The immediate impetus for the board's formation stemmed from the furore surrounding the release in the UK in October 1912 of the film From the Manger to the Cross, about the life of Jesus.

Given that the law now allowed councils to grant or refuse licences to cinemas according to the content of the films they showed, the 1909 Act, therefore, enabled the introduction of censorship.

The film industry, fearing the economic consequences of a largely unregulated censorship infrastructure, therefore formed the BBFC to take the process 'in house' and establish its own system of self-regulation.

In 1928, the board's examiners report famously claimed that Germaine Dulac's surrealist film The Seashell and the Clergyman was "almost meaningless", but: "If there is a meaning, it is doubtless objectionable.

In the period before the Second World War, an extensive but unofficial system of political censorship was implemented by the BBFC for the Home Office.

As the cinema became a socially powerful mass-medium, governments feared the effect of its use by others for propaganda and as happened in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany discouraged any expression of controversial political views in British films.

The increasing climate of post-war liberalism ensured that from the 1950s onwards, controversies involving the BBFC centred more on depictions of sex and violence than on political expression.

[28] The first computer game to receive an 18 certificate, on 11 December 1987,[29] was another illustrated text adventure called Jack the Ripper, also by CRL, which dealt with the infamous real life murders in Victorian London.

In June 2007, Manhunt 2 was refused classification for both its PlayStation 2 and Wii versions, meaning that the game was illegal to sell or supply in the United Kingdom.

The partnership came at the time when digital media is on the rise worldwide and when parents are concerned about children seeing inappropriate content on video on demand or online gaming platforms.

The board, which is based in Soho Square, London, is financed from the fees it charges for classifying films and videos and is run on a not-for-profit basis.

As regulator, the BBFC was intended to be responsible for identifying commercial pornographic websites accessible in the UK and empowered to take action against any which did not age-verify their users, including placing restrictions on their payment transactions or ordering their blocking by Internet service providers.

[53] There were numerous delays to the date at which the BBFC would begin its regulatory role, until in 2019 the UK government announced that the part of the Act dealing with the regulation of pornographic websites would not be implemented.

Plans to mandate online age-verification to deny those who do not prove they are aged over 18 access to pornographic website content were subsequently abandoned.

However, under recent presidents Andreas Whittam Smith and Sir Quentin Thomas, guidelines were relaxed again, allowing the release, usually uncut, of these previously banned films on video and in cinemas.

In general, attitudes to what material is suitable for viewing by younger audiences have changed over the years, and this is reflected by the reclassification of older films being re-released on video.

The 1964 Disney live-action/animated musical Mary Poppins was initially granted a U but was later re-classified as PG in 2024 due to the use of the archaic word "hottentot" by the character Admiral Boom in one scene which was deemed by the board as "discriminatory language".

An example of this was in 2010, when the Board cut the Hindi film Anjaana Anjaani by two minutes and thirty-one seconds to remove references to and sight of someone attempting suicide by asphyxiation so the distributor could get a cinema 12A certificate.

Recent examples include the passing of Irreversible, 9 Songs, Antichrist, and numerous other films uncut for cinema and video viewing.

It has attracted criticism from conservative press, in particular the Daily Mail, on the grounds that the release of sexually explicit and violent films was corrupting the nation.

[63] There is no theme or subject matter considered inherently unsuitable for classification at any level, although more controversial topics may drive a movie to be given a more restrictive rating.

This is in keeping with current practice in most liberal democracies, but in sharp contrast to the early days of the BBFC in which such adult themes as prostitution, incest, and the relations of capital and labour were unacceptable regardless of the rating.

The BBFC's policy proved particularly controversial in the case of Ken Loach's Sweet Sixteen in 2002, which was passed uncut only at 18 certificate, even though its main characters were teenagers who frequently used profanities that the director argued were typical of the social group his film depicted.

Shane Meadows' film This Is England was also passed uncut only at 18 due to its repeated use of racist terms, and the climactic scene where Combo becomes irate and pummels his friend Milky while insulting him.

In 2002, the board passed Gaspar Noé's Irréversible uncut, but less than a month later cut Takashi Miike's Ichi the Killer by three and a quarter minutes to remove scenes of sexual violence.

Criminal and dangerous acts that can be easily imitated, as well as scenes condoning, glamorising, or showing clear instruction of how to abuse drugs have also been the subject of UK editing.

The issue of depicting dangerous acts that can easily be imitated in real life is one that does not seem to figure especially highly in the censorship systems of most other countries (though the US has done this on occasion, often as the result of public backlash, as seen on the MTV shows Beavis and Butt-head and Jackass).

In the UK, numerous minor cuts have been made, primarily to films whose distributors want a PG or 12A certificate, to scenes of characters performing acts that would be considered dangerous, criminal, or harmful if done in real life.

The North West New Wave, a blanket term recently used by both film makers and local press to describe independent filmmakers in the Northwest of England, is currently campaigning for the introduction of a voluntary 'Unrated 18' classification in the UK.

The previous film in the series was passed uncut at 18, but due to a shift in context and focus, the BBFC judged that the sequel could fall foul of the Obscene Publications Act.