The site and the new UK Online Safety Laws
-
Hi
I've got a couple of questions regarding the new porn laws coming in the UK and material offered on this site:
See: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/oct/24/techscape-uk-online-safety-bill-clean-up-internet
The law criminalises :
a) Deep fake porn for which there is some but not much celebrety deep fake content on the site here.
b) Material filmed without consent - which is contentious because i suspect alot of OF and Chaturbate etc stuff is filmed without consent along side the more obvious public toilet etc / 'voyeur' material.My questions are:
- What nation's laws are governing the content made available on the site ? Obviously the site complies with some country's law because it guides the banned content listings.
- Will deep fake porn and non-consensual filmed material be made illegal where it is inherently obvious on the site too ?
I'm assuming the responsbility not to transgress the law as a UK located person means the responsbility falls on myself to avoid aquiring such now illegal material but where does my responsbility start and the site's stop ?
Some clarity on the matter will help me manage the coming UK law.
Cheers twzzz
-
@twinkerzzz said in The site and the new UK Online Safety Laws:
Will ... non-consensual filmed material be made illegal where it is inherently obvious
I didn't see this specifically referenced in the linked article, and I haven't read the text of the "online safety bill," so I could be off-target here.
Much of the discussion seems about ensuring that internet surfers be able to avoid materiel that they don't wish to see--be it nudity, sexual acts, children engaged in same, etc. I am all for user control.
It does sound like the envelope of illegal content could expand:
-
The act lists a number of criminal offences that constitute “priority illegal content”, which means companies within the scope of the bill need to have systems and processes in place to prevent users from encountering such material.
-
Those priority offences include: child sexual abuse material; terrorist content; revenge or extreme pornography; and threats to kill. The act wants this sort of content to be proactively targeted by platforms’ moderation systems and processes.
You posed the question as to whether this would affect non-consensual filmed material, some of which I will admit to finding interesting. While the article doesn't explicitly mention non-consensual material, some non-consensual material could be covered by it. There have been laws for decades prohibiting nonconsensual recording, but such laws usually proscribe the recording (audio and/or visual) of a person where they had a "reasonable expectation of privacy." This could be something as boring as a video of me whilst folding shirts in my basement laundry room (which has no windows and thus I would expect privacy) to racier things like filming guys having a piss in a public urinal, or a video of someone in an adjacent toilet stall having a wank, with the belief that they can't be seen. Cases such as these require a complaining witness, either the subject of the video itself or a bystander. (CCTV footage would often nullify the case, as it destroys the "expectation of privacy.')
I appreciate the OP bringing this to our attention. We have certainly not seen the last of it--there will be court challenges, and then further fine tuning when the first batch of offences are charged.
How this law would affect this site is a question best left to the moderators on the torrent side. There is very little material actually hosted on this site; it is mostly a place where someone who wants a specific film is directed to another user who has that film so that they can trade it back and forth. The site already bans content ( https://www.gaytor.rent/notallowed.php ) that would be illegal in many jurisdictions, even if none of it is hosted here. One possible effect of this law might be that a site would need to flash a banner on log-in checking to see if a person were over 18 (or relevant age in their jurisdiction) and willing to see nudity and sex. I trust the mods have considered this and deemed it unnecessary.
-
-
@eobox91103 Well, as mods are not qualified to practice law, this is something that we cannot really answer. All things legal happen at a much higher level than us, so such decisions are beyond our scope.
-
Hi twinkerzzz
A lot of the law seems to be about preventing people seeing porn who don't want to see it, and ensuring that under 18s can't access porn. I can see it having two outcomes: 1. UK users will be bombarded by even more pop-ups like those annoying cookie ones, asking to verify they are over 18 and willing to view adult content when they visit any site that may have a nipple or an arse cheek on view, or 2. some sites will just block UK users to avoid the bother and the only dick you'll be able to see without a VPN will be Piers Morgan.
This part of the law seems to be an attempt to pander to the moral outrage brigade who are in a perpetual state of Daily Mail induced panic or rage. Its only impact will be to annoy adults who are trying to do something perfectly legal.
There is another part which covers the distribution of material which includes a person who hasn't given their consent for the material to be distributed. This doesn't refer to anything mainstream (like OF or cam videos) that is being pirated (there are plenty of other insufficient laws for that) but rather material like revenge porn, private sex tapes or WhatsApp images, baited images or videos etc. Basically anything that you have received in confidence without the explicit consent to share it, or anything recorded secretly like in public toilets, changing rooms or on nude beaches. Some of this is already illegal to record, but this law now makes it illegal for anyone to send it on to another person. Most of this is already illegal here in Ireland, and punishable by up to 7 years in prison, and there is currently a public information campaign on TV and online. Judging by the reactions online nobody here had a clue about the law until they saw the TV campaign, including myself.
