Censor Watch

Florida has selected a few victims for its recently introduces ID/age verification internet censorship law. Florida's attorney general James Uthmeier filed two separate lawsuits against Lustyheroes.com and also Aylo, the parent company of Nutaku.net and SpiceVids.com. The dual suits allege that the three websites have violated HB 3, the state law that went into effect in January and forced explicit websites to verify the ID/ages of Florida users.

According to Uthmeier, all three websites have skirted the responsibility of ensuring that people visiting them are at least 18 years old. As such, he's serving them fresh lawsuits to ostensibly make examples out of them. He said in a press release:

We passed strong legislation to keep kids from being exposed to harmful and toxic material, and instead of following it, these platforms ignored it. We are taking them to court to make sure they cannot continue bypassing Florida's common sense safeguards.

LustyHeroes is an online video game with sexy female players. It is very heavily pushed in adverts found on porn tube site.

Nutaku.net is a subscription site for multiple sexy video games whilst  SpiceVids.com is a subscription site for regular porn videos.

Aylo said both Nutaku and SpiceVids have complied with the legislation since it went into effect earlier this year, adding:

We intend to vigorously defend against these allegations in court. These platforms are committed to ongoing compliance with applicable state laws. We look forward to presenting the facts through the appropriate legal process.

Undress.cc is a nudification website from Itai Tech where users can submit a clothed image and receive the unclothed estimation. The website is currently self blocked to UK users.

It seems that this website maybe the first to be punished by Ofcom. Maybe the company was asking for trouble being an adult company that is stupidly registered in the UK. Ofcom writes:

Following an investigation, Ofcom has provisionally determined that there are reasonable grounds to believe Itai Tech Ltd has failed / is failing to comply with section 81 of the Online Safety Act (OSA). Section 81 imposes a duty on providers of services that fall under Part 5 of the OSA to ensure, through the use of highly effective age verification or age estimation (or both), that children are not normally able to encounter content that is regulated provider pornographic content.

Ofcom therefore issued a provisional notice of contravention to Itai Tech Ltd on 17 September 2025 under section 130 of the OSA. The notice also sets out our provisional view that Itai Tech Ltd has infringed its duties under section 102(8) of the OSA by failing to respond to a statutory request for information issued as part of the investigation.

The notice sets out the facts that Ofcom has relied upon to reach its provisional view, the actions we propose to take, and the rationale for those decisions. Itai Tech will now have a period of 20 working days to make representations to Ofcom, which will be carefully considered before reaching a final decision.

Crocodile Dundee is a 1986 Australia comedy adventure by Peter Faiman.
Starring Paul Hogan, Linda Kozlowski and John Meillon.

The shortened International Version was cut for strong language. This was released in the UK without further cuts for a 15 rated cinema release in 1986. However BBFC category cuts were required for 15 rated VHS. These video cuts were waived for the DVD release of the International Version. In 2025 modern sensitivities resulted in transgender jokes being cut for a version entitled The Encore Cut.

Thanks to Jon who writes:

Channel Five broadcast without any announcements - CROCODILE DUNDEE: THE ENCORE CUT (this is now the main onscreen title) - at 3:10pm on Sunday 7th Sep 2025.

I thought it odd, when their version started with an on-screen notification about Rimfire Films (the production company of CRICODILE DUNDEE) paying homage to Australia's traditional custodians where the film was made, along with notes about the film containing scenes of deceased persons to Torres Strait Islanders. (That'll be referring to actor David Gulpilil who played Neville.) Such a note doesn't appear in any previous version if the film, and is a modern Australian trend, that only started about 5-8 years ago.

Five gave a brief verbal warning about the film containing mildly offensive language and mild violence, but that was it. I'm surprised Five were broadcasting this version when it's not been officially released to UK cinemas or home viewing formats.

P.S. No idea if more cuts were made to the film for content reasons, by Five for its Sunday afternoon time slot, but seeing as the controversial scenes involving the Trans actor have already been removed by Rimfire themselves, there shouldn't be too much other content (bar the brief misuse of drugs scene, and two f-words) that needed censoring. I did note that: the word bugger was cut from the audio in the post-opening-credits bar scene, but the word was left intact on the subtitles!

