Default overnight curfews and addictive features to be switched off automatically to protect 16 and 17-year-olds on social media
Nighttime curfews to be set by default and features that get teens hooked onto social media to be
automatically switched off for 16- and 17-year-olds Measures look to protect the next generation, ensuring that when kids turn 16, they don't face a cliff edge of being exposed to the most addictive features online.
Features that
can keep users scrolling for longer - such as videos that automatically play one after another and feeds that continually serve up personalised content - will also be switched off by default for older teenagers.
The measures
follow a first-of-its-kind government pilot involving more than 300 teenagers and parents across the UK, with families reporting that overnight curfews quickly became part of their routine and helped improve sleep and concentration.
Technology Secretary Liz Kendall said:Â
Our consultation provided a clear message from parents and teenagers alike - even as young people gain greater independence at 16, they should still be
protected from the most addictive online features that can have a harmful impact on their wellbeing.
These measures will be crucial in helping young people get the sleep they need, focus on school and college, and spend more
quality time with family and friends, all of which are fundamental to building a happy, healthy and fulfilling adult life.
Alongside these protections, the government will publish new guidance for children,
parents and guardians on how to use AI safely and confidently by expanding the Kids Online Safety Hub.
The first set of regulations on the social media restrictions will be laid before Parliament by the end of this year, with
measures expected to come into force in spring 2027, alongside robust implementation and enforcement.
The EU's highest court has ruled that publishers who use state-of-the-art geo-blocking are not liable for copyright infringement, even when users bypass their restrictions with a VPN. The ruling, which was handed down in the landmark copyright battle
involving digital copies of the iconic Anne Frank diary, also shields VPN providers from liability.
While the diary's importance is universally recognized, the accessibility of its digital manuscripts has been at the centre of a Dutch copyright
battle that eventually made its way to the Court of Justice of the European Union ( CJEU ).
The legal dispute was triggered by differences in copyright protection terms in the EU. Parts of Anne Franks manuscripts remain protected in the Netherlands
until 2037, while the same material entered the public domain in Belgium and many other EU member states years ago.
To navigate these conflicting laws, the Dutch Anne Frank Stichting published a scholarly edition online using state-of-the-art
geo-blocking to prevent Dutch residents from accessing the site. Visitors from the Netherlands and other countries where the work is protected are met with a clear message, informing them about these access restrictions:
The scholarly edition of the Anne Frank manuscripts cannot be made available in all countries, due to copyright considerations=
Despite these blocking measures, the Swiss-based Anne Frank Fonds was not pleased. The
Fonds essentially argued that if a block isn't 100% bypass-proof, the content shouldnt be online at all.
The Dutch lower court dismissed this argument, stating the defendants had taken reasonable measures to prevent access from the Netherlands. The
Fonds appealed, without result, and the case is now heading back to the Dutch Supreme Court, which referred several questions to the EUs top court to decide the fate of VPN neutrality and the sufficiency of geo-blocking.
In January, Advocate General
Rantos published his opinion concluding that geo-blocking is a sufficient measure and that VPN providers are neutral intermediaries. That opinion was not binding, but it set the tone for what followed.
Last week, the CJEUs Second Chamber delivered its
final judgment. The Court ruled that a work thats in the public domain in some EU member states, but still under copyright in another, can be published on a geo-blocked website without being considered an infringing communication to the public in the
protected country.
The Court recognized that geo-blocking can be circumvented with a VPN, but that is not the decisive factor. If a publisher specifically chose to use a state-of-the-art geo-blocking to block visitors from a specific country, it
is clear that these people are not the intended audience.
The Court also rejected the idea that publishers should be required to use stricter access controls, such as subscriptions or login requirements. Imposing those measures would
disproportionately restrict free access for users in public-domain countries.
VPN providers are also not liable if they are used to bypass state-of-the-art geo-blocking measures. The EUs top court sees VPN providers as neutral intermediaries,
referring to previous rulings where YouTube and Uploaded were not held liable for pirating users. As an intermediary, a VPN itself simply acts as a secure, neutral routing tool thats not communicating anything to the public.
