maevequinzley.bsky.social
TF/TG Artist - She/her 🏳️⚧️ - Futch Orc (Alterhuman)
Not for minors or conservatives.
Commissions closed.
https://www.patreon.com/c/KimRinzley
Background artist for Cinnamon Switch's Crossed Signals https://bsky.app/profile/cinswitch.bsky.social
1,889 posts
2,259 followers
463 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
CET actually, but still 😅
comment in response to
post
I don't really know how to end this rant, but I think this proves just badly written this law is.
comment in response to
post
And that's never going to go the way the prosecutors want because there's no way a big site like OF is going to fold in a case where they're accused of something that heavy.
So the most likely scenario is that if you play the cards right, this new law isn't going to hold up in court.
comment in response to
post
But it wouldn't be impossible to argue because the exchange of compensation for the action can only happen because of the service host, or possibly the payment processor.
In which case, the service host is now implicated in a prostitution case.
comment in response to
post
The accused must then argue that they didn't pay the sex worker, but the service host.
This would be hard to argue because the definitive implication is that they paid the sex worker for the action.
comment in response to
post
This really comes down to the defending party more than anyone else.
If someone is accused of purchasing sexual actions, the implication of the crime is that they paid the sex worker for active enagement in said action.
comment in response to
post
This would never work out in the courts because first of all the service host aren't Swedish but also because you can't argue that a service host is promoting sex work unless someone working at those sites is doing active headhunts for new Swedish talent.
comment in response to
post
Translation:
"One who promotes or financially exploits in an unduly manner that another person has sexual relations in exchange for compensation, may be sentenced for prostitution to a maximum of 4 years in prison."
comment in response to
post
The only part of the law that has anything to do with service hosts is this.
comment in response to
post
And the service host is not the party that commits the sexual act, it's the sex worker.
I'm sure that this would be argued against in the courts, but the law has a huge loophole here by not defining anything in regards to the service host.
comment in response to
post
Those service providers enable sex work like camshows by taking a cut from the profits and usually holds on to the money for a brief amount of time before the sex worker can withdraw it to their accounts.
This means that you're not paying the sex worker, you're paying the service host.
comment in response to
post
Payment processors and service hosts aren't accounted for in this law. It's implied in the text that buying a "sexual action" happens between the consumer and sex worker with no middleman, but that's not how OnlyFans or similar service hosts work.
comment in response to
post
"- may be sentenced for purchase of sexual action to a maximum of 1 year in prison."
The text doesn't define what the "exchange of compensation" is!
If you're savvy enough, you could actually just argue in court that you didn't pay the sex worker, you paid the service host!
comment in response to
post
"One who is in other cases than what is earlier referred to in this chapter, enables a person for exchange of compensation to enact or tolerate a sexual action in the main purpose of participation or demonstration of said action, cont."
comment in response to
post
Translation:
"One who is in other cases than what is earlier referred to in this chapter, assumes a temporary sexual relation in exchange for compensation, may be sentenced for purchase of sexual favors to prison for a maximum of 1 year. cont-"
comment in response to
post
The only thing I can think about with that headline is that ChrisChan straw drawing.
comment in response to
post
"My fellow Americans. I'm here today to talk to you about our beautiful toxins. They're the most American toxins and they're the biggest and most beautiful. Toxins are great because they are great. They kill but they are beautiful, you have to toxin to beautiful America wall tariffs. Thank you."
comment in response to
post
bsky.app/profile/erin...
comment in response to
post
"Is heaven really worth it if we're burning up like hell?"
youtu.be/kB8VREXVVPU
comment in response to
post
Anyway, Team Karlach all the way.
comment in response to
post
I don't have a good way of showing that, but trust me, the Deck looks amazing compared to the screenshot.
But it's astonishing the kind of trickery that Valve put into the Deck to keep performance up and price down like this. Really friggin cool!
comment in response to
post
The screen has to be doing some kind of bleeding between the pixels that simulate anti-aliasing, very similar to the bleeding that happens on CRTs. Comparing the screenshot on my 1920x1080 IPS screen to live gameplay, there's a significant amount of noise on my IPS monitor compared to the Deck.
comment in response to
post
Hell yeah, girl! The skin contains most of the banana's nutrients anyway!
Btw, as long as you chew them properly, egg shells are also edible.
comment in response to
post
Calvin's dad had it right
comment in response to
post
All in all, it's a stupid extension of Sweden's asinine "sex worker protection" rhetoric that doesn't really change anything unless you're a Swedish consumer who pays for live camshows and tips your sex workers.
In which case, just stick to pre-recorded clips and films.
Fucking shit country.
comment in response to
post
I can however see future politicians who are invested in sex work prohibition argue for an extension. However the law is specifically worded for sex worker "protection." So it would be easier to just scrap the law and write a new one if that was the goal.