The new print looks stunning, even if it was only broadcast in HD, not 4K.

Carry On Up The Jungle is a 1970 UK comedy adventure by Gerald Thomas
Starring Frankie Howerd, Sidney James and Charles Hawtrey

BBFC category cuts were required for 1970 cinema release.

Summary Notes

Lady Evelyn Bagley mounts an expedition to find her long-lost baby. Bill Boosey is the fearless hunter and guide. Prof. Tinkle is searching for the rare Oozalum bird. Everything is going swimmingly until a gorilla enters the camp.

Versions

uncut run: 90:29s pal: 86:52s		UK: Uncut and BBFC PG rated: 2003 Carlton Visual Entertainment /ITV Studios Home Entertainment R2 DVD at UK Amazon #ad   2025 ITV Studios Home Entertainment Amazon VoD [UK] at UK Amazon #ad 2001 Video Collection International DVD (rated 28/09/2001) 1986 Video Collection International VHS (rated 04/08/1986) It is not clear if cinema cuts persisted to video releases
cut:   run: 89m pal: 85m		UK: BBFC A (PG) rated after BBFC cuts: 1970 Rank Film cinema release (rated 21/01/1970) Thanks to Vince. The BBFC cuts were: Reel 2 - Remove dialogue line I like to penetrate into parts where man has never been before . Reel 10 - Remove dialogue line I'm not waiting till mine wears off.

The government has announced urgent action to toughen the Online Safety Act by putting stricter legal requirements on tech companies to hunt down and remove material that encourages or assists serious self-harm, before it can destroy lives and tear families apart.

While platforms already have to take specific steps to protect children from this dangerous self-harm content, the government recognises that adults battling mental health challenges are equally at risk from exposure to material that could trigger a mental health crisis or worse.

The new regulations mean that content encouraging or assisting serious self-harm will be treated as a priority offence for all users.

The change will trigger the strongest possible legal protections, compelling platforms to use cutting-edge technology to actively seek out and eliminate this content before it can reach users and cause irreparable harm, rather than simply reacting after someone has already been exposed to it.

Technology Secretary Liz Kendall said:

This government is determined to keep people safe online. Vile content that promotes self-harm continues to be pushed on social media and can mean potentially heart-wrenching consequences for families across the country.

Our enhanced protections will make clear to social media companies that taking immediate steps to keep users safe from toxic material that could be the difference between life and death is not an option, but the law.

Julie Bentley, Chief Executive of Samaritans, said:

We welcome these efforts to make the Online Safety Act go further to protect both adults and children from dangerous self-harm content. While the internet can be a source of support for people who are struggling, damaging suicide and self-harm content can cost people their lives.

It's therefore vital that government continues to take opportunities to strengthen the Act and it's over to Ofcom now to use their powers to hold platforms to account so we can save more lives lost to suicide.

The regulations will come into force 21 days after they are made, following approval by both Houses of Parliament. We expect this Statutory Instrument (SI) to be laid in the autumn.

Between Two Worlds is a 2025 visual novel with RPG and fantasy elements developed by Drooskati Games.

The game was banned by the Australian Censorship Board in August 2025.

The Australians censors have not explained their reasons beyond a generic bolierplate statement about censorship rules being broken.

Drooskati Games responded to the ban:

Australia is censoring gaming, even fully consensual, romantic, and respectful content.

Apparently, BETWEEN TWO WORLDS is just too damn sexy for Australians.

Trying to do the right thing, I submitted the game to the Aussie government to get a proper rating several weeks ago. Today, I got my answer.

BETWEEN TWO WORLDS is just too damn explicit and realistic for the poor, innocent, simple Aussies. They are just not ready for romantic, consensual, and respectful sexual situations.

Those who have played BTW can attest to the content within the game. It portrays healthy and honest relationships centered on communication. But that is just too much for Australians, I guess.

I may be required to take the game down for Australians in the near future, so get it while you can!

