Editing Video nasty (section)

== Relaxation of censorship ==
With the passing of the Video Recordings Act, the films on the list could be prosecuted for both obscenity and not being classified. As well as not passing any film liable to be found obscene, the [[BBFC]] imposed additional bans and cuts on films such as ''[[The Texas Chain Saw Massacre]]''. Claims, since proven at best to be speculative, at worst outright media fabrication,<ref>{{cite book |last1=Kerekes |first1=David |last2=Slater |first2=David |title=See No Evil: Banned Films and Video Controversy |year=2000 |isbn=978-1-900486-10-1 |publisher=Critical Vision |location=[[Manchester]]}}</ref> relating to the [[Hungerford massacre]] and the [[murder of James Bulger]] (where the 1991 film ''[[Child's Play 3]]'' was erroneously held up as influencing the perpetrators, possibly prompting the 1992 film ''[[Mikey (film)|Mikey]]'' to be prohibited in the UK), provided an additional impetus to restrict films and as late as December 1997, the board claimed it "has never relaxed its guidelines on video violence, which remain the strictest in the world".{{citation needed|date=December 2014}} However, the board did loosen its standards, especially at the 18 level, in response to public consultation in 2000. The departure of [[James Ferman]] from the BBFC may also have allowed some long-proscribed films to be re-appraised around this time. ''[[The Exorcist (film)|The Exorcist]]'' was granted an uncut [[18 (British Board of Film Classification)|18 video certificate]] on 25 February 1999, followed by ''The Texas Chain Saw Massacre'' in August, and several official "nasties" were passed in the early 2000s either uncut or with cuts restricted to sexual violence or actual animals being harmed. A list of these is given below. Among modern films, many, such as the ''[[Hostel (2005 film)|Hostel]]'', ''[[Saw (2004 film)|Saw]]'' and [[Terrifier (film series)|Terrifier]] series, contain brutal, graphic violence but have passed through uncut.

* In 2008, there was another brief media frenzy over such films that had years earlier been approved for release by the BBFC, in particular ''[[SS Experiment Camp]]''.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20081013010107/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article3257073.ece Stop this debasing film -Times Online] {{subscription required|date=December 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/32920/Outrage-at-sick-Nazi-DVDs-for-sale |title=Outrage at Sick Nazi DVDs for Sale <nowiki>| UK | News |</nowiki> Daily Express |last=Murray |first=James |date=27 January 2008 |website=Express |access-date=9 December 2014}}</ref> This coincided with an attempt by MPs [[Julian Brazier]] and [[Keith Vaz]] to pass a law allowing MPs greater powers to tighten BBFC guidelines or force an appeal of a release.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/politics_show/7254808.stm |title=BBC News <nowiki>| Programmes | Politics Show |</nowiki> Dismember of Parliament |last=Siegert |first=Paul |date=22 February 2008 |website=[[BBC News]] |access-date=9 December 2014}}</ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20110616131043/http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article3257530.ece MPs press for ban on SS camp ‘video nasty’]{{subscription required|date=December 2014}}</ref> The bill failed to pass.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://centrallobby.politicshome.com/latestnews/article-detail/newsarticle/mps-film-censorship-bid-defeated/ |title=MP's Film Censorship Bid Defeated : ePolitix.com |date=29 February 2008 |website=PoliticsHome |access-date=9 December 2014}}</ref>

The UK Government passed a law criminalising possession of "[[Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008|extreme pornography]]". Whilst BBFC-rated films are exempt from the legislation, screenshots from these same BBFC-rated movies are not,<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/jul/06/getyourtanksoffourporn |title=Get Your Tanks Off Our Porn! <nowiki>| Comment Is Free |</nowiki> ''The Guardian'' |last=Fisher |first=Frank |date=6 July 2007 |website=[[The Guardian]] |access-date=9 December 2014}}</ref> and would also apply to unrated films. ''[[Hostel: Part II]]'' was cited in the House of Commons as an example of a film where screenshots could become illegal to possess.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2007-10-08b.59.1 |title=Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill: 8 Oct 2007: House of Commons Debates – TheyWorkForYou |website=TheyWorkForYou.com |access-date=9 December 2014}}</ref>

{{anchor|DPP|DPPlist|72 films}}