# data[].attributes.body
The proliferation of hardware has drastically changed how audiences can consume media, in comparison to the 1930s ‘Freaks’ the BBFC’s ability to regulate has been altered and somewhat weakened by technological advancements, such as the creation of the VHS player in the late 70s which can be seen to have led to the creation of ‘Video Nasties’.This technological expansion can be seen to have triggered mass consumption of film from peoples home, depicting how the BBFC have not responded quickly enough to these contemporary developments. Whilst societal nature has expanded and advanced, which can be seen through the immergence of ‘Video Nasties’, the BBFC’s ability to regulate effectively and keep pace with these changes can be seen to have failed. This is exposed through the nature of various Video Nasties available to varying members of the public, such as young children, with the immergence of the Nastie, ‘Anthropophagus’ (1980), in which a group of tourists are stalked by a violent and insane murderer. This ineffectual regulation from the BBFC can be seen through the hysteria around ‘Moral Panics, suggested in Stanley Cohen’s book ‘Folk Devils and Moral Panics’, this public mania can be seen a subject to such developments in the late 70s, with ‘Video Nasties’ having no certificate with the ability to be so freely consumed in families homes. The BBFC’s ineffectual capability to progress and advance with the heightened pace of a developing age (such as the VHS player) can be seen inadequacies in their regulation policies. However, one could argue that the BBFC’s failure to uphold pace with developing technological advancements can be seen as effective, with this lack of regulation creating a decrease in fear and sensitivity to extremely aggressive behaviour and taboo subjects, in other words a society becoming ‘desensitised’.

# data[].attributes.body
The BBFC was originally named The British Board of Film Censorship however in 1984, this changed to suit its new role of film classification which was thought to play a larger role in the board's work. Prior to this change, the BBFC had complete control of what the general public could see due to their age within a cinema environment. An example of how the BBFC had control is the 1932 drama/horror film 'Freaks' directed by Tod Browning, the film was banned based on a number of reasons including the 'horrific' content without relief as the majority of actors had a physical disability. For example towards the denouement of the film, the 'Freaks' are seen to become twisted and bitter characters, by taking revenge on the physically able characters, graphic scenes such as them crawling through mud and chasing the pair were included as one of the main protagonists is turned into a deformed animalistic individual. On the other hand, the director argued the case for his work not to be banned but to be viewed as normal actors being paid through the film, this is supported by the films overall moral message attempting to portray the characters as a close knit community. The BBFC argued that 'Freaks' was against the actor’s human rights because they were accentuating their disability for the entertainment of others. At the time of release, society was not accepting of individuals who had physical disabilities and therefore the film did not receive a positive critical reception. Initially the BBFC refused to give 'Freaks' a certificate as they thought it would be too distressing for audiences and then it was rejected again in 1952 on the same grounds as many of the scenes were deemed extremely unpleasant. Finally in 1962, the film received an X certificate which would allow those aged 16 and above to see the film. As culture and peoples opinions developed, so did the acceptance of different groups in society and discriminatory behaviour was decreasing, consequently in 1994 'Freaks' was rated a 15 and a 12 in 2001. I feel this demonstrates the BBFC slowly becoming more lenient and as a society we have become desensitised and immune to 'horror'. The BBFC as a whole has changed and at the time it was effective because audiences did not have the ability to see it, although it could be said that our country has been blocked and mothered into what we can and cannot see due to the government being able to make decisions on our behalf, interfering with our personal choice.

# data[].attributes.headline
Paragraph Four - Django unchained + The Hateful 8, contemporary regulation examples.

# data[].attributes.subject
Paragraph Four - Django unchained + The Hateful 8, contemporary regulation examples.

# data[].attributes.body
Contempary film, Django unchained sparked a widespread controversy due to alleged racial insensitivity; Candace Allen, writer for the Guardian claims no other Hollywood production "in the last decade" has shared this level of controversial nature. For example, particular offense was take to the 'Mandingo fight scene' in which the extreme racial themes are alongside an excessively violent fight scene, something that some suggest should have been cut. The film passed uncut, and is careful to avoid pushing BBFC regulations for an 18 certificate. However, the focus of 18 ratings within the BBFC is on sexual content and imitable drug abuse, whereas discrimination is somewhat ommited. Given the reactions towards the film's release, it could be argued that the BBFC are not as effective as they used to as 'Django Unchained' caused a racial debate amongst some of the audience.

