logo
A choking ban and ID checks: all the ways porn is changing in 2025 — and what needs to come next

A choking ban and ID checks: all the ways porn is changing in 2025 — and what needs to come next

Cosmopolitan19-06-2025
It's a transformative time for pornography. Long gone are the days where explicit sexual content could only be found in the adult section of video stores. Now, porn is freely available at the click of a button — and it's not just limited to dedicated adult sites. Unsuspecting users are exposed to porn on social media platforms like X and Reddit, which are rife with X-rated content (but not so harshly regulated as porn sites).
This easy accessibility means that the public are increasingly exposed to it at a younger age. Recent research shows that the average age in the UK that people first see explicit material online is 13. Concerningly, much of this material seems to depict violence, with a 2023 report finding that 79% of 18 to 21-year-olds who'd seen porn online had encountered videos portraying degrading acts, physical aggression, or sexual coercion.
The effects of this have been much discussed in pop culture. In 2021, Billie Eilish famously revealed that she started having nightmares after being exposed to 'abusive' pornography from the age of 11. Meanwhile, the Netflix series Adolescence explored the consequences of young people having access to violent content online without the proper critical thinking skills to challenge certain acts, ideas, and attitudes.
Beyond porn, young people are also increasingly exposed to non-consensual intimate content via terrifying 'nudify' apps and deepfake technology, which make it possible for any unsuspecting person (usually a woman) to be virtually stripped naked or superimposed into explicit videos and photos.
All of this has led to a growing backlash against sexual content online — and a call for legislators to crack down on it. We can already see this happening in other counties. In Sweden, for example, live cam shows and custom-made pornographic content were banned last month. In the US, in light of age verification laws being introduced in certain US states (which critics say is a violation of privacy and a data risk), Pornhub is blocked in 17 states. Then, in May, a new bill was introduced aiming to criminalise pornography at a federal level, meaning, if passed, it could be banned across the whole of the US.
And now the UK is following suit. It was already planned that from July, websites hosting pornographic content will have to run ID checks on users, but yesterday [18th June] it was confirmed that pornography depicting acts of strangulation will be made illegal in the UK, as per a government announcement. The amendment will be made to the Crime and Policing Bill — though there isn't yet a date for its implementation.
The government's decision was made following an Independent Porn Review which found that media sources, including pornography, have 'effectively established choking as a 'sexual norm', and a belief that choking a partner during sex is 'safe''.
This is, obviously, worrying, and it's encouraging that the government is trying to tackle the rise of non-consensual choking, which mostly affects women and girls. It's a move that's been welcomed by safety campaigners and women's charities alike, and generally viewed as a step in the right direction.
But will these measures really work? Amid the dire state of sex education in the UK, is this the right focus? And, as right wing conservatism grows, is a crackdown on sexual expression actually moving us forward?
Data shows sexual strangulation has been on the rise in recent years, and it seems explicit online depictions of it have contributed to this, particularly among young people. A recent survey by the Institute for Addressing Strangulation (IFAS) found that it's most common among those aged 16 to 34, with 35% of respondents saying they've been choked during sex, while 17% said it had happened without their consent.
'I've experienced choking from casual sex partners before, and not always with my consent,' 35-year-old Bryony* tells Cosmopolitan UK. 'I was having sex once with a hook-up from Hinge and he suddenly grabbed my throat. I was so shocked by it that I froze — I would have struggled to talk with his tight grip anyway. He realised by my facial expression that I was taken aback and soon let go. It was a frightening experience.'
Erotic asphyxiation is a genuine sexual kink/fetish, but seems to be increasingly misunderstood and mispracticed by those who seemingly don't know what they're doing. It has also sinisterly been used as a defence in many murder trials, including the harrowing case of Grace Milane, whose killer claimed she had died as a result of choking during consensual sex. Following this trial, the 'rough sex gone wrong' defence was banned in the UK — a key step in acknowledging that women cannot consent to their own harm or murder.
