Peers vote to ban pornography depicting sex acts between stepfamily members

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.

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.

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.

fluorinerocket

I am sure they each personally researched the topic very thoroughly to come to this conclusion

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?

saltcured

Meanwhile, actual cousin marriage is still legal there?

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.

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?

dogma1138

Help me step bro I’m stuck in 1984.

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?

nekochanwork

If a conservative doesn't want to consume a product, they ban it for everyone.

Natfan

https://archive.is/ZEwqt

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

jmyeet

Anything but 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...

efilife

Looks like the "we are just protecting children" ploy will now expand to protect even more people! I honestly expected them to wait a bit longer before doing this

jMyles

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?

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.

dtj1123

"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?

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.