This conclusion is
significant. It effectively confirms that the EUs highest court does not see VPN providers as copyright infringers simply because their technology enables users to bypass geographical restrictions. The Broader Fallout
Ofcom has opened new investigations into the providers of pimpbunny.com and kemono.cr. Our investigations will examine whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the providers
have failed, or are failing, to comply with these duties under the Online Safety Act.
We have prioritised action against these providers based on the risk of harm posed by the services they operate. We have taken particular
account of their user numbers, including where we have seen significant increases in their user traffic since age-check laws came into force last summer.
Separately, we have published our provisional decision into fapello.com,
setting out that we have reasonable grounds to believe the provider of the service is in breach of their duties under the Online Safety Act. Fapello now has the opportunity to make representations to Ofcom, which will be carefully considered before we
reach a final decision.
And finally, we are announcing an expansion to our ongoing investigation into the provider of xgroovy to determine whether they have also failed to adequately respond to Ofcom's formal requests for
information.
Kemono.cr seems more of an archive of adult graphic art than porn but it does carry porn advertising.
pimpbunny.com is a not particularly expensive tube site but maybe it has particularly wound up the censors as it
includes a nudify service
Brief comments on two proposed new criminal offences relating to pornography: strangulation / suffocation, and sex (actually or purportedly) between relatives
As published on: by Neil Brown
A couple of people have asked me about some of the proposed amendments to the UKs Crime and Policing Bill , which is
currently going through Parliament.
Please note that these are proposed amendments and, as such they are not (yet) law. They may never become law, or may be changed, materially or otherwise, before they become law.
This blogpost contains sexual themes
As the title of this blogpost suggests, this blogpost is about legislation which has sexual themes. In particular:
strangulation / suffocation
sex between relatives
These offences relate to images, not acts
The proposed new offences which I discuss below relate to images of acts, and not the acts themselves.
They do not impact ostensibly
the legality (or otherwise) of doing the things depicted in the images.
Pornographic images of strangulation or suffocation Background
media sources such as pornography have effectively established strangulation during sex as a sexual norm, and a belief that strangling a partner during sex is safe because it is believed to be
non-fatal despite overwhelming evidence that is is believed there is no safe way to strangle a person.
It is an offence for a person to be in possession of an image if--
the image is pornographic, within the meaning of section 63 (i.e. that 'it is of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed
to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal'),
the image portrays, in an explicit and realistic way, a person strangling or suffocating another person, and
a
reasonable person looking at the image would think that the persons were real.
Neither 'strangling' nor 'suffocating' is defined.
My working assumption is that 'strangulation' entails a depiction of putting something (hands or otherwise) around another persons neck which
applies pressure or compression to the throat.
Strangulation does not require a particular level of pressure or force within its ordinary meaning, it does not require any injury and it does not require proof of
a consequence such as impeded breathing or circulation.
My feeling is that 'suffocation' covers any means of adversely impacting someones breathing, or depriving someone of air, making it wider than 'strangulation',
and encompassing what might be termed 'breath play'. It could entail putting something down someones throat, for instance, or covering their nose and mouth. The CPS guidance suggests - again, in a somewhat different context - a broad interpretation.
Since the offence, as currently posited, requires 'a person strangling or suffocating another person', it would appear that an image of a person strangling / suffocating themselves is not covered. As such, I should be surprised if
this prohibited an image of someone wearing a tie or collar (for instance). This outcome would seem to be consistent with the governments focus on partnered sexual activity and violence against women.
'Image' means both a moving
or still image, and data which is capable of conversion into an image, but the portrayal must be 'realistic', and the people depicted must look 'real' to a reasonable person, for the image to be in scope.
This is an image-based
offence, and does not impact text-based pornography / erotica, although one would still need to be mindful of the law of obscenity .
