Latest news with #VideoRecordingsAct1984
Yahoo
18-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
How The Abyss banned scene ended up on Disney+ as streaming service removes film
A classic James Cameron film has been removed from Disney+ over a banned scene of animal cruelty. The Abyss was originally released in 1989 and came under fire for a scene that showed a real rat being dunked into a vat of chemicals, which animal rights campaigners succeeded in having cut from theatrical screenings. But a "loophole" meant that the full version including the rat scene dropped on streaming service Disney+ in April. It has now been removed - here's how it made its way onto the streamer and what happened next. Cameron's 1989 film The Abyss starred Ed Harris in a sci-fi thriller about a diving team sent to recover a nuclear submarine, but stumble across aquatic aliens in the deep. The storyline was inspired by something the Titanic and Avatar filmmaker had read as a teen about humans being able to breathe through liquid, so some scenes include Harris' character appearing to breathe through a liquid-filled helmet. However, while Harris did not actually breathe in the fluid, a real rat used for filming actually was dunked into a vat of fluorocarbon liquid. Although it reportedly survived unharmed, animal rights campaigners were not impressed by the stunt and called for the scene to be removed from the film. Eventually, the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) agreed that the scene should be cut as it was in breach of the Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act 1937, which bans by law the "cruel infliction of pain or terror on any animal or the cruel goading of any animal to fury" in films. The rat scene was not allowed to be shown in UK cinemas. Despite clear rules that ban cinemas from showing scenes of animal cruelty under the Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act 1937, there is what the RSPCA has termed a "loophole" that meant the original film in its uncut form was able to stream on Disney+. At the time of protests about the rat's treatment, the BBFC also used the Video Recordings Act 1984 to stop the scene from being released on Blu-Ray and DVD, or from airing on linear UK TV channels. But how we watch TV and films has moved on in the years since, with many viewers now watching via streaming subscriptions that are sometimes not subject to the same rules. The RSPCA's David Bowles said at the time the film arrived on streaming: "The RSPCA is really concerned that a loophole currently exists allowing animal abuse scenes deemed unacceptable elsewhere to be streamed freely and legally into our homes. "The Abyss' controversial rat scene has long concerned the RSPCA, and has always been deemed unacceptable by BBFC — so it's hard to fathom out why Disney+ has decided to broadcast it. "We need to ensure people are not being exposed to content which promotes or showcases cruelty to animals. As the way millions of households consume entertainment changes, it's vital the legal framework is responsive to that and continues to consistently protect people and animals." Disney+ has now removed The Abyss from streaming, although it's not clear whether the film in its edited version for UK audiences may stream on the service in future. According to GamesRadar, Bowles at the RSPCA said: "This isn't about cancel culture – we'd welcome Disney+ reinstating the film to their platform, just with this troubling scene removed – as is already the case in cinemas, on TV, and on DVD. "This was instead about highlighting a loophole that currently exists allowing animal abuse scenes deemed unacceptable elsewhere to be streamed freely and legally into our homes - and protecting the public from having to see this animal abuse content."
