SYNOPSIS OF THE ISSUE
Sweden has introduced a legislative proposal that would make it a crime to purchase “sexual acts performed remotely.” The justification? Protecting children from sexual abuse and the elderly from fraud. On its face, that’s difficult to argue with. Nobody opposes protecting the vulnerable. But scratch just below the surface, and you’ll find a troubling reality: this proposal has little to do with predators or scams. It’s about criminalizing consensual adult behavior that happens to involve sex, money, and the internet — a combination that makes the political class deeply uncomfortable.
The law specifically targets digital transactions on platforms like OnlyFans, Chaturbate, and other spaces where adults voluntarily create and consume adult content. The act of buying that content — even in private, even from consenting creators — would become a criminal offense. This isn’t about going after traffickers or coercive actors. It’s about turning regular users into criminals for the high crime of paying to see a nude photo or a live cam performance. Sweden already embraces the Nordic Model, where it’s legal to sell sex but illegal to buy it. Now, they’re extending that framework into the digital realm — and calling it progress.
But progress this is not. If anything, it’s a step backward — into a world where the state presumes moral authority over what kind of adult expression is acceptable, and what kind isn’t. The proposal treats online sexual expression not as speech, not as art, not as commerce, but as a social disease that must be contained. Never mind that the people on both ends of the transaction are adults. Never mind that these platforms have created safer, more autonomous ways for creators — especially women — to earn a living. In the eyes of this law, if money changes hands, the exchange must be inherently exploitative.
That mindset doesn’t just create bad policy — it threatens fundamental rights. Sweden’s constitution, like many in the Western world, contains strong protections for freedom of expression. But those protections are subject to “balancing” — which sounds reasonable, until you realize it means courts can weigh speech rights against whatever value the government decides is more important at the moment. Public morals, gender equality, even vague appeals to “democratic necessity” — all of these can be used to tip the scale away from expressive freedom. In the U.S., we’d call that viewpoint discrimination. In Sweden, it’s how the system works.
Then there’s the problem of enforcement. What qualifies as a “sexual act performed remotely”? The statute doesn’t say. And that’s not an oversight — it’s a feature. The vaguer the law, the easier it is to weaponize. Is a topless photo a sexual act? What about sexting behind a paywall? Erotic writing? Roleplay? ASMR? A state that can’t define what it’s banning is a state that can apply the law however it likes. That kind of ambiguity is dangerous in any legal context — but when it comes to expression, it’s fatal.
And let’s not pretend this stops with adult content. These laws always start with sex work because it’s easy to marginalize. It’s politically safe. You don’t have to defend porn to defend freedom of expression — but if you don’t defend it there, you won’t have much ground left to stand on when they come for your speech, your press, or your privacy. Once a government decides it can criminalize consensual expression because it makes someone uncomfortable, there’s no obvious limit to where that authority ends.
So let’s be clear: this isn’t about safety. It’s about control. It’s about a government inserting itself into the bedrooms and bank accounts of adults who have done nothing illegal, nothing coercive, and nothing harmful. That’s not protection — it’s paternalism. And it’s a threat to expressive freedom that should concern anyone who believes the government doesn’t get to decide which kinds of speech are acceptable, and which kinds are just too offensive to tolerate.
THE SWEDISH LEGAL LANDSCAPE
1.0 Introduction
The Swedish government has announced a new legislative proposal aimed at strengthening Swedish laws protecting children from sexual abuse and fraud perpetrated upon the elderly.
The Swedish government submitted a proposal to the Lagrådet (The Council on Legislation) with several measures, including:
- Expanding criminal liability for child rape, making it easier to prosecute such crimes.
- Criminalizing the purchase of sexual acts performed remotely (e.g., via digital platforms), targeting exploitation through online means.
- Enhancing penalties for fraud, especially when it exploits vulnerable groups like the elderly, with a focus on organized crime.
These proposed legislative changes are intended to bolster legal safeguards and are proposed to take effect on July 1, 2025. Justice Minister Gunnar Strömmer emphasized the need to protect children and the elderly from sexual and financial exploitation, reflecting a broader governmental push to address evolving crime trends.
These proposals have sparked some controversy in Sweden, especially with respect to how the proposals might affect decentralized porn providers such as OnlyFans, Chaturbate, and other cam sites.
Proponents of the measure, including some politicians and “anti-exploitation groups,” see these online platforms as tools for prostitution and trafficking. Critics, including content creators and commentators, argue that such a ban overlooks legitimate platform uses, highlight that the ban could harm consenting adults, and will fail to address root causes of exploitation.
