R18 (Restricted 18) is a film and video classification given by the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC). It is intended to provide a classification for works that do not breach UK law, but exceed what the BBFC considers acceptable in the 18 category . In practice, this means hardcore pornography .
41-765: R18 , or R-18 , may refer to: Media content ratings [ edit ] R18 (British Board of Film Classification) R18+ issued by the Australian Classification Board R18 issued by the New Zealand Classification Office R18+ issued by Eirin in Japan R-18 issued by the Philippine Movie and Television Review and Classification Board Other uses [ edit ] R18 (drone) ,
82-544: A separation of powers being the most likely to utilize judicial review. Nevertheless, many countries whose legal systems are based on the idea of legislative supremacy have gradually adopted or expanded the scope of judicial review, including countries from both the civil law and common law traditions. Another reason why judicial review should be understood in the context of both the development of two distinct legal systems ( civil law and common law ) and two theories of democracy (legislative supremacy and separation of powers)
123-556: A British colony could not enact laws which altered provisions of British laws which applied directly to the colony. Since the constitutions of Canada and Australia were enacted by the British Parliament, laws passed by governments in Australia and Canada had to be consistent with those constitutional provisions. More recently, the principle of judicial review flows from supremacy clauses in their constitutions. In Australia,
164-481: A Hungarian light aircraft USS R-18 (SS-95) , a submarine of the United States Navy See also [ edit ] 18 rating [REDACTED] Topics referred to by the same term This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the same title formed as a letter–number combination. If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to
205-484: A Ukrainian unmanned combat aerial vehicle Audi R18 , a Le Mans prototype racing car BMW R18 , a cruiser motorcycle made by BMW during the COVID-19 pandemic R18: In use, may form flammable/explosive vapour-air mixture , a risk phrase R18.com , a Japanese English-language adult website created by Hokuto Corporation R-18 regional road (Montenegro) Renault 18 , a French automobile Rubik R-18 Kánya ,
246-529: A check on the powers of the other branches of government, thus creating a regulative balance among all branches of government. The key to this idea is checks and balances . In the United States, judicial review is considered a key check on the powers of the other two branches of government by the judiciary. Differences in organizing democratic societies led to different views regarding judicial review, with societies based on common law and those stressing
287-571: A leading jurist of the time. This system was also adopted the same time by Austria and became known as the Austrian System , also under the primary authorship of Hans Kelsen, being emulated by a number of other countries. In these systems, other courts are not competent to question the constitutionality of primary legislation; they often may, however, initiate the process of review by the Constitutional Court. Russia adopts
328-589: A mixed model since (as in the US) courts at all levels, both federal and state, are empowered to review primary legislation and declare its constitutionality; as in the Czech Republic, there is a constitutional court in charge of reviewing the constitutionality of primary legislation. The difference is that in the first case, the decision about the law's adequacy to the Russian Constitution only binds
369-657: A review of the validity of primary legislation. In the United Kingdom, Acts of Parliament cannot be set aside under the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty , whereas Orders in Council , another type of primary legislation not passed by Parliament, can (see Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (1985) and Miller / Cherry (2019)). Another example is the Netherlands , where
410-468: A statute may be invalidated for violating the terms of a constitution . Judicial review is one of the checks and balances in the separation of powers —the power of the judiciary to supervise ( judicial supervision ) the legislative and executive branches when the latter exceed their authority. The doctrine varies between jurisdictions, so the procedure and scope of judicial review may differ between and within countries. Judicial review can be understood in
451-417: A system of administrative courts which are charged with resolving disputes between members of the public and the administration, regardless these courts are part of administration (France) or judiciary (Germany). In other countries (including the United States and United Kingdom), judicial review is carried out by regular civil courts although it may be delegated to specialized panels within these courts (such as
SECTION 10
#1732787136517492-534: Is not technically part of the federal judicial branch). It is quite common that before a request for judicial review of an administrative act is filed with a court, certain preliminary conditions (such as a complaint to the authority itself) must be fulfilled. In most countries, the courts apply special procedures in administrative cases. There are three broad approaches to judicial review of the constitutionality of primary legislation —that is, laws passed directly by an elected legislature. Some countries do not permit
533-482: Is that some countries with common-law systems do not have judicial review of primary legislation. Though a common-law system is present in the United Kingdom, the country still has a strong attachment to the idea of legislative supremacy; consequently, judges in the United Kingdom do not have the power to strike down primary legislation. However, when the United Kingdom became a member of the European Union there
574-558: Is to provide content that is comparable to what is normally found in television services and if the service enables the user to select the programme and permits viewing at a time chosen by them. In 2004 a group of video distributors appealed to the Video Appeals Committee (VAC) against the BBFC's decision to award R18 certificates to 9 films that the distributors wished to be reclassified as 18. A press release issued by