Note that the existing legislation relating to 'extreme pornography' already covers the 'explicit and realistic' portrayal of 'an act
which threatens a persons life', which could include both strangulation and suffocation. This offence would remain in place.
Proposed defences
Of the proposed defences to the offence of possession,
one is:
that the person directly participated in the act portrayed and the act did not involve the infliction of any non-consensual harm on any person.
It would be a separate
offence to 'publish' such an image, which includes 'giving or making it available to another person by any means'.
One of the proposed defences to the 'publication' offence is:
that the person
directly participated in the act portrayed, the act did not involve the infliction of any non-consensual harm on any person, and the person only published the image to other persons who directly participated.
Non-consent for adults must be distinguished from consent to relinquish control. The presence of a 'gag' or other forms of bondage does not, without more, suffice to confirm that sexual activity was non-consensual.
As far as I know, 'harm' is not, in itself, defined.
While the defence would permit sharing an image with the other participants, it would preclude the private dissemination of such imagery, outside the
(direct) participants to it, and would prohibit the sharing of the image online or with social media groups.
Possession or publication of pornographic images of sex between relatives, and images where one person is pretending
to be under 18
A separate amendment relates to the possession or publication of pornographic images of sex between relatives.
I understand that this is pretty common subject matter of some 'tube' sites.
The first of
these vital measures will ban anyone from possessing or publishing harmful pornography that shows incest between family members, and sex between step or foster relations where one person is pretending to be under 18.
A further
amendment will criminalise the publication and possession of pornography where an adult is roleplaying as a child.
Because of this 'further amendment', there has been a significant change in the amendment between the
House of Lords and the House of Commons.
House of Lords proposed offence
The House of Lords proposed a criminal offence of possession or publication of realistic images depicting sexual penetration
of one person by another (my paraphrasing) where:
In other words, while the image may be acted, if the context - the title, description, language used by participants etc. - indicated that the participants are related or were pretending to be, and there was sexual
penetration of one person by another, it would fall within scope of this offence.
Given the presence of 'pretending to be', it is possible that someone could look to make a case that use of a term like 'daddy' was sufficient to
formulate the offence.
House of Commons proposed offence, including 'under 18'
The House of Commons has objected to this amendment, proposing its own, slightly tweaked, version:
The HoC proposal is for a criminal offence of possession or publication of realistic images depicting sexual penetration of one person by another (again, my paraphrasing) where:
a reasonable
person--
looking at the image, and
taking into account any sound or information associated with the image,
would think what is set out in subsection (1A) or (1B).
1A is:
That A and B were related, or pretending to be related, such that A was related to B as parent
[(including adoptive parent)], grandparent, child, grandchild, brother, sister, half-brother, half-sister, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece.
1B is entirely new, and covers separate subject matter:
That A and B were related or had been related, or were pretending to be related or to have been related, such that A was or had been related to B as step-parent, step-child, stepbrother, stepsister, foster parent or foster child,
and
at least one of A and B was, or was pretending to be, under 18.
As with the offence relating to images of strangulation / suffocation, this is an image-based offence, and does not impact text-based pornography / erotica.
Because of the requirement of multiple
participants ('another person'), images of one person, alone, would appear not to be covered, nor would images (of one or multiple people) which do not depict realistic and explicit penetrative sex.
The comments above about 'non-consensual harm' apply here.
It would appear that, as long as the participants were not actually related, a participant may possess an image in which they pretend
to be related.
In respect of publication, there is an additional proposed limb, that:
the person only published the image to person B or A (as the case may be).
Unlike the drafting in respect of the offences relating to images of strangulation / suffocation, which appear to cater for images depicting more than two participants, I am not sure how the defence proposed here works where there are
multiple simultaneous participants: distribution to all participants, as opposed to one particular participant, could be problematic.
In any case, this too would preclude the private dissemination of such imagery to
non-participants, and would prohibit the sharing of the image online or with social media groups.
