Short skirts, knee-high socks, white blouses: Girls' school uniform items are widely used as costumes in pornographic videos. As students experience harassment, a group wants to change that.
They actually are making a very good point though. How do you legally define a uniform.
What exactly is it that they are proposing to ban here, because as far as I’m aware porn doesn’t actually depict a particular school’s uniform they just depict a general suggestion. White button shirt, skirt, tie.
What exactly would the law say? How would it be worded?
That’s a perfectly valid point about law that they have bumbled adjacent to, but never actually broached themselves. I’m not saying that the law would even necessarily be a good idea, just pushing back on their original, nonsensical claim that if something doesn’t have a logo, it doesn’t count as a uniform. They just claim this isn’t a uniform on an absurd basis, and provide no support to justify why anyone should accept that idea when it has nothing to do with the conventional definition of a uniform.
They actually are making a very good point though. How do you legally define a uniform.
What exactly is it that they are proposing to ban here, because as far as I’m aware porn doesn’t actually depict a particular school’s uniform they just depict a general suggestion. White button shirt, skirt, tie.
What exactly would the law say? How would it be worded?
That’s a perfectly valid point about law that they have bumbled adjacent to, but never actually broached themselves. I’m not saying that the law would even necessarily be a good idea, just pushing back on their original, nonsensical claim that if something doesn’t have a logo, it doesn’t count as a uniform. They just claim this isn’t a uniform on an absurd basis, and provide no support to justify why anyone should accept that idea when it has nothing to do with the conventional definition of a uniform.