As mentioned, women's groups have voiced their support for the criminalisation of choking porn, with Andrea Simon, the director of the End Violence Against Women Coalition, saying in a press release: 'Women cannot consent to the long-term harm [strangulation] can cause, including impaired cognitive functioning and memory. Its widespread portrayal in porn is fuelling dangerous behaviours, particularly among young people.'
The availability of this kind of violent porn, and porn more broadly, is why the government is introducing its age verification laws next month, as part of the Online Safety Bill, which will force any websites or platforms (presumably including social media sites) that allow pornography to introduce effective age checks. This may include users providing their driver's license or passport, credit card details, or even agreeing to facial age estimation technology.
It's unclear how exactly this will work in practice, and whether sites like Pornhub will simply block access in the UK, as they have done in the US, in light of the potential privacy risks. In a statement, digital rights campaigners Open Rights Group warned: 'The roll-out of age verification is likely to create new cybersecurity risks. This could take the form of more scam porn sites that will trick users into handing over personal data to 'verify their age'.'
Although the ban is well-intentioned, it's easy to announce something but much harder to implement it in practice. 'In one regard, yes, it's a good idea to [stop people seeing] anything that is clearly harmful to women. But simply banning it isn't going to solve the problem,' says Marcus Johnstone, a criminal defence solicitor at PCD Solicitors. For one, Johnstone continues, 'you can ban lawful porn sites depicting non-fatal strangulation, but then what happens? It goes underground'.
There's also the issue of who the liability falls to. 'Are they criminalising the makers, watchers, possessors of the image, [or the platforms that host them]? None of that is very clear,' adds Sean Caulfield, a partner in the crime team at Hodge Jones & Allen.
There's no denying that something needs to be done about rising misogyny and violence against women and girls, including non-consensual choking. But what young people really need is comprehensive sex education, including porn literacy. Banning choking porn doesn't seek to tackle the true crux of the problem. Instead, we should be ensuring that all content young people can access on the internet is safe, and that the porn they are being exposed to is appropriately regulated.
'It's clear we need far more effective legislation to ensure online safety,' says Susie McDonald, the CEO of Tender, a charity that educates on healthy relationships. 'But equally critical is the need for all children and young people to access high quality relationships education so they can understand the key tenets of healthy relationships like consent and respect — and recognise the early warning signs of abuse.
'Right now, too many simply don't have access to this vital education,' she continues. 'RSHE needs to play a key role in keeping our young people safe, online and in the real world. We have a responsibility to protect all children as early as possible.'
Implementing parameters of safety around online porn, especially for impressionable young people, is key — but so is ensuring they have a full understanding of things like consent, to be able to make appropriate decisions in their own personal lives.
'Adults need to be trusted to make adult choices, but that only works if they're equipped with context and critical thinking skills,' agrees Madelaine Thomas, senior policy advisor at the Digital Intimacy Coalition. 'Porn is entertainment, not education. It is fiction and should be enjoyed as such, not as an instructional guide. Porn shouldn't be used to educate unless it explicitly labels itself as such. The key is in educating that porn is fiction and filling the gap in education to teach so that they don't look to fiction as fact.'
For some, strangulation kinks are genuine, and there will be people in consenting sexual relationships who choose to engage in such acts. There is already a law banning porn depicting graphic strangulation, and incoming age verification laws that should, in theory, prevent under 18s from viewing pornography of any kind.
Depictions of strangulation shouldn't be freely accessible online, but the problem goes far beyond the porn young people are watching. We urgently need comprehensive sex education, media and porn literacy, and to encourage open, judgment-free conversations about sex, relationships, and consent. There also needs to be more funding for services that work to prevent violence against women and girls, a justice system that actually achieves justice for victims of sexual violence, and education that seeks to address the rise in misogyny among young people — and the real world effects that it has.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Will the Menendez brothers be released from prison? What to know about this week's parole hearings.
Will the Menendez brothers be released from prison? What to know about this week's parole hearings.

