Pornography showing strangulation and incest to be banned in UK from early November
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/oct/16/pornography-strangulation-incest-ban-uk-novemberOpen linkView original on programming.devSyndicated from the fediverse. Read and engage on the original instance.
View original on programming.devhttps://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/oct/16/pornography-strangulation-incest-ban-uk-novemberOpen linkView original on programming.dev
51 replies
UK government:
Real problems: I sleep
Moral panic: real shit
Already banned (porn) in the UK: squirting, face sitting, bondage, seeing any sex related content without submitting government ID (including educational material, online supportive discussion on intimate problems, LGBTQ+ related material, etc), water sports, humiliation, fisting, consensual "verbal abuse". Thanks UK government.
Wait, they seriously banned squirting?
Literally because it upset PM David Cameron's mother.
[insert wtf meme]
If it upsets you, DON'T FUCKING WATCH IT.
For example I don't watch scat porn because I find it disgusting. But I'd never want to legislate on my personal opinion on such a... subjective matter.
As long as it's consenting adults, and no crime is committed (so, still no snuff/child porn). But if people want to get off to others playing with piss, shit, squirt, or being choked, or having their balls beaten into a pulp, fucking let them...
You accidentally committed a tautology - it's a crime because it's illegal/there's a law against it. With this law, it will, by definition, become a crime.
I have no idea what the UK's laws are on incest itself, nor fake depictions of crimes (e.g. fake snuff), and I don't intend to find out.
It's not really a tautology.
My whole point was to not criminalise porn itself, but handle the action within it criminally only if the action is a crime.
For example, choking someone consensually isn't a crime. Squirting isn't a crime. Having sex with your fake sister isn't a crime. However somehow, making porn of it, made these actions a crime. That's what needs to go. If the action in itself is a crime - murder, mutilation, CSAM, incestuous sex (yes, sexual contact with an immediate relative is a criminal act in the UK), these are all crimes, and if they appear in porn, they should be investigated and treated as such.
But, again, squirting isn't a crime. Drinking your piss, eating your partner's shit, (consensually) choking your partner, again, not a crime. So there's no need to criminalise their appearance in porn either.
Well said on both comments.
I think there's far too many religious zealots within government and too many religious groups advocating for such things to be banned.
I feel that we're not far from banning homosexuality by proxy - as some people might find their acts offensive.
I find religious zealots who try to force their views onto others incredibly offensive, can we ban that too please?
Starting with public worship and such. Absolutely no need to have either Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists or anyone else preaching in public. No, idgaf about your religious freedom, you're free to follow any religion, not create a public nuisance and harass people.
Every accusation... David Cameron's mom is a squirter.
Wh-what are you doing, step-government?!! 😩😫🥵
Incest porn banned, incest itself not banned. Fucking Labour banning things instead of actually fixing real problems yet again
I presume sexual contact with minors is already banned, at least officially? If two consenting adult siblings want a go at each other, more power to them, because they make them royalty.
Well, you cant see porn in the UK without giving ID anyway, so I assume no one actually accesses these sites from the UK anyway (without a VPN), so this will have no effect.
The effect it gives is yet another tool for police to hold over the public and enforce selectively. A wonderful tool for political enemies for instance.
I cannot emphasise enough how trivial it is to view porn without providing ID or using a VPN in the UK. You can literally type "porn" into your search engine of choice and see anything you want in the images tab. Part of the reason the OSA was so badly received is because it's literally unachievable.
I accidentally did this yesterday. Was looking fora specific smbc-comic that involved porn as the joke.
Google just straight up showed me shitloads of hardcore images. No safesearch blur no nothing. Just right to the goodies.
Had to tab put immediately my wife was in the room.
In related news, billionaires will continue to rape and dispose of children without meaningful consequence.
Prepare for flatmate porn.
In other news, VPN signups are at an all time high.
Their legality is also under review.
Uk goverment once again showing it doesnt know how a VPN works and that the USA is the current mass producer of step-daughter content (you sick fucks)
Ah but they claim they can beat that by fingerprinting the specific packets from banned videos or aome horseshit
No more hardcore stuff. Damn. Didnt know the puritants would be back again
Are step family still incest though?
What are you doing step-strangler?!?
An amendment to include step- in the ban passed. By one vote.
Its really a wonder that these Victorian prudes haven't caused their own extinction yet.
This is the dumbest thing.
The dumbest thing so far today!
oh sure, when your entire system of government is based entirely on incestuous relations to "stay pure" for generations, its ok. but when Phil wants to wank his pecker to it, it's unacceptable.
double standards UK.
They are really pining for the victorian era.
where incest was best and nobody talked about it?
Birth rates are in decline! Let's ban porn, that will fix things. Why has nothing changed? Sorry, I can't be bothered. We're going after video games next!
That will be very weird to defend. I can't wait to hear conservatives' arguments for them.
ITT: Porn addicted weirdos being open about how much of a porn addicted weirdo they are.
Or people who see a canary in the coal mine being smothered.
Ban under 18s from using the Internet, only allow portalling through a Government filter / blocker. It allows certain sites deemed informative and educational but no ads for children. Complaints can be made by the public about certain sites and a board can decide if they should be limited from children's view.
If you wish access to the full internet, you get a government passcode when you turn 18 which can be used to allow you to leave the Government filter and back to normal internets. All of this is controlled by the Government, no 3rd party companies allowed access to your data.
Boom! Internets now back to normal. It solves your problem of Paedo's, kids looking at porn, suicide, annorexia etc etc...
