In the United Kingdom censorship has been applied to various forms of expression such as the media, cinema, entertainment venues, literature, theatre and criticism of themonarchy. There is no general right to thefreedom of speech in the UK;[1] however, since 1998, limited freedom of expression is guaranteed according toArticle 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as applied in British law through theHuman Rights Act 1998.[2]
Current law allows for restrictions on threatening or abusive words or behaviour intending or likely to causeharassment, alarm or distress or cause abreach of the peace,[3][4][5] sending another any article which is indecent or grossly offensive with an intent to cause distress or anxiety,[6][7][8]incitement,[9]incitement to racial hatred,[10] incitement to religious hatred, incitement toterrorism including encouragement of terrorism and dissemination of terrorist publications,[9][11][12] glorifying terrorism,[13][14] collection orpossession of a document or record containing information likely to be of use to a terrorist,[15][16]treason,[17][18][19][20][21]obscenity,[22] indecency including corruption ofpublic morals andoutraging public decency,[23] defamation,[24]prior restraint, restrictions on court reporting (including names of victims and evidence and prejudicing or interfering with court proceedings,[25][26] prohibition of post-trial interviews withjurors),[26] time, manner, and place restrictions,[27] harassment, privileged communications,trade secrets, classified material,copyright,patents, military conduct, and limitations oncommercial speech such as advertising.
TheMinistry of Information was created during theFirst World War and then reformed for theSecond World War for propaganda purposes. In the Second World War it was located at theSenate House of theUniversity of London. During the Second World War it was infamous for having a staff of 999.[28]
The Ministry was responsible for keeping much information out of the public domain during the war years, as it was thought that this would have been harmful to the national sentiment. It also censored many press reports that were not deemed to be sufficiently patriotic, or that listed military operations to a level of detail that could be used by the enemy.
The Ministry took over the General Post Office Film Unit, renaming it the Crown Film Unit. It produced documentaries such asTarget for Tonight (1941),Western Approaches (1944) andLondon Can Take It! (1940). It also created a feature-length fictional film;49th Parallel (1941). Following this it solely created documentaries, although it also laid down propaganda guidelines for commercial films.
The Ministry was disbanded following the end of theSecond World War.
Obscenity law inEngland and Wales is currently governed by the variousObscene Publications Acts, andSection 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 but obscenity laws go back much further into theEnglish common law.
The conviction in 1727 ofEdmund Curll for the publication ofVenus in the Cloister or The Nun in her Smock under thecommon law offence ofdisturbing theKing's peace was the first conviction for obscenity inGreat Britain, and set alegal precedent for other convictions.[29]
A defence against the charge of obscenity on the grounds ofliterary merit was introduced in theObscene Publications Act 1959. The OPA was tested in the high-profile obscenity trial brought againstPenguin Books for publishingLady Chatterley's Lover (byD. 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.[30] This trial did not establish the 'merit' defence as an automatic right; several controversial books and publications were the subject of British court cases throughout the 1960s and into the 1970s.Last Exit to Brooklyn, a 1964 novel by the American authorHubert Selby Jr was subject of a private prosecution in 1966.
The distinction between legalerotic literature and illegalpornography was traditionally made in the English-speaking courts on the basis of perceivedliterary merit. No prosecutions of purely textual pornography took place following theInside Linda Lovelace trial of 1976[31] until October 2008, when a man was charged (but later cleared) under the Obscene Publications Act after allegedly posting fictional written material to the Internet describing the kidnap, rape and murder of the pop groupGirls Aloud (theR v Walker trial).[32][33] In late August 2005 the government announced that it planned to criminalise possession ofextreme pornographic material, rather than just publication,[34] and the law came into force asSection 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.
