Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

British Video Recordings Act 1984 Invalid

Posted by timothy on from the slight-reprieve dept.

chrb writes "BBC News is reporting that the British Video Recordings Act 1984 is invalid due to a 25 year old legal blunder. The Thatcher government of the day failed to officially "notify" the European Commission about the law, and hence it no longer stands as a legal Act. There will now be a period of around three months before the Act can be passed again, during which time it will be entirely legal to sell any video content without age-rated certifications."

46 of 340 comments (clear)

  1. OMG, freedom. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What are we going to do with it?

    1. Re:OMG, freedom. by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Interesting
      So, am I understanding it correctly, that a sovereign nation over there in Europe, cannot pass their own law without it also being reported (and I assume approved) by an outside entity??

      If so...doesn't that make you a non-sovereign nation then?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    2. Re:OMG, freedom. by Alzheimers · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Those "no-longer restricted videos" have as much to do with teaching sex as a monster truck rally has to do with teaching you how to drive.

    3. Re:OMG, freedom. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The whole idea of the European *Union* is that part of the sovereignty is sacrificed for something beneficial, like open borders (good for the economy), and reducing the likelyhood of war between European countries (you can think of the EU as a response to two world wars).

      Not everybody is happy about that, of course, partly because the EU is not as democratic as it should be. In some countries the EU constitution was voted away in a referendum because of that.

    4. Re:OMG, freedom. by Tanktalus · · Score: 3, Funny

      +1, Car Analogy.

    5. Re:OMG, freedom. by Kokuyo · · Score: 4, Funny

      I applaud your use of monster trucks as an allegory to human genitalia ;).

    6. Re:OMG, freedom. by imamac · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A european country in the EU will eventually end up just as "sovereign" as a state in the US.

    7. Re:OMG, freedom. by Xest · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not really, because the nation in question - Britain, has signed up to have that as part of the deal.

      If Britain hadn't signed up to this and Europe was still enforcing this you'd have a point, but as it's Britain's choice to only allow laws to be legitimate if reported to Europe then it's still a sovereign nation.

      It can get out of this agreement any time it wants but there's not really any reason to as it's not a big deal. Besides, nowadays Europe does a better job of running Britain than the current Labour government does. Certainly the European court of human rights and the EU itself have done more to protect my human rights and civil liberties as a citizen than my own government which has repeatedly tried to violate them.

      Even if Europe was in control of Britain then and did actively choose not to ratify laws like this it could only be a good thing until unelected Brown and his unelected cronies like Mandelson get kicked out next year.

    8. Re:OMG, freedom. by interkin3tic · · Score: 5, Funny

      Those "no-longer restricted videos" have as much to do with teaching sex as a monster truck rally has to do with teaching you how to drive.

      Exactly: it will teach you how to do it THE AWESOME WAY.

    9. Re:OMG, freedom. by theaveng · · Score: 3, Funny

      If I was a French citizen and I was sitting in jail due to a nullified-UK law, I'd be pissed.

      I'd immediately file a case with the Supreme Reichstag (or whatever the EU equivalent of the Supreme Court might be). EU citizens should not be punished by laws that are voided.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    10. Re:OMG, freedom. by cheftw · · Score: 4, Funny

      If I were you, the "Supreme Reichstag" would not be the first place I would go to file a case.

      Unless, of course, you usually file your legal cases in the House of Representatives sixty years ago.

      If that's what you do then you're fine.

      --
      Always back up, never back down. ---- Think you're cool 'cos your uid is prime? Take mine, modulo the one digit integers
    11. Re:OMG, freedom. by bbtom · · Score: 5, Informative

      British movie/game ratings are pretty simple.

      There is:

      U - Universal - suitable for all

      PG - Parental Guidance

      12/12A - for videos, nobody under age 12 is allowed to purchase it. for movies shown in a cinema, under twelves can watch it if they are accompanied by an adult.

      15 - suitable for 15+

      18 - suitable for 18+

      R18 - Restricted 18 - basically porn. Can only be shown in specially licensed venues and sold only in licensed sex shops.

      'E' is on some videos. It's not actually a rating, but it's just a symbol put on by video producers to specify that the film is exempt from rating. Things like videos of sports matches, musical performances, educational videos don't get rated. Most imported videos

      The BBFC also now produce some text that accompanies the rating symbol which broadly gives the reason why the film is rated that way. For instance, it might say "Contains frequent strong bloody violence and very strong language" next to an 18 certificate.

      They introduced R18 a few years ago when they realised that hardcore porn was mostly being circulated through the black market and by people distributing copied tapes. Of course, now, we have the new rules on "violent and extreme" pornography which actually makes it a crime to possess pornography that depicts violent scenarios - rape fantasies, that kind of stuff. With one hand, the government make porn a bit more legal, and with the other hand, they've created a new black market that the Internet supplies.

