British values - banning all porn, it seems

[Imperializt Russia]

The Independent reported today that a number of sex acts in British-produced pornography have now been "quietly" banned. Interestingly, targeting acts typically enjoyed (or depicted against) by women in pornography. The BBFC, British Board of Film Censors, now maintains that online pornography must now comply with legislation held against pornography produced on physical, store-bought media.

The types now prohibited are (pardon la francaise, if you will):

Seemingly arbitrarily deciding what is nice sex and what is not nice sex, the board has banned the following acts from being depicted by British pornography producers:

Spanking

Caning

Aggressive whipping

Penetration by any object "associated with violence"

Physical or verbal abuse (regardless of if consensual)

Urolagnia (known as "water sports")

Female ejaculation

Strangulation

Facesitting

Fisting

The final three listed fall under acts the BBFC views as potentially "life-endangering".

While the measures won't stop people from viewing whatever genre of porn they desire from abroad, they do impose severe restrictions on content created in the UK, and appear to make no distinction between consensual and non-consensual practices between adults.

"There appear to be no rational explanations for most of the R18 rules," Jerry Barnett of the anti-censorship group Sex and Censorship told Vice UK. "They're simply a set of moral judgements designed by people who have struggled endlessly to stop the British people from watching pornography."

More worryingly, the amendment seems to take issue with acts from which women traditionally derive pleasure.

"The new legislation is absurd and surreal," Itziar Bilbao Urrutia, a dominatrix who produces porn with a feminist theme added to Vice UK. "I mean, why ban facesitting? What's so dangerous about it? It's a harmless activity that most femdom performers, myself included, do fully dressed anyway. Its power is symbolic: woman on top, unattainable."

Yeah, I don't know either.

So our porn is not only being monitored by the PLA thanks to Cameron's bizarre Daily Mail-backed (hypocritically, of course, with their celeb bikini creeper bar) war on porn - since all ISPs now send our data to Huawei, run by an ex-intelligence officer of the PLA, for censoring unless we opt-out of censorship (which, per ISP discretion, usually includes shitting everything else too - opting out still has it filtered through Huawei, even though it's no longer being censored), it's now being mostly banned. Especially since "verbal abuse" can be used to ban... probably every single pornographic video I have ever seen, to be honest.
That it's randomly targeting female domination is even more peculiar.

"Whoever spares the rod hates his son"

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/a- ... ebook-post

[Avaerilon]

The BBFC apparently insists female ejaculation isn't a real thing and constitutes urination, among other things Ironic that this is coming from the Tories- I'm willing to bet nearly ever one of them has their own personal S'n'M dungeon.

[Baltenstein]

Another case of Anglo-Saxon libertarianism defending personal freedoms against the nanny-state.

[Nortrom]

Why female ejaculation? What's wrong with it?

Also, is it true that the think-of-the-children setting bans more things than just porn? I've read that the British govt wants to censor more things than porn, including pagan or left-leaning websites.

[Socialist Tera]

Is this all the proof we need that British conservatives are stupid?

[Sediczja]

Land of hope and glory

Something something else

Land of hope and glory

That is where I live

*wipes single tear*

[Republic of Coldwater]

First off, good luck enforcing those laws. While I do not watch or agree with pornography, I do not agree with the control of such pornography, as the sheer size of the adult porn industry means that so many videos are released everyday, making such things impossible to enforce, unless you are going to watch and filter through all of them, which would hurt the market and be detrimental to the economy and the industry, which does employ quite some people and has billions of dollars in value.

The only pornography I support outlawing is forced pornography. Basically if all parties agree to making the film, it should be legal as everyone has consented to such actions.

[The Yorkshire Commonwealth]

Very odd. And slightly worrying. But to be honest we've never really made great porn so w/e.

[Imperializt Russia]

Why female ejaculation? What's wrong with it?

Also, is it true that the think-of-the-children setting bans more things than just porn? I've read that the British govt wants to censor more things than porn, including pagan or left-leaning websites.

When the mandatory porn-blocker by ISP was introduced, as I said, all the ISPs (whether because it was a service available or the government told them to) chose Huawei for their filtering.

Whether the ISPs just took along their own default filter options and made that mandatory or this is Huawei's choice, every filtering option is now default on for some ISPs. Some were nicer and only blocked porn as requested. There was a bit of a furore shortly after it went live, because the Samaritans (or other group) noted their suicide prevention page was now being blocked for having a suicide theme to it.
Kind of exemplifying the shittiness at the base of online censorship.