Under Section 69 of theSerious Crime Act 2015,[35] not only creation but also possession of manuals giving advice how to groom or abuse children is also outlawed.[36][37][38]
Almost alladult stores in the UK are forbidden from having their goods in open display under theIndecent Displays Act 1981, 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. TheVideo Recordings Act 1984 introduced theR18-rated classification for videos that are only available in licensed sex shops, but hardcore pornographic magazines are available in newsagents in some places. TheAnn Summers chain oflingerie and sex shops won the right to advertise for workers injob centres, which was originally banned under restrictions on what advertising could be carried out by thesex industry.[39][40]
According to anurban legend, theMull of Kintyre test orMull of Kintyre rule was an unofficial guideline used by theBritish Board of Film Classification (BBFC) to decide whether an image of apenis could be shown.[41] According to the myth, the BBFC would not permit the general release of a film or video if it depicted a peniserect to the point that the angle it made from the vertical was higher than that of the peninsula ofKintyre inArgyll and Bute on maps of Scotland.[42][43] This test has often been called "the angle of the dangle".[44][45][46]
The Mull of Kintyre test was said to have first been used for the release of the controversial erotic historical drama filmCaligula in 1979.[41]
Censorship of stage plays was exercised by theMaster of the Revels in England by about 1600 until theEnglish Civil War in 1642.[47][48]
In 1737, partly as a result of political attacks byHenry Fielding againstRobert Walpole, Parliament enacted a law that established "the Examiner of the Stage" (an official in theLord Chamberlain's office) to censor plays on the basis of both politics and morals (i.e. sexual impropriety, blasphemy, and foul language). Plays had to be licensed by the Lord Chamberlain. In 1737, through the influence ofthe Duke of Grafton, the Shakespearian commentatorEdward Capell was appointed with an annual salary of £200 as deputy-examiner of plays. This censorship by licensing requirement was finally abolished by theTheatres Act 1968.
According toRufus Osgood Mason (who gives an example of a written licence from 1814):
Charles Kemble, later in life, received the appointment of "Examiner of Plays". The duties consisted in reading the plays which had been accepted by the managers of the different theatres, to see that they contained nothing objectionable either on the score of politics or morals. Those that were approved were reported to the Lord Chamberlain who issued the licence.[clarification needed][49]
England and Wales have relatively strictlibel laws ("defamation" inScotland) 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. Whilst costs can be awarded the ability both to bring and to defend 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.
A relevant example is the case ofSimon Singh's lawsuit, where the author and journalist Simon Singh was sued by theBritish Chiropractic Association for criticism ofchiropractic therapy which rested on a summary of recent scientific research. Singh was able to pursue a legal defence because of his earnings from four best-sellers.
In another case the UK based academic publisher Equinox was forced to remove a peer reviewed academic article from its publicationInternational Journal of Speech, Language and the Law.[50] The article "Charlatanry in forensic speech science: A problem to be taken seriously" was a metastudy of lie detector research and came to the conclusion that lie detectors do not work.[51] The Israeli manufacturer oflie detectors Nemesysco forced the publisher to remove the already published article from the online databases and the journal was also forced to publish an apology in a later issue.[52][53][54]
On 15 March 2011 a draft Defamation Bill (CP3/11) was published by theMinistry of Justice with an accompanying "consultation paper containing provisions for reforming the law to strike the right balance between protection offreedom of speech and protection of reputation". The consultation closed on 10 June 2011.[55][non-primary source needed] TheDefamation Act 2013 reformed English defamation law to require serious harm (meaning specifically financial harm in the case of a corporate complainant), to tighten personal jurisdiction, and to replace the existing common law defences with defences of truth, honest opinion, publication on a matter of public interest, and peer-reviewed publication in a scientific or academic journal. It comprised a response to perceptions that the law as it stood was giving rise to libel tourism (a problem which had led, for example, to the United States passing theSPEECH Act in 2010 to block enforcement of English defamation judgments) and other inappropriate claims.
Blasphemy againstChristianity was long an important part of British censorship, with the unwrittencommon law of England containing an offence ofblasphemous libel. Prosecutions were, however, rare; the last was the 1977Gay News legal caseWhitehouse v. Lemon, and the last prosecution in Scotland for the Scots common law offence of blasphemy was in 1843. Later developments around the turn of the 21st century, particularly theHuman Rights Act 1998 in conjunction withArticle 9 andArticle 10, put the continued viability of blasphemy prosecutions in doubt.[56] The offence was definitively abolished on 8 May 2008,[57] and the Scottish offence in 2024,[58] but the Northern Ireland offence still stands.
