this post was submitted on 13 Apr 2026
542 points (98.2% liked)

Not The Onion

21216 readers
2195 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Jarix@lemmy.world -2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

So many people in the comments are asleep at the wheel.

The Ministry of Justice said that possessing and publishing porn showing incest between family members and sex between step or foster relatives where one person pretends to be under-18 would be a crime.

Porn showing characters that are related having sex

Porn showing UNDERAGE characters having sex.

That's it. That's all this stops.

Which probably is already illegal in most places

This will stop very little to no additional porn according to what was said.

It's NOT a ban on showing step porn, only when one person is under the age of 18.

This solves maybe having. Some law to help prosecute things that are likely already being prosecuted but will do nothing to stop what has become popular.

[–] DudleyMason@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Until they get people comfortable with that. Then it'll be porn that's deemed "degrading" or depictions of BDSM, or whatever they think they can sell you next. People who want to stop porn want to stop all porn. People who aren't religious psychos who fall for this kind of bullshit aren't really better than the religious psychos in any practical sense.

Signed, A guy who hates step porn, and is really pissed off to have to defend it.

[–] Zannsolo@lemmy.world 2 points 16 hours ago

There's no step porn if you skip 5 mins into it

[–] 1D10@lemmy.world 1 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

Honestly they all kinda missed the boat when it comes to the "morality" vote, Boomers are dieing and Gen X while still having a lot of folks who want to be just like their parents, isn't as big a voting block. As for the newer generations studies show that they hold on to liberal ideas longer then previous generations and morality in the biblical sence isn't as important. Sure some shit will get passed, but I honestly feel they are in their death throws, (some things take a while to die and can fuck shit up in the process) I think this is why they seem to be more openly embracing the incel community, they need voters to replace the Boomers, on a side note this is also why I believe the LDS church seems to be backing the "tradwife" influencers, but that is mostly conjecture.

[–] BygoneNeutrino@lemmy.world -1 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (1 children)

This is why this sort of useless regulation is genius. No one is going to sign a petition to protect step-porn. Since it would permanently exist in a public archive, our great, great, great grandchildren would think we were freaks. "We don't know much about great uncle Johnathan, but he liked watching step-siblings fuck."

[–] MiddleAgesModem@lemmy.world 0 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

This is why this sort of useless regulation is genius. No one is going to sign a petition to protect step-porn

It's about AGE, not step porn exclusively. Opposing this is support for pedophilia.

[–] DudleyMason@lemmy.ml 1 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

No. Pedophillia and porn involving minors is already illegal. This is about normalizing morality police.

[–] MiddleAgesModem@lemmy.world -4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Opposing this isn't defending step porn - it's opposing illegalizing using minors in porn.

If it were actually about banning some kind of consensual porn between adults, then you'd be defending step porn by opposing it.

[–] DudleyMason@lemmy.ml 5 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

Opposing this is about opposing the normalization of porn bans. Making porn with kids is already illegal most everywhere, and making porn where someone pretends to be a kid is already illegal in the UK.

Defending this is defending backdoor theocracy.

Side note: dibs on Backdoor Theocracy as a band name...

[–] SethTaylor@lemmy.world 3 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Dibs on Backdoor Theocracy as a porn name

[–] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

Backdoor Theocracy would be a good name for a brothel.

[–] MiddleAgesModem@lemmy.world 0 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (1 children)

Opposing this is about opposing the normalization of porn bans.

So you think porn with minors should be legal? Personally, I think that being illegal is a good thing and calling it "theocracy" is fucking stupid.

[–] DudleyMason@lemmy.ml 1 points 12 hours ago

Porn with minors is already illegal, that strawman doesn't even stand up.

[–] MiddleAgesModem@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Pretty shocking that's not already illegal

[–] Jarix@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

I assume it already is illegal and this is a nothing burger. But absolutely quite disgusting if depicting underaged people having sex is not already illegal as well as depicting incest is not already illegal