If you live in Mississippi, you may have noticed that you are no longer able to log into your Bluesky or Dreamwidth accounts from within the state. Thats because, in a chilling early warning sign for the U.S., both social platforms decided to block all users in Mississippi from their services rather than risk hefty fines under the states oppressive age verification mandate.

If this sounds like censorship to you, youre right--it is. But its not these small platforms fault. This is the unfortunate result of Mississippis wide-sweeping age verification law, H.B. 1126 . Though the law had previously been blocked by a federal district court, the Supreme Court lifted that injunction last month, even as one justice (Kavanaugh) concluded that the law is 'likely unconstitutional.' This allows H.B. 1126 to go into effect while the broader constitutional challenge works its way through the courts. EFF has opposed H.B. 1126 from the start, arguing consistently and constantly that it violates all internet users First Amendment rights, seriously risks our privacy , and forces platforms to implement invasive surveillance systems that ruin our anonymity .

Lawmakers often sell age-verification mandates as a silver bullet for Big Techs harms, but in practice, these laws do nothing to rein in the tech giants. Instead, they end up crushing smaller platforms that cant absorb the exorbitant costs. Now that Mississippis mandate has gone into effect, the reality is clear: age verification laws entrench Big Techs dominance, while pushing smaller communities like Bluesky and Dreamwidth offline altogether.

Sorry Mississippians, We Cant Afford You

Bluesky was the first platform to make the announcement. In a public blogpost , Bluesky condemned H.B. 1126s broad scope, barriers to innovation, and privacy implications, explaining that the law forces platforms to 'make every Mississippi Bluesky user hand over sensitive personal information and undergo age checks to access the site--or risk massive fines.' As Bluesky noted, 'This dynamic entrenches existing big tech platforms while stifling the innovation and competition that benefits users.' Instead, Bluesky made the decision to cut off Mississippians entirely until the courts consider whether to overturn the law.

About a week later, we saw a similar announcement from Dreamwidth, an open-source online community similar to LiveJournal where users share creative writing, fanfiction, journals, and other works. In its post, Dreamwidth shared that it too would have to resort to blocking the IP addresses of all users in Mississippi because it could not afford the hefty fines.

Dreamwidth wrote: 'Even a single $10,000 fine would be rough for us, but the per-user, per-incident nature of the actual fine structure is an existential threat.' The service also expressed fear that being involved in the lawsuit against Mississippi left it particularly vulnerable to retaliation--a clear illustration of the chilling effect of these laws. For Dreamwidth, blocking Mississippi users entirely was the only way to survive.

Age Verification Mandates Dont Rein In Big Tech--They Entrench It

Proponents of age verification claim that these mandates will hold Big Tech companies accountable for their outsized influence, but really the opposite is true. As we can see from Mississippi, age verification mandates concentrate and consolidate power in the hands of the largest companies--the only entities with the resources to build costly compliance systems and absorb potentially massive fines. While megacorporations like Google (with YouTube) and Meta (with Instagram) are already experimenting with creepy new age-estimation tech on their social platforms, smaller sites like Bluesky and Dreamwidth simply cannot afford the risks.

Weve already seen how this plays out in the UK. When the Online Safety Act came into force recently, platforms like Reddit, YouTube, and Spotify implemented broad (and extremely clunky ) age verification measures while smaller sites , including forums on parenting , green living , and gaming on Linux , were forced to shutter. Take, for example, the Hamster Forum , 'home of all things hamstery,' which announced in March 2025 that the OSA would force it to shut down its community message boards. Instead, users were directed to migrate over to Instagram with this wistful disclaimer: 'It will not be the same by any means, but . . . We can follow each other and message on there and see each others [sic] individual posts and share our hammy photos and updates still.'

When smaller platforms inevitably cave under the financial pressure of these mandates, users will be pushed back to the social media giants.

This perfectly illustrates the market impact of online age verification laws. When smaller platforms inevitably cave under the financial pressure of these mandates, users will be pushed back to the social media giants. These huge companies--those that can afford expensive age verification systems and arent afraid of a few $10,000 fines while they figure out compliance--will end up getting more business, more traffic, and more power to censor users and violate their privacy.

