Editing Video nasty (section)

== Obscenity and video ==
At the time of the introduction of domestic video recorders in the United Kingdom during the 1970s, there was no legislation specifically designed to regulate video content, apart from the [[Obscene Publications Act 1959]] which had been amended in 1977 to cover [[erotic film]]s. Major film distributors were initially reluctant to embrace the new medium of video for fear of [[Copyright infringement|piracy]] and the video market became flooded with low-budget horror films. Whilst some of these films had been passed by the [[British Board of Film Censors]] (BBFC) for cinema release, others had been refused certification which effectively banned them. The Obscene Publications Act defined obscenity as that which may "tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it". This definition is of course open to wide interpretation.

If the [[Director of Public Prosecutions]] (DPP) felt that a certain video might be in breach of the Act, then a prosecution could be brought against the film's producers, distributors and retailers. Prosecutions had to be fought on a case-by-case basis and a backlog of prosecutions built up. However, under the terms of the Act, the [[police]] were empowered to seize videos from retailers if they were of the opinion that the material was in breach of the Act. In the early 1980s, in certain police constabularies, notably [[Greater Manchester Police]] which was at that time run by devout Christian [[Chief constable|Chief Constable]] [[James Anderton]], police raids on video hire shops increased. The choice of titles seized appeared to be completely arbitrary, one raid famously netting a copy of the [[Dolly Parton]] musical ''[[The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas (film)|The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas]]'' (1982) under the mistaken belief it was pornographic.<ref>{{cite web |title=7 Facts About 'The Best Little Whorehouse In Texas' |url=https://classiccountrymusic.com/7-facts-about-the-best-little-whorehouse-in-texas/ |website=Classic Country Music |access-date=13 June 2021}}</ref>

The Video Retailers Association were alarmed by the apparently random seizures and asked the DPP to provide a guideline for the industry so that stockists could be made aware of the titles which were liable to be confiscated. The DPP recognised that the current system, where the interpretation of obscenity was down to individual Chief Constables, was inconsistent and decided to publish a list that contained names of films that had already resulted in a successful prosecution or where the DPP had already filed charges against the video's distributors. This list became known as the DPP list of "video nasties".<ref name=":0">{{Cite book|last=Petley|first=Julian|title=Film and Video Censorship in Modern Britain|publisher=[[Edinburgh University Press]]|year=2011|isbn=978-0748625383|pages=213|doi=10.3366/edinburgh/9780748625383.001.0001}}</ref>

The lack of regulation of the domestic video market was in sharp contrast to the regulation of material intended for public screenings. The BBFC had been established in 1912, essentially as an unintended consequence of the [[Cinematograph Act 1909#Legal basis of censorship|Cinematograph Act 1909]], and it was their responsibility to pass films intended for the cinema for certification within the United Kingdom (though local councils were the final arbiters). As part of this process the board could recommend, or demand in the more extreme cases, that certain cuts be made to the film in order for it to gain a particular certification. Such permission was not always granted, and in the case of the release of ''[[The Exorcist (film)|The Exorcist]]'' in 1973, a number of enterprising managers of cinemas where permission had been granted set about providing buses to transport cinema-goers from other localities where the film could not be seen.