The margin so thin it could have gone the other way had one peer left early.
By a single vote, the House of Lords on Friday moved to ban a category of pornography that has long circulated freely online: material depicting sexual acts between stepfamily members. The amendment passed 144 to 143 — a margin so thin it could have gone the other way had one peer left early or arrived late.
The government itself tabled the amendment, though not without internal friction. Some ministers had argued against it, pointing out a genuine legal awkwardness: in England and Wales, it is not actually illegal for adults who are step-related to have a sexual relationship. Banning the pornographic depiction of something that is otherwise lawful between consenting adults raised questions about where the line sits — questions that were ultimately overridden by the vote.
The push for the ban drew significant support from Baroness Gabby Bertin, the Conservative peer who led a government-commissioned review of pornography regulation published last year. Her review had flagged step-incest content as part of a broader category of material she argued normalises sexual abuse within family structures and mimics child sexual abuse. She welcomed Friday's result warmly, calling it evidence that the UK is prepared to lead on regulating what she described as a high-harm industry.
Under the new law, once it comes into effect, anyone found possessing or publishing pornography that depicts incest between biological family members, or sexual acts between step- or foster-relations in which one participant is pretending to be under 18, will face criminal charges. The penalties are tiered by severity: publication can carry a maximum sentence of between two and five years in prison.
This ban sits alongside an earlier one targeting material that depicts women being choked — part of a pattern of incremental legislative action the government has been building over the past year. The framing across all of these measures has been consistent: that certain categories of online pornography do not merely reflect attitudes but actively shape them, with downstream consequences for real women and girls.
Alex Davies-Jones, the minister for victims and tackling violence against girls, spoke in terms that made clear the government sees these bans as part of a longer campaign rather than isolated interventions. She said she had heard too many devastating accounts from victims and that the connection between harmful online content and real-world violence was not theoretical.
Running alongside the Lords vote, the government also announced plans to introduce a separate amendment to the crime and policing bill that would hold senior technology executives personally liable if their platforms fail to remove non-consensual intimate images — sometimes called revenge porn — after being notified. Under the proposed rules, tech bosses who are made aware of such material and do not act without good cause could face substantial fines, imprisonment, or both. Platforms would be required to remove reported images within 48 hours, a standard the government says it set out in February and is now looking to enforce with criminal teeth.
Technology Secretary Liz Kendall framed the executive liability measure as a direct response to years of inaction by major platforms. The argument is straightforward: if personal accountability attaches to the people running these companies, the calculus around compliance changes. Whether that logic holds in practice — and how Ofcom will be equipped to enforce it — will become clearer as the legislation moves forward.
What emerges from Friday's developments is a government that is, piece by piece, trying to redraw the boundaries of what the internet is permitted to host when it comes to sexual content involving or targeting women. The margins are sometimes razor-thin, the legal questions genuinely complicated, and the enforcement challenges real. But the direction of travel is now established, and the next test will be whether the crime and policing bill carries the executive liability amendment through with more than a single vote to spare.
Notable Quotes
This content that is freely and widely available online is deeply harmful, normalising child sexual abuse and abusive relationships within families.— Baroness Gabby Bertin, Conservative peer
Protecting women and girls online is not optional — it is a responsibility that sits squarely with every tech company's leadership.— Liz Kendall, Technology Secretary
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
One vote. That's an extraordinarily narrow margin for something this consequential.
It is. And it almost didn't pass — some ministers were actively opposed, which makes the government tabling the amendment while also having internal dissenters a strange kind of political theatre.
What was the objection from inside the government?
Essentially that you'd be criminalising the depiction of something that isn't itself illegal. Adults who are step-related can legally have a relationship in England and Wales. Banning the pornography of it creates an odd asymmetry.
So the law would punish the image but not the act?
Exactly. The counterargument — and it's the one that won — is that the harm isn't in the act between consenting adults, it's in the content being used to normalise abuse within family structures, particularly where it mimics scenarios involving minors.
That distinction between mimicking and depicting seems to be doing a lot of work here.
It really is. The specific trigger for criminalisation is when one participant is pretending to be under 18. That's where the step-relation ban connects to child protection rather than just taste or morality.
And the tech executive liability piece — is that a significant escalation?
It's a meaningful shift. Moving from platform-level fines to personal criminal liability for named executives changes the incentive structure entirely. The question is always enforcement, but the threat is now real in a way it wasn't before.
Liz Kendall mentioned a 48-hour removal standard set in February. Is this new law just adding punishment to an existing rule?
That's a fair reading. The rule existed; the consequence for ignoring it didn't. Now it does — or will, once the amendment passes through the crime and policing bill.
What's the thread connecting all of these measures — the choking ban, the step-incest ban, the revenge porn liability?
The government's stated logic is that online content isn't passive. It argues these categories of material produce real-world harm to women and girls, and that the industry has had long enough to self-regulate. Whether you find that convincing depends a lot on what you think the evidence shows.