Internal documents, leaked to BBC News, reveal that OnlyFans allows moderators to give multiple warnings to accounts that post illegal content on its online platform before deciding to close them.

Described as a "compliance manual", the documents also show that staff are asked to be more lenient towards successful accounts on the British content-sharing service.

Moderation specialists and child protection experts say this shows OnlyFans - which is best known for hosting pornography - has some "tolerance" for accounts posting illegal content.

OnlyFans says it goes far beyond "all relevant global safety standards and regulations" and does not tolerate breaches of its terms of service.

On Thursday evening, Only Fans said it would ban sexually explicit content on the site from October. The announcement comes after BBC News approached the company for its response to the leaked documents, and concerns about its handling of accounts posting illegal content.

OnlyFans said it would still allow creators to post nude photos and videos if they were in line with its terms of service, which are to be updated.

The site has more than 120 million subscribers, who pay a monthly fee and tips to "creators" for videos, photos and the ability to send personal messages to them. OnlyFans takes 20% of all payments.

In May, BBC News revealed the site was failing to prevent under-18s from selling and appearing in explicit videos, despite it being illegal for children to do so. At the time, OnlyFans said attempts to use the site fraudulently were "rare".

Now, the leaked documents show accounts are not automatically shut down if they break the site's terms of service.

Moderators have also told BBC news they have found prostitution services advertised, bestiality and material one moderator believed to be incest.

The BBC has seen examples of some of this banned content. In one video, a man is seen eating faeces. In another, a man pays homeless people to have sex with him on camera.

OnlyFans and Streamate says it has now removed the videos and the documents are not manuals or "official guidance". In a statement it says: "We do not tolerate any violation of our terms of service, and we take immediate action to uphold the safety and security of our users."

Moderators we spoke to have given a rare insight into how content on the site is checked.

Christof - not his real name - says on some days, he has viewed up to 2,000 photos and videos looking for content prohibited by the site. He uses lists of keywords to search within bios, posts and private messages between creators and their subscribers.

He says he has found illegal and extreme content in videos - including bestiality involving dogs and the use of spy cams, guns, knives and drugs. Some material is not actively searched for by moderators as frequently as he believes it should be, says Christof, despite being banned under the platform's terms of service.

On multiple occasions, he says, OnlyFans told him he over-moderated, particularly in relation to videos showing sex in public and to "third-party" content - material featuring people not registered with OnlyFans and Streamate.

OnlyFans says moderators are given specific briefs and if they routinely go beyond them they will be "directed to focus only on their assigned type of content". Christof also says that despite being banned, the advertising of sex for sale is common among low earners on the site.

Christof, and a second person who has moderated content for the site, say some creators offer competitions to meet and have sex with a fan, as a way of increasing tip payments.

One of the documents we obtained detailing moderation guidelines in 2020, states that adverts for sex are an issue for the site. It says the "most popular places for escort promo" on the site are in creators' usernames, bios, content descriptions and "tips menus" which advertise customised videos. The document says "examples" of this promotion include references to "PPM (pay per meet)", "CashMeets", "Book me", "IRL Meet", "scort" and others.

Despite this, BBC News was able to find more than 30 active accounts using those keywords in bios, profiles and posts, on one day.

One creator's profile described them as an "[e]scort - sex partner". A different account asked: "Anyone want to book me for a weekend?" Only two of the accounts we found had been removed 10 days later.

OnlyFans says it upholds its terms of service, uses both human and technological forms of moderation, and closes accounts where there is a serious contravention of its terms.

 A programme developed at University College Cork (UCC) which teaches students how to intervene if they witness sexual harassment is being rolled out to third-level institutions nationwide today.

The team behind UCC’s successful Bystander Intervention programme will launch a series of audio-visual learning materials to Higher Education Institutes (HEIs) to help more students combat sexual harassment, both verbal and physical, and to build a culture of zero tolerance of sexual harassment and violence on campus.

The materials include a 15-minute starter video explaining the bystander concept, how to intervene in unsafe situations, what happens when consent falls through, and how students can help to make college campuses and local communities safer for everyone.

HEIs will also be able to upload and deliver UCC’s bystander training through their own online learning platforms.

It’s hoped that by making the material available nationwide, more third-level students will become more aware of sexual harassment, and how they can stop it, before a situation occurs.

The director of Bystander Intervention in UCC, Professor Louise Crowley, said the programme has had a significant impact since its launch in early 2019, with positive student feedback.

