The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) operate an appeals system for over or under blocking of web content, following the implementation of Perry & Cameron’s Porn Filters. The appeals system is designed for cases where there is some dispute between operators and site owners about the blocking of sites.

Usefully, the BBFC have just published a report about which disputes they had to adjudicate on. So, what sites are tricky enough to handle that they needed external input from a regulator?

Firstly, cases of over-blocking:

• A number of abortion related websites. Although “controversial for some“, the BBFC “found no content which we would classify at 18 or R18“.
• A website that sells office supplies. The BBFC “found no content on the site which we would classify at 18 or R18.”
• A web site about studying or working abroad. The BBFC “found no content on the site which we would classify at 18 or R18“.
• A tool for generating passwords. The BBFC “found no content on the site which we would classify 18 or R18“.
• A tool to help carers. The BBFC “found no content on the site which we would classify 18 or R18“.
• Information related to motor insurance. The BBFC “found no content on the site which we would classify 18 or R18“.
• The Girl Guides (!) web site. The BBFC found no content on the site which… well, you get the idea.

And there was one case of underblocking, of a site containing elements “encouraging members to post pictures of people they would rape, described as a ‘Rape Gallery’, alongside written comments about raping these individual.

Unsurprisingly, the BBFC “concluded that it would be classified at least 18 or R18, and might potentially be refused classification.”

The remaining three cases were queries by operators, two in what appear to be a genuinely marginal case of “is this 18-rated porn” and one asking if they should be blocking a site on assisted suicide or not. So in at least some instances the operators acted responsibly, in the others…

…well, I’d love to see the support ticket where some poor helpdesk staff member had to justify blocking an office supplies website. I can only assume at least one mobile operator has an internal appeals policy that can be summarised by “LALALA, I’M NOT LISTENING”.