Peers vote to ban pornography depicting sex acts between stepfamily members
1–10 of 101 posts
Re: Peers vote to ban pornography depicting sex acts between stepfamily members
#2For 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.
Re: Peers vote to ban pornography depicting sex acts between stepfamily members
#3This 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.
Re: Peers vote to ban pornography depicting sex acts between stepfamily members
#4Good.
Re: Peers vote to ban pornography depicting sex acts between stepfamily members
#5This 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 pornogra…
[dead]
Re: Peers vote to ban pornography depicting sex acts between stepfamily members
#6For 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 w…
[deleted]
Re: Peers vote to ban pornography depicting sex acts between stepfamily members
#7This 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 pornogra…
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.
Re: Peers vote to ban pornography depicting sex acts between stepfamily members
#8 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.
Re: Peers vote to ban pornography depicting sex acts between stepfamily members
#9I am sure they each personally researched the topic very thoroughly to come to this conclusion
Re: Peers vote to ban pornography depicting sex acts between stepfamily members
#10For 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 w…
First they came for the porn, and I said nothing, for I am not sexy enough to produce it. Then they came for cryptography, and I kept my peace, for I don't understand the mathematics involved. Then they came for my browsing history, and I could not hide the porn in there, as cryptography was illegal. Well fuck...