A person had to go into the whitelist (since it's far easier to ban everything vaguely relating to something than make a selective ban) and add the Samaritans to it. That that ever had to be done is atrocious.

[Frazers]

The BBFC apparently insists female ejaculation isn't a real thing and constitutes urination, among other things Ironic that this is coming from the Tories- I'm willing to bet nearly ever one of them has their own personal S'n'M dungeon.

That would be a lie. They take no position on the validity of female ejaculation.

[Imperializt Russia]

First off, good luck enforcing those laws. While I do not watch or agree with pornography, I do not agree with the control of such pornography, as the sheer size of the adult porn industry means that so many videos are released everyday, making such things impossible to enforce, unless you are going to watch and filter through all of them, which would hurt the market and be detrimental to the economy and the industry, which does employ quite some people and has billions of dollars in value.

The only pornography I support outlawing is forced pornography. Basically if all parties agree to making the film, it should be legal as everyone has consented to such actions.

If you're making pornographic material that it is illegal to produce, can you still consent to participating in it?
I'm willing to bet the government will say no.

I'm further willing to bet that British porn producers will rather take their freedom over their livelihood, sad as that is (that this is a choice that has to be made).

[The Yorkshire Commonwealth]

A person had to go into the whitelist (since it's far easier to ban everything vaguely relating to something than make a selective ban) and add the Samaritans to it. That that ever had to be done is atrocious.

Aaaand... If you click on a website and it comes up with a [BLOCKED] message, then how do you know this particular site's been blocked wrongly?
In other words, no one with the filter on knows a site's been blocked by accident because for all they know it could have a picture of a gaping flange right at the top of the page... Because they haven't seen the page... Because it's blocked.
And no one with the filter off knows it's been blocked wrongly because they don't know it's been blocked.

It's fucking stupid.

[Frazers]

My understanding of the act is that these acts aren't banned but simply must be accompanied by some degree of barrier to be overcome by those pursuing it e.g. "Are you over 18 and aware of what you're going to see? Yes / No"

[Imperializt Russia]

My understanding of the act is that these acts aren't banned but simply must be accompanied by some degree of barrier to be overcome by those pursuing it e.g. "Are you over 18 and aware of what you're going to see? Yes / No"

Only if it receives a classification of R18 by the BBFC, under "specially restricted" material.
The Independent claims that these acts are classified as prohibited material, which under law cannot be classified and therefore cannot be sold.

It cites the Audiovisual Media Services Regulations 2014 for a definition of prohibited material:

Amendment of section 368E of the 2003 Act (harmful material)
2. In section 368E(4) of the 2003 Act (harmful material), for subsection (2) substitute—
“(2) An on-demand programme service must not contain any prohibited material.

The R18 category's prohibited material list for 2014 apparently doesn't include all of those listed by the Independent:
http://www.bbfc.co.uk/sites/default/fil ... 2014_0.pdf

Maybe the 2015 edition will contain an update.

[The Matthew Islands]

What would Diana say?

[West Aurelia]

So it's legal to commit these acts, but illegal to have it filmed. Seems legit.

And banning female ejaculation and verbal abuse (even if consensual)? Seriously? How is that harming anyone?

To quote Glenn Greenwald: "Hard to imagine anything more gross than British bureaucrats sitting around discussing which specific sex acts to ban."

Indeed, Mr. Greenwald, indeed.

[Imperializt Russia]

So it's legal to commit these acts, but illegal to have it filmed. Seems legit.

And banning female ejaculation and verbal abuse (even if consensual)? Seriously? How is that harming anyone?

To quote Glenn Greenwald: "Hard to imagine anything more gross than British bureaucrats sitting around discussing which specific sex acts to ban."

Indeed, Mr. Greenwald, indeed.

If people don't see sexual media depicting these acts, obviously they won't want to commit them. By-the-backdoor bedroom Puritanism. Wait. Not the backdoor.
Gah! Ruddy innuendos.

The next step is obviously to format my Xbox 360's internal hard drive for the good of the state, since I've spent the last three days playing PAYDAY2

[The United Colonies of Earth]

The Independent reported today that a number of sex acts in British-produced pornography have now been "quietly" banned. Interestingly, targeting acts typically enjoyed (or depicted against) by women in pornography. The BBFC, British Board of Film Censors, now maintains that online pornography must now comply with legislation held against pornography produced on physical, store-bought media.

