Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

That sounds so gross. Why do British people tolerate that? It’s as if British people belong to their government.


The people who think incest porn should be banned are loud and proud in their beliefs. They’ll put up posters, tell their MPs, respond to surveys, and appear in political debates.

The people who support incest porn are a lot less talkative.

As such our windsock government with no strong beliefs does what the survey says is most popular.


Interesting - There was once a movement in Germany to criminalise bestiality, and the opposition to this movement were vocal enough to hold street marches for the right to fuck dogs. https://www.webpronews.com/zoophiles-march-on-berlin-to-dema...


The people who think incest porn should be banned are loud and proud in their beliefs. They’ll put up posters, tell their MPs, respond to surveys, and appear in political debates.

The people who support incest porn are a lot less talkative.

I think there is an argument to made the pornography in general is harmful.

But to single out one single type of porn strikes me as... very odd. Maybe politicians can list, explicitly, all the other porn genres they find acceptable or agreeable to them, as a kind of compare and contrast exercise.


I chose incest because https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/pornography-sexual-relationshi...

> 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.

> Peers agreed by a majority of one to ban videos and images depicting relationships that would not be allowed in real life.

> They also agreed by 142 votes to 140, majority two, to bring intimate pictures and videos of adults pretending to be children in line with similar images of real children.

There's actually a 200+ page government review of pornography https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/creating-a-safer-...


What's especially silly is effectively deciding the legality based on the dialog.


I guess you have to draw a line somewhere, if you are going to legislate against porn you are going to have to decide what is and what is not ok


The same principles apply around the world. The U.S. recently invaded a sovereign nation and abducted its democratically elected leader because that leader was ostensibly involved in shipping cocaine to the U.S.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_United_States_interventio...


Saying Maduro was democratically elected was too rich.


Ostensibly involved in made up cocaine shipping.

https://www.salon.com/2026/01/06/department-of-justice-quiet...


Maduro was not legitimately and democratically elected.


Potato potato. No less legitimate than Trump.


Trump was validly elected. He won the required number of electors in the electoral college in the 2016 and 2024 elections.

Maduro on the other hand...


Didn't Trump admit that Musk fixed it for him?


The only election for the president that matters is the electoral college. What the citizens are voting on is a referendum to choose the electors (and in some states it is not binding). You might try to argue that the referendum was rigged somehow, but rigging the electoral college voting is even less plausible.


Trump was talking about how Elon campaigned for him for a month in Pennsylvania and said he knows all about the voting counting machines in Pennsylvania.

Even if Musk did something in Pennsylvania, Trump still would have won the electoral college vote.

I think the good faith argument is that Musk confirmed they were secure so that the election wasn't stolen from Trump. But frankly Musk is too much of an idiot to steal an election or make sure it is secure so I don't know how to take it...


So what? The only reason the U.S. did this is because it can. What will the UK do when 4chan tells its online regulator to go suck a d***, send in James Bond?


> What will the UK do when 4chan tells its online regulator to go suck a d**, send in James Bond?

Let's say they did. Would you be saying "So what?" then too?


This argument is tiresome.

You can be against freespeech restrictions in Britain and the 2024 Trump Administrations braindead military and foreign policy.

If I attack either, I am not taking the people in the countries whose politicians make the decisions.


The term is called "Subject of The Crown"


It’s as if British people belong to their government.

Legally speaking, British people are subjects, not citizens.


This myth keeps getting repeated. It hasn't been true since 1949, when British subjects in the UK became Citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies.

In 1983, the status of CUKC was renamed to British citizen (for those CUKCs resident in or closely connected with the UK: the situation in the remaining colonies was more complicated). At the same time, the status of British subject was officially restricted to those few British subjects who didn't qualify for citizenship of the UK or of any other Commonwealth country in 1949, and who were formerly known as "British subjects without citizenship".

So we are officially and legally citizens, not subjects.


I was unaware of this. Thanks for the correction.


Ironic, because I feel like they’re the same, it’s semantic feely words that are different.

Right to vote was already established before the change of the name (subject->citizen).

So, what changed? Well subjects have “privileges” that are afforded from the monarch, and citizens have “rights” which are given from the state.

Except:

1) In olde english law, the monarch and the state are literally the same thing.

2) Rights seem to be pretty loosely followed if they’re actually, you know, RIGHTS, and not privileges afforded from the state.

I’d say that semantically the difference is how the words make you feel, not the actual applicability of the terms to anything that has been realised.


I think I've heard something similar -- that subjects have duties while citizens have rights.

But of course, citizens typically also have duties -- commonly, the duty to take up arms to defend the state -- and subjects can legitimately expect a reciprocity of obligations from the sovereign (e.g. the enforcement of the "King's Peace"), which sounds quite a bit like rights to me.

(All of which is a verbose and not very coherent way of saying that I agree with you.)


Then somebody needs to let the government know, because the relevant 1981 act is "[a]n Act to make fresh provision about citizenship and nationality". In that 'British subjects' are a quite limited subset of citizens. Most British people are citizens, not subjects.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/61/contents


What’s the difference? I’m not knowledgeable enough about English law to parse this


My (really limited) understanding is that 'British subject' was the status of people in the British empire. It's now reduced to just some people born pre-1949 in Ireland and India. They have many of the rights of citizens, and can become citizens via a simpler route than other non-nationals.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: