Nordic Law

[hermes377]

Looks like Sweden has made tipping webcam a criminal act. They extended ban on paying for temporary sexual relation to digital platforms. Under Nordic law, the selling is not criminal but buying is. But in effect it has the effect to close some platforms. No such law planned in US but things are getting more restrictive it seems. These kinds of laws are not only from crotchety conservatives, but Nordic law is supported by some feminist groups also.

 

[Maxi]

Do you have a source?

 

[Maxi]

Oh, I found something:

Sweden bans custom OnlyFans and cam content, opening new front in anti-porn wars

Buying custom-made videos and paying for cam shows could land you in prison in Sweden.

mashable.com

ETA: it pretty basic though and they’ve mixed up Switzerland with Sweden in that article.

 

[MarieElise]

Ohhhhhh nooooo whatever will I do without my huge Swiss Nordic fanbase ?!

(sorry I know extreme conservatism and politics are serious topics, I just don't think it's realistic that many more important places will follow through and actually make such laws. And if they do, well what a shame I'll have to sell under the table and keep 100% of my earnings, instead of anywhere from 35 - 80 %.) Trust me, nothing, and I mean nothing is going to stop people from consuming regular, and niche fetish porn.

 

[bamdicted]

Looks like Sweden has made tipping webcam a criminal act. They extended ban on paying for temporary sexual relation to digital platforms. Under Nordic law, the selling is not criminal but buying is. But in effect it has the effect to close some platforms. No such law planned in US but things are getting more restrictive it seems. These kinds of laws are not only from crotchety conservatives, but Nordic law is supported by some feminist groups

Coming from Denmark I really wish you don't call it a 'Nordic' law. We have nothing like hat law here, and as far as I know it is not even being discussed.
But it is true that Sweden have enacted this, primarily pushed by feminist interests.
There was a post about it about a month ago Banned broadcast in Sweden here is my reply:

Just to be clear, Chaturbate is not banned in Sweden.
Disclaimer: I do not have any legal training and I am not Swedish, but I have just read the bill in question, and the arguments.

What a Swedish user can still do legally on Chaturbate, OnlyFans, clipsites and sites similar to those:

• watch a stream and chat, but if the broadcaster has a tip activated toy the cannot legally tip.
• buy any content that the broadcaster/content maker has on offer for a wide audience, but they cannot legally purchase custom content.
• any subscribtion based content is also ok

This is what the preample to the proposed legislation says:

The offence of purchase of sexual services is changed to purchase of a sexual act and the scope of punishment for that offence and for procuring is extended to acts carried out at a distance, i.e. without physical contact.

§11 of the proposal:

Anyone who, (...), induces a person to perform or tolerate a sexual act for remuneration for the main purpose of participating in or being shown the act, shall be sentenced for the purchase of a sexual act to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year.

Underneath is an AI summary of the arguments the Swedish government presented in the legislation. The full text (in swedish) can be found here

Summary of the government's bill Prop. 2024/25:124 on the criminalisation of the purchase of sexual acts at a distance:

Background

• The purchase of sexual services was criminalised in Sweden in 1999.
• The current law requires physical contact between buyer and seller for the offence to be covered.
• The digitalisation of the sex trade has led to new forms of buying sex, including via webcam and platforms such as OnlyFans.

Government assessment and proposals

• The purchase of sexual acts at a distance should be criminalised, even without physical contact.
• There is legal uncertainty as to whether current legislation covers these cases.
• The Government considers that the protection interests underlying the Sex Purchase Act also apply to distance acts.
• People who perform sexual acts via e.g. camshows may be just as vulnerable as in physical meetings, partly because of the risk of dissemination of recorded material.

Extension of criminal liability

• New criminal liability is proposed to cover anyone who induces a person to perform or tolerate a sexual act for remuneration, including at a distance.
• This means removing the requirement for the act to be 'occasional' and for physical contact to be required.
• The causal link between the payment and the act must be clear: the offender must have induced the person to perform the act for consideration.
• It should not matter whether the act takes place in real time or is pre-recorded, as long as the purpose is for the offender to participate in or witness the act.

