(992 words | Estimated reading time: 5 minutes)
In the last three years, the website OnlyFans has exploded in popularity. It has normalised, at least to some degree, the production, publication and purchasing of amateur pornography. Part of the reason for this normalisation is how readily discoverable OnlyFans creators are on mainstream, dominant social media applications like TikTok and Instagram.
OnlyFans creators can put a link in their account bio on these platforms which redirects to their OnlyFans account. This, coupled with the relative ease with which one can go viral on these platforms vis-à-vis the publication of lewd or semi-lewd content, has resulted a rapid promotion of sex workers to the forefront of internet culture.
This has been a divisive issue amongst online commentators. Some have asked how these creators will handle a future in which their child discovers their online activities, and is perhaps bullied for it in school. And some creators dismiss this as a non-issue. However, it seems that the High Court and Court of Appeal in England and Wales may not agree.
In the last two years, the courts have dealt with the two seminal cases making reference to OnlyFans creators. In M v X Local Authority [2024] EWCA Civ 126, parents of a teenage girl routinely created content for OnlyFans. They stored this content on a mobile phone that the teenage girl had access to. Though not expressly directed to this content, the girl ultimately found it. The court decided that the parents were negligent in allowing the girl to see this content, and that this influenced the girl’s subsequent decision to take sexualised photographs of herself on her own mobile device.
Going further, the court concluded that the parents were, therefore guilty of sexual abuse. The ease with which pornography was accessible, and regularity with which it was consumed and produced by the parents, were large factors influencing the judge’s decision.
Meanwhile, in A Council v M and others (the children via their guardian) [2023] EWFC 87, it was determined that the mother to several children had crossed ‘inappropriate sexual boundaries’. This was because:
(i) The mother kept BDSM equipment in their bedroom, which the children were aware of and capable of accessing;
(ii) The children have knowledge of the mother’s intimate relationships and that the mother was considering starting a polyamorous relationship; and
(iii) The children were aware that the mother was creating OnlyFans content.
Similar to M v X, it appears that the judge was influenced by his determination that the mother had created ‘a sexually liberated home where, given mother’s online work and her interest in fetishes and bondage and the like, much of the life in the home would be dominated by sex’.
And yet, it is important to note that it is not stated to what degree it is relevant that the parents allowed the children, whether expressly or negligently, to develop an understanding of the details listed in (i)-(iii) above. On a literal reading of the above, irrespective of whether the existence of a “sexually liberated household” facilitated an acquisition of inappropriate knowledge, it would appear that the child’s simple having of the knowledge caused the crossing of a sexually inappropriate boundary.
It is not clear whether such an interpretation was intended by the judge. The question of how such matters will be viewed if children discover information by more indirect means online, or perhaps vis-à-vis classmates at school, remains to be seen.
At Paragraph 17, Judge Booth promises:
‘One of the issues I will have to look at and weigh up in this case is the impact of pornography on the lives of these children…taking notice of the ubiquity of pornography and the ready access to it for any child who has a smartphone’
Regrettably, the judge does not deliver on this promise, aside from a fleeting reproduction, without commentary, of Judge McDonald’s statement at Paragraph 8 of Re P (Sexual Abuse: Finding of Fact Hearing) [2019] EWFC 27:
‘…the possibility of much easier access to pornographic material on social media and the internet means that concepts such as age-appropriate sexual knowledge, and conclusions as to the source of detailed knowledge of specific sexual acts must be treated with far greater care than in the past’
No such care is given in this case, and we have failed thus far to grapple with poignant counter-arguments that might be made against findings of sexual assault and crossing of inappropriate sexual boundaries in these cases.
To what extent has the cat been allowed out of the bag? If many or most children are capable of and will access pornography via their phones, what particular welfare concerns arise from knowing that they have family members engaged in such actions? Should we be ascribing relevancy to the means by which this information is obtained? If yes, why?
And is the size of a parent’s social media following relevant? Consider, by way of example, two sets of parents who upload OnlyFans content. One couple has no significant presence online. Their content is enjoyed only by a few people in Zimbabwe and an old fellow in Argentina. The other couple have 2 million active subscribers and are a household name on other social media apps like TikTok. In both cases, the children of the parents find out about their parents’ online escapades via friends at school.
Arguably, parents with higher social media followings should be held to a higher standard, due to a greater likelihood that their children will discover their content.
So what of the parents with no social media following that publicise explicit content and then develop an online presence at a later stage? Does it matter if their subsequent growth can be attributed to their explicit content?
Suffice to say, many questions remain to be answered. Given the apparent mainstream staying power of OnlyFans and the other social media platforms that act as funnels towards it, the issue is an urgent one that should be answered as soon as possible.