2.0 Voices in Favor
Former Social Democrat minister Annika Strandhäll has called for an outright ban on OnlyFans, arguing it facilitates prostitution and exploitation. She views the platform as a loophole in Sweden’s strict anti-prostitution laws, which criminalize buying sex but not selling it. Her stance aligns with efforts to curb online sexual exploitation, tying into the government’s new proposals.
The organization Talita, which supports women exiting prostitution, also voiced its support for a Swedish ban on OnlyFans. They argue that online exploitation is as serious as offline acts, and the platform enables trafficking and abuse. Talita frames the legislative push as a necessary step to protect vulnerable individuals, echoing the government’s focus on digital sexual crimes.
Another opinion piece describes OnlyFans as a shifting “prostitution map,” suggesting it has become a hub for illegal activities under the guise of legal content creation. The author critiques the platform’s role in normalizing paid sexual transactions, raising concerns about its impact on Sweden’s ban on purchasing sex (as opposed to criminalizing sex workers) and connecting it to broader exploitation issues targeted by the new laws.
3.0 Voices Against
However, the debate is not all pro-censorship. Unsurprisingly online creators such as Cina, based in Varberg, Sweden, argues that such a ban would negatively impact sex workers and models such as herself. She notes that the model-centric sites offer financial independence and creative freedom for consenting adults. She contends that banning it would harm those who use it legitimately, presenting a counterpoint to claims of widespread exploitation and questioning the scope of the proposed restrictions. Josefin Ottosson strongly condemned the government’s approach in an editorial in the
Svenska Dagbladet (Sweden’s largest newspaper). She called for greater respect for individual civil liberties, calling the proposal an example of government overreach. She argues that targeting OnlyFans ignores the rights of individuals to exercise independent agency and it runs the risk of creating a black market for online commercial sex, making it harder to regulate and actually exacerbating the harms the government seeks to mitigate.
An editorial in the Kristianstadsbladet also called to resist the ban, arguing that OnlyFans provides a safe, controlled environment for sex workers compared to street-based alternatives. It warns that prohibition could increase risks for creators and questions whether the government’s focus on online platforms is proportionate or effective.
4.0 Legal Hurdles
The debate raises questions about constitutional issues in Sweden, though the Swedish Constitution itself does not explicitly address online adult entertainment platforms. Sweden’s constitutional framework, primarily governed by the Instrument of Government (Regeringsformen), the Freedom of the Press Act (Tryckfrihetsförordningen), and the Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression (Yttrandefrihetsgrundlagen), textually provides strong protections for freedom of expression and individual rights. However, Swedish methods of constitutional interpretation often employ balancing tests that can make the end result more prone to shifting political winds than in strong textualist societies like the United States.
4.1 Freedom of Expression (Yttrandefrihetsgrundlagen)
Sweden’s Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression (1991) protects expressive rights, including on online platforms. It contains limited exceptions for things like incitement to violence, defamation, or explicit threats. The government’s proposal to criminalize user generated content could conflict with this right, particularly for creators who argue they are exercising their freedom to produce and share consensual content. Critics like Sanna Zentio (from the TV4 article) and Josefin Ottosson (SvD) emphasize that such a ban might clash with Swedish guarantees that protect personal autonomy and expression. However, Swedish law allows restrictions on these fundamental rights if they are deemed necessary in a democratic society and proportionate to a legitimate aim, such as protecting public morals or preventing exploitation. The government argues that these exceptions are in play here, as it frames online sexual transactions as a form of exploitation or violence against women, aligning with Sweden’s “Nordic Model” of prostitution laws (which criminalizes buyers, not sellers). If the Swedish courts interpret this as sufficient justification, the constitutional guarantees might be eroded.
4.2 Freedom of the Press and Economic Activity
The Swedish Freedom of the Press Act (one of the world’s oldest, dating to 1766) primarily protects written publications but has been interpreted broadly to cover economic activities tied to expression. OnlyFans creators, like Cina from Varberg (SVT), argue that the platform is a legitimate business model, offering financial independence through digital content creation, which is itself protected. A ban could be challenged as an undue restriction on creators’ and platforms’ rights to engage in economic activity tied to expression, especially if the creators can show that the regulation is disproportionately targeting a specific type of lawful work without clear evidence of harm from that economic activity.
