Most active commenters
  • frozenseven(3)
  • quelsolaar(3)
  • wqaatwt(3)

←back to thread

A new law in Sweden makes it illegal to buy custom adult content

(www.euronews.com)
84 points diggan | 11 comments | 05 Jul 25 18:45 UTC | HN request time: 1.665s | source | bottom
Show context
free_bip ◴[05 Jul 25 20:48 UTC] No.44475430[source]▶
It looks like Sweden's politicians are too sheltered to understand that there are people who enjoy sex work. Instead of trying to make it safe and enjoyable for all parties, they're systemically punishing sex workers, and even redefining the word sex to include onlyfans content (?!) while simultaneously calling them "victims."

The irony, of course, is that the only thing they're a "victim" of is those same politicians.

replies(4): >>44475452 #>>44475508 #>>44475562 #>>44475692 #
quelsolaar[dead post] ◴[05 Jul 25 20:52 UTC] No.44475452[source]▶
[flagged]
1. frozenseven ◴[05 Jul 25 21:07 UTC] No.44475544[source]▶
These are adults we're talking about. It's neither harmful nor any business of the government.
replies(1): >>44475613 #
2. quelsolaar ◴[05 Jul 25 21:15 UTC] No.44475613[source]▶
I'm ok with outlawing adults with free wills, getting payed to play russian roulett even if five out of six wont take a bullet to the head. Adults can be exploited too.

"neither harmful", tells me you know nothing about the subject.

replies(2): >>44475649 #>>44475911 #
3. wqaatwt ◴[05 Jul 25 21:21 UTC] No.44475649[source]▶
What does that have to do with children [as opposed to adults] working in the coal mines, though?

Also while you might have a point in principle it has quite little to do with random chance like in the Russian Roulette example.

replies(1): >>44475697 #
4. quelsolaar ◴[05 Jul 25 21:29 UTC] No.44475697{3}[source]▶
We want to protect vulnerable members of society. they come in all sizes and shapes.
replies(1): >>44475761 #
5. wqaatwt ◴[05 Jul 25 21:38 UTC] No.44475761{4}[source]▶
Whom gets to decide and determine who is “most vulnerable”?

Also when it comes to the Nordic countries it’s rather hypothetical, considering that they (+Estonia) have one of the highest rates of drug overdose related deaths in the EU. Surely they would have adopted different policies on that already if their goal was protecting the most vulnerable rather than puritanical moralism?

replies(2): >>44475986 #>>44479780 #
6. frozenseven ◴[05 Jul 25 21:58 UTC] No.44475911[source]▶
Your examples and appeals to emotion make no sense. Dying from a gunshot wound is de facto harmful to someone. Driving a person to s-u-i-c-i-d-e is not an act of commerce between consenting adults.
replies(1): >>44478707 #
7. joe463369 ◴[05 Jul 25 22:10 UTC] No.44475986{5}[source]▶
> Whom gets to decide and determine who is “most vulnerable”?

As galling as this is to American software developers, in this case it's the elected Swedish government

replies(1): >>44478490 #
8. wqaatwt ◴[06 Jul 25 07:05 UTC] No.44478490{6}[source]▶
Yes, That was implied in the question. Same government controlling drug policy and laws. Your point is?
9. quelsolaar ◴[06 Jul 25 07:55 UTC] No.44478707{3}[source]▶
Maybe the victims of gunshots wanted to be shot? People shoot themselves all the time.

Should we make convictions of murder, depndent on proving that the victim dint actually want to get shot?

replies(1): >>44479229 #
10. frozenseven ◴[06 Jul 25 09:43 UTC] No.44479229{4}[source]▶
Your hypotheticals are so outlandish and irrelevant, I honestly think you're trolling.
11. synecdoche ◴[06 Jul 25 11:29 UTC] No.44479780{5}[source]▶
Nevermind actual policy outcome when there is opportunity for posturing.