# data[].attributes.body
In conclusion, it is clear that the practice of media regulation has changed over time. However, the opinion on whether or not it has become more or less effective is extremely subjective and complex.

# data[].attributes.body
Regulatory practices in the media industry have changed greatly over time and there are many complex arguments about how effective they have been. This essay will explore this topic referencing Freaks (Browning, 1932), The Human Centipede II (Six, 2011) an d…

# data[].attributes.headline
PARAGRAPH THREE (JACK NORRIS AND PHOEBE WILLIAMS) (THE WINNERS) (THE BEST)

# data[].attributes.subject
PARAGRAPH THREE (JACK NORRIS AND PHOEBE WILLIAMS) (THE WINNERS) (THE BEST)

# data[].attributes.body
The film 'The Human Centipede: Full Sequence', directed by Tom Six in 2011, was regulated a lot more extensively compared to our other case studies, such as Freaks (Browning, 1932) and Video Nasties, which came about in the 1980s. This film was regulated more extensively because it is part of a horror sequence, as the first one caused a lot of controversy by itself. This film was rejected to start with, by the BBFC, on the grounds of severely graphic content, forced defacation and mutilation. There is little attempt to portray any of the victims in this highly controversial film as human beings, and they are purely viewed as objects to be brutalised and degraded for amusement. There is strong and sustained focus throughout the whole film on the link between sexual arousal and non-consensual pain. The film was rejected due to the sheer amount of violence and highly graphic scenes in this film, and the BBFC are nowadays obliged under the Video Recordings Act (1984), to have special regard to the likelihood of any harm that may be caused to the viewer, or through their behaviour, to society. As the risk of harm includes a dehumanising view of other people, this film was heavily regulated and even banned, which is rare in a modern era. Another reason that this film was so heavily regulated is because it actually went against UK laws, such as the Obscene Publications Act (1959 and 1964), which states that if a film depraves or corrupts an audience, it is illegal. Although when the BBFC considered whether cutting the film might address the issues that this film faced, they decided that there was unsuitable and unacceptable material throughout, cutting it would not be a viable option and the work was point blank refused a classification. However, when the work was sent back to Tom Six, the director, he argued that 'film is art', and he argued for his film to be shown. He said that he has a 'very dark world view. We are the most sadistic animal on the planet, we kill for pleasure. We are so intelligent but we have emotions like schadenfreude (pleasure derived from someone else's misfortune) - we like it when people are hurt. I think people are very evil, only society keeps us normal. When war breaks out, people fight for their food, but call the police on their neighbours.' Tom Six was adament that his work should not be regulated. However, despite his comments, he cut the film and some of the more intense scenes, and resubmitted the film for classification. The BBFC considered this film again and rated it an 18. The scenes that were cut from the film included a scene of a man raping a woman with barbed wire around his penis, as well as a scene of a man masturbating with sandpaper. The moral panic theory, theorised by Stanley Cohen, can be applied to this case study, because this film was so hyped up and perpetuated by the media, because the public were torn between whether this film should be banned or not; this meant that the public were reading up about the film and weighing up whether this film would be a threat to societal values and interests. The interesting argument in this case study is whether contemporary media regulation (the BBFC) are more or less effective than in previous times, as the word 'effective' is a very subjective word. This case study could show that contemporary media regulation has improved because this film was banned and regulated a lot more heavily, with more consideration into the film's rating, compared to other case studies, such as the Video Nasties Era of the 1980s. However, we could also argue that the 'effectiveness' of the contemporary media regulation has not improved, because modern audiences have become desensitized, due to a higher exposure to excessively violent and aggressive behaviour, which contradicts the argument that the BBFC have become more effective, because if they were, our modern audience wouldn't have been desensitized in the first place. Society has become more tolerant and accepting of the ideology that art is subjected, and what we watch should not be controlled by hegemonic groups such as the BBFC. Tom Six, the director of this film, would obviously argue more towards the latter argument, as shown by his feud with the BBFC.