Imagine this scenario: A director has just finished a film to release for home viewing. This film required strenuous 
effort, loads of money, and a great deal of time. Feeling confident that this magnificent piece of 
work will be a box office hit, the director submits his film to the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC). 
This is the moment when a directors work can either be thrown to the curb or allowed the chance for public viewing.
Although this is a hypothetical situation, this event is a part of every directors career in Great Britain. 

     The Obscene Publications Act, dating back to 1959, was based on the principals of Lord Chief Justice Cockburn. 
Lord Chief Justice's famous phrase was "Does the article have the tendency to deprave or corrupt the persons who
are likely to read, see, or hear it?" (Obscene Publications Act). Courts decided that this principle must pertain to serious
offenses, not a mere implication. In order for a films release to the public, an approval license must be obtained. 
With this act, anyone who is possession or ownership with obscene articles would be at offence. It gives the police the 
power to search places where assumed indecent articles are to be found. Not only does the Obscene Publications Act 
refer to videos, but anything that fails the indecency test. On the contrary, these offences do not apply to 
television broadcasts, museum exhibits, play performances, or films in licensed cinemas. The Obscene Publications 
Act is seen as absurd because it bases reality on a "make believe" world. Artists have to base their work on a 
child's audience, rather than an adult's audience. 

     With the sudden explosion of VCRs in the early 1980's, video rental shops started popping up across Great Britain.
For a time, one could watch a favorite, uncut horror film from any local video shop. With this in mind, distribution 
companies quickly grasped the idea of getting away with producing low budget exploitation films. These films were 
going around to various video shops for anyone to view. Church leaders, morality groups, and the media caught on to 
this escapade and decided to take immediate action. These different groups feared the distortion would affect children. 
At this time, there was no legislation governing the release of a home video. The governing bodies of Great Britain then 
decided that a new, stricter law must be put into place, rather than the Obscene Publications Act that did not deal 
with this matter. The courts main concern was the likely audience of the videos. Could a discriminatory video end up 
in a child's hand? With this, they feared that the viewing of these videos could permanently alter a child's moral code.

     Causing a need for authority, the British Board of Film Censors was changed to the British Board of Film 
Classification.  The staff increased its membership from twelve to fifty.  In 1985, The Home Secretary selected the 
Presidents and Vice Presidents.  It is also requires that the Board report to Parliament every year on the legal task.  
The main goal of the BBFC is to view every item that is to be released for home viewing and assign certain age groups 
to each video.  The funding of the BBFC is acquired by a charge of ¶5 per minute of running time.  If the film passes 
the test by the BBFC, then a license is granted.  The films that were judged unfit are not allowed to receive a license, 
and, therefore, cannot be subject for public viewing.    

     All of these fears and assumptions caused a moral panic in Great Britain.  With the circulation of these nasties, 
a list of videos was comprised as forbidden.  The Department of Public Prosecutions (DPP) composed a list of films thought
to be worthy of prosecuting under The Obscene Publications Act.  The media called the videos on the list nasties.
At first, there were seventy-four videos, but the original list contained fifty-two titles.  After some were added 
and dropped, the final list, a total of thirty-nine videos, was prosecuted.  The police began to confiscate the videos. 
For example, in between April and May 1982, police detained 234 copies of I Spit on Your Grave from a chain of video 
stores.  So that these films could no longer be sold or found in circulation, the Video Recordings Act was passed in 
1984.  If anyone was in possession of these banned videos, one would receive a fine of ¶20,000.  This act banned the 
trading of uncertified tapes and required that all films anticipated for video release be classified by the BBFC.  
According to an article written on the VRA of 1984, its main goals are to protect from:  "harm to potential viewers, 
including potential underage viewers; harm to society through viewers behaviour; the treatment of:  criminal 
behaviour, illegal drugs, violent behaviour and incidents, horrific behaviour or incidents, and human sexual activities
(VRA Article).  The disapproval of the video nasties was based primarily on the idea that the film was conveying 
to the public, rather than the indecent pictures being shown.  This led to many exemptions in the Video Recordings Act 
of 1984.  Such exemptions include: works that were meant to inform, educate, or instruct; works dealing with sports, 
religion, or music; and video games, and also computer games. Another important factor of the VRA of 1984 is that the 
video nasties were extremely diverse in content.  The BBFC was unable to predict what one thought of as a video nasty 
because of the extreme diversity of the films contents.  An example given in a lecture note of video nasties is:  
They included Italian exploitation movies such as Zombie Flesh Eaters (1979) and SS Experiment Camp (1976), 
horror comedies like The Evil Dead (1982), and a few self-consciously artistic productions such as
Driller Killer (1979). (Lecture Notes)  These are such films that were dubbed as "video nasties" and are no 
longer in circulation.

     	The rise of technology in later years caused concerns for amendments to the Video Recordings Act of 1984.  Concerns
rose when an incident occured in the 1990's.  Jamie Bulger, a two-year-old boy, was murdered by two ten-year-old boys, 
and the media blamed it on the horror video Child's Play 3.  This caused Parliament to enforce stricter laws 
concerning video viewing.  With this, the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act of 1994 came into effect.  The Board was now
required to see if any violent actions or certain scenes could be replayed and copied in reality.

	The Video Recordings Act of 1984 does not comply with the concept of Freedom of Speech.  Although one is able to see 
nudity in a newspaper or on televesion, films with nudity are required to be highly censored.  Even with unfair laws, the 
citizens of Great Britain are forced to comply with these rules.  Although this should be in the hands of parents, the main 
idea behind the BBFC is to protect the children of Great Britain from watching obscene and violent films.  The horror 
industry in Great Britain is suffering with many tribulations because of these acts to supress violence in films.  
One's film could be drastically reduced because of the content that is being presented to the audience.  It is not the 
overwhelming British public that is suffering from these laws.  It is the horror video producing industry that is required 
to bottle up its creative ideas with no where to express its medium.  

VRA Leaflet

How to Comply with the VRA

History of British Film Censorship

Image from I Spit on Your Grave 

Covers of Video Nasties