Daily Record
18-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Daily Record
Disney+ pulls Hollywood film from streaming service over 'troubling' scene
The 1989 Hollywood blockbuster has now been removed from the streaming giant Disney+ has pulled the acclaimed film The Abyss from its offerings, stirring up quite a storm over a contentious sequence. Helmed by iconic director James Cameron, the 1989 release featuring Ed Harris delved deep into a covert mission to salvage a mysteriously sunken nuclear submarine in Earth's most profound depths. Yet upon its original release, uproar ensued due to a particular scene involving an actual rat submerged in fluorocarbon liquid against its will. Although the rodent actors reportedly survived the filming ordeal, the UK has firmly barred the scene from being shown in cinemas or distributed on home video formats. Having sought counsel from The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA), the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) banned the distressing shot because "the forcible immersion of the rat ... caused terror". This ban stems from the prohibitions of the Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act 1937 and Video Recordings Act 1984, leading to the scene's excision from the UK's theatrical, Blu-Ray, and DVD versions. Similarly, television channels in the UK must comply with Ofcom's Broadcasting Code which bars any material that the BBFC has refused classification from being broadcast, effectively proscribing the aforementioned scene from traditional TV as well. Streaming services, however, don't traditionally fall under these legislative restrictions; thus, the controversial scene had been included when The Abyss appeared on Disney+. But after concerns raised by the RSCPA, the streaming giant has decided to withdraw the film from its platform, reports the Liverpool Echo. David Bowles, the RSPCA's Head of Public Affairs, commented: "This isn't about cancel culture - we'd welcome Disney Plus reinstating the film to their platform, just with this troubling scene removed - as is already the case in cinemas, on TV, and on DVD. "This was instead about highlighting a loophole that currently exists allowing animal abuse scenes deemed unacceptable elsewhere to be streamed freely and legally into our homes - and protecting the public from having to see this animal abuse content. "The Abyss' controversial rat scene has long concerned the RSPCA, and has always been deemed unacceptable by BBFC - so it was hard to fathom why Disney+ decided to broadcast it. "People deserve to be assured they will not be inadvertently exposed to content which promotes or showcases cruelty to animals; and as the way most households consume entertainment changes, regulations must be agile to that and continue to robustly protect animals." The RSPCA is optimistic that the forthcoming Media Act will introduce a "degree of consistency" regarding animal abuse content across various platforms. Mr Bowles added: "We hope a new code of conduct under the Media Act will help close this loophole. "Disney Plus seemingly opting to later remove this film highlights how we need a system that introduces a degree of consistency between streaming platforms and other forms of more traditional entertainment, so people can have confidence when watching films and other shows. "It doesn't make sense that we have robust safeguards for animal-related content shown in cinemas, on DVDs or on traditional television channels - yet those protections could go out the window when you turn on a major streaming service. We can't backtrack now on what society deems is acceptable in terms of how we treat animals."
Yahoo
27-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Disney ‘evades animal-cruelty law' over rat-drowning scene
Disney has been accused of exploiting a loophole in animal cruelty rules by screening scenes of a rodent being forcibly immersed in a liquid. The RSPCA has criticised Disney over its decision to screen the scene in the film The Abyss where a real rat is deliberately submerged in fluorocarbon liquid. The scene has been cut from all previous screenings of the film after being banned by the British Board for Film Classification (BBFC) from cinema and TV over animal welfare concerns. The BBFC took advice from the RSPCA, the largest animal welfare charity in the UK, which said the 'forcible immersion of the rat caused terror' and amounted to animal cruelty. Because streaming platforms such as Disney+ are not covered to the same standards by BBFC or Ofcom rules as cinema, DVD or traditional TV channels, they are not technically breaching any codes. David Bowles, the RSPCA's head of public affairs, said: 'The RSPCA is really concerned that a loophole currently exists allowing animal abuse scenes deemed unacceptable elsewhere to be streamed freely and legally into our homes. 'The Abyss' controversial rat scene has long concerned the RSPCA, and has always been deemed unacceptable by BBFC – so it's hard to fathom out why Disney+ has decided to broadcast it. We need to ensure people are not being exposed to content which promotes or showcases cruelty to animals. 