Just watch as Google, Facebook, X all would be absolutely up in arms claiming it's banning 'free speech' when in fact they're just watching their ad revenue tank thanks to nearly all of it being about suckering in children.
"Sign in with your government ID to prove you are an adult, and enable your camera to prove that you are using the correct ID"
This one of the the dumbest fucking ideas I've ever heard.
What next, ban children from reading books and magazines, in case they get a porno one ?
Whilst your opinion is subjectively valid, following it up with such extreme's doesn't help make the case.
Very few books have been banned out of existence, for starters and secondly, aren't under 18's typically ID'd if they pick up an adult magazine, or even a packet of ciggies. Even in a pub now they have that 'Challenge 25' - which is ridiculously outlandish. This wouldn't be much different.
I do believe the damage that social media and algorithms have done to society is astounding. I would effectively call what they do, including advertising, 'Grooming'.
Read @[email protected]'s comment - that would be the most sensible solution for everyone involved but noone wishes to take accountability.
The solution to problems with the internet is not a fucking surveillance state.
Set aside the complete obliteration of any online privacy, and the fact that these bans are completely ineffective (piracy streaming websites are already illegal in basically every western country. Still watched a movie on one yesterday), the internet is also a valuable and important resource for many things, including studying and finding support encouragement, nformation and safe spaces on issues particularly for children and teens growing up queer.
You're throwing out the
babyentire god damn family with the bathwater.All these bans do is push teens and children into LESS safe spaces on the deep web that don't care about enforcing UK regulations, and banning those sites is literally just playing an infinite game of whack a mole.
Banning children and teens from everyday life activities has never worked and never been a solution, just how "abstinence only" doesn't work to prevent teen pregnancy. The solution is to teach children early and comprehensively how to engage with these systems safely and responsibly, how to recognise warning signs of unsafe situations or fake information, and how to react appropriately to those.
That ship, has sailed.
Nothing I disagree with there but I never said it would take it away from children. I suggest it would ringfence to acceptable sites so children can now find out about Homosexuality and Gender fluidity without being linked to a video on how to shoot up fentanyl with a knitting needle and a Maccie D's straw (other straws are available and other restaurants).
I feel that ship has sailed. The government hasn't listened yet, only to extremely old and sanctimonious other politicians.
That's why it would be ringfenced.
100% completely agree with not banning teens and working with them, but the Internet is an actively and pervasively hostile place towards children. They are being groomed (not always sexually), and most social media is just predatory grooming. If they're not being told what to think, they're being told what to buy. It's pretty disgusting.
Parents have their place in all of this too. Perhaps if more of them actually engaged with their children we wouldn't be in this sorry state of affairs, but then the way things are now, Parents don't even have the time because they're working just to pay bills.
The big Kaiju of the internet likes it this way (FAANG), they have the control. How do you stop that? It doesn't seem legislation against them is working.
We are currently now at the state where ID is required for certain access. It's absolutely shitty, it's terrible and shameful, but it seems the government and the zealots have built a brick wall around this issue about as much as talking honestly about the Israel / Palestine situation. They have shut down almost all dialogue with ordinary citizens - most likely because it serves more of a purpose of shutting out foreign actors and helps to combat terrorism.
It's not an excuse, it's just the way it is...and it's all one big mess where you're damned no matter what you do.
I grew up in a conservative community and only got a broader world view from unmonitored internet access. I probably would have been more suicidal without it.
Major child traffickers are adults AND the elites who were doing before the internet.
Porn will always exist and pubescent kids will always seek it out.
Annorexia is more the direct result of Hollywood beauty standards and predatory marketers targeting insecure girls, also existed before the internet.
Making the Government the gatekeepers of the internet will allow them to censor whatever anti Government speech they want the same way public schools everywhere gloss over the crimes of their state.
And I don't think that would change if a system was implemented. That's not to say the future and future governments might not change things for the worst.
While all true, the Internet as it stands puts this directly and en masse into childrens hands without a fuss and worse, grooms children via algorithms down dark paths.
I think Th4tGuyII's comment in here is the most pragmatic response and something the government should have started out doing.
If there weren't so many puritanical zealouts out there, especially in positions of power, I think we'd probably be in a better position now.
You don't need to speculate about future governments. The current governments are already bad enough for their adult citizens not to trust them with their Internet activities.
I cannot disagree with that.
Literally just enforce default-on parental controls and self-updating adult-content filtering on every consumer router sold/ISP rented in the UK - and enforce the updating of all existing routers to support that.
Respects people's privacy, gives parents autonomy over their children's internet habits, and is easy to implement because the routers are already in everyone's houses and can be actively updated as they literally have to be connected to the internet to do their job. Let/make parents take control and whitelist specific users and/or devices to fit their situation...
... But no. Instead we give the Government loads of unnecessary surveillance powers so they can kneecap everybody's internet experience to nanny the kids of parents who couldn't be fucked to learn how to use the parental controls they already had access to on basically every device they own to protect their children.
This is exactly the right answer.
Some parents can't and won't be arsed to take any responsibility for their kids at all, whether that's parenting or teaching - it's always the fault of the state. When the state acts, it's an attack on the freedom of speech. It's a hell of a situation and I don't envy the governments choices in this matter.
Parental controls as standard on, on a router would absolutely be the easiest, cheapest and most effective way but puritans somehow managed to keep this alive.
Unfortunately, here is where we are and I wish that there was something we could do about it. Every single solution can and will be circumvented so it all seems like a colossal waste of money at this point.
At least if they implemented a child filter, I would hope they ban ads on a large scale and put social media behind the wall completely. It would do the world a massive favour.