For example you say, quite rightly, that a fictional film depicting murder/rape is different to a snuff movie, which is real. But what if a fictional film graphically showed the sexual molestation of a child and did so in a way aimed to titalate, rather than shock, the audience? Or if a fictional film sends a strong message that children like having sex with adults, would this be too far? (I’m using child molesting as an example as it tends to be a more universal no no than murder or rape).

Media does effect us, and in various ways we can’t understand immediately (I don’t for a second accept the “monkey see, monkey do” argument but people do become acclimatised to imagery when they see it often) so shouldn’t there be some responsibility on the part of creators of art/media? The problem with the “everything goes” argument, imo, is that it takes away any sense of responsibility or duty on the creator’s part and they have no need to accept any consequences for what they put out there. Censorship, unfortunately, provides that consequence at the moment.

I’m genuinely interested in what others think on this, as I flip from one side of the argument to the other on a regular basis. (I’m sensing a blog post percolating in my mind…)

They’re taking a stance and saying that this material is unfit for public consumption, in much the same way they would do with snuff pornography. People are still free to procure the material by other means if they wish, but the BBFC has merely exercised the power of its office to protect the public interest. It let A Serbian Film pass – albeit with cuts – and if they banned this film it is simply because it is nothing more than a work of extreme pornography masquerading as mainstream horror.