Yahoo

time2 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Will the Menendez brothers be released from prison? What to know about this week's parole hearings.

A California parole board will decide whether to grant the release of Erik and Lyle Menendez, who have been in prison for more than 30 years for the brutal 1989 murders of their parents. Parole hearings are scheduled later this week in the cases of Erik and Lyle Menendez, two brothers who have spent more than 30 years in prison for the brutal 1989 murders of their parents. The hearings could result in their release. The Menendez brothers were sentenced in 1996 to life in prison without parole. But earlier this year, a California judge reduced their prison sentences to 50 years to life, making them eligible for parole. "For more than 35 years, they have shown sustained growth. They've taken full accountability," their families said in a joint statement on Wednesday. "They express sincere remorse to our family to this day and have built a meaningful life defined by purpose and service." When are the hearings? Erik Menendez's parole suitability hearing is scheduled for Thursday at 11:30 a.m. ET/8:30 a.m. PT; Lyle Menendez's parole suitability hearing is set for Friday, also at 11:30 a.m. ET/8:30 a.m. PT. They will each appear via videoconference from the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility in San Diego, where they are being held. The hearings will be conducted by a panel of two or three board members, who will assess whether the brothers pose an 'unreasonable risk of danger to society' if released, according to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The panel will consider factors like criminal history, behavior in prison and statements from the brothers, family members, the district attorney's office and the public. Hearings typically take two to three hours to complete. They will not be televised, and no audio or video recordings are permitted. An assigned pool reporter will be allowed to observe the hearings and distribute updates during specified breaks. The murders and the trials Erik and Lyle Menendez killed their parents, Jose and Kitty Menendez, with shotguns at their Beverly Hills mansion on Aug. 20, 1989. They initially denied the killings, telling police they suspected the slayings were related to Jose Menendez's work as an entertainment executive. They were arrested in March 1990. At trial three years later, the brothers testified they killed their parents in self-defense after years of sexual abuse by their father, about which they said their mother was aware. Prosecutors argued that their motive for the killings was a multimillion-dollar inheritance. They were tried twice. A mistrial was declared in 1994 due to a hung jury. In 1996, Erik and Lyle were convicted on first-degree murder charges and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Many details of the alleged sexual abuse they experienced were not permitted during the retrial. In 1998, a California appeals court upheld their convictions. Subsequent appeals to the higher courts were also denied. The Netflix series and a fight for freedom The case was thrust back into the public eye last year thanks to the hit Netflix drama series Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story. Last fall, then-Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón recommended that the brothers be resentenced, saying, 'I believe they have paid their debt to society." Gascón said he thought that Erik and Lyle, who are now 54 and 57 years old, respectively, had rehabilitated themselves while incarcerated, earning advanced degrees, participating in self-help classes and creating various support groups for their fellow inmates. Gascón also said his office was reviewing new evidence that their attorneys said corroborated the allegations of sexual abuse. He recommended that their sentence be reduced from life without the possibility of parole to 50 years to life, making them immediately eligible for parole under California law because they were younger than 26 when they committed the killings. (Erik was 18; Lyle was 21.) But Gascón's successor, Nathan Hochman, opposed resentencing, saying that the brothers had failed to take 'complete responsibility' for the double murder, including their initial claim that they did not kill their parents. "These murders were calculated, premeditated, cold-blooded killings," Hochman said in a statement on April 11. "Our position remains clear: Until the Menendez brothers finally come clean with all their lies of self-defense and suborning and attempting to suborn perjury, they are not rehabilitated and pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety." In May, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael Jesic reduced their sentences to 50 years to life after a resentencing hearing, which included testimony from relatives, a retired judge, a former fellow inmate and the brothers themselves. "I committed an atrocious act," Erik Menendez told Jesic. "I have no excuse, no justification for what I did." "I killed my mom and dad," Lyle Menendez told the judge. "I give no excuses. I take full responsibility.' What's next? After the parole hearings, the board will issue a written decision recommending whether or not they should be granted parole. If the board recommends parole be granted, the decision is subject to review by the board's legal division and California Gov. Gavin Newsom before becoming final. The board's chief legal counsel has up to 120 days to review the decision, according to the parole board. If approved by the counsel, the decision will be turned over to Newsom, who has an additional 30 days to decide whether to accept, reject or modify it. If Newsom accepts the board's decision to grant parole, they'd be eligible for release immediately. However, if the board denies them parole, the brothers would have to wait at least three years for the panel to reconsider their case. Earlier this year, Newsom ordered a risk assessment investigation for the parole board to determine whether the brothers pose a public safety threat if released. 'There's no guarantee of outcome here," Newsom said on his podcast in February. "My office conducts dozens and dozens of these clemency reviews on a consistent basis, but this process simply provides more transparency, which I think is important in this case.'