Delimitation against pornography

• In order not to criminalise all pornography, it is proposed that the main purpose of the purchase must be for the perpetrator to participate in or be shown the act.
• The purchase of pre-recorded material for a wide audience is therefore not covered by the new criminal offence.

Practical and legal challenges

• Difficulties exist with evidence, especially if the offender buys material from abroad.
• Restrictions on international co-operation due to the requirement of double criminality (i.e. the act must also be illegal in the country where it takes place).
• However, the Government considers that this is not a sufficient obstacle to refrain from amending the law.

Penalty enhancements and species offences

• The Government is not proposing further penalty enhancements or making the offence a so-called species offence in this legislative proposal.
• The focus is on closing legal gaps in the current sex purchase legislation.

[/SPOILER]

 

[RuthStrawberryblonde]

Also the UK is undergoing changes due to the Online Safety Act, one of the major UK platforms is telling performers to make all their public photos suitable for work, and sanitise profile/performer names. I've had some fairly tame images rejected by their interpretation of the guidelines.

Regards Nordic Model someone tries to sneak this into new legislation almost every year, they claim it keeps sex workers safe, reality can be quite different plus it's very strange.

 

[AudriTwo]

Swerfs and terfs can suck it.

 

[bamdicted]

(sorry I know extreme conservatism and politics are serious topics, I just don't think it's realistic that many more important places will follow through and actually make such laws. And if they do, well what a shame I'll have to sell under the table and keep 100% of my earnings, instead of anywhere from 35 - 80 %.) Trust me, nothing, and I mean nothing is going to stop people from consuming regular, and niche fetish porn.

Regards Nordic Model someone tries to sneak this into new legislation almost every year, they claim it keeps sex workers safe, reality can be quite different plus it's very strange.

'Unfortunately' this agenda was not pushed by extreme conservatism in Sweden, quite the contrary it was introduced by feminist and center-left groups.
And I am happy to say that in Denmark we, well most of us, prioritize safety and rights for sex workers. Last year Danish Conservatives(!) proposed to give sex workers the opportunity to create safer and more secure working conditions. Allowing them to work together and hire help would reduce their isolation and vulnerability to violent customers and criminal masterminds.

Denmark's Stance on the Swedish "Nordic Model" for Sex Work: A Summary for Americans​

In the United States, the debate on sex work often centers on full criminalization versus decriminalization. In Scandinavia, the discussion is different, largely because of the "Nordic Model," first adopted by Sweden in 1999.

The Core Concept: This model is unique because it criminalizes the buyer of sex, but not the seller. The goal is to eliminate the demand for paid sex, which is seen as a form of gender-based violence.

While Americans often group the Nordic countries together, Denmark has consistently and deliberately rejected this Swedish law. Here is a summary of the Danish debate and the political actions taken.

1. A Deeply Divided Debate: Two Opposing Philosophies​

Denmark's rejection of the Swedish model stems from a fundamental disagreement about the best way to address the harms associated with sex work. The country is split into two main camps:

A) The Abolitionist View (Arguments FOR the Swedish Model)

• Who holds it: Primarily women's rights organizations, some center-left political parties, and groups working with trafficking victims.
• The Core Argument: Prostitution is inherently a form of violence and gender inequality. Making it illegal to buy sex sends a powerful message that society does not accept the commodification of people's bodies. They believe this is the most effective way to reduce the demand that fuels human trafficking. For them, it is a moral and ethical issue.

B) The Harm Reduction / Rights-Based View (Arguments AGAINST the Swedish Model)

• Who holds it: Far-left and libertarian/liberal political parties, major human rights groups like Amnesty International, and Sex worker rights organizations.
• The Core Argument: Banning the purchase of sex does not make prostitution disappear; it just makes it more dangerous. They argue the law forces sex work underground, making it harder for workers to screen clients, negotiate safe practices, or report violence to the police without fear. They believe the focus should be on the health, rights, and safety of the individual worker, not on a symbolic law that, in their view, increases harm.
  