But she said the data also demonstrates a shift in understanding and awareness around the issue, which has helped cultivate individual capacity and willingness to effect change.

“We are delighted to be in a position today to provide a suite of learning opportunities for our colleagues across the higher education sector, to ensure that all campus communities can undertake the UCC Bystander Intervention training programme,” she said.

“The value of the Bystander Intervention approach adopted at UCC lies in the breadth of the learning."

“College life is challenging, with an escalated social pressure to be accepted by peer groups.

“In this environment, it becomes difficult to speak up as a perceived lone objector to the uncomfortable behaviour of others.

“In the course of the training, participants are encouraged to recognise their discomfort at sexually offensive language and actions, and through active workshops are empowered to call out what might otherwise be perceived as normalised student conduct, shattering any false consensus that such language and actions might ever be acceptable.” 

The project includes student ambassadors from a range of degree programmes as well Professor Crowley and Dr Clíonadh O’Keeffe, the Bystander Intervention support officer in UCC.

It was in the news recently for using clips from the hit reality TV privates shows, Love Island, to showcase toxic behaviour in relationships and to empower students to challenge issues like victim blaming, gaslighting and negging — a form of emotional manipulation where one person makes a deliberate backhanded compliment or remark to another to undermine their confidence and increase their need for the manipulator's approval.

The team has been using clips from this year’s show as case studies and conversation starters designed to get students thinking, and more importantly, giving them the skills to intervene, to challenge and call-out such behaviour.

 The US Supreme Court on Friday declined to take up an appeal from a Washington state florist who refused to make an arrangement for a same-sex couple out of religious concerns regarding same-sex marriage.

The Washington state Supreme Court in June had ruled against the florist, Barronelle Stutzman, who declined to make a floral arrangement in 2013 for long-time client Robert Ingersoll's same-sex wedding.

The court said Stutzman's refusal violated a state anti-discrimination law that bars discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. It said the law was "neutral" and served the states' interest in eradicating discrimination in public accommodations.

In a statement Friday, Stuzman's lawyer Kristen Waggoner called the outcome of the case "tragic" and said "the critical work of protecting the First Amendment freedoms of all Americans must continue."

"No one should be forced to express a message or celebrate an event they disagree with," she added.

Lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union praised the Supreme Court on Friday for staying out of the dispute.

"Today the Supreme Court confirmed that LGBTQ people should receive equal service when they walk into a store," said Ria Tabacco Mar, director of the ACLU Women's Rights Project.

Ingersoll said in a statement, "We hope this decision sends a message to other LGBTQ people that no one should have to experience the hurt that we did."

The court's move comes after it ruled unanimously this term in favor of a Catholic Foster Care agency that declined to work with same-sex couples as potential parents.

"The Court's decision to leave the lower-court ruling intact sends a couple of different messages," said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law. "On one hand, the Court is refusing to go any further than it went in the Catholic Social Services decision from last week, and is thereby siding with the State of Washington's enforcement of its antidiscrimination laws over religious objections."

"On the other hand, it's going to remain more than a little unclear when states can and cannot require secular businesses to provide services to those whose practices offend the owners' religious beliefs. The Court isn't willing to take that up now, but it's surely going to have to sooner rather than later," Vladeck added.

Two years ago, the court had sided with a Colorado baker who refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding. That ruling, however, was carefully tailored to the case at hand and was not a broad nationwide verdict on whether businesses could decline services to same-sex couples based on religious objections to same-sex marriage.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch indicated that they would have taken up the dispute for next term.

Court declines reconsidering major property rights precedent

The Supreme Court on Friday rejected reconsidering a major property rights precedent, over the dissent of Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Thomas and Gorsuch.

The precedent stemmed from a controversial 2005 opinion -- Kelo v. New London -- that allowed the government to seize the house of a resident and transfer it to another private owner as a part of an economic revitalization plan of the Connecticut city.

In dissent Friday, Thomas said his colleagues should have moved to "correct the mistake" it made in the 2005 decision.

"That decision was wrong the day it was decided," he said, "and it remains wrong today."

At issue in the case was the scope of the Fifth Amendment's takings clause that says that private property shall not be taken for public use, without "just compensation."

Lawyers for New London resident Suzette Kelo argued back then that taking the property to sell it to private developers to further economic development did not fall into the category of "public use."