615-447: The 1984 Video Recordings Act all non-exempt videos sold or distributed within the UK must be given a certificate by the BBFC. The distributor must decide whether a video is exempt. Uncertificated recordings are not illegal, regardless of content (except where the content itself is illegal), but supply (i.e. sale, rental, loan or gift) of them is. The R18 certificate is the most restrictive of
656-512: The Act, provided no serious harm was caused and the likely audience was over the age of 18.; it is unclear as to whether the BBFC will revise its guidelines, but they announced that they are discussing what to do next. Films given the R18 certificate may only be exhibited in licensed cinemas and can only be sold on physical media direct to the buyer in person in licensed sex shops . Ofcom also prohibit
697-711: The Administrative Court within the High Court of England and Wales ). The United States employs a mixed system in which some administrative decisions are reviewed by the United States district courts (which are the general trial courts), some are reviewed directly by the United States courts of appeals and others are reviewed by specialized tribunals such as the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (which, despite its name,
738-484: The BBFC on 20 July 2005 announced that the VAC had dismissed that appeal. The BBFC has previously granted 18 certificates for movies containing short scenes of unsimulated sex, such as Catherine Breillat 's Romance (in 1999), Virginie Despentes 's Baise Moi (in 2000), Patrice Chéreau 's Intimacy (in 2001), Michael Winterbottom 's 9 Songs (in 2004), short-film compilation Destricted (in 2006), and in 2008
779-480: The R18 classification was only used for films featuring simulated sex, but the BBFC found itself forced to award R18 certificates to hardcore films in 2000 after a series of legal appeals and a judicial review of those appeals. The introduction of the R18 certificate for hardcore films is widely seen by observers as a reaction to more liberal attitudes in British society to pornography, the de facto legalisation of
820-713: The Supreme Court's ruling in Marbury v. Madison that the court had the power of judicial review to enforce the separation of powers stated in the US Constitution. This was left uncontested by the U.S. Congress and president Thomas Jefferson , despite his expressed opposition to the principle of judicial review by an unelected body. Separation of powers is based on the idea that no branch of government should be able to exert power over any other branch without due process of law ; each branch of government should have
861-465: The United States, federal and state courts (at all levels, both appellate and trial) are able to review and declare the " constitutionality ", or agreement with the Constitution (or lack thereof) of legislation by a process of judicial interpretation that is relevant to any case properly within their jurisdiction. In American legal language, "judicial review" refers primarily to the adjudication of
SECTION 20
#1732787136517902-411: The case law and in which it was repeatedly endorsed during the debate over the Constitution," and thus, on a personal level, Marshall "must have experienced judicial review as long-established." Moreover, "The fact that judicial review was exercised much more frequently than previously recognized in the years before Marbury helps explain why Marshall's assertion of the power to exercise judicial review in
943-502: The certificates, allowing films in the category to be shown only in specially licensed cinemas, or sold in licensed sex shops; admission to R18-rated films or sale of R18-rated recordings is restricted to persons aged 18 years and over. The R18 category was created in 1982 in response to the recommendations in 1979 of the Home Office Committee on Obscenity and Film Censorship chaired by Sir Bernard Williams . Originally,
984-419: The civil-law tradition, judges are seen as those who apply the law, with no power to create (or destroy) legal principles. Secondly, the idea of separation of powers is another theory about how a democratic society's government should be organized. In contrast to legislative supremacy, the idea of separation of powers was first introduced by Montesquieu ; it was later institutionalized in the United States by
1025-540: The constitution expressly forbids the courts to rule on the question of constitutionality of primary legislation passed by the Dutch legislature or States-General . In countries which have inherited the English common law system of courts of general jurisdiction, judicial review is generally done by those courts, rather than specialised courts. Australia, Canada and the United States are all examples of this approach. In
1066-676: The constitutionality of statutes, especially by the Supreme Court of the United States . Courts in the United States may also invoke judicial review in order to ensure that a statute is not depriving individuals of their constitutional rights. This is commonly held to have been established in the case of Marbury v. Madison , which was argued before the Supreme Court in 1803. Judicial review in Canada and Australia pre-dates their establishment as countries, in 1867 and 1901, respectively. The British Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 provided that
1107-568: The context of two distinct—but parallel—legal systems, civil law and common law , and also by two distinct theories of democracy regarding the manner in which government should be organized with respect to the principles and doctrines of legislative supremacy and the separation of powers. First, two distinct legal systems, civil law and common law , have different views about judicial review. Common-law judges are seen as sources of law, capable of creating new legal principles, and also capable of rejecting legal principles that are no longer valid. In