'As the way millions of households consume entertainment changes, it's vital the legal framework is responsive to that and continues to consistently protect people and animals.' While the rats used during filming are said to have survived the ordeal, the scene remains prohibited from UK cinema screenings, DVD and traditional TV. Given the infliction of terror, the scene was cut by the BBFC under the Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act 1937, meaning it must be cut for any theatrical use. The BBFC – as the regulator of content released on physical media – has also cut the scene under the Video Recordings Act 1984, meaning it must not be included on releases on formats such as Blu-Ray and DVD. UK television channels must also adhere to the Ofcom Broadcasting Code – which states no material cut refused classification by the BBFC may be broadcast to viewers – meaning the scene should also not be aired on traditional TV. Streaming platforms, however, are not bound by the same standards as film releases in cinema, DVD or on traditional television – and the RSPCA fears this provides a 'loophole' to broadcasting animal abuse long considered unacceptable on other mediums. A new piece of legislation – the Media Act – enhances Ofcom's regulation of streaming services, and the regulator is due to publish a new video-on-demand code. The RSPCA said it hoped this would deliver a 'degree of consistency' with animal-abuse content standards across cinema, home entertainment and streaming services. Many streaming services already work with the BBFC on a voluntary basis and the RSPCA hopes Ofcom will highlight this work as good practice in the new code. Mr Bowles said: 'We hope a new code of conduct under the Media Act will help close this loophole – but we need to see a degree of consistency between streaming platforms and other forms of more traditional entertainment, so people can have confidence when watching films and other shows. 'It doesn't make sense that we have robust safeguards for animal-related content shown in cinemas, on DVDs or on traditional television channels – yet those protections could go out the window when you turn on a major streaming service. We can't backtrack now on what society deems is acceptable in terms of how we treat animals.' Disney+ has been contacted for comment. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
27-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Ban online porn that would be illegal on high street, urges Tory peer
Harmful online porn that would be illegal on the high street should be banned, a government review of the industry has said. The review, commissioned by Rishi Sunak and published on Thursday, found that violent, harmful and misogynistic porn was common on mainstream platforms. However, the material would be judged as illegal and refused classification by the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) if it was sold in shops on the high street, according to the review by Baroness Bertin, a Tory peer. She said: 'This means that if this content was distributed in physical form (for example, in DVDs), the person supplying the material would face criminal charges, including a prison sentence of up to two years under the Video Recordings Act 1984. 'This disparity between the online and 'offline' world cannot continue. Pornographic content that would be refused classification in the 'offline' world should not be available to view online.' She suggested that such a ban could be introduced through a safe porn code in the Online Safety Act or by creating a new publication offence. Her report said: 'The aim of this would be to prohibit certain pornographic content online – including degrading, violent and misogynistic content, as well as that which could encourage an interest in child sex abuse – just as it is prohibited in the 'offline' world.' Making it illegal would also mean mainstream online platforms – the worst of which for porn is Elon Musk's X – would be required by law to remove it and prevent it appearing online. If they persistently failed to take it down, Ofcom, the online regulator, would have powers to impose fines of up to 10 per cent of their global turnover – and to jail executives for up to two years if they failed to abide by the watchdog's demands. Lady Bertin also recommended that non-fatal strangulation pornography – commonly known as 'choking' – should be illegal to possess, distribute and publish. She said it was the starkest example of where online violent pornography had changed 'offline' behaviour. ''Choking' sex is now being normalised, with a survey showing 38 per cent of women aged 18-39 have been choked during sex,' she added. She noted that the Domestic Abuse Act of 2021 had made non-fatal strangulation a crime in itself, so that the definition of extreme illegal pornography needed to clearly state that it fell within its scope. Lady Bertin also recommended that incest pornography should be made illegal and that content that might encourage an interest in child sex abuse should be prohibited. 'Some online pornographic content depicts disturbing 'role-play' including incest and adults role playing as children – evidence shows that this type of pornography is used by perpetrators to permit child sex abuse. This is totally unacceptable,' she said. Writing for The Telegraph, Natasha Kaplinsky, the president of the BBFC, said: 'This is not about restricting adults' access to legal content: where pornographic content is neither illegal nor harmful, adults have a right to choose what to watch. 'This is about content that eroticises rape and the violent abuse of women or which promotes a sexual interest in children. 