71–80 of 101 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 and demoted a royal family member over it . And a separate lord.
There was a second person arrested? I thought only Andy got got.
https://www.npr.org/2026/02/23/g-s1-111196/uk-peter-mandelso...
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?
A typical practice for dictatorships to create a legal system capable of exerting pressure on any opponent.
> Are there not much more objectionable fetishes than this one?
The goal isn't to combat sexual perversions, but to silence anyone the dictatorial regime deems necessary.
You pass a law that's clearly unimplementable, and therefore won't cause much outrage, and then, as expected, the law doesn't work. But when you need to silence someone, a complaint emerges that someone accessed and distributed illegal content (some anonymous on some forum saw their IP-address doing that). In the public consciousness, the violation isn't serious (the law isn't actually implemented), so there's no significant outrage. Meanwhile, you conduct searches of the victim's home, confiscate their computers, laptops, smartphones and other gadgets, and open a criminal case against them.
And then you simply close the case, saying, "Yeah, nothing illegal was found, we are sorry". And the victim (and others) will think twice before going against the dictatorial regime next time. Typical practice, all dictatorships do it
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?
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?
Wait, am I still allowed to say upstanding members?
Adding to the curiosity: there seems to be many more possible legal actions in the sex category than the violence category.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're semantically quibbling with a clear joke and using those quibbles to avoid engaging with the point it's making.
> "Selling is legal, and fucking is legal; but selling fucking is not legal." I don't get it. The literal interpretation is a clear joke, as you say. So what's the point that it is making? To be clear, I think the law discussed is stupid. I also think the argument that if both parts are legal they should also be legal together is wrong. What am I avoiding?
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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are absolutely right! It takes incredible bravery to admit that if we cannot solve the problem in totality then incremental improvements are useless.
Fair point, but I have been very surprised by how many normie friends have gotten a VPN since our state mandated age checks for adult content.