1148-525: The distribution of R18 content to "on-demand" programme services, such as streaming media / video on demand over the internet or mobile phone networks and web-based platforms. The revisions make it a criminal offence to not adequately restrict access to works rated R18 by the BBFC—or any work that would be likely to receive a R18 classification if it were submitted—to those aged over 18. These provisions are only applicable to services whose principal purpose
1189-649: The following is prohibited: The acts include those deemed likely to contravene the Obscene Publications Act 1959 . Depiction of urolagnia, fisting and various hardcore BDSM acts were deemed legal in January 2012 in R v Peacock . Following a public consultation, the Crown Prosecution Service published guidelines in 2019 indicating that pornography depicting consenting adults engaged in legal acts would no longer be prosecuted under
1230-506: The hardcore version of Tinto Brass 's Caligula was passed uncut for DVD with an 18. The Digital Economy Act 2017 includes powers to require age-verification for pornographic Internet sites and the government accepted an amendment to allow the regulator to require ISPs to block access to non-compliant sites. As the BBFC are expected to become the regulator, this has caused discussion about ISPs being required to block Internet pornography that would be prohibited under an R18 certificate,
1271-489: The import of hardcore pornography (but not its sale) across EU member countries because of customs law harmonisation, and the widespread availability of unregulated pornography over the Internet. Most cuts made by the BBFC are in the R18 category (e.g., 13.6% of R18 videos were cut in 2011, compared with 7.5% for the 18 category, and 0.5% or less for other categories). On the BBFC website, R18-rated works are filtered out of
R18 - Misplaced Pages Continue
1312-402: The intended article. Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=R18&oldid=1119876381 " Category : Letter–number combination disambiguation pages Hidden categories: Short description is different from Wikidata All article disambiguation pages All disambiguation pages R18 (British Board of Film Classification) Under the terms of
1353-521: The main public search (unless an option to show them is selected) as their titles frequently contain profanity and/or vulgar language. The BBFC specifies in detail what kinds of acts are permitted to be depicted in works receiving an R18 certificate, and which are not. In particular, it prohibits: Although R18 does allow for the depiction of most consensual sex acts such as vaginal sexual intercourse , oral sex , masturbation , anal sex and some moderate BDSM between any combination of men and women,
1394-579: The parties to the lawsuit; in the second, the Court's decision must be followed by judges and government officials at all levels. Judicial review as a contribution to political theory is sometimes said to be a "distinctively American contribution," argued to have been established in the US Supreme Court's decision in Marbury v. Madison (1803). However, "the American version of judicial review
1435-448: The prohibition of some of which is itself controversial. Judicial review Judicial review is a process under which a government's executive , legislative , or administrative actions are subject to review by the judiciary . In a judicial review, a court may invalidate laws, acts, or governmental actions that are incompatible with a higher authority. For example, an executive decision may be invalidated for being unlawful, or
1476-566: The same way that judicial decisions are, rather a court will enforce that principles of procedural fairness are followed when making judicial decisions. Most modern legal systems allow the courts to review administrative "acts" (individual decisions of a public body, such as a decision to grant a subsidy or to withdraw a residence permit). In most systems, this also includes review of secondary legislation (legally enforceable rules of general applicability adopted by administrative bodies). Some countries (notably France and Germany) have implemented
1517-556: The term 'judicial review' generally refers to reviews of the lawfulness of the actions of the executive and the public service, while reviews of the compatibility of laws with the Australian Constitution is known as characterisation or constitutional challenges. In 1920, Czechoslovakia adopted a system of judicial review by a specialized court, the Constitutional Court as written by Hans Kelsen ,
1558-577: The transmission of R18 material as part of a television broadcast, although these restrictions do not apply to hotel television systems which are not regulated by Ofcom. The BBFC do not have jurisdiction over content distributed via non-physical media; however, in 2014 the Audiovisual Media Services Regulations 2014 amended the Communications Act 2003 to extend the statutory and legal obligations for
1599-407: Was much better established in the years immediately after the adoption of the [United States] constitution than has previously been recognized, and it was far from rare... [and] judicial invalidation of statutes fell into certain patterns." US Chief Justice John Marshall, the author of Marbury v. Madison , "came from Virginia, the state in which [judicial review] was particularly well established by
1640-654: Was tension between its tendency toward legislative supremacy and the EU's legal system, which specifically gives the Court of Justice of the European Union the power of judicial review. When carrying out judicial review a court may ensure that the principle of ultra vires are followed, that a public body's actions do not exceed the powers given to them by legislation. The decisions of administrative acts by public bodies under judicial review are not necessarily controlled in
1681-745: Was the logical result of centuries of European thought and colonial experience which had made Western [societies] generally willing to admit the theoretical primacy of certain kinds of law and had made Americans in particular ready to provide a judicial means of enforcing that primacy." That is, the "belief in the need to subordinate certain acts of the law-making power to higher, more permanent principles" can be seen, for example, in medieval European scholastics , courts of equity in England, Parlements in France, and Enlightenment philosophes . Moreover, writing in 2005, Treanor argued that "judicial review