So-called "barely legal" pornography and content depicting sexual relationships between step-relatives are set to be banned amid efforts to regulate intimate image sharing.
Are clothes that seem schoolgirl-ish unacceptable (so aping a uniform but not actually using a uniform)? It’s just hard to police, legally speaking.
No it’s not, a lot of laws like this use phrasing like “what a reasonable person would believe to be…”. Example from last week:
It also applies to ‘semen-like substances’, meaning there’s no requirement for the victim or courts to prove exactly what it is — the intention is enough.
Yeah “reasonable man” standards are just a punt to judges though. Especially when the act isn’t wrong in itself (a contrast, perhaps, with the violation of seeing an image of yourself covered in semen), a simple and arbitrary standard is better. You can do it that way, but leaving it to interpretations has a chilling effect on speech.
This might be one of those America brain things, free speech is good and if we’re restricting it we need to make the standard as simple and clear as possible.
No it’s not, a lot of laws like this use phrasing like “what a reasonable person would believe to be…”. Example from last week:
https://metro.co.uk/2026/02/24/three-horrific-types-porn-made-illegal-uk-27066635/
Yeah “reasonable man” standards are just a punt to judges though. Especially when the act isn’t wrong in itself (a contrast, perhaps, with the violation of seeing an image of yourself covered in semen), a simple and arbitrary standard is better. You can do it that way, but leaving it to interpretations has a chilling effect on speech.
This might be one of those America brain things, free speech is good and if we’re restricting it we need to make the standard as simple and clear as possible.