      The BBFC is generally, imo, pretty fair - I mean, as fair as a bunch of censoring, free-speech-restricting thugs can be. Perhaps it's just bias living here, but BBFC seem to get it right a lot more often than the MPAA ratings do, and they are a hell of a lot less squeamish about depiction of sex and nudity - they make a distinction for 'natural nudity' where it's non-sexual, so we don't have idiotic philistines sticking big blocky pixels over Dürer woodcuts, Titian paintings and Michaelangelo's David (etc.) because they've got HUR HUR HUR DONGS LOL. There's an interesting set of articles by people who have worked at BBFC, describing exactly what it's like censoring movies and video games for a living.

      --
      catch (HumourFailureException e) { e.user.send("You, sir, are a humourless idiot."); }
    12. Re:OMG, freedom. by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      "That "some grassroots" is thankfully very small and very ignorant of modern governance. Rather than blindly attempting to squash anything Washington is trying to do, how about you join in the debate. Maybe we'd grow an able populace that understands why a strong, central government is the best place for many pieces of legislation and pretty much all forms of regulation. Don't be a reactionary."

      I am far from reactionary, I've held and argued my views for quite some time, as I learned more of how my country, the USA, was set up, I found I agree more and more with the founding fathers and the way the govt is supposed to work. It worked VERY well for nearly 200 years, but, people like you want to fundamentally change it. I respect your views, I'm happy to debate it, but, I don't agree with them, and I'll be happy to fight to keep not only keep the US from moving towards a more centralized govt. but, to go back more to our roots which made the US great to begin with.

      I believe the US federal govt. as originally set up to be weak with limited enumerated powers, it the best way to go, my state govt, city govt. is closer to me, has the same interests and me, and is more responsive to mine and my community's needs.

      I believe I am a citizen of my state first, and a citizen of the United States second.

      What is best for someone in NYC, is often NOT the best thing for someone in New Orleans, Anchorage or Phoenix. Each region has different needs, and all our views and needs are EQUAL within the union.

      Care to specifically elaborate what you think makes an argument for changing more and more to a strong centralized govt. from what the US was originally set up to be? How would a strong central govt. that interferes more with the individual's life have made us a greater country than they way we made our path until recent years?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    13. Re:OMG, freedom. by DesScorp · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Don't be a reactionary."

      Don't be a slave.

      In These United States, the Founders set up a Federal division for a good reason... power corrupts, so split it up. And the further the government is from citizens, the less attuned they'll be to those citizens. This is why State and Local governments have been more powerful than their equivalents in Europe. If anything, Federalism and the limits on national government are more important than ever. With over 300 million people, there's simply no way the feds can ever be attuned to local and state concerns, and they'll simply run roughshod over the citizenry, as they've demonstrated increasingly over the decades.

      The notion of an all-powerful national government isn't just bad practice. It is well and truly anti-American, and would be opposed vociferously be even the staunchest of the advocates of central government among our founders, save perhaps for Alexander Hamilton. And I'm pretty sure that if someone ever told Washington or Jefferson that some extra-national entity could void US laws, they'd start loading their muskets. Even Lincoln, the father of modern concentrated Presidential power would object to that.

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
  2. Hang On by totallyarb · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Can a British lawyer please tell me at what point notification of the European Commission became a requirement for an Act of Parliament to become legally binding? Surely such a surrender of sovereignty was exactly the sort of thing Thatcher opposed?

    --
    -- Note to Mods: There is a good reason there's no "-1 Disagree" option. --
    1. Re:Hang On by jfengel · · Score: 5, Informative

      IANA(British)L, but here's the gist:

      The UK joined the EEC in 1973. Council Directive 83/189/EEC was passed in March 1983. It says that if a country passes "standards" it has to notify other countries.

      See, the EEC (now the EU) is designed to allow freer trade between countries. You can't do that if you're implementing standards that you're not telling other people about. It makes for a "gotcha" situation: "Hey, you didn't follow the standard, and we're going to prosecute you under our laws, even though you followed all the rules you knew about."

    2. Re:Hang On by Dr.+Hok · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Can a British lawyer please tell me at what point notification of the European Commission became a requirement for an Act of Parliament to become legally binding? Surely such a surrender of sovereignty was exactly the sort of thing Thatcher opposed?

      You call that surrender of sovereignty? Think again. The government didn't have to ask for permission to pass this law, it was only supposed to inform the European Commission. In other words: make it public, so their European partner countries know what's happening in their neighborhood. That's just common sense.