This consolidation of power is a dream come true for the Big Tech platforms, but its a nightmare for users. While the megacorporations get more traffic and a whole lot more user data (read: profit), users are left with far fewer community options and a bland, corporate surveillance machine instead of a vibrant public sphere. The internet we all fell in love with is a diverse and colorful place, full of innovation, connection, and unique opportunities for self-expression. That internet-- our internet--is worth defending.

Complaint:

The Reprobates seems to glamourise illegal behaviour with its name, accompanied by a mugshot image. The bottle neck also carries an image of a cross-bar gate -- an image clearly associated with counting days in prison.

Code paragraph 3.2(b)

A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way suggest any association with bravado, or with violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behaviour.

The company welcomed the opportunity to respond to the complaint and stated that it did not believe that The Reprobates Sparkling Wine was in breach of the Portman Groups Code of Practice.

The company explained that the term reprobates was used in a light-hearted context and referred to mischievous individuals rather than illegal behaviour. The company stated that the term reprobates was similar to rascal, a word which had been deemed acceptable by the Panel in a previous decision, Wolfies Whisky. Therefore, the company did not consider that reprobates created a direct link to illegal behaviour or violence and stated that similar names were commonly used in the alcohol industry.

The Panels assessment

The Panel discussed whether the drinks packaging created any association with illegal behaviour as raised by the complainant. The Panel first discussed the name, The Reprobates, to determine how the term reprobate was likely to be understood by UK consumers. The Panel noted the producers response that reprobate was intended to be akin to rascal, a word that had previously been found to be acceptable by the Panel under the Code. The Panel considered that in contemporary meaning, reprobate was often used in a light-hearted fashion to refer to a person who was mischievous or cheeky rather than as a reference to a criminal. The Panel acknowledged that reprobate could be used to reference someone lacking in principles but stated that this did not inherently create an association with criminal or illegal behaviour. As the brand name was acceptable in isolation, the Panel considered that compliance under the Code would be dependent on the overall impression conveyed by the product.

The Panel discussed the front label, which included a photo of a man dressed in 1930s attire holding up a board which read The Reprobates. The Panel considered the positioning of the man in the photo, staring straight ahead while holding a board, which did appear to be very similar to the classic mug shot position. This interpretation was compounded by the serious expression and rigid stance the character maintained as opposed to how one might usually pose for a photograph with a smile and relaxed posture. Furthermore, directly above the image on the neck of the bottle was the inclusion of numerous lines presented as a tally which was designed to mimic the appearance of carvings. The Panel considered that tallies were often used in the context of a prisoner counting the number of years they had served in prison, typically crudely etched onto a wall or other surface. The Panel noted that such tallies were synonymous with prisoners who were serving lengthy sentences for serious crimes as a way to keep track of passing time.

The Panel considered the name The Reprobates within the context of a mugshot and prison tally count and considered that a brand name which insinuated that a person lacked principles reinforced the impression that the character had engaged in illegal behaviour.

The Panel considered the presentation of the product and noted from the producers response that the imagery had no contemporary relevance. The Panel discussed accompanying guidance to Code rule 3.2(b) and noted that it advised against glamourising crime which linked to contemporary illegal behaviour. The Panel further noted that guidance stated that the severity of crime depicted or referenced could also impact how illegal behaviour may be applied under the Code by the Panel.

The Panel carefully considered the cumulative impact of how criminal behaviour was portrayed on the product packaging and noted that it did not glamourise contemporary illegal behaviour. However, the Panel acknowledged that while contemporary crime was not necessarily glamourised by the packaging, a clear and dominant association with illegal behaviour had been created through the name and imagery which had resulted in what appeared to be a fairly lengthy prison sentence, therefore inferring that a serious crime had been committed.

Taking the above points into account, the Panel concluded that the overall impression conveyed by the drinks name, a mugshot style image and number tally which inferred that a sufficiently serious, if unspecified, crime had been committed to warrant a custodial sentence, created a direct and dominant association with illegal behaviour. The Panel considered that as there was no other brand narrative to contradict these points, or any alternative explanation offered by the company, it was reasonable to conclude that a consumer would interpret the labelling in this manner. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(b).

