Censorship in the United Kingdom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Part of the series on
Censorship
By region
Australia Bhutan Canada P. R. China Taiwan (R.O.C.) East Germany France Germany India Iran Republic of Ireland Pakistan Samoa Singapore South Asia Soviet Union Thailand (Radio and film) United Kingdom United States
By media
Advertisements Books Films (banned|re-edited) Internet Music Anime Video games
Other
Self-censorship Book burning Content-control software Corporate censorship Under fascist regimes In religion Historical revisionism Postal censorship Prior restraint Tape delay Whitewashing This box: view • talk • edit

Censorship in the United Kingdom has a long history with variously stringent and lax laws in place at different times.

Contents 1 George Orwell 2 Obscenity law 3 Libel law 4 Blasphemy law 5 Indecency vs. obscenity 6 National security 7 Prior restraint 8 Self-regulation of publication 9 Internet censorship 10 Cases 11 See also 12 References 13 External links

[edit] George Orwell

George Orwell wrote several articles on censorship including an item titled The Freedom of the Press in 1943. It appears that this was a preface for his book Animal Farm, but it is unclear if it was deliberately suppressed or if Orwell himself chose not to publish it.

Any fairminded person with journalistic experience will admit that during this war official censorship has not been particularly irksome. We have not been subjected to the kind of totalitarian ‘co-ordination’ that it might have been reasonable to expect. The press has some justified grievances, but on the whole the Government has behaved well and has been surprisingly tolerant of minority opinions. The sinister fact about literary censorship in England is that it is largely voluntary.^[1].

Orwell went on to suggest that because both the UK and the USSR were both members of the Allied powers at the time, this self-censorship was preventing valid criticism of the Communist regime.

[edit] Obscenity law

An Obscenity law in England and Wales is currently governed by the various Obscene Publications Acts, but obscenity laws go 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 was the first conviction for obscenity in Great Britain, and set a legal precedent for other convictions.^[2]

These common law ideas of obscenity formed the original basis of obscenity law in other common law states, such as the United States.

A defence against the charge of obscenity on the grounds of literary merit was introduced in the 1959 Obscene Publications Act. The OPA was tested in the high-profile obscenity trial brought against Penguin Books for publishing Lady Chatterley's Lover (by D. H. Lawrence) in 1960. The book was found to have merit, and Penguin Books was found not guilty — a ruling which granted far more freedom to publish explicit material.^[3]

R18-rated videos are only available in licensed sex shops, but hardcore pornographic magazines are available in newsagents in some places. There is a substantial overlap between legal erotic literature and illegal pornography, with the distinction traditionally made in the English-speaking courts on the basis of perceived literary merit. Purely textual pornography has not been prosecuted since the Inside Linda Lovelace trial of 1976.^[4] Child pornography and bestiality are illegal under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. In late August 2005, the government announced that it plans to criminalize possession of extreme pornographic material, rather than just publication.^[5] Computer and video games are generally exempt from the Video Recordings Act; however, those depicting sexual content, or gross violence towards people or animals, must still be submitted to the British Board of Film Classification for consideration. Games can be banned in this way (as was Carmageddon in 1997^[6]).

Almost all adult stores in the UK are forbidden from having their goods in open-shop windows, which means the shop fronts are often boarded up or covered in posters. A warning sign must be clearly shown at the entrance to the store, and no items can be visible from the street. No customer can be under eighteen years old. The Ann Summers chain of lingerie and sex shops recently won the right to advertise for workers in job centres, which was originally banned under restrictions on what advertising could be carried out by the sex industry.^[7][8]

[edit] Libel law

England and Wales have relatively strict libel laws ("defamation" in Scotland) in that they are often considered pro plaintiff with the defendant asked to prove that they did not commit libel. Compensation awards for libel are also unlimited, in contrast to those for personal injury. Further controversy surrounds the libel laws with regard to costs. Libel cases are notoriously expensive to bring to court for both parties, legal aid is not available. Whilst costs can be awarded the ability to bring libel cases is often considered to be restricted to the wealthy. Conversely it is possible to initiate a "no win - no fee" case against a wealthy individual or organisation if the individual bringing the case has insignificant assets as even if the case is lost the wealthy individual or organisation are unable to recover their costs. Typically in such cases an out of court settlement is forced upon the wealthy individual or organisation.

[edit] Blasphemy law

Main article: 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.^[9]

Critics have claimed that the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 could hinder freedom of speech.^[10][11] Leaders of major religions and race groups^{[citation needed]} (with the exception of some muslim groups), as well as non-religious groups such as the National Secular Society^[12] and English PEN^[13] spoke out in order to campaign against the Bill. Comedians and satirists also fear prosecution for their work.^[14][10]

[edit] 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 non-consensual physical exposure or sexual offences against the person, as in "gross indecency".

[edit] National security

There are several Acts of the United Kingdom Parliament for the protection of official information, mainly related to national security. The latest revision is the Official Secrets Act 1989^[15] (1989 chapter 6), which removed the public interest defence by repealing section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911. In 2004, a memo containing details of a possible US bombing of broadcaster Al Jazeera was leaked to the press. Attorney General Peter Goldsmith has warned newspapers that they could be prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act if they publish the contents of the memo, saying "You are reminded that to publish the contents of a document which is known to have been unlawfully disclosed by a crown servant is in itself a breach of section 5 of the Official Secrets Act 1989".^[16][17][18]

The Terrorism Act 2006 makes it an offense to "glorify" terrorism.^[19] There are concerns that this could limit free speech.^[20][21][22]

DA-Notices are official but voluntary requests to news editors not to publish items on specified subjects, for reasons of national security.^[23]

[edit] Prior restraint

Beyond obscenity law, there have been a number of organizations whose main function was to approve material prior to distribution.