Critics claimed theRacial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 could hinder freedom of speech.[59][60] Leaders of major religions[61] as well as non-religious groups such as theNational Secular Society[62] andEnglish PEN[63] spoke out in order to campaign against the Bill. Comedians and satirists also feared prosecution for their work.[59][64] However, a late amendment to the Act as a result of these campaigns reads: "Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system."[65]
There are severalActs of theUnited Kingdom Parliament for the protection of official information, mainly related tonational security. The latest revision is theOfficial Secrets Act 1989[66] (1989 chapter 6), which removed thepublic interest defence by repealing section 2 of theOfficial Secrets Act 1911. In 2004a memo containing details of a possible US bombing of the broadcasterAl Jazeera was leaked to the press.Attorney GeneralPeter Goldsmith 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".[67][68][69]
TheTerrorism Act 2000 makes it an offence to collect or possess, and as amended in 2019 also to access, information likely to be of use to a terrorist.[70][15][16] Bilal Zaheer Ahmad, 23, fromWolverhampton, is believed to be the first person convicted of collecting information likely to be of use to a terrorist, including theal-Qaeda publicationInspire.[15][16] Since then, Ben Raymond of the groupNational Action has also been convicted, among other charges, of possession of terrorist information, includingAnders Breivik's manifesto and a guide to homemade detonators.[71]
TheTerrorism Act 2006 makes it an offence to "glorify"terrorism.[72] There are concerns that this could limitfree speech.[73][74][75]
DSMA-Notices (Defence and Security Media Advisory Notice, formerly a DA-Notice) are official but voluntary requests to news editors not to publish items on specified subjects, for reasons of national security.[76]
Beyond obscenity law, there have been a number of organisations 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 plays were performed. Under the provisions of theTheatrical Licensing Act 1737 as extended by theTheatres Act 1843, theLord Chamberlain's Office was able to censor plays. This role continued until theTheatres Act 1968 abolished the practice following severalcauses célèbres, and a long campaign by the theatre criticKenneth Tynan among others.
TheBritish Board of Film Classification (BBFC) is thede facto film censor for films in the United Kingdom;[77] 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.
Up until 2007, theBroadcast Advertising Clearance Centre (BACC) pre-approved most British television advertising[78] (underOfcom rules, other broadcasters can also approve their own advertising content, but most rely on the BACC). TheAdvertising Standards Authority is the regulatory advertising body, but can only prevent the republication of advertisements after upholding complaints from the general public.
The advent of theInternet 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 ofhardcore pornography under anR18 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 filmBaise-moi, which was given an 18 certificate despite showing scenes of unsimulated sexual activity.
Ofcom is now the regulatory body for UK television, radio, and telecommunications services since the abolition of theIndependent Television Commission.[79] Ofcom exerts its powers under theCommunications 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 byReporters Without Borders, gave the United Kingdom a score of 5.17, making it 24th.[80]
A number of industries carry out what is known asself-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 andlibel. There is no clear line between self-regulation in matters of expression andself-censorship.
In 2019 the intelligence researcherJames Flynn reported an example of self-regulation resulting in the cancelled publication of a book about censorship itself. Flynn's bookIn Defence of Free Speech was originally accepted byEmerald Insight but later rejected over concerns that there was a "significant possibility of legal action" under the UK's hate speech and libel laws.[81][82]Douglas Murray criticised this decision and compared it to the 2006 controversy that preventedAlms for Jihad from being published in the United Kingdom.[83]
Industry self-regulatory bodies include theAdvertising Standards Authority. In the wake of theLeveson Inquiry thePress Complaints Commission (PCC), which had been the main industry regulator of the press in the United Kingdom since 1990, was wound up and most national newspapers now belong to theIndependent Press Standards Organisation, established in 2014, refusing to sign up toIMPRESS, the Leveson-compliant alternative.
Proceedings of theHouse of Lords,House of Commons, and variousParliamentary Committees are broadcast onBBC Parliament andParliament's Web site. The Rules of Coverage released by the House of CommonsBroadcasting Committee place severe limitations on the use of this footage, including a prohibition of its use in the context of political satire.[84] For this reason, rebroadcasts of foreign comedy shows containing Parliamentary footage are restricted from broadcast in the UK, or the footage removed or replaced, often to comic effect.[85][86]
A gag order, or anonymity order, is sometimes issued by courts in the United Kingdom to protect privacy, prevent harm to suspects, prisoners,[87] witnesses, victims, or to protect national security.[88] In theAllan Chappelow murder case, the trial was held mostlyin camera and media were prevented from speculating on the case. The order was imposed after a "compelling case" made by prosecutors, despite overwhelming media opposition brought by a legal challenge to the ruling.[89][90][91] This criminal case has been thought to be the first in which a gagging order was imposed.[92]
In 2011super-injunctions in English law, gagging orders that applied to themselves, were being referred to almost daily in the United Kingdom after a number of high-profile public figures, including celebrities and politicians,censored the British media from revealing information about their personal lives, such as affairs[93] and dealings with prostitutes.