Action by Company:

Product discontinued

The Sons of Great Bear is a 1966 East Germany/Yugoslavia western drama by Josef Mach
Starring Gojko Mitic, Jirí Vrstála and Rolf Römer

BBFC animal cruelty cuts were required for 2025 Blu-ray release.

Summary Notes

Whites expel Dakotas from Black Hills after finding gold, defying treaty. Chief's son Tokei-ihto rejects barren reservation after his father's murder. Out of prison, he leads tribe's flight to Canada, confronting murderer Red Fox.

Versions

cut:   run: 91:41s pal: 88:01s

UK: BBFC 12 rated with a trigger warning for moderate violence, discrimination with a trigger warning for moderate violence, discrimination after BBFC cuts: 2025 Eureka Entertainment Limited Edition (RB) Blu-ray at UK Amazon #ad The BBFC commented: Compulsory cuts required to remove scenes of unsimulated animal cruelty (horses being caused to fall using trip wires)..

Shatter is a 1974 UK / Hong Kong action drama by Michael Carreras and Monte Hellman (uncredited).
Starring Stuart Whitman, Lung Ti and Lily Li.  

A co-production between Hammer and the Hong Kong Shaw Brothers was cut by the BBFC for X rated cinema release in 1975. Uncut by 2025 for Blu-ray release  The US release is uncut and MPAA R rated.

Summary Notes

Shatter, an international hitman, is hiding out in Hong Kong after he has completed a contract out on an African leader. Shatter soon finds out that everyone wants him dead, including the crime syndicate, the cops and the brother of the African leader he killed. Shatter teams up with a kung fu expert to try to get the money that is owed to him. Various double crosses and fight scenes ensue.

Versions

uncut run: 90:43s pal: 87:05s		UK: Uncut and BBFC 15 rated for strong violence, nudity: 2025 Hammer Films Limited Edition [US + UK version] R0 4K Blu-ray/R0 Blu-ray Combo at UK Amazon #ad 2025 Hammer Films Amazon VoD [UK] at UK Amazon #ad US: Uncut and MPAA R rated for: 2020 Shout! Factory RA Blu-ray at US Amazon
cut cut:   run: 90m pal: 86m		UK: Passed X (18) after compulsory BBFC cuts: 1975 cinema release From IMDb. The U.S Anchor Bay DVD featured the UK cinema print which was cut to remove a hook impaling and a man being shot and spitting blood during the dock fight.

Australia could use a range of technologies to implement its social media ban for under-16s but all have risks or shortcomings, an ID/age verification company report has found.

The government says its ban, which comes into effect in December, is designed to limit the harmful impacts of social media. The policy has been touted as a world-first and is being watched closely by leaders globally.

Under the new laws, platforms must take reasonable steps to prevent Australian children from creating accounts on their sites, and deactivate existing ones. It is notable that the law lays the onus on social media companies and that children parents and adults are free to try ways to work around the censorship.

The federal government commissioned the UK-based company, Age Check Certification Scheme to test the ways Australia could enforce the ban, and its final report was published on Sunday.

It looked at a variety of methods - including formal verification using government documents, parental approval, or technologies to determine age based on facial structure, gestures, or behaviours - and found all were technically possible. But we did not find a single ubiquitous solution that would suit all use cases, nor did we find solutions that were guaranteed to be effective in all deployments, it said. In fact it also suggests that borderline users may be hassled by multiple methods leading up to the final requirement to handle over full ID verification data leading to a high risk of identity theft.

Verification using identity documents was cited as the most accurate method, but the report identified concerns that platforms will keep this data longer than required and was anticipating sharing it with regulators, both of which would leave users' privacy at significant risk.

Australia - like much of the world - has in recent years seen a series of high-profile data breaches, including several where sensitive personal information was stolen and sold or published.

It recommended that the methods should be multiplied up to create the most robust system, and highlighted that many of the technology providers were looking at ways to address circumvention, through things like document forgeries and VPNs (virtual private networks) which obscure the user's country.

Of course the report does not mention the hassle to adults who have to go through ID verification just to prove that they are adults.