'Parity between how pornographic content is regulated online and offline is vitally important. If society is serious about addressing the fundamental challenge of harmful content, we must ensure that what is unacceptable offline is also unacceptable online.' The Department for Science Innovation and Technology has said it will respond to the recommendations once they have been laid before Parliament. Measures to increase regulation of pornography, including to prevent access by children, are already part of the Online Safety Act, which became law in October 2023. Services that publish their own pornographic content – including with generative artificial intelligence tools – are already required to have age checks. From July, all websites on which pornographic material can be found must also introduce 'robust' age-checking techniques such as demanding photo ID or running credit card checks for UK users. Ofcom estimates that approximately a third of adult internet users in the UK – 14 million people – watch online pornography, of which about three-quarters are men. By Natasha Kaplinsky Choking. Incest. Violent abuse. This is just some of the harmful pornographic content that is freely available online. Such material would never be approved for distribution on physical media formats like DVD and Blu-ray – what we call 'offline'. The BBFC has been classifying offline pornographic content for 40 years and our position has always been the same: pornography is for adults only. And, we are legally required to refuse classification of any content which is illegal or potentially harmful. Adult content we consider harmful includes any pornography which depicts non-consensual or sexually abusive activity or which encourages an interest in abusive relationships – such as incestuous or underage relationships. We also refuse to classify the depiction of any acts likely to cause serious physical harm, such as 'choking'. Unclassified pornography is illegal to distribute offline and a retailer convicted of selling such content could face a prison sentence under the Video Recordings Act 1984. However, legislation has not kept pace with how pornography is primarily consumed today. The BBFC's statutory remit covers content published offline but there are no equivalent protections online, where this appalling content remains freely available. Whenever I have a conversation with a fellow parent, we invariably share our fears about our children growing up in a society where unfettered access to violent pornography has become normalised. Today there is reason for hope. The Government has published the findings of an independent pornography review, led over the past year by Baroness Bertin. The review has found this content, and its influence, to be deep-rooted in society; its harm potential, abundant. Lady Bertin recommends that violent and abusive pornography online should be treated as illegal content. It also calls for a body such as the BBFC to take on an auditing role to ensure that online platforms do not carry any such material. I welcome Lady Bertin's report and the BBFC will work with the Government on the recommendations in any way we can, including by taking on a formal auditing role to better protect audiences online. This would be a natural extension of the offline role we have fulfilled for decades. This is not about restricting adults' access to legal content: where pornographic content is neither illegal nor harmful, adults have a right to choose what to watch. This is about content that eroticises rape and the violent abuse of women or which promotes a sexual interest in children. Parity between how pornographic content is regulated online and offline is vitally important. If society is serious about addressing the fundamental challenge of harmful content, we must ensure that what is unacceptable offline is also unacceptable online. Natasha Kaplinsky is the president of the British Board of Film Classification Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Telegraph
27-02-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Ban online porn that would be illegal on high street, urges Tory peer
Harmful online porn that would be illegal on the high street should be banned, a government review of the industry has said. The review, commissioned by Rishi Sunak and published on Thursday, found that violent, harmful and misogynistic porn was common on mainstream platforms. However, the material would be judged as illegal and refused classification by the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) if it was sold in shops on the high street, according to the review by Baroness Bertin, a Tory peer. She said: 'This means that if this content was distributed in physical form (for example, in DVDs), the person supplying the material would face criminal charges, including a prison sentence of up to two years under the Video Recordings Act 1984. 'This disparity between the online and 'offline' world cannot continue. Pornographic content that would be refused classification in the 'offline' world should not be available to view online.' She suggested that such a ban could be introduced through a safe porn code in the Online Safety Act or by creating a new publication offence. Her report said: 'The aim of this would be to prohibit certain pornographic content online – including degrading, violent and misogynistic content, as well as that which could encourage an interest in child sex abuse – just as it is prohibited in the 'offline' world.' Making it illegal would also mean mainstream online platforms – the worst of which for porn is Elon Musk's X – would be required by law to remove it and prevent it appearing online. If they persistently failed to take it down, Ofcom, the online regulator, would have powers to impose fines of up to 10 per cent of their global turnover – and to jail executives for up to two years if they failed to abide by the watchdog's demands. 