      --
      Say out loud: I'm an Aspie and I'm somewhat proud, I guess. Uh. Can I write an email in all caps instead? Hm...
    3. Re:Hang On by camperdave · · Score: 4, Funny

      Ah! So if they up their standards they are legally required to tell other countries "Up yours!"

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    4. Re:Hang On by eln · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The EU is designed in part to be a very close union between member states, in order to combat the extreme nationalism that predicated two major ruinous conflicts on the European continent in the 20th century. Every EU nation gives up some measure of sovereignty (although really not that much in the grand scheme of things) in order to promote the greater good.

      Even having said that, though, I would argue that the simple requirement to inform other nations of standards and laws you pass is not really any more of a surrendering of sovereignty than most other provisions in any other treaty between nations.

    5. Re:Hang On by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Interesting

      >>>the EEC (now the EU) is designed to allow freer trade between countries. You can't do that if you're implementing standards that you're not telling other people about
      >>>

      Well that's stupid.

      The State of Utah can ban playboy from bookstores (and they have), but they are not any obligation to inform the other 49 states or the U.S. Congress about this change in law. It's called sovereignty - Utah does whatever it pleases within its own boundaries. I'm surprised to hear that the UK has less power over its own laws than does Utah, and I wonder if the EU may be exerting too much power.

      Aside-

      One cool example is when Delaware passed a law forbidding building new chemical plants without the DE Legislature's permission. Well just a few years later New Jersey built a new plant along the Delaware Bay. Delaware immediately sued NJ, and the NJ governor told delaware to fuck off, and so on. The U.S. Supreme Court dug-out 400 year old documents, reviewed the original charters, and proclaimed Delaware was correct - they own that beachfront. So New Jersey was forced to dismantle their construction and restore the waterline to its original appearance.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    6. Re:Hang On by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Informative

      Therefore all convictions since 1984 should be nullified, since the law itself is voided by the treaty.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  3. This is absurd by mpeskett · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How exactly do 25 years pass without anyone noticing that a law, that's supposed to be official and in force, hasn't actually been enacted?

    It's beyond a joke... although I'm sure there will be plenty of jokes.

    1. Re:This is absurd by EddyPearson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Thats not how we do it in the UK mate. Here we make as many laws as possible, criminalizing as many people as we can. This so that when we decide we don't like them anymore there's a quick exit waiting. It also makes it easier for the police to root out the bad guys. When everybody has committed at least one crime, gives them leverage.

      This was an embarressing oversight, normal service will be resumed shortly.

      --
      You feel sleepy. Close your eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.
    2. Re:This is absurd by Rayeth · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Oh what a coincidence! I think this is the same strategy the US uses for drug and patent policy. It all makes so much sense now.

    3. Re:This is absurd by Aladrin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      More importantly ,what about anyone convicted under that act while it wasn't really an act? Do they get their time, money, etc back?

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
    4. Re:This is absurd by Xphile101361 · · Score: 3, Funny

      I think by now you've ran out of continents to ship these people off to

    5. Re:This is absurd by Plunky · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

  4. Scandalous by RobVB · · Score: 5, Informative
    FTA:

    "Our legal advice is that those previously prosecuted will be unable to overturn their prosecution or receive financial recompense," she said.

    So people who were previously prosecuted for breaking a non-law will be unable to overturn their prosecution.

    --
    I'd rather you rationally disagree than irrationally agree.
    1. Re:Scandalous by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 5, Informative

      Of course not.

      "An emergency Injunction was passed until a formal law could be passed."
      The Censorship Nazgul don't give up that easily.

      --
      My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
    2. Re:Scandalous by DrJimbo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What are you talking about? Britain doesn't even have a constitution.

      No problemo. They can take ours. We're sure not using it.

      --
      We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
      -- Anais Nin
  5. Re:Of course, Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Great post! Slashdot really needs a "+1 refers to '1984' somehow" mod option.

  6. Hurray?! by sqrt(2) · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So when society DOESN'T collapse into anarchy, are they going to realize this law was idiotic and unnecessary and not pass it again?

    --
    If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
  7. Just watch... by damburger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When the British Video Recordings Act 2009 is passed, it will be more restrictive than the original 1984 verson. I mean, why would any good centre-right, middle-class courting, focus-group driven pack of fear-mongers pass up a perfectly good opportunity for a moral panic? Won't somebody PLEASE think of the CHILDREN!?

    --
    If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    1. Re:Just watch... by Hatta · · Score: 3, Informative

      Technology has made it irrelevant anyway. Any kid can get any video he wants over the network.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:Just watch... by pete-classic · · Score: 4, Funny

      Isn't the Labour party in power? Aren't they the good guys? Won't they pass a sensible, populist law?