Gag orders protecting the privacy of convicted child murderers such asMary Bell,Jon Venables andDavid McGreavy, in order to protect them from revenge attacks, have also been controversial because of public concerns about the inability to avoid such persons and protect victims' families and other children from being harmed by them.[87][94]
Art was often used as propaganda in Europe, often to point out political scandals but also to spread patriotism in times of need.[95] More specifically, caricature was often used to satirise these events and people and bring attention to the artists' perspectives.[96] Although censorship laws changed based on the stability of the monarchy and their opinions of the citizens, Britain was one of the European countries with the least amount of censorship in this area. During theFrench Revolution, Britain was in fact the only country where such propaganda was free and legal. The most famous British caricaturists at the time includedIsaac Cruikshank,James Gillray, andThomas Rowlandson. Although all three caricaturists had different perspectives and opinions, they were the frontrunners in the push towards patriotism of the United Kingdom when the UK faced attack fromNapoleon.[97]
After the passage of theCinematograph Act 1909, which required local authorities to inspect and license cinemas for fire safety reasons, some local councils began to use licensing as a way to enforce film censorship.[98] Consequently, the British Board of Film Censors, known today as theBritish Board of Film Classification (BBFC) was founded to standardise film regulation.[99]
Although freedom of expression and protection of privacy over the Internet is guaranteed by UK law, since about 2010 there has been an increasing shift towards authoritarian measures such as increased surveillance (The United Kingdom has more police surveillance cameras than anywhere else outside China) and police action.[100][101] Combating terrorism and preventingchild abuse have been widely used by state agencies and private commercial actors (e.g. Internet service providers) to justify the implementation of interception and direct filtering measures. Nevertheless, in 2010 theOpenNet Initiative (ONI) found no evidence of technical filtering in the political, social, conflict/security, or Internet tools areas. The UK openly blocks child pornography websites, for which ONI does not test.[102]
98.6% of UK internet traffic consume a service called thechild abuse image content list which uses data provided by theInternet Watch Foundation to identify pages judged to contain indecent photographs of children.[103][104][105] 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 July and again in October 2011, theHigh Court ruled thatBT Retail mustblock access to a website (newzbin.com) which "provides links to pirated movies".[106][107] In September 2011, in response to the court ruling and with encouragement from government, leading UK ISPs are reported to have privately agreed in principle to quickly restrict access to websites when presented with court orders.[108] In May 2012 the High Court ordered UK ISPs to blockThe Pirate Bay to prevent further copyright infringing movie and music downloads facilitated by the website.[109][110] Soon after, the High Court ordered UK ISPs to block other websites linking to, or endorsing online "piracy", such as KickAss Torrents (kat.ph).
Since the end of 2013 a rolling programme has been in place to ensure that most households in the UK have pornography and other material (such as suicide, alcohol and violence-related content)filtered from the Internet by default unless a household chooses to receive it. This follows an announcement by Prime MinisterDavid Cameron on 22 July 2013.[111]
In addition to Internet filtering, the UK also prosecutes those who are alleged to be violatinghate speech laws online. In particular, theCommunications Act 2003 outlaws the act of sending "by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character".[112] In 2017Alison Saunders, theDirector of Public Prosecutions, announced the allocation of additional resources for enforcing it and the intent to treat online speech as equivalent to a conversation in person.[113] In 2018 theSentencing Council began deliberating on whether to increase the maximum sentence for suspects with manysocial media followers.[114] Digital secretaryMargot James also outlined a plan to increase government regulation of social networks with possible penalties including 4% of the firm's global turnover.[115] Culture secretaryMatt Hancock elaborated on this plan and likened it to the controversial German lawNetzDG. After the refusal by ten technology companies to send representatives to a meeting he held, he stated that this gave him "a big impetus to drive these proposals to legislate through".[116] As of 2017, it was estimated that nine people per day were being arrested for online speech within the UK, with five leading to convictions.[117][118] In February 2021 a Scottish man fromLanark was arrested and subsequently convicted for an "offensive tweet" insulting the recently deceased Second World War veteranSir Thomas Moore, which read: "The only good Brit soldier is a deed one, burn auld fella buuuuurn".[119][120] In September 2024 the American billionaire businessmanElon Musk wrote: "I don't think anyone should go to the UK when they're releasing convicted pedophiles in order to imprison people for social media posts", after apparently being "shunned" from a UK summit that year.