Leading Article: When it comes to pornography, err on the liberal side

BRITAIN'S CHIEF censor, James Ferman, is to retire shortly, with a successor expected by September. His final report for the British Board of Film Classification highlights the explosion in the market for violent pornography over recent years. Mr Ferman has come in for a great deal of criticism in his time, but he has walked the line between philosophical libertarianism and the tabloid-style bulwark of prurient disapproval for 23 years with what is, in the final analysis, a large degree of success.

Mr Ferman is now 67 years old. Since his tenure at the BBFC began in the early Seventies, its work has greatly expanded because of the Video Recordings Act of 1984. Between 300 and 400 cinema films are still submitted each year, but alongside them now sit between 3,000 and 4,000 video films demanding attention.

Yet, at the same time, the percentage of films that, in the minds of the censors, require cuts has dropped dramatically, from 33 per cent in 1970 to only 4 per cent in 1997. And the reasons for this are by no means as straightforward as they may at first appear.

Anyone who looks closely will realise that public taste has changed during that time - and it has largely, but not uniformly, become more liberal. There is no reason why this should be surprising. Although voices in public are most often heard condemning what is perceived as a decline in public morality, it is difficult not to regard this as a function of personal ageing rather than a sharp reflection on society. After all, the Victorian age was more morally restrictive than what came before it, as well as what came after it. These things must be cyclical if they are to mean anything.

It seems clear that the public's attitude towards sexual violence changed at the same time as women's place in the public sphere became consolidated. The associated phenomenon of political correctness has also played a role, not only in changing people's idea of what is acceptable, but also in the film-makers' choices about what to include and what to leave out.

Think about the character of many of Burt Reynolds's movies (it is often forgotten now that he was the highest-paid movie star of the Seventies), and the lessening acceptability of the casual slap to calm down a hysterical woman. Come to think of it, what about the lessening acceptability of hysterical women on screen? These days, she is not only a pathetic creature, she is also a bad role model.

On the issues of sex and violence separately, things are even less clear- cut. While adults are, thankfully, more tolerant now of consensual sex depicted on screen, there has been a decline in screen violence arriving at the censors' office because many of the stars whose images promoted it (Schwarzenegger, Willis, Stallone) have reached middle age, got married, had children and - surprise, surprise - embraced family values.

But where children are involved as viewers, value judgements that are not market-led must be still be made. Minors are, by definition, in the process of constructing their moral framework. Like the expert who knows all the arguments in his field, it is possible to have too much information to find it possible to impose any kind of order on it. This is why children should not be encouraged to absorb television indiscriminately, roam the Internet unsupervised, or watch anything they please on video. However, we all know that the march of technology makes it difficult for even the most solicitous parent to police this effectively.

The expansion of the black market in violent pornography is itself a testament to the changes that have taken place in public morality over the past 23 years - what can't be bought legitimately goes underground. There is nothing new under the sun; there are just new ways of delivering it.