Discussion
cjs_ac: This comment section will inevitably fill up with comments from people who have exactly the same thing to say, namely, that internet censorship is bad. That opinion has transcended the good-take-bad-take dichotomy: it's entered the pantheon of ideas that are seamlessly dumped into any mildly-related discussion and act as an impediment to any more interesting ideas.Here's a more interesting idea: because the pornography that's banned by this bill is made mainly in the US and Eastern Europe, and because it's distributed by businesses that are also located outside the UK, the UK has negligible ability to impose regulations that differ from other jurisdictions on the dividing line between legal and illegal pornography. The age verification system was imposable because there are very few websites that span the porn/not-porn divide, but this new bill regulates at too fine a level to enforce.
fluorinerocket: I am sure they each personally researched the topic very thoroughly to come to this conclusion
0cf8612b2e1e: Some ministers had opposed the amendment and suggested the new ban would have been difficult to implement because, under the law in England and Wales, it is not illegal for adults who are step-related to engage in a sexual relationship. This is amusing to me. Legal to do, but not legal to film.
PowerElectronix: As with most laws that are "useless in practice", this just opening the door and preparing/numbing the public to laws that will further extent control and censorship on internet and everywhere else.
azalemeth: For context, the (now accepted) amendment ensures that "anyone found to posses or publish pornography which shows incest between family members, or sex between step- or foster-relations where one person is pretending to be under-18, will be criminalised, with publication carrying a maximum penalty of two to five years’ imprisonment, depending on the severity of the content."This coming from a secondary legislature with an average age of 70. I do not think this a liberal move, to put it mildly.
alwa: Incest is already criminal, right? So the new issue here is with pornography of real step-relations exhibiting pretend ages? Seems a confusing way to go about it.Am I understanding correctly that it would not extend to “pretend” step-relations? And that the step-incest behavior itself remains legal?How is that supposed to cut down on either the objectionable porn narratives, or on actual sexual abuse within step-relations?
gjsman-1000: Good.
komali2: Ok I'm just gonna straight up ask: do people actually like "oh no stepbrother" porn? What's with the huge proliferation of it? I only watch it because it seems like 80% of the well shot, quality porn is step family shit, and I'm wondering if I'm participating in some kind of bizarre feedback loop where step family porn happened to be a category that started getting higher quality production value, which got more views, which led to studios erroneously believing people were watching because they have a step family fetish. I just try to ignore that aspect.
jghn: When this has come up in the past the conventional wisdom seems to be the other way around. At some point they noticed that if they slapped a stepfamily label on an otherwise normal vid that most people wouldn't care and still watch it, but it'd also attract the fetish crowd. This way they get more views for the same content.
bhouston: I don't get the point of banning specific pornography niches/fetishes that are otherwise legal.Are there not much more objectionable fetishes than this one?
saltcured: Meanwhile, actual cousin marriage is still legal there?
MidnightRider39: Yup you you just can’t film them having sex
dogma1138: Help me step bro I’m stuck in 1984.
zoklet-enjoyer: Consenting adults should be able to do whatever they'd like with each other and if they want to record it and share it, that's none of my business. How much mainstream entertainment is centered on murder? Is that ok?
UI_at_80x24: In the infamous words of George Carlin:"Selling is legal, and fucking is legal; but selling fucking is not legal."
Natfan: > Under this amendment, senior tech figures who have been made aware of *none* consensual sexual materials on their websites could face large fines, imprisonment or both if they do not act to remove without good cause.theguardian couldn't even be bothered to proof read? emphasis mine
handfuloflight: "Driving is legal. Drinking is legal. But drinking and driving is not legal."
lucianbr: People forget Carlin was a comedian."It's a big club and you ain't in it". Obviously the problem is the club is too small, that's why for most of the people it is true that they are not part of it."Half the population is stupider than how stupid the average person is". As if somehow there's not a single person exactly on the median. In fact there is probably a huge number of people there, and within a margin of error of it.
delichon: According to Ofcom doctrine this subjects most porn sites in the world to fines under UK law. Very much including x.com.
Natfan: https://archive.is/ZEwqt
wat10000: "Once the law comes into effect, anyone found to posses or publish pornography which shows incest between family members, or sex between step- or foster-relations where one person is pretending to be under-18, will be criminalised...."Wouldn't the step/foster bit already be covered by child pornography laws?
RIMR: Why would child pornography laws have anything to do with someone pretending to be under-18?That's distasteful, sure, but objectively, people over-18 are not children.Basic recordkeeping laws should make it easy to ensure that everyone involved is of age, even if they're sucking on a pacifier, wearing a diaper, and saying "goo goo ga ga".
amarcheschi: Age verification system just push users towards alternative websites or other ways to access itGuess why a friend of mine who is not into computer science was telling me about him using VPN a few days ago
nekochanwork: If a conservative doesn't want to consume a product, they ban it for everyone.
altairprime: [delayed]
handfuloflight: I am quite acquainted with Carlin. If there's anyone that can have their absurd logic repeated back to them, it would be a comedian.
_heimdall: The greater irony to me is how this relates to the sometimes interwoven family tree of British royalty.
cineticdaffodil: Royaly screwed: Prince Andrew starring in "stiff upper habsburg lip" - the movie
Phelinofist: They have some kind of story and buildup, the thrill of doing something morally objective, sometimes the "getting caught" aspect... or so I have heard
burnte: One kills people the other makes people, they're not the same.
kelseyfrog: You are absolutely right! It takes incredible bravery to admit that if we cannot solve the problem in totality then incremental improvements are useless.
xnyan: Fair point, but I have been very suppressed how many normie friends have gotten a VPN since our state mandated age checks for adult content.
jmyeet: Anything but exposing exposing the abusers who Epstein and Maxwell trafficked to [1] and investigating (let alone prosecuting) child abuse [2][3].Britain has many real problems. This isn't one of them.[1]: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/the-epstein-files-rattle-...[2]: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/2/26/british-politicians...[3]: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/apr/28/outrag...
jMyles: One of the greatest films ever made is a comedy depicting the combination of psychosis, greed, and bigotry bringing about mass murder and nuclear holocaust, culminating with the characters planning orgies in a mineshaft.If depicting _that_ is OK (and it is - Dr. Strangelove is one of the finest in the medium, not only in its commentary on war, but its commentary on film), how in tarnation can pretending to be step-siblings cross the line?
ceejayoz: > People forget Carlin was a comedian.That would seem to include you?
lucianbr: How do you figure? I don't have a problem with Carlin, but with people who quote him as a source of wisdom.The commenter who quoted him here in the thread meant to make a joke and I didn't get it? I thought he quoted him as a point against the law we are discussing.
ceejayoz: You're semantically quibbling with a clear joke and using those quibbles to avoid engaging with the point it's making.
ceejayoz: The UK has been far better at this than the US thus far.While we were having "No Kings" rallies over our elected Epstein co-conspirator, they arrested demoted a royal family member over it. And a separate lord.
Tangurena2: The UK government wants to ban porn entirely. Requiring website users to identify themselves (with ages) is the first step. This is another step.
handfuloflight: You know what really makes people? Polygamy. And now I want my f*king human rights, now! Just like President Jimmi Carta says.
nemomarx: My assumption is that it's just easy to add and widen the audience to a random shoot? You put in a few lines of dialogue at the start and change the title, and it's not seen as so taboo that viewers will turn it off from that. But it gets some dedicated perverts searching for it where they might have ignored it before, etc.
ceejayoz: Like the keyword stuffing that happens on Amazon listings.
Jiro: A politician voting for a bill. Giving money to a politician is legal. But giving money to a politician so he'll vote for a bill is not legal.
sva_: And, until very recently, seemingly encouraged by the NHS?> A blog published on 22 September by NHS England’s Genomics Education Programme said that marriage between first cousins had “various potential benefits,” while acknowledging that children of first cousins had an increased chance of being born with a genetic condition.https://www.bmj.com/content/391/bmj.r2061
sph: This is worse than 1984. Next is EU, which has been happily copying all the great inventions in the matters of citizen liberty from Great Britain.
dogma1138: Well at least porn and between first cousins is still legal…
SequoiaHope: “Today we are sending a powerful message: we will stamp out misogynistic and harmful content online and create a safer world.”I’ve not read the full report, but I have to presume this will ban depictions of women participating in consensual S&M on the ground that someone thinks that’s misogyny? Many times have I eagerly strapped myself on to a St Andrew’s cross and enjoyed a stimulating flogging. It feels good! It releases endorphins! It’s healthy! Sex is about playing with bodies in fun consensual ways.Maybe it doesn’t ban women’s participation in S&M per se, but the article does mention a ban on choking which is an act which is not without risk but which consensual adults can safely engage in.What is upsetting is the penalty is prison. For possession of porn made by consenting adults. Awful. Anyway if women can’t see depictions of things they would enjoy, they will be deprived of the opportunity to discover themselves. This is not fighting misogyny this is about enforcing one group’s views on others and criminalizing consensual behavior.
cheschire: Intentional pun?
djoldman: It's interesting how restricting the commercialization of recorded sex acts (by consenting actors) has had more success over the last few decades than restricting the commercialization of recorded violence (by consenting actors).Adding to the curiosity: there seems to be many more possible legal actions in the sex category than the violence category.
drcongo: I'm guessing that incest porn is apparently so popular in the US that it's made finding anything that isn't incest porn on US porn sites much harder for these perfectly upstanding members of the House of Lords.Wait, am I still allowed to say upstanding members?
leptons: I typically watch porn with the audio turned off, because all of the dialog is just so bad in one way or another. I'm not there for the dialogue, and I don't care about the fake set-up before the actual porn starts happening.
kelseyfrog: What you're pointing out is true insight. It's not just anecdotes, it's lived experience. Not nuanced solutions. Not tradeoffs. But normies friends as the real litmus test of effectiveness. You don't _need_ to look further, you have all the evidence you already require.
standardly: WHAT are you doing, step-peers?!