[121] In November 2024 the former prime minister Boris Johnson wrote onTwitter, in regards to a journalist being visited by police for a tweet: "This is appalling. How can Starmer's Britain lecture other countries about free speech when an innocent journalist gets a knock on the door – for a tweet? Our police have their hands full of burglaries and violent crime. They are being forced to behave like a woke Securitate – and it has to stop."[122] In 2024 a man fromCarlisle was imprisoned after posting three images onFacebook which included men of South Asian appearance, one of which showed the men wielding knives, with the captions "Coming to a town near you" and "When it's on your turf, then what?".[123] In another incident reported on in 2024 a black woman from London was charged with using racial slurs on Twitter in 2023, writing: "I’m so p***** off let me get my hands on that f****n***a".[124] The charges were later dropped.[125]
Beginning in March 2019, theDigital Economy Act 2017 gave the government power to require certain websites to implement anage verification scheme under rules defined in theOnline Pornography (Commercial Basis) Regulations 2019.[126] After a series of setbacks, the planned scheme was eventually abandoned in 2019.[127]
Following the implementation of theOnline Safety Act 2023 on 25 July 2025,Ofcom required age verification system for accessingpornographic sites,[128][129] as well as digital platforms like X (formerlyTwitter),[130]Reddit,[131]Bluesky,[132]Discord,[133]Grindr[134] andSpotify.[135]
On 8 August 2024, after the2024 United Kingdom riots the UK government official account onX (Twitter) quoted "Think before you post" theCrown Prosecution Service announcement of the criminalisation of social media contents that are so called "inciting criminal behaviour".[136]
In 1873 controversy over the depiction ofWilliam Ewart Gladstone,Robert Lowe, 1st Viscount Sherbrooke, andActon Smee Ayrton inW. S. Gilbert andGilbert Arthur à Beckett'sThe Happy Land led to the play's licence being revoked by theLord Chamberlain. A censored version of the play was eventually allowed to be performed, but uncensored scripts, with the censored portions printed in all capital letters, were printed by the theatre's manager. The play became a smash hit.[137][138]
The novelUlysses byJames Joyce was banned in the United Kingdom in 1922 when it was declared obscene.[139]
The novelistGeorge Orwell wrote several articles oncensorship including an item titledThe Freedom of the Press in 1943. It appears that this was a preface for his bookAnimal Farm, but it is unclear if it had been deliberately suppressed or if Orwell himself chose not to publish it.
Any fair-minded 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 inEngland is that it is largely voluntary. – George Orwell[140]
Orwell went on to suggest that because both the UK and theSoviet Union were members of theAllied powers at the time, this self-censorship was preventing valid criticism of the Communist regime. Orwell worked for the Ministry of Information during the war and used it as his inspiration for theMinistry of Truth inNineteen Eighty-Four.
Censorship of music on the airwaves was in effect the power of the BBC. Some songs were banned for containing sexually explicit lyrics, or promoting the use of drugs. Some songs were banned for political reasons such asPaul McCartney and Wings song "Give Ireland Back to the Irish" in the 1970s, or in the 1980sChristy Moore's "Back Home in Derry" since it was written byBobby Sands.[141]
In 1949 the "BBC Variety Programmes Policy Guide For Writers and Producers" (commonly known as "the Green Book") was issued by the BBC to its producers and writers of comedy. Among things absolutely banned were jokes about lavatories, effeminacy in men, immorality of any kind, suggestive references to honeymoon couples, chambermaids, fig leaves, ladies' underwear (e.g. "winter draws on"), prostitution, and the vulgar use of words such as "basket".[citation needed] The guidelines also stipulated that "such words asGod, Good God, My God, Blast, Hell, Damn, Bloody, Gorblimey, Ruddy, etc etc should be deleted from scripts and innocuous expressions substituted."[142]
In April 2013, afterthe death ofMargaret Thatcher, the song "Ding-Dong! The Witch Is Dead" from the 1939 filmThe Wizard of Oz rose to number two in theBBC Radio 1 UK singles chart as many people bought the song to celebrate her death. The BBC refused to air the full song, however, with only a small clip being played on the hit chart show.[143]
In 2025, historianRutger Bregman's intended statement in his2025 Reith Lecture thatDonald Trump was the "most openly corrupt president in American history" was censored by the BBC upon advice of its lawyers prior to the broadcast.[144] The BBC forbid its staff from quoting the censored line in communication with the media.[145]
Duringthe Troubles inNorthern Ireland the BBC,ITV andChannel 4 regularly stopped or postponed the broadcast of documentaries relating to Ireland. AReal Lives documentary for the BBC,At the Edge of the Union, was temporarily blocked in August 1985 by direct government intervention from the then Home SecretaryLeon Brittan. This led to a one-day strike by theNational Union of Journalists to defend the independence of the BBC.