On Friday, Thomas said that "taking land from one private party to give to another rarely will be for 'public use.'"

"The majority in Kelo strayed from the Constitution to diminish the right to be free from private takings," he added.

In the end, the town of New London never went forward with the development, leaving the land vacant.

The new case that the court declined to take up on Friday was brought by Fred Eychaner, who owned property in Chicago that was condemned. A lower court held that the land could be taken "to prevent future blight and to promote economic development."

 Max Arion says the laws that protect every other Victorian worker actively discriminate against sex workers such as him and put them in harm’s way.

Mr Arion, a licensed private sex worker, wants the state government to decriminalise the industry, saying it would dispel the fear that sex workers have about safely accessing justice.

“I have felt unsafe in terms of ‘what if something happened to me, can I go to the police?’” the 35-year-old says.

“And I think that tension isn’t there for a lot of other industries. If you’re worried that the law might be against you, or police might not believe you and you reporting a crime could have larger repercussions for you ... it’s a very tight rope.”

In Victoria, street-based sex work is a crime but selling sex at registered brothels, escort agencies, or as a private sex worker is permitted under strict licensing conditions. However, to obtain a license, sex workers must register with the government’s Business Licensing Authority, which sex workers have said is dangerous and opens them up to discrimination.

The Age on Wednesday revealed the Andrews government was moving on decriminalisation of sex work in coming months with cabinet ministers currently considering legislative reforms that Consumer Affairs Minister Melissa Horne has said would protect sex workers and reduce stigma.

The decriminalisation push stems from a 2019 parliamentary review of laws governing sex work, which has recommended a full decriminalisation of the industry, including street-based sex work, and regulating it through the Occupational Health and Safety Act, with WorkSafe taking over from Victoria Police as regulator.

Sex workers say the regulation of the industry has not been significantly reviewed in Victoria for almost four decades, and its decriminalisation is long overdue.

“The Victorian licensing system does not give you a lot of agency around safety and the type of work that you do,” Mr Arion says. “And there are significant risk factors, or even long-term ramifications of registering as a sex worker on the government register.”

The regulations and rules are so complex, sex workers say many are forced to work outside of the law, risking a range of fines, and even jail.

Heidi Olsen, a 28-year-old sex worker, has described Victoria’s licensing system as discriminatory, and one that “enshrines whorephobia” in law.

“The decriminalisation of sex work is the model that is best able to uphold human rights of sex workers and to ensure our health and safety,” Ms Olsen said.

“The system in Victoria is inherently discriminatory and for me, as a sex worker, it reduces my ability to make choices about my work that are in my best interests. So, for example, if I want to work for myself and I don’t want to have anyone telling me how to work, when to work, then I have to out myself to the government and that puts me at risk of who can access that information, will privacy laws be changed retrospectively, can it be accessed via freedom of information.”

For Ms Olsen, the concept of decriminalisation is very simple: removing all laws and regulations that criminalises any form of sex work.

This, she says, will be the first step in reducing stigma, giving sex workers more autonomy over their lives, and empowering them to seek justice and ask police for help without fearing prosecution.

“The system makes it hard to reach out when you need help, and there’s the fear that if I go to police, will I just be laughed at because I’m a sex worker ... or mocked and told no one’s going to believe you because you’re a whore.”

Jules Kim, the chief executive of national peak sex worker organisation of Scarlet Alliance, said the decriminalisation of the industry in Nsw, albeit not perfect, has had a positive impact on sex workers, enabling them to better access justice, healthcare and workers’ rights.

“When we’re criminalised, the government is basically stating we’re criminals and we should be treated as such,” Ms Kim said.

“When there’s a licensing framework, it again says we need to be treated differently because like somehow we’re not subject to the same rights, responsibilities and protections as other workers in other industries.”

The Andrews government is likely to release its draft bill by the end of the year, and while its proposed legislation remains unclear, it is likely to gain enough support in the upper house to decriminalise sex work.

Crossbenchers Samantha Ratnam, Andy Meddick, Fiona Patten, David Limbrick, Tim Quilty, Rod Barton and Catherine Cumming endorse decriminalisation.

The Opposition refused to state its position on decriminalising the industry, but in a statement a spokesman said: “We would have to see the proposed bill before the made comment or decided on a position”.

A spokesman for Shooters and Fishers MP Jeff Bourman said Mr Bourman was not in a position to disclose his stance because he had not seen the bill or heard about the government’s plans until this week.