The types now prohibited are (pardon la francaise, if you will):

Seemingly arbitrarily deciding what is nice sex and what is not nice sex, the board has banned the following acts from being depicted by British pornography producers:

Spanking

Caning

Aggressive whipping

Penetration by any object "associated with violence"

Physical or verbal abuse (regardless of if consensual)

Urolagnia (known as "water sports")

Female ejaculation

Strangulation

Facesitting

Fisting

The final three listed fall under acts the BBFC views as potentially "life-endangering".

While the measures won't stop people from viewing whatever genre of porn they desire from abroad, they do impose severe restrictions on content created in the UK, and appear to make no distinction between consensual and non-consensual practices between adults.

"There appear to be no rational explanations for most of the R18 rules," Jerry Barnett of the anti-censorship group Sex and Censorship told Vice UK. "They're simply a set of moral judgements designed by people who have struggled endlessly to stop the British people from watching pornography."

More worryingly, the amendment seems to take issue with acts from which women traditionally derive pleasure.

"The new legislation is absurd and surreal," Itziar Bilbao Urrutia, a dominatrix who produces porn with a feminist theme added to Vice UK. "I mean, why ban facesitting? What's so dangerous about it? It's a harmless activity that most femdom performers, myself included, do fully dressed anyway. Its power is symbolic: woman on top, unattainable."

Yeah, I don't know either.

So our porn is not only being monitored by the PLA thanks to Cameron's bizarre Daily Mail-backed (hypocritically, of course, with their celeb bikini creeper bar) war on porn - since all ISPs now send our data to Huawei, run by an ex-intelligence officer of the PLA, for censoring unless we opt-out of censorship (which, per ISP discretion, usually includes shitting everything else too - opting out still has it filtered through Huawei, even though it's no longer being censored), it's now being mostly banned. Especially since "verbal abuse" can be used to ban... probably every single pornographic video I have ever seen, to be honest.
That it's randomly targeting female domination is even more peculiar.

"Whoever spares the rod hates his son"

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/a- ... ebook-post

I do not like some of these things, but I don't ban them from being viewed. Dave and his buddies need to just encourage parents to block it.

So it's legal to commit these acts, but illegal to have it filmed. Seems legit.

And banning female ejaculation and verbal abuse (even if consensual)? Seriously? How is that harming anyone?

To quote Glenn Greenwald: "Hard to imagine anything more gross than British bureaucrats sitting around discussing which specific sex acts to ban."

Indeed, Mr. Greenwald, indeed.

If people don't see sexual media depicting these acts, obviously they won't want to commit them. By-the-backdoor bedroom Puritanism. Wait. Not the backdoor.
Gah! Ruddy innuendos.

The next step is obviously to format my Xbox 360's internal hard drive for the good of the state, since I've spent the last three days playing PAYDAY2

Payday 2?

[Manisdog]

I would support this move, it seems that government is doing the best for its people and instilling in its people better values, this should be a welcomed move I guess

[The United Colonies of Earth]

I would support this move, it seems that government is doing the best for its people and instilling in its people better values, this should be a welcomed move I guess

I agree. It instills better values indeed...like valuing the ability to get the run-around on a government-supported blocker website.

[Imperializt Russia]

If people don't see sexual media depicting these acts, obviously they won't want to commit them. By-the-backdoor bedroom Puritanism. Wait. Not the backdoor.
Gah! Ruddy innuendos.

The next step is obviously to format my Xbox 360's internal hard drive for the good of the state, since I've spent the last three days playing PAYDAY2

Payday 2?

It's a heist game.

Shoot cops, rob stores.

[Soselo]

What would Diana say?

Something dirty, perhaps.

[Indira]

You know, this would make sense if the rules actually protected against something. (Like rape porn/child abuse/potentially fatal and fatal porn like snuff etc) But they don't seem to make any sense whatsoever.

[Seaxeland]

They should just ban porn outright. It's a disgusting, sick, and depraved. The US should ban it too.

[Manisdog]

I would support this move, it seems that government is doing the best for its people and instilling in its people better values, this should be a welcomed move I guess

I agree. It instills better values indeed...like valuing the ability to get the run-around on a government-supported blocker website.

No it would be good for them, it would bring in a sense of culture and such acts are just lets say not nice for public viewing