Amanda Knox's Real-Life Case Was a Lot More Complicated Than It Looks in the Hulu Series
Amanda Knox's Real-Life Case Was a Lot More Complicated Than It Looks in the Hulu Series

Elle

time2 hours ago

  • Elle

Amanda Knox's Real-Life Case Was a Lot More Complicated Than It Looks in the Hulu Series

Every item on this page was chosen by an ELLE editor. We may earn commission on some of the items you choose to buy. It's been nearly two decades since the murder of 21-year-old British student Meredith Kercher in Perugia, Italy first became international news. However, most of the media attention was devoted to the suspects in this case, with lurid speculation and grisly details dominating the headlines. Almost immediately in November 2007, Kercher's roommate, Amanda Knox, became the face of this story, fitting the mold of guilty and innocent depending on the publication or news outlet. Knox was convicted and subsequently acquitted of Kercher's murder, not to mention various appeals and retrials in between. Now, an eight-part Hulu true crime drama will depict not only the events in the weeks before and after, but also the decade-plus fight to clear Knox and her then-boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito's names. Considering there has already been a Lifetime movie, a Netflix documentary (that Knox was part of), the Matt Damon-starring Stillwater (which was inspired by Knox's story), and two memoirs penned by Knox, it might seem there isn't much left to say. However, Knox is a producer on The Twisted Tale of Amanda Knox, alongside Monica Lewinsky, allowing Knox to have a voice alongside a collaborator whose entire character was also scrutinized by tabloids when she was in her early twenties. The series, created by K.J. Steinberg, sets out to show how Knox ended up behind bars, including how she became a suspect, the prolonged interrogation, the mishandling of evidence, and the ongoing trial-by-media, spanning 16 years. Tell Me Lies star Grace Van Patten plays Amanda with Sharon Horgan as Knox's mother, Edda Mellas. However, Kercher's family was not involved (Stephanie Kercher told The Guardian last year that the family found it 'difficult to understand' how the dramatized retelling serves any purpose). To help make sense of it all, below you'll find a guide to some of the real-life events depicted in The Twisted Tale of Amanda Knox. However, if you don't know much about the case, be warned: There are some spoilers for the show ahead. Knox is studying at the University of Washington when she applies to spend an academic year abroad, opting for the picturesque Italian college town of Perugia. As reported by Rolling Stone, the 20-year-old Knox wants to 'expand her horizons' and 'live without a safety net' in her junior year. Knox rents a room in a cottage at 7 Via della Pergola, taking the last available spot in the four-bedroom accommodation. Kercher is also part of a study abroad program and has already moved in; the two other roommates are both Italian women in their late 20s. In the weeks after moving in, Kercher and Knox hang out with the guys living in the basement apartment below them. It is here they meet 20-year-old Rudy Guede, a basketball acquaintance of Kercher's new boyfriend, Giacomo Silenzi. On October 25, Knox and Kercher go to a Schubert recital at the local university, and when Kercher leaves at the intermission, 23-year-old student Raffaele Sollecito approaches Knox. The two immediately hit it off, with Sollecito hanging out at the bar (Le Chic) where Knox works later that same evening. Knox goes back to Sollecito's apartment that night, and the pair are inseparable for the next week. Knox is scheduled to work a shift at Le Chic on the evening of November 1, but owner Patrick Lumumba texts that it is so quiet that she doesn't need to come in. Knox and Sollecito cook, smoke a joint, and watch Amelie. They turn their phones off for the evening. The following morning, Knox leaves Sollecito's apartment to return to her place, where she showers, changes her clothes, and grabs a mop and bucket, to clean up a leaky pipe at Sollecito's. When Knox arrives home, the front door is ajar. Knox's two other roommates are away for the holiday weekend (All Saints' Day), and Kercher's door is closed. Knox explains her thought process after she finds drops of blood in an email sent to friends and family two days later (and shared with Rolling Stone), saying she believed it was 'nothing to worry about.' It is only when she sees feces in the toilet in the other bathroom that Knox panics that there might be an intruder. Knox calls Sollecito, whose apartment is a five-minute walk away. A broken window in another room suggests that someone had been there, and Kercher isn't answering her phone. Sollecito tries to break down Kercher's locked bedroom door, but it won't budge. They return