News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Alabama House bill would require Internet porn filters by openasocket on Tuesday March 28, 2017 @04:53PM (#13980582)
Wait, you can't produce porn with spanking in the UK, or you can't even view it? I'm at work, so I'd rather not click that link.
Re:Alabama House bill would require Internet porn filters by LeoPanthera on Tuesday March 28, 2017 @05:07PM (#13980721)
Pornography produced in the UK cannot include any of the following:

Spanking

Caning

Aggressive whipping

Penetration by any object "associated with violence"

Physical or verbal abuse (regardless of if consensual)

Urolagnia (known as "water sports")

Role-playing as non-adults

Physical restraint

Humiliation

Female ejaculation

Strangulation

Facesitting

Fisting

Re:Alabama House bill would require Internet porn filters by dhfhduk on Tuesday March 28, 2017 @05:30PM (#13980895)
I die a little bit inside when I see stuff like this, I mean, what sort of cowards are afraid of free speech? Geez.

As long as everyone is consenting, it's all fair. In fact, my guess is this crap does more harm than good by pathologizing sex. There's enough people out there shamed by their sexuality. We don't need more.

And how did they come up with such a weird list? Caning, female ejaculation, and facesitting in the same list? ???

Re:Alabama House bill would require Internet porn filters by Johnny555 on Tuesday March 28, 2017 @05:25PM (#13980870)
I never thought of the UK as being particularly puritanical or me as being particularly kinky, but I've participated in a surprising number of the acts on that banned list, and most of them seem pretty tame.