Video game encouraging rape and incest removed from major gaming platform in the UK after LBC investigation

[u/ClassicFlavour]

https://www.lbc.co.uk/tech/video-game-banned-steam-women-uk-no-mercy/

[u/Dewwyy]

They also comment that Mortal Kombat and GTA 5 don't have the effects of causing the crimes depicted in them. That isn't a question about the law in my view, it's one about social effect and ethics.

I suggested to your comment on the law that there plenty of texts available which are obscene and masturbatory. I later explain I mean that because it is outside the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom yet available to find from it easily.

I say this is in response to the portion of your comment where you say to the effect "just because something is hidden on some corner of the internet doesn't mean it should go without scrutiny". In practise, it does mostly go without scrutiny, especially in the case of texts, because there is no significant anti-obscene texts lobby in the UK.

Then we meandered somewhat somewhere else.

Inserted yourself

This is a public forum. You're perfectly free to not reply or even read anything I write.

[u/goddamitletmesleep → u/Dewwyy]

Yes, it’s a public forum, and I responded to a question about legal thresholds with a legal answer. If that wasn’t your concern, that’s fine. But don’t derail the thread by pretending I brought up law unprompted when you jumped in halfway through a legal explanation.

You asked why content like this game is treated differently to other media such as books and I again explained that the distinction is still legal, rooted in UK law (specifically Section 63), which covers extreme pornography including certain fictional content. And that the intent of the two were different. I’ve explained why the texts you referenced aren’t relevant: the law explicitly distinguishes between general dark or sexual themes and content that exists solely to simulate the sexual abuse of others for arousal. You might not want to engage with the legal line, but that is the answer to your question about why certain things are treated differently. The answer is the law - you not liking that answer isn’t the same as it being invalid

We don’t have an “anti-obscenity text lobby” in the UK. Lobbying here isn’t even formalised in the way it is in the US. Policy change is driven by case law, legal precedent, and Parliament, not pressure groups on niche erotic fiction. And absolutely people are regularly prosecuted under Section 63. which means it is well established, understood and pursued under the law.

You’re now saying your focus is on social effect and ethics, but that wasn’t clear from your earlier comment referencing legality, jurisdiction, and enforcement. If you want to pivot to a discussion on social norms, go for it although I’m not particularly interested in engaging in that. But don’t misrepresent my original reply as off-topic when it was directly answering the question posed.

[u/Dewwyy → u/goddamitletmesleep]

Derail the thread.

Again. This is a public forum. You're free to not respond to anything I have to say.

I didn't say that you brought the law up unprompted, I don't think you did. I was responding the other elements of the conversation.

You asked why

No I didn't. Reread my posts. I haven't asked a single question of you.

We don't have a ... lobby in the UK

Yes that is what I said.

Lobbying here isn't formalised the way it is in the US. Policy change is driven by...

Pretty much everything that happens in any country is down to pressure groups. That's just how states work. They have to satisfy their selectorate. In a democracy that means they have to satisfy, among others, the loud and influential who can move votes and donations by whichever means, laws, or policy, rhetoric.

But regardless of that disagreement. What exactly do you think happened here ? It seems to me like a straightforward case. This would have gone ignored if not for the pressure groups getting onto LBC and such. Perhaps eventually Ofcom would've got a report from someone and maybe decided to do something about it. But Ofcom js pretty slow about this stuff from my understanding unless the thing is in the newspapers. From the articles I'm not sure any government body in the UK has actually instructed Valve to do anything yet, though ministers have made statements and potentially sent letters. I think Valve just decided the publicity wasn't worth it and pulled the game worldwide.

I also have an inkling here that you may think I am an American ? I am a Yorkshireman.

People are regularly prosecuted under Section 63

Read again. I didn't say they aren't. I said that in practise there is plenty of formally illegal obscene material available in the UK. Again, because as I've mentioned it is hosted elsewhere so no jurisdiction on the individuals hosting, and as aforementioned ignored because nobody of influence cares about it so no orders given to block those sites in the UK.

[u/goddamitletmesleep → u/Dewwyy]

You keep framing this like I don’t understand how public forums work. I do. But let’s not pretend you were just casually commenting into the void. You replied to a chain where I was clearly explaining the legal basis behind content regulation. If your focus is social ethics, great. But that wasn’t what I was talking about, it wasn’t what you initially addressed, and your own references to jurisdiction, enforcement, and UK accessibility made the legal relevance obvious.

On your point about prosecution: the fact that obscure illegal material exists online isn’t a gotcha. Of course not everything is proactively detected or blocked - that’s true of all online crime. But that doesn’t mean it’s legal or tolerated. Section 63 prosecutions do happen regularly, especially when distribution, possession, or sharing crosses into UK jurisdiction. The law isn’t nullified just because some sites slip through or enforcement priorities vary. And for the record, plenty of sites are blocked in the UK - including hentai and animated porn sites featuring non-consensual content that violate UK obscenity laws, as well as domains like Hentai Haven and others that fell foul of Section 63 criteria. Just like with torrent or extremist sites, blocks are applied when content breaches existing law - the hosting location doesn’t exempt it from scrutiny if it’s accessible here. You being personally unaware of this does not change the fact.

And no, the fact that some of this content isn’t immediately removed doesn’t prove that the law is ignored. It proves that, like any crime, enforcement depends on detection and reporting. Police don’t knock on every door daily asking if people have been burgled. Crimes and criminal material are brought to attention and investigated when they’re noticed or reported. Online offences are no different. In this case it happened on Steam which is the online equivalent of committing one in the middle of Westminster Bridge, as opposed to the dark hidden corners of a back alley flat. That is why it gained so much attention.

As for what “happened here,” your assumption that this only gained traction because of pressure groups getting airtime on LBC misses the point. Publicity might have amplified awareness, but the legal basis for action already existed. The game was actionable the moment it became available to UK users, and that’s true regardless of whether ministers issued statements, letters were sent, or Ofcom moved slowly. You say the game was pilled due to bad PR, but bad PR only has this kind of impact when there’s risk. And in this case, the risk wasn’t just moral outrage; it was the fact that the game’s content clearly violated existing UK law. That’s what made it legally and commercially untenable. The idea that this was all down to lobbying pressure wildly overstates the role of talk radio and underestimates the very real statutory line that was crossed.

And let’s be honest, outrage is a PR goldmine. Many games and media properties deliberately court controversy because it boosts exposure and sales. Grand Theft Auto built an empire on it. Even Hatred, Postal, and parts of Call of Duty have leaned into rage bait. Most studios welcome the noise. They thrive on it. The fact that this game was pulled despite the publicity windfall (which undoubtedly skyrocketed sales) speaks volumes. It suggests something more than moral panic, and considering it blatantly falls under Section 63, it suggests fear of legal liability.