outside, where Sollecito called the carabinieri (Italian military police). In the meantime, two postal police arrive with two cellphones that have been found in a bush half a mile away, which are registered to Knox's roommate, Filomena Romanelli. Then Romanelli, her boyfriend, and two of her friends arrive. One of Romanelli's friends breaks down Kercher's door, and Kercher's partially clothed body (which is covered with a duvet) is discovered inside. Someone had cut Kercher's throat, and her time of death is estimated to be between 8:30 P.M. on November 1 and 4 A.M. the following morning (the long timeframe is due to a delay in taking body temperature). While Kercher's British friends fly home to the UK, and Knox's two roommates hire lawyers, Knox voluntarily speaks with the Italian police without legal representation. Knox is interviewed multiple times over the next few days, and her phone is tapped. Paparazzi capture Knox kissing Sollecito outside the 'House of Horrors,' and her seemingly at-ease and amorous behavior in the days after the murder becomes a cornerstone in the court of public opinion. Knox's mother encourages her to fly home, but Knox thinks she can help with the investigation. But on the night of November 5, Knox accompanies Sollecito to the police station, and they are both interrogated for prolonged periods overnight. Sollecito admits that Knox could've left in the middle of the night while he slept, and the sleep-deprived Knox signs a confession that she was in the room next door to Kercher's when she was stabbed and that it was her boss, Patrick Lumumba, who killed Kercher. Knox, Sollecito, and Lumumba are all arrested. Patrons from Le Chic provide an alibi for Lumumba. Meanwhile, the Rome forensic police match the fingerprints in Kercher's bedroom to Rudy Guede, who is arrested in Germany on November 20. Lumumba is released and later sues Knox for slander. Then, Guede is extradited to Italy in December. Guede, Knox, and Sollecito are charged with murder. They will be held in detention until a trial date is set. A working theory in these early stages regarding the motive from 'public minister' Giuliano Mignini (whose job is part detective, part district attorney) is that Kercher was killed in a satanic ritual. Later, this is downgraded to 'a drug-fueled sex game that went awry' (as per The New York Times). Leaks are common from the start, with security footage from a lingerie shop or theories from the prosecution ending up in the news Guede has an expedited trial, which comes with a reduced maximum sentence. He is found guilty of sexual assault and murder. He is sentenced to 30 years. Knox and Sollecito are now formally indicted on murder charges. In the lead up to this indictment, Knox's family speaks about how much Knox is being vilified by the tabloid press, with many publications twisting the childhood nickname 'Foxy Knoxy' (that Knox earned when she played soccer) to have sexual connotations. Knox and Sollecito's trial begins January 16, and the prosecution is still maintaining it was a 'drug-fueled sex game gone awry.' Sollecito's lawyer counters that they were 'two lovebirds in the first week of their romance,' not a couple looking for excitement. Knox is also painted as a 'she-devil' who manipulated Sollecito into doing whatever she wanted. The trial doesn't conclude until December, and during these 12 months, Knox remains a fascination for the media—represented as a temptress and an innocent. Knox testifies that the police hit her during the interrogation, and the Italian justice system is now under the international microscope. The defense argues that DNA evidence is contaminated (due to how many people walked through the crime scene) and that the evidence is mainly circumstantial. Regardless of these factors and an emotional appeal by Knox, in December, a jury of six civilians and two judges finds Knox and Sollecito guilty on all counts. Knox receives a sentence of 26 years (she has an additional guilty verdict for slander against Lumumba), and Sollecito gets 25 years. The appeal trial begins for Knox and Sollecito. Both defense teams are focusing on DNA evidence, including traces of Sollecito's DNA on Kercher's bra clasp (which wasn't discovered at the crime scene until 47 days after the murder) and traces of Kercher's DNA found on the alleged murder weapon—a bread knife recovered from Sollecito's kitchen. After being behind bars for nearly four years, Knox and Sollecito are acquitted on October 3. Slander against Lumumba is the only charge for which Knox receives a guilty verdict (the three-year sentence has already been served by this point). The DNA evidence that was vital in convicting the pair in 2009 now helps overturn the verdict; independent experts successfully argued that contamination was a possibility. The prosecution team states that they will appeal this appellate court verdict to the Italian Supreme Court. Knox returns to Seattle the following day, where the press are waiting outside her family home. Guede's conviction of sexual assault and murder is upheld, though his sentence has already been reduced from 30 to 16 years. On Valentine's Day, the prosecution team files an appeal to the Italian Supreme Court (Court of Cassation) to seek a new trial for Knox and Sollecito. The Italian justice system allows for various appeals on both the defense and prosecution side. In this instance, if the acquittal is reversed, then Knox can be tried in absentia. 