'Choking' porn changing real-world behaviour Lady Bertin also recommended that non-fatal strangulation pornography – commonly known as 'choking' – should be illegal to possess, distribute and publish. She said it was the starkest example of where online violent pornography had changed 'offline' behaviour. ''Choking' sex is now being normalised, with a survey showing 38 per cent of women aged 18-39 have been choked during sex,' she added. She noted that the Domestic Abuse Act of 2021 had made non-fatal strangulation a crime in itself, so that the definition of extreme illegal pornography needed to clearly state that it fell within its scope. Lady Bertin also recommended that incest pornography should be made illegal and that content that might encourage an interest in child sex abuse should be prohibited. 'Some online pornographic content depicts disturbing 'role-play' including incest and adults role playing as children – evidence shows that this type of pornography is used by perpetrators to permit child sex abuse. This is totally unacceptable,' she said. Writing for The Telegraph, Natasha Kaplinsky, the president of the BBFC, said: 'This is not about restricting adults' access to legal content: where pornographic content is neither illegal nor harmful, adults have a right to choose what to watch. 'This is about content that eroticises rape and the violent abuse of women or which promotes a sexual interest in children. 'Parity between how pornographic content is regulated online and offline is vitally important. If society is serious about addressing the fundamental challenge of harmful content, we must ensure that what is unacceptable offline is also unacceptable online.' The Department for Science Innovation and Technology has said it will respond to the recommendations once they have been laid before Parliament. Measures to increase regulation of pornography, including to prevent access by children, are already part of the Online Safety Act, which became law in October 2023. Services that publish their own pornographic content – including with generative artificial intelligence tools – are already required to have age checks. From July, all websites on which pornographic material can be found must also introduce 'robust' age-checking techniques such as demanding photo ID or running credit card checks for UK users. Ofcom estimates that approximately a third of adult internet users in the UK – 14 million people – watch online pornography, of which about three-quarters are men. The law has not kept pace with pornography's evolution – we must ensure parity on and offline By Natasha Kaplinsky Choking. Incest. Violent abuse. This is just some of the harmful pornographic content that is freely available online. Such material would never be approved for distribution on physical media formats like DVD and Blu-ray – what we call 'offline'. The BBFC has been classifying offline pornographic content for 40 years and our position has always been the same: pornography is for adults only. And, we are legally required to refuse classification of any content which is illegal or potentially harmful. Adult content we consider harmful includes any pornography which depicts non-consensual or sexually abusive activity or which encourages an interest in abusive relationships – such as incestuous or underage relationships. We also refuse to classify the depiction of any acts likely to cause serious physical harm, such as 'choking'. Unclassified pornography is illegal to distribute offline and a retailer convicted of selling such content could face a prison sentence under the Video Recordings Act 1984. However, legislation has not kept pace with how pornography is primarily consumed today. The BBFC's statutory remit covers content published offline but there are no equivalent protections online, where this appalling content remains freely available. Whenever I have a conversation with a fellow parent, we invariably share our fears about our children growing up in a society where unfettered access to violent pornography has become normalised. Today there is reason for hope. The Government has published the findings of an independent pornography review, led over the past year by Baroness Bertin. The review has found this content, and its influence, to be deep-rooted in society; its harm potential, abundant. Lady Bertin recommends that violent and abusive pornography online should be treated as illegal content. It also calls for a body such as the BBFC to take on an auditing role to ensure that online platforms do not carry any such material. I welcome Lady Bertin's report and the BBFC will work with the Government on the recommendations in any way we can, including by taking on a formal auditing role to better protect audiences online. This would be a natural extension of the offline role we have fulfilled for decades. This is not about restricting adults' access to legal content: where pornographic content is neither illegal nor harmful, adults have a right to choose what to watch. This is about content that eroticises rape and the violent abuse of women or which promotes a sexual interest in children. Parity between how pornographic content is regulated online and offline is vitally important. If society is serious about addressing the fundamental challenge of harmful content, we must ensure that what is unacceptable offline is also unacceptable online.