2. What Happened in the Danish Parliament?​

This isn't just a theoretical debate; it has been put to a vote. The key takeaway is that Denmark's parliament has had the chance to adopt the Swedish model and has decisively voted against it.

• The Key Vote (2003): A legislative proposal to copy the Swedish law and criminalize all purchases of sexual services was formally introduced in Parliament.
• The Result: The proposal was overwhelmingly defeated in a 95-to-5 vote. A broad, cross-party coalition—from the center-left Social Democrats to right-leaning conservatives and libertarians—united to reject the ban.
• The Signal: This vote demonstrated a strong and lasting political consensus that the Swedish model is not the right path for Denmark. The main reason was the widespread concern that it would harm the very people it was intended to help.

Other, more targeted proposals (like only banning the purchase of sex from trafficking victims) have also been introduced over the years, but they have also been rejected, often due to concerns about how to prove such cases in court.

Conclusion: Why Denmark Chose a Different Path​

For an American observer, it is crucial to understand that Denmark's rejection of the Swedish "Nordic Model" is not an oversight. It is a conscious policy choice rooted in a different philosophy.

While Sweden's approach focuses on abolishing demand through symbolic law, the dominant Danish approach prioritizes the practical safety and rights of the individual sex worker. The mainstream political view in Denmark is that the potential negative consequences of a ban—increased danger, stigma, and isolation for sex workers—outweigh the symbolic benefits that proponents hope to achieve.

 

[Vixxen81]

I get so angry at this kind of stuff.

How about countries get together and make it an international crime to pirate content and actually enforce it (yes I am aware of the logistics).

They're criminalizing the wrong things.

 

[MarieElise]

'Unfortunately' this agenda was not pushed by extreme conservatism in Sweden, quite the contrary it was introduced by feminist and center-left groups.

Those feminists who push that stuff are still extreme conservatives; they just don't admit it to themselves. and hide it under another guise. You can say you're a Liberal, and vote liberal, but having an ideology like this is extreme conservatism in my book. It's just hiding under the self-delusion of something else, and likely stems from influence from conservative sources. However, that's kind of a distracting side point.

What actually matters is the wording of the legislation and the specifics, which you kindly provided. Thank you.

Sorry OP, but your original post was so over-generalized that it didn't serve as much purpose to me. So, credit where credit is due.
(Assuming Bamaddicted's 1st post in thread, is accurate.)
Again, this sucks, but it's always been around like Ruth said.

I know there are pushes to do similar and worse stuff in the USA, but I ultimately don't believe they will be, overall, that successful.
And the US is the biggest consumer of porn.

My belief is that Donald Trump used these groups to get money and power, and now he'll cherry-pick what he wants to enact and not enact.
I don't see a fucking Perv like him, or any of his fucking cronies (who, lets make no bones about this, are the types who consume the most porn), will do anything much further about online porn.
It's a side issue from their focus on coal/ natural resources, and oil.

A lot of people are very unhappily married, and very chronically sexually unfulfilled. However, they cannot openly leave their marriages due too financial legalities and children.
A lot of extremely wealthy & powerful men, to be specific.
We are all they have.
Without us they are miserable as fuck.

 

[MarieElise]

Hey, I looked into this more last night in relation to the US, and I have more to share if anyone is interested.

The Act we need to fear in the US is named the Interstate Obscenity Definition Act. It was introduced this May 2025 by Senator Mike Lee in Utah, and would change the definition of obscenity, making it legal for law enforcement to prosecute on any lewd images exchanged by anyone in the US. It's an act to change a Federal definition, which I think means if it passed would have to be enacted by separate states.

Not sure how that would work in liberal states. As far as I know, marijuana is illegal Federally, but many States, including mine, don't prosecute for it. However, companies are allowed to legally use it's presence on a drug test to choose not to hire you.

Similar acts were introduced in 2022, and 2024 and failed. From my research no one thinks this will pass either.
Here's some source info...

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/1671

Interstate Obscenity Definition Act of 2025 – Action Center

action.freespeechcoalition.com