'We're not considering that possibility; for us, she has been acquitted. That's how the system works, but for us it's a hypothesis far into the future,' says one of Knox's lawyers, Luciano Ghirga. Two days later, it is reported that Knox has sold a tell-all memoir to HarperCollins for nearly $4 million. The Court of Cassation (the Italian Supreme Court) overturns Knox and Sollecito's acquittal on March 26, meaning they will have to stand trial again. HarperCollins says they will still release Knox's memoir, Waiting to Be Heard, as planned, on April 30. The retrial begins September 30 with neither Knox nor Sollecito present in the Florentine court. While Sollecito attends some court hearings, Knox remains in the U.S. throughout this new trial as she is afraid that if she returns to Italy, authorities will put her in prison again. On January 30, Knox and Sollecito are re-convicted of murder. Knox's new sentence is 28 and a half years, Sollecito's is still 25 years. The process continues to swing between courthouses, and the pair can appeal this latest twist. The following day, a teary Knox appears on Good Morning America, saying she 'will never go willingly back' to Italy and plans to fight any extradition attempt. In a verdict that shocks Italy, the Court of Cassation overturns the convictions of Knox and Sollecito, rather than sending the case back down to the lower court. They are cleared of all charges (except for Knox's slander charge). They will not face a retrial. Neither Sollecito nor Knox is present in court to hear the verdict. In September, the Court of Cassation explains its verdict is informed by the 'culpable omissions of investigative activity' and 'contradictory evidence.' The Netflix documentary Amanda Knox premieres at the Toronto International Film Festival. Knox, Sollecito, Mignini, and freelance reporter Nick Pisa (whose regular coverage included salacious exclusive stories for The Daily Mail that fueled the perception of Knox) participated in this account of the events. The documentary goes on to receive two Emmy nominations. The European Court of Human Rights orders Italy to pay €18,400 (approximately $21,000) in damages for failing to provide Knox with access to a lawyer during the November 2007 interviews. However, they found no evidence of the 'inhuman or degrading treatment' that Knox alleged took place during the interrogations. Knox returns to Italy for the first time in nearly a decade. In the years since her conviction was overturned, Knox has been working with nonprofits like the Innocence Project. At the Criminal Justice Festival in Modena, she serves as a keynote speaker and is a guest on a panel discussing trials by media. Knox marries author Christopher Robinson. In an interview with the New York Times, Knox announces the birth of her first child, Eureka. Knox remains close with Catholic priest Don Saulo, who was the chaplain at Cappane prison where Knox was incarcerated for four years. Don Saulo helps facilitate a meeting in the summer of 2022 with prosecutor Mignini. The latter was instrumental in painting Knox as a sex-crazed vixen, but Knox wants to meet face-to-face. Her family voices objections to Knox writing to and meeting with the prosecutor. 'But I was haunted by this 'Why?' question. Why did this happen to me? If they had done their job correctly, I would be a footnote in Meredith's story,' Knox tells The Guardian. Knox also reunites with Sollecito during this trip in the town of Gubbio, which was where they had planned to visit 15 years earlier. On her podcast, Labyrinths, Knox explains the slander conviction is one that some people see as 'proof that I am a liar and I am an unsavory person and that I have something to hide and I've never told the full truth about what happened to Meredith and only somebody who was involved in the crime would ever even make statements that implicated themselves and others.' It is why she has fought to have it overturned. Knox is convicted again of this charge in an appellate court in Florence, Italy. The highest court (Court of Cassation) in Italy upholds the slander conviction against Knox. Knox releases her second memoir, Free: My Search For Meaning.

The Problem With 'The Twisted Tale of Amanda Knox'
The Problem With 'The Twisