Bans like these make moralists feel good, but rarely work as planned. The evidence of porn being the culprit of the widespread of "choking" is weak. Once again, correlation and causation have been mixed.
Restrictions on free speech should be rare, narrow and well defined. This is neither. It is both broad, and unhelpfully vague. The government has not clearly defined the acts that are illegal. Instead, it expects the courts to decide on a case-by-case basis. Adding additional burden to an already overloaded legal system that has better things to do than to define if that use of "mommy" or "daddy" in a porn video constitutes incest.
Since possesion of banned content can be punishable by prison, it also dilutes what is means to be a sex offender. Such important label loses value when it is applies both to serious sexual offences and someone with a stepmom fantasy.
What the government should be focusing instead is on better sexual education. They should focus in teaching about safety, consent, and how to talk frankly to prospect partners about what the other person does and doesn't want. Sex education is dismal in most of the world, in Britain it is better but there is still room for improvement. If young people do not learn about sex from reliable sources, they will do so from unreliable ones.
Pornography is a difficult thing to defend, particularly in public. But Britain has become too willing to ban anything pearl-clutchers dislike instead of adressing the root cause of the problems. A ban on kinky porn will please moralists, but it should alarm anyone that is serious about free speech, or government overreach.
all 6 comments