      -Peter

    3. Re:Just watch... by digitig · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'll admit that I don't follow UK politics very closely. But I thought that draconian censorship was more of a Tory thing.

      No, it's a government thing.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
  8. Re:Another implication by oahazmatt · · Score: 3, Informative

    Pending prosecutions will be abandoned, but existing convictions will stand.
    So, yes, they will just keep them in jail.

    --
    Those who believe the Internet is private,
    find their privates are on the Internet.
  9. Re:Another implication by badfish99 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Existing convictions will stand"

    In other words "existing convictions will collapse as soon as they are challenged in court, but let's lie about this and hope that everyone believes us".

  10. Re:Another implication by Anonymous+Cowar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If all of the judges in the land believe it is within their power to continue with the lie and refuse to hear appeals based on this, guess what happens?

  11. No, Police will probably pretend law is valid by rolfwind · · Score: 3, Interesting

    during those 3 months until Parliament can scramble together a Save the Children act.

    I heard that the FBI kept on relying on parts of the (un)Patriot(ic) Act long after the Supreme Court overturned those same parts of it. Business as usual, carry on.

  12. Re:so who will by Hognoxious · · Score: 3, Funny

    Mr Patel from the corner shop - he already does.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  13. Re:at least they're fixing it by commodore64_love · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm glad you've been marked "troll" because you're flat wrong.

    Time-and-time again laws have been declared unconstitutional and the prisoners freed (see my previous post filled with quotes). Just watch Henry Fonda's excellent movie "Gideon" for an example which is about a real man who stood-up against tyranny, and won.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  14. More freedom - no copyright now?! by chrb · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I added this as a comment to the original submission but it didn't get picked up.

    According to The Telegraph this also means that there is now no copyright on DVDs. I'm not sure of the reasoning for this since copyright is supposed to be enforced by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, but that's the legal system for you.

    So, apparently the UK is now (unwittingly) running the first national experiment in the abolition of copyright and age controls on DVDs. Should be interesting!

  15. Tom Lehre's Smut Lyrics by realsilly · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think Tom Lehre said it best in his song called Smut.

    I do have a cause though. It is obscenity. I'm for it. Unfortunately the civil liberties types who are fighting this issue have to fight it owing to the nature of the laws as a matter of freedom of speech and stifling of free expression and so on but we know what's really involved: dirty books are fun. That's all there is to it. But you can't get up in a court and say that I suppose. It's simply a matter of freedom of pleasure, a right which is not guaranteed by the Constitution unfortunately. Anyway, since people seem to be marching for their causes these days I have here a march for mine. It's called...

    Smut!
    Give me smut and nothing but!
    A dirty novel I can't shut,
    If it's uncut,
    and unsubt- le.

    I've never quibbled
    If it was ribald,
    I would devour where others merely nibbled.
    As the judge remarked the day that he
    acquitted my Aunt Hortense,
    "To be smut
    It must be ut-
    Terly without redeeming social importance."

    Por-
    Nographic pictures I adore.
    Indecent magazines galore,
    I like them more
    If they're hard core.

    (Bring on the obscene movies, murals, postcards, neckties,
    samplers, stained-glass windows, tattoos, anything!
    More, more, I'm still not satisfied!)

    Stories of tortures
    Used by debauchers,
    Lurid, licentious, and vile,
    Make me smile.
    Novels that pander
    To my taste for candor
    Give me a pleasure sublime.
    (Let's face it, I love slime.)

    All books can be indecent books
    Though recent books are bolder,
    For filth (I'm glad to say) is in
    the mind of the beholder.
    When correctly viewed,
    Everything is lewd.
    (I could tell you things about Peter Pan,
    And the Wizard of Oz, there's a dirty old man!)

    I thrill
    To any book like Fanny Hill,
    And I suppose I always will,
    If it is swill
    And really fil
    thy.

    Who needs a hobby like tennis or philately?
    I've got a hobby: rereading Lady Chatterley.
    But now they're trying to take it all
    away from us unless
    We take a stand, and hand in hand
    we fight for freedom of the press.
    In other words,

    Smut! (I love it)
    Ah, the adventures of a slut.
    Oh, I'm a market they can't glut,
    I don't know what
    Compares with smut.

    Hip hip hooray!
    Let's hear it for the Supreme Court!
    Don't let them take it away!

    --
    Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
  16. Re:so who will by Kokuyo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, because this is SUCH an emergency. Kids will turn into goat slaughtering satanist child molesters INSTANTLY because of this, mark my words!

  17. Great! by G-Man · · Score: 3, Funny

    Gordon Brown can finally play those Region 1 DVDs he got from Obama! Oh, happy day.