One thing to keep in mind when torrenting is that you are not just a downloader, you are also an uploader, so anything currently active in your client is being distributed by you. This site isn't a content distributor, it just facilitates the transfer from user to user, and no files are hosted by the site. So ultimately you are responsible for whatever material you download and distribute, and you are always responsible for complying with whatever laws apply in your country. Remember the vast majority of users here will be outside the UK and oblivious to your laws, just as I can't do anything if somebody from Saudi Arabia downloads a file I am hosting and gets prosecuted (or worse) for it.
-
cheer folks
yes its all quite complicated as usual - i can see how it's more about addressing the issues mentioned above .... though sometimes i see voyeur stuff here which makes me wonder if it's legal anywhere !twzz
-
Since you brought politics into it, it was the UK's Labour Party (think US Democrats or Trudeau's party in Canada), under Tony Blair that criminalized many types of porn.
They were also the one that started the Snooper's Charter (warrantless monitoring of your online activities), as well as the concept of needing to register with the government, via a monthly subscription card you had to buy for £20 to prove your ID, to watch adult material.
The Guardian is the UK's ultra-left rag of a mainstream newspaper. They are almost as bad as the BBC.
-
Just to clarify the UK law regarding torrenting:
The UK porn laws target
- Possession of indecent material.
- Distribution of material likely to corrupt and deprave.
In terms of torrenting, - The uploader is liable for prosecution for copyright infringement if a case is brought by a copyright owner.
- The downloader and seeder may be subject to the 3 notice rule requesting them to stop infringement behaviours by their ISP provider.
- For the lay person, it is my view that the police are likely to go after possession and or distribution only if a person comes under their radar. i.e. they'll check their internet footprint for options to evaluate and prosecute someone they regard as a target for investigation.
@raphjd - as a formu mod i find your inacurate extreme rightwing views are not suitable for someone in your role and ask you to abstain from flaming the conversation.
To correct your inaccuracies:
-
The Snoopers Charter refers to the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, brought in under the Conservative leadership of David Cameron in 2014 in conjunction with the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation. The bill was voted on and ascended in 2016 and the Labour party abstained from voting along with the SNP party.
-
There is no obligation to use a paid for ID card to access adult material in the UK. All parties reguarly re-consider all methods of adult material access to protect children as a matter of contemporary politics and many options are under consideration.
-
The Guardian is not an 'ultra left rag'. It is a long established (over 200 years) centre left broadsheet (social democrat - meaning a long standing and legitmiate democratic leaning) with a reputable standard in reporting and a history of a broad range of contributors from British society.
It won Newspaper of the Year award in March 2023 by the UK Press Association and reguarly wins many press awards.
Please refrain from spreading fake news on this website.
-
As you are clearly an extreme leftist, I don't care what you think and clearly the site owner does not either. If you are unhappy with my political views, I'm sure there are plenty of sites that will make you happy.
The Snooper's Charter was first brought up by Tony Blair. He may not have called it that, but the principle behind it was from him.
True, the paid for ID is not currently a requirement, but it was something that Blair/Brown first brought up.
The Guardian is a ultra left rag, except to those too blinded by their ultra leftism to see it. I don't care what awards they have won by a profession full of ultra leftist. It's just like the PR awards in Ab Fab.
-
@raphjd I didn't mention the UK Labour Party or The Guardian newspaper (I'm aware the article the OP linked to is from there, but I was talking about the actual law, not the newspaper article), the US Democrats, "Trudeau's party" (the Liberal Party fyi), Tony Blair, The Snooper's Charter, or the BBC. None of those have anything to do with the current law. So there is literally nothing of any substance in your post, just strawman arguments and empty rhetoric. I don't believe there is any point engaging in that level of political mud slinging, because it contributes nothing to any political debate. Enjoy the rest of your day.
-
This part of the law seems to be an attempt to pander to the moral outrage brigade who are in a perpetual state of Daily Mail induced panic or rage.NAH, you weren't getting political.
-
@raphjd I didn't say I wasn't being political. It's a discussion about a law.