Plays and theatres had long been licensed by the Crown prior to 1737. Licensure of a playhouse, however, only gave a general patent. The crown had no ability to censor before acting of plays. Under the provisions of the Theatrical Licensing Act of 1737 as extended by the Theatres Act of 1843, the Lord Chamberlain's Office was able to censor plays until 1968.

The British Board of Film Classification is the de facto film censor for films in Britain;^[24] 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.

• 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.
• 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.

The Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre pre-approves most British television advertising^[25] (under Ofcom rules, other broadcasters can also approve their own advertising content, but most rely on the BACC).

The Advertising Standards Authority is the regulatory advertising body.

The advent of the 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 confirmation 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.^[26] 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".

Worldwide Press Freedom Index, published by Reporters Without Borders, gave the United Kingdom a score of 5.17, making it 24th.^[27]

[edit] 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. There is no clear line between self-regulation in matters of expression and self-censorship.

Industry self-regulatory bodies include the Advertising Standards Authority and the Press Complaints Commission.

[edit] Internet censorship

British Telecommunications offers an ISP service called Cleanfeed which uses data provided by the Internet Watch Foundation to identify pages believed to contain indecent photographs of children. ^[28][29] When such a page is found, the system creates a 'URL not found page' error rather than deliver the actual page or a warning page.

In 2003, after the murder of Jane Longhurst by a man who claimed to have an obsession with Internet pornography, ^[30] the family campaigned to tighten laws regarding pornography on the Internet and have gained support such that possession may become illegal. ^[31] Extreme pornography could now become illegal. ^[5] The government has begun to crack down on sites depicting rape, strangulation, torture and necrophilia. ^[32][33]

In Scotland, 2004, a committee of Members of the Scottish Parliament has backed a call to ban adult pornography as the Equal Opportunities Committee supported a petition claiming links between porn and sexual crimes and violence against women and children. ^[34] A spokeswoman said "While we have no plans to legislate we will, of course, continue to monitor the situation."

The new Home Office Minister Vernon Croaker has set a deadline of the end of 2007 for all ISPs to implement a “cleanfeed”-style network level content blocking platform.^[35][36] Currently, the only websites ISPs are expected to block access to are sites the Internet Watch Foundation has identified as containing images of child pornography. ^[29] However such a platform is capable of blocking access to any website added to the list (at least, to the extent that the implementation is effective), making it a simple matter to change this policy in future. The Home Office has previously indicated that it has considered requiring ISPs to block access to articles on the web deemed to be “glorifying terrorism”, within the meaning of the new Terrorism Act 2006, saying "However, our legislation as drafted provides the flexibility to accommodate a change in Government policy should the need ever arise."^[35] The measures have been criticised for being inadequate as they only block accidental viewing and does not prevent content delivered through encrypted systems, file sharing, email and other systems.^[37]

Lawyers representing the brittish chemical firm Tate & Lyle PLC, manufacturer of the artificial sweetener Sucralose, has used UK libel laws to force the US based health activist Joseph Mercola to block internet access from the United Kingdom of articles critical at the health hazards from Sucralose on his web site. Users in the UK trying to access the Sucralose article or any other page mentioning Sucralose on the Mercola web site get an message with the text: 'Attorneys acting on behalf of the manufacturers of sucralose, Tate & Lyle PLC based in London, England, have requested that the information contained on this page not be made available to Internet users in England.'

There have been concerns over the increasing amount of internet regulation and fears that the Internet may become more restricted in future. ^[38][39]

See also: Internet censorship

[edit] Cases

In 1985, the British government attempted to ban the book Spycatcher by MI5 officer Peter Wright because of the sensitive material it contained.^[40] Several British newspapers attempted to report on its principal allegations but were served with gag orders. They persisted and were tried for contempt of court.

In 1922, the novel Ulysses by James Joyce was banned in the United Kingdom when it was declared obscene.^[41]

D. H. Lawrence's novel, Lady Chatterley's Lover, was banned in the UK until a celebrated Obscenity trial in 1960.

In 2003, a poster by Ann Summers was banned following complaints that it was degrading to women.^[42]

[edit] See also

• Freedom of the Press
• International Freedom of Expression Exchange - Monitoring censorship in the UK
• Areopagitica: A speech of Mr John Milton for the liberty of unlicensed printing to the Parliament of England

[edit] References

[edit] External links

• Time Delay.tv - Broadcast Censorship
• Edmund Curll and his prosecutions
• Liberty guide to the Obscene Publications Act
• Theatrical Bill Inspectors and the Licensing Act of 1737
• UK laws regarding prostitution updated for 2006
• Ofcom website
• OfWatch: a site critical of Ofcom
• The Melon Farmers: anti-censorship website
• Index on Censorship: quarterly UK publication of intelligent writing about censorship and free speech
• Failures in a Hybrid Content Blocking System by Richard Clayton, 2005 (technical analysis of Cleanfeed)