4.3 Equality and Gender Considerations (Regeringsformen)
Swedish law has a strong feminist component to it, and this could create another point at which competing values encroach on freedom of expression. The Instrument of Government (Chapter 1, Article 2) mandates that public institutions promote equality between men and women. The proposed laws build on the 1999 Sex Purchase Act, which views buying sex as a gendered harm rooted in patriarchal structures. Supporters, including Meghan Donevan from Talita (TV4), argue that extending this to online platforms aligns with Swedish constitutional goals by protecting vulnerable groups (primarily women) from exploitation. However, such arguments seem to be at odds with recognizing sex workers’ independent adult agency. And such arguments themselves are potentially discriminatory, if they treat sex workers as victims rather than autonomous actors.
4.4 Privacy and Personal Integrity (Regeringsformen)
Chapter 2 of the Swedish Instrument of Government protects personal integrity and privacy, which could be relevant if a ban involves increased surveillance or regulation of online platforms to enforce compliance. For instance, if authorities monitor OnlyFans transactions or user data to identify buyers, it might infringe on individuals’ privacy rights. No currently published sources specify any proposed enforcement mechanisms, but any broad monitoring could trigger constitutional scrutiny, especially given Sweden’s strong data protection laws influenced by EU standards such as the GDPR.
4.5 Potential Constitutional Challenges
If the proposals become law, Constitutional challenges will be available. Proportionality Test: Producers and platforms could challenge the regulations as a disproportionate response to the stated goal of preventing exploitation, especially given the fact that the platforms have mixed use (not all content is sexual). Critics (e.g., Kristianstadsbladet) argue it might push sex work into less safe, unregulated spaces, undermining the law’s intent, and thus affecting the proportionality analysis. Freedom vs. Protection: The tension between the goal of protecting vulnerable groups and the Constitutional mandate to preserve individual freedoms could is another hinge upon which a challenge could bend. Creators would be expected to argue their rights are unduly curtailed, while the government could lean on precedent from the Sex Purchase Act, upheld as constitutional due to its focus on buyers rather than sellers of commercial sex Vagueness: The law’s current definition of “sexual acts performed remotely” seems lacking legal clarity. The Instrument of Government’s protections for the rule of law generally seems to require greater clarity in regulations than the current version of the law affords.
5.0 Current Status and Precedent
As of April 7, 2025, the proposals are still under review by the Council on Legislation (Lagrådet), and not yet law. Sweden’s constitutional system allows the Lagrådet to flag potential conflicts, but it is advisory in nature, not binding, and Parliament can override it. Historically, the Sex Purchase Act faced no successful constitutional challenges, suggesting that Swedish courts might defer to the legislative intent here too, especially given Sweden’s international advocacy for the Nordic Model of criminalizing sex purchasers but not sex sellers. However, the digital nature of the regulation introduces new variables (e.g., global reach, consensual transactions) that could test these precedents.
In short, while the Swedish Constitution doesn’t explicitly prohibit or protect the platforms, the proposed ban will meet significant challenges to overcome freedoms of expression, economic activity, and privacy. However, these rights are not bulwarks as they are in the United States. The Swedish courts are called upon to balance Constitutional rights with competing values such as equality and public welfare aims. Any constitutional issue would hinge on whether the restriction is deemed necessary and proportionate—a question ripe for debate as this unfolds.
6.0 If you need help
If you are a content creator, content creator marketing business, or online platform, you should not look at this proposal lightly.
Randazza Legal Group has strategic alliances with Swedish lawyers, created through more than 20 years of collaboration. Marc J. Randazza, managing partner of the firm was previously employed by the law firm of Rydin & Carlsten Advokatbyrå AB in Stockholm, Sweden. While that firm was absorbed by a larger firm, Randazza maintains connections with his former colleagues from Rydin & Carlsten, has a working knowledge of the Swedish language, and maintains connections to the Swedish legal community.
Endnotes
[1] https://www.regeringen.se/pressmeddelanden/2025/04/nya-lagforslag-for-att-starka-skyddet-mot-valdtakt-mot-barn-och-bedragerier-mot-aldre/
[2] https://www.expressen.se/nyheter/sverige/annika-strandhall–forbjud-onlyfans/
[3] https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/halland/lika-allvarligt-pa-natet-som-offline-talita-valkomnar-forslag-som-stoppar-onlyfans
[4] https://www.dagensarena.se/essa/onlyfans-blir-brottsplats-nar-prostitutionskartan-ritas-om/
[5] https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/halland/porninfluencern-cina-fran-varberg-vill-inte-se-forbud-pa-onlyfans
[6] https://www.svd.se/a/63v3z8/josefin-ottosson-sagar-regeringens-forslag-om-onlyfans
[7] https://www.kristianstadsbladet.se/2025-03-03/forbjud-inte-onlyfans/