From November 1988 to September 1994,[146] the voices ofIrish republicans andLoyalist paramilitaries werebarred by the British government from British television and radio. This necessitated the use by broadcasters of an actor 'revoicing' the words which had been spoken by interviewees or at public meetings by the affected groups. The case ofAfter Dark – "the most uncensorable programme in the history of British television"[147] – is also relevant, specifically theunmade edition of the programme in 1988 withGerry Adams. The ban was lifted a fortnight after the firstProvisional Irish Republican Army ceasefire, on 16 September 1994. The ban could not be enforced for the duration of election campaigns.
An international academic conference on censorship noted other "After Dark case histories which bear on issues of censorship include the intelligence services, drugs, freemasonry, sex[148] ... andOliver Reed."[147]
The 1986 documentaryGreece: The Hidden War, that investigated the involvement ofBritish forces in theDekemvriana events and theGreek Civil War, was banned from being reshown.[149]
The introduction of controversial video games featuring photo-realistic images, such asMortal Kombat andNight Trap, led to calls from the tabloid press for games to fall under theVideo Recordings Act. The UK games publisher trade bodyELSPA responded by introducing a voluntary age rating system in 1994. The ELSPA ratings were succeeded byPEGI in 2003.
Nevertheless, although games are generally exempt from the Video Recordings Act, those depicting sexual content, or gross violence towards people or animals, must still be submitted to theBBFC for consideration. BBFC ratings are legally binding, and British law imposes stiff penalties on retailers who sell to under-aged customers. However, the Act was discovered in August 2009 to be unenforceable.[150] The rating system is to be reviewed as part of theDigital Britain project.[151]
Carmageddon, in which the gameplay involved mowing down innocent pedestrians, was the first game to be refused classification in 1997, effectively banning it from sale.[152] The game's publisher,SCI, had a modified version created in which the pedestrians in question were replaced by green-blooded zombies, which completed a successful appeal against the BBFC to overturn their original decision. The uncensored, unmodified version ofCarmageddon was later released under an 18-certificate.
In 2002 theIO Interactive gameHitman 2: Silent Assassin was withdrawn by a number of retailers due to religious sensitivities.[153] The area in question involved aSikh sect that were depicted as terrorists involved in arms smuggling and assassination. It also involved a section that many Sikhs believed to closely resemble the1984 massacre at the Amritsar temple.
In 2004 the parents of a murdered 14-year-old boy blamedManhunt as having been "connected" to the murder. It was later found not to be, as the game was found in the victim's home, rather than the killer's.[154] Leicestershire police "did not uncover any connections to the computer game".[155] The accusations prompted some retailers to remove the game from their shelves.[156] Nevertheless, following this incident the sales of the game rose due to the free publicity from newspaper headlines. The sequel,Manhunt 2, released in 2007, was banned from being sold in the UK by theBBFC. On appeal to theVideo Appeals Committee this ruling was overturned[157] however the BBFC launched a successfuljudicial review into the VAC's decision, forcing the VAC to reconsider its judgment.[158] On 14 March 2008 the VAC again recommended that the game be released, a position to which the BBFC agreed. The game is now available.
In addition, Ahmad admitted three counts of collecting information likely to be of use to a terrorist, including the al-Qaeda publication Inspire. This is the first successful prosecution for possessing the online jihadist magazine.
Advocating the abolition of the monarchy in print is lawful and no one can be prosecuted for it, despite a 19th-century act still on the statute book that bans it…
A 2005 law created an 'exclusion zone' inside which all protests required police permission. ... The requirement for police permission was introduced in theSerious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005.
An anonymity order preventing the naming of one of Britain's most notorious child killers as David McGreavy has been lifted by the high court.