But what I said was related to the law under discussion. You brought up a whole litany of unrelated people, entities and proposed laws in an attempt to drag the conversation into a left v right mud slinging contest. I'm not from that political culture, and I don\t care to engage with it. If you have anything to add to the conversation, that is actually related to the law under discussion, besides strawman arguments and rhetoric, then please do. -
I didn't say I wasn't being politicalHonesty is a good step.
But what I said was related to the law under discussion.Bashed conservatives, while intentionally ignoring the role of liberals in the matter.
You brought up a whole litany of unrelated people, entities and proposed lawsThose things are directly related to the comment you made as it was Tony Blair who stated it all. Therefore it was the liberals you need to bash.
in an attempt to drag the conversation into a left v right mud slinging contest.AH, you get to bash conservatives, but I can't show you the truth about your rubbish.
If you have anything to add to the conversation, that is actually related to the law under discussion, besides strawman arguments and rhetoric, then please do.What strawman? You admitted that YOU were political, to basn conservatives, while disotrting the truth.
You need to take your own advice and stick to the topic at hand, and leave your BS politics out of it.
Also, there was no strawman from me since you falsely laid the blame on conservatives and I pointed out that ou were wrong.
If you want to fanatize that conservatives are the root of all evil then take it to the politics section.
-
Your own rules you have devised yourself state:
"Derailing conversations, to complain about topics or individual posters, is not allowed. If your post adds no value to the overall conversation, it will be treated like spam."The sites own rules discourage "Inflammatory comments or disruptive behavior anywhere on this site"
Pawpcorn, a mod who i have worked with previously gives some good advice on anger management here:
https://community.gaytorrent.ru/topic/37058/anger-management-when-leaving-comments-in-torrent-presentationsIt's a shame you seem to think none of this applies to you and you have in effect muddied this thread. I'm sorry about that.
-
@twinkerzzz But your own post there is off-topic & without worth. The more so since your anger is misplaced; somebody else started the inflammatory stuff.
-
@raphjd Criticising one law and the newspaper which has championed it is not "bashing conservatives". It was literally a criticism of the law in the title of the thread! You have made a grossly incorrect assumption about me and my politics based on this single comment. This particular law happens to have been passed by a rightwing government, had it been passed by a leftwing government and promoted by virtue signallers at The Guardian newspaper I would have been equally critical of it. A bad law is a bad law regardless of who passed it. There is no need to take such criticism so personally as an attack on your personal beliefs.
The whole world is not a toxic left v right, us v them contest like you seem to see it. Like I said, I come from a different political culture and this pointless trench warfare is something which adds literally nothing to political discourse.
BTW What you did is the epitome of a strawman argument. You brought up negative things done by someone else to draw attention away from the issue at hand. As a forum admin I thought you would at least be able to grasp that basic concept.
-
The person who admitted to bringing politics into the thread is the person who derailed it, with said politics.
This is not the politics section.
-
@raphjd It's a political topic. Move it to the politics section. You're an admin
-
I will not play your games.
You brought in your politics. You even admit that.
There was no strawman by me, since I was simply correcting your political falsehoods.
The whole world is not a toxic left v right, us v them contest like you seem to see it. Like I said, I come from a different political culture and this pointless trench warfare is something which adds literally nothing to political discourse.That sounds like a bunch of BS considering you didn't need to bring politics into this discussion, but you chose to.
BTW What you did is the epitome of a strawman argument. You brought up negative things done by someone else to draw attention away from the issue at hand. As a forum admin I thought you would at least be able to grasp that basic concept.You clearly don't even know what the term "strawman" means.
Me correcting your politically motivated lie, to bash conservatives, is not anywhere close to the definition.
This part of the law seems to be an attempt to pander to the moral outrage brigade who are in a perpetual state of Daily Mail induced panic or rage. Its only impact will be to annoy adults who are trying to do something perfectly legal.That is what YOU said.
You fully intended to do the us vs them, you dishonestly claimed to be against, otherwise you would not have done it.
DO NOT try to gaslight us that, that was not your intent.
Hell, you even admitted you made it political, so you knew what you were doing. Now you are butt hurt because I'm not letting you get away with it.
-
@drekkin said in The site and the new UK Online Safety Laws:
@raphjd It's a political topic. Move it to the politics section. You're an admin
You made it political, when there was no reason for it.
I should give you a vacation, for that stunt.
-
As the forum mod it's the mod's responsbility to 'treat the off topic contributions as spam' which one presumes means removing it so as to keep the conversation on point; not increasing off topic materal to an inflammatry level.
I note Powpcorn's comments about providing an apology when you've flammed a post.