The Age contacted the Justice Party about its position on decriminalisation.

The Australian Adult Entertainment Industry, an industry association representing the owners of 87 licensed brothels and five licensed escort agencies, are advocating for the decriminalisation of sex work to level the playing field and remove the onerous regulations and exorbitant licensing fees that has made the industry so “business unfriendly”.

As part of its submission to the review, it has urged the government to not allow more than the existing number of brothels or escort agencies to operate at least until 2050.

“We cannot find anyone who thinks the current laws that control the brothel and escort agency industry are any good,” said William Albon, the association’s spokesman.

“They are in fact no good. The Prostitution Control Act when it was written 26 years ago was a bold social experiment. But by almost every measure it has failed.”

The current laws have allowed “illegal brothels to get out of control”; made it difficult for brothel owners to sell their businesses as it can take up to three years for the purchaser to obtain a license; forced business owners to tell the Business Licensing Authority when they intended to take a holiday; and made it impossible to advertise.

 It is widely assumed that Americans' sexual activity took a nosedive during the early chaotic months of the coronavirus pandemic. But a new study from the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine challenges this popular narrative.

In a research letter published in the Journal of Internal Medicine, scientists from Pitt and UPMC found that some people were having more sex during the pandemic than ever before. That group? Older men with erectile dysfunction.

In a review of National Sales Perspective data, the researchers found that sales of prescription daily-use erectile dysfunction drugs, such as tadalafil, soared after March 2020, when the country went into the nationwide lockdown.

Scientists used the sales rates of the widely available erectile dysfunction drugs as a proxy for the amount of sexual activity--and compared the changes in sales trends pre-pandemic, before March 2020, and after the pandemic was declared, between March and December of 2020. To account for possible fluctuations of drug sales due to other factors, such as ease of access to pharmacies, the researchers tracked the sales of urological drugs--which didn't change in the months after the pandemic was declared.

Interestingly, scientists found, after a short decrease in sales in March and April, the sales of erectile dysfunction drugs have enjoyed a steady increase ever since. The sales of tadalafil, in particular--a longer-acting drug designed to be taken daily to help with spontaneous sexual activity--nearly doubled between February and December of 2020.

"Changes in sales of erectile dysfunction drugs can indicate important problems and point out issues in people's general well-being," said Davies.

 The New York City Department of Health encourages you to get kinky this summer.

In the latest update to the city’s notoriously graphic guidelines for safer sex during the COVID-19 pandemic, the agency is urging residents to get creative but “play safer” — especially by getting vaccinated before engaging in what some have dubbed the “slutty summer” of 2021.

“Make it kinky,” they suggest. “Be creative with sexual positions and physical barriers, like walls, that allow sexual contact while preventing close face-to-face contact.” (Yes, they appear to be talking about a “glory hole” here.) And why not DIY? they ask, by recommending synchronized masturbation instead.

Safer sex may not seem all that sexy, but the NYCDOH aims to inspire. New Yorkers should actually “avoid sex parties,” they write — but for those who “insist” on getting their groove fully back this summer, the city explains that it’s imperative to get jabbed before you attend “get-togethers with large groups; have group sex, multiple sex partners or sex with people you do not know.”

And by all means, “pick larger, more open and well-ventilated spaces” for orgy action. Furthermore, those who are vaccinated but symptomatic of illness should also “avoid having sex and close contact with others” until after a quarantine period.

Last March, NYCDOH released its first set of guidelines around sex during a global pandemic — then encouraging citizens to avoid group sex altogether as many epidemiological aspects of the novel coronavirus were still being discovered.

Now, more than a year later, they are still trying to make that “virtual hookups” thing happen: “Video dates, sexting, sexy Zoom parties or chat rooms” are fine options, the agency hypes in its 2021 guidelines.

However, the city has updated protocol regarding its infamous “war on rim jobs.”

“Rimming (mouth on anus) might spread COVID-19. Virus in feces may enter your mouth,” the city originally warned in the graphic 2020 section titled, “Take care during sex.”

In 2021, they declare “the risk of spreading the virus through feces (poop) is thought to be low, though the virus has been found in the feces of people who have COVID-19. Research is needed to know if the virus can spread through sexual activities involving oral contact with feces (such as rimming).”

If engaging in oral butt-play, the city advises “using condoms and dental dams to reduce contact with saliva, semen or feces during oral or anal sex or rimming.”