have to consider the contextual significance of the different elements in a work, making a judgment what they mean together before concluding how it effects the categorisation. Childlike 'cutesy' characters may in one context then raise no concerns. Bishojo characters in a sexual context however are likely to. As far as determining the real age of an anime character; well they have no real age do they? Examiners can therefore only make a judgement on what they see in front of them. A character that is more physically well developed is then more likely to be regarded as adult than one deliberately drawn to resemble a child.

Q) In some anime the characters are shown naked but in an asexual way, ie. they have no genitals or nipples.   Quite often used when characters are shown in the bath, at a bathhouse or a hot spring.   Would this be treated the same way as a nude shot of a real person of the same age or is it looked upon differently due to the lack of detail?

A) Again it depends on the context. If the nudity is natural - for example there is no sexual context - it is unlikely to be a problem. The same would be true of a live action work

Q) It is also common in Japan for children to bathe with a parent and also for children to bathe with adults in communal bath houses, a classic example being in 'My Neighbour Totoro' (rated U) where two young girls are shown naked in the bath with their father.  Again does the lack of detail and/or the context of the imagery (ie that it is considered normal in Japan) change how the BBFC views such situations?

A) Again it is all about context. Just because something is considered normal in Japan doesn't mean that it is necessarily acceptable to broad public opinion here in the U.K. The BBFC of course classifies for the British public.

Q) On a final note, is it safe to say that a video/DVD with a BBFC rating will always be legal to own and view in the UK, no matter when it was rated?

A) Yes.

To expand on the last answer, the 'Dangerous Cartoons Act' contains an exemption for classified film works in section 63.   Essentially anything that has been classified by the BBFC is safe no matter the content.   This means that, for DVD and video at least, the new laws are not retroactive.   However this only applies to the film/video work as a whole, cutting bits out removes the exemption!

So it looks like we're stuck with another scattergun law enacted in some vain (and fruitless) attempt by the last government to please middle England voters.   Contrary to claims, the new act wasn't the cause for the cut to 'Code Geass' and the BBFC ratings guidelines remain unchanged since 2009.   However much you dislike the BBFC they do offer the UK anime fan a degree of legal protection.   The BBFC may make seemingly random cuts but without them and section 63 things could be a lot worse.   It is an extremely small silver lining to an otherwise pretty dark cloud.   The big problem is that manga (and graphic novels in general), having no formal classification, are now left in the open.   We can hope that if something was bad enough to fall foul now it should have already been picked up by the Obscene Publications Act, yet no-one really batted an eyelid at 'The Lost Girls.'   Time, and probably a test case, will tell.

The 'Extreme Porn' law, brought into effect in 2009, seemed to have already caught its first victim after a man was arrested for having videos showing a cartoon version of Tony the Tiger and a real woman.  This has now fallen flat on its face when the CPS failed to bring any evidence to the trial.   And in one of the two cases of 'Simpsons porn' in Australia, the defendant had prior convictions relating to real child pornography.

And as a final note on the BBFC, 'Mahoromatic Something more beautiful' was recently passed without any changes.   This seems that the cut to 'Code Geass' wasn't a sign of bad things to come.

Many thanks to Sue Clark and the other staff at the BBFC for answering all the questions.