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.
It's obviously not legal for say, me, a middle aged man, to possess a photograph of some 17 year old girl with her tits out. Right? Except well... wait no, because what if I have a photo of my middle aged wife shortly after we first met, so the photo shows a 17 year old girl with her tits out, but the person is my wife, who is like "Yeah, remember when I had long hair? Also, I wish my tits still looked like that". So clearly that is OK after all, it's legal.
And then we have a huge row, she divorces me, now that photo is illegal after all, because I'm definitely not allowed to have photos of under-age girls with their tits out, and now the photo isn't of my wife... not any more.
Knife laws similarly have weird edge cases. 12" long sharp blade? Crime. In a Kebab shop to make delicious kebabs? Legal. I took it with me to the pub after work? Crime; Walking down the street with an ordinary Swiss Army Knife (oversize)? Crime. Tiny version of that knife? Legal. Sword, like an actual medieval sword? Crime. But I need it for this mock battle we're staging? Still a crime. No swords. Use a fake sword which can't hurt anybody or go to jail.
Edited: The "original" Swiss Army Knife is barely short enough that it's always legal, but some oversize variants are not. Like that Kebab knife you can have a lawful reason you needed to carry the knife regardless of size but I hope your reason make sense ("Self defence" is never a lawful reason to carry weapons in the UK)
I believe nudity is generally not illegal at all, as in in itself. Like... Come on, _of course_ it's the UK, not Europe or US....
Are we there yet?
Nude children are or were in the recent past displayed in Britain's museums (National Gallery, Tate Britain and Tate Modern (afair paintings and sculptures, infamous pictures of Brooke Shields), British Museum (antiques))
For example if you were to photograph your own kids frolicking in the garden to immortalise the moments of joy and fun, that'd be also okay BUT of course I'm certain Google/Apple would immediately report you, lock your account and then you'd have to get a lawyer to point the sheer absurdity of it.
And that's at the same time it's perfectly fine for such children to play on the public beaches for example.
...but of course I'm aware we're supposed to police ourselves.
Brits love being gravely offended and prude and the new law further reinforces this notion -- at the moment when the possession of the fake video or fake story of incest relationship is a criminal offence, having a sexual relationship with, say, first cousin is perfectly fine in the UK.
I mean: you can legally and lawfully have a child with your cousin, but if you wrote a story about that INSTEAD that's 2 years in prison.
I can't help myself but I think too many MPs and Lords have affairs with cousins; perhaps worse.
The double edge of the UK version of Roman Law is that Man on the Clapham omnibus
- all these edge cases fall to a judge .. who may or may not be as reasonable as your first cousin on the back seat of the omnibus.
> This is amusing to me. Legal to do, but not legal to film.
I don't know if it's amusing but the comparison is incorrect. Doing it in public is not legal. These laws are about the public part, not about the doing part.
Carlin's quote in this thread suffers from the same problem, he was eager to say something amusing, instead of correct, and did it prematurely.
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.
“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.
"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"
This reads to me as though sex between foster-relations where one person is pretending to be over 18 is still A-OK. Wasn't it already illegal to depict sex with an under-18 year old though?
Meanwhile is still legal to distribute and claim payment for videos depicting killing, mass killing, torture, crime, drug abuse and dependency and so on. Priorities are where the highest bidder puts them.
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.
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?
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.
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.
> 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
"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?
What is too bawdy, too immodest, too immoral to depict in a figment of film (assuming for the moment that the state even has legitimate authority in this area)?
One of the greatest films ever made is a comedy depicting the combination of psychosis, greed, incompetence, 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 adult actors pretending to be step-siblings cross the line?
90 comments
It's obviously not legal for say, me, a middle aged man, to possess a photograph of some 17 year old girl with her tits out. Right? Except well... wait no, because what if I have a photo of my middle aged wife shortly after we first met, so the photo shows a 17 year old girl with her tits out, but the person is my wife, who is like "Yeah, remember when I had long hair? Also, I wish my tits still looked like that". So clearly that is OK after all, it's legal.
And then we have a huge row, she divorces me, now that photo is illegal after all, because I'm definitely not allowed to have photos of under-age girls with their tits out, and now the photo isn't of my wife... not any more.
Knife laws similarly have weird edge cases. 12" long sharp blade? Crime. In a Kebab shop to make delicious kebabs? Legal. I took it with me to the pub after work? Crime; Walking down the street with an ordinary Swiss Army Knife (oversize)? Crime. Tiny version of that knife? Legal. Sword, like an actual medieval sword? Crime. But I need it for this mock battle we're staging? Still a crime. No swords. Use a fake sword which can't hurt anybody or go to jail.
Edited: The "original" Swiss Army Knife is barely short enough that it's always legal, but some oversize variants are not. Like that Kebab knife you can have a lawful reason you needed to carry the knife regardless of size but I hope your reason make sense ("Self defence" is never a lawful reason to carry weapons in the UK)
Are we there yet?
Nude children are or were in the recent past displayed in Britain's museums (National Gallery, Tate Britain and Tate Modern (afair paintings and sculptures, infamous pictures of Brooke Shields), British Museum (antiques))
For example if you were to photograph your own kids frolicking in the garden to immortalise the moments of joy and fun, that'd be also okay BUT of course I'm certain Google/Apple would immediately report you, lock your account and then you'd have to get a lawyer to point the sheer absurdity of it.
And that's at the same time it's perfectly fine for such children to play on the public beaches for example.
...but of course I'm aware we're supposed to police ourselves.
Brits love being gravely offended and prude and the new law further reinforces this notion -- at the moment when the possession of the fake video or fake story of incest relationship is a criminal offence, having a sexual relationship with, say, first cousin is perfectly fine in the UK.
I mean: you can legally and lawfully have a child with your cousin, but if you wrote a story about that INSTEAD that's 2 years in prison.
I can't help myself but I think too many MPs and Lords have affairs with cousins; perhaps worse.
"Selling is legal, and fucking is legal; but selling fucking is not legal."
> This is amusing to me. Legal to do, but not legal to film.
I don't know if it's amusing but the comparison is incorrect. Doing it in public is not legal. These laws are about the public part, not about the doing part.
Carlin's quote in this thread suffers from the same problem, he was eager to say something amusing, instead of correct, and did it prematurely.
This coming from a secondary legislature with an average age of 70. I do not think this a liberal move, to put it mildly.
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.
Are there not much more objectionable fetishes than this one?
This reads to me as though sex between foster-relations where one person is pretending to be over 18 is still A-OK. Wasn't it already illegal to depict sex with an under-18 year old though?
Adding to the curiosity: there seems to be many more possible legal actions in the sex category than the violence category.
Unfortunately this is a well established part of their history to criminalize speech they find distasteful.
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.
> 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
I honestly expected them to wait a bit longer before doing this
Wouldn't the step/foster bit already be covered by child pornography laws?
One of the greatest films ever made is a comedy depicting the combination of psychosis, greed, incompetence, 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 adult actors pretending to be step-siblings cross the line?
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...