Supporters of decriminalization say the current law is so vague that a person could technically spend years in prison either for sending or receiving a naked photo.
  • Microw
    73·
    10 months ago

    ““Our colleagues from BRDO (Better Regulation Delivery Office) calculated that in 2021, law enforcement officers spent about 85,500 working hours on cases related to the distribution of porn.”

    All that while Ukraine has been one of the biggest producers of porn ever since at least the 1990s…

  • Haus@kbin.social
    542·
    10 months ago

    If you’re old enough to get murdered by Putin’s prison mercenaries, you’re old enough to rub one out.

  • Dolores [love/loves]@hexbear.netEnglish
    221·
    10 months ago

    oh thank goodness that ReSex thing is just a handful of people printing sex education handbooks, i thought it was something actually arranging sex for soldiers like . that’s a fairly misleading quote where she’s referring to the need for education/outreach on the topic in all those environments, i mean the last thing a guy who just lost his legs needs is gonorraea.

    From the Soviet Union times, we inherited this norm that one can get up to eight years behind bars if this one happens to send their nudes to another person

    fucking what

    704,667 people received a court summons in 2022 for charges that fall under Article 301 of Ukraine’s Criminal Code, which pertains to pornography

    over half a million people while there’s a fucking war on are you for real.

    this is basically a personal interest story, i don’t think decriminalization has a chance, the sponsor is from a tiny party in the opposition.

  • Maoo [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
    1719·
    10 months ago

    A conspicuously laid-out piece that quotes social media with no stated methodology.

    Punishing individuals that have to act in pornography is unacceptable, but the industry itself promotes or directly involves human trafficking and preys upon a system that cannot provide enough for its people. Sex positivity is great, but this has a serious economic component.

    I think a very important question is why were no non-reactionary “against” voices heard. Why only the cons? Why not a selective ban? Who really wants you to support this policy.

    • Dolores [love/loves]@hexbear.netEnglish
      17·
      10 months ago

      talking about the country that won ‘most corrupt in europe’ (and you know how stiff that competition is) for a decade and you’re skeptical about taking away an excuse for their cops to harass people?

      when the acts of pornography or prostitution etc. are forced underground by their illegality, it makes human trafficking easier because the victims will also be liable to be arrested, and therefore don’t report. decriminalization opens up the doors somewhat so scrutiny can fall on the most specifically harmful & less common sexcrimes, while ignoring people just trying to put bread on the table

      • Maoo [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
        104·
        10 months ago

        The most corrupt country in the world is the one that would be making this change during martial law and this paper, like most in Ukraine now, cover stories from a perspective favorable to the government (take that article with a grain salt of course). My point is that the article itself has a smell to it and that there are deeper components to this unaddressed in it. I also was very clear that I don’t believe in criminalizing the people on-camera in porn so I’m not sure why you’re saying the things you are.

        You can see that the article frames it as an efficiency problem, which is a commom tactic for a capitalist government to do something it wants for an entirely different reason. I would suspect they want less oversight of human trafficking. The vast majority of sex work is part of human trafficking.

        • Dolores [love/loves]@hexbear.netEnglish
          51·
          10 months ago

          I also was very clear that I don’t believe in criminalizing the people on-camera in porn so I’m not sure why you’re saying the things you are

          you just believe in continuing criminalization of any way for that performance to make them money? that’s why people do it, when only the johns are ‘illegal’ sexwork still has to be clandestine and outside public scrutiny & protections

          I would suspect they want less oversight of human trafficking

          what oversight do they have now and how is it improved by dragging people to court for visiting pornhub? seriously we’re talking about the trafficking capital of the world (maybe in competition with libya) and you’re worried that being less litigious toward the most widely accepted & least dangerous form of sexwork is going to hamstring the very effective ukrainian police’s efforts against trafficking, if such a thing even exists at all

      • CmdrShepard@lemmy.oneEnglish
        13·
        10 months ago

        Then those Christians all joined up on Hexbear and decided to push their puritanical views and pro-Russian propaganda on the rest of us.

    • FaceDeer@kbin.social
      2·
      10 months ago

      You can legalize pornography without legalizing human trafficking. Since those are covered by separate laws it’s actually super easy, barely an inconvenience. Just don’t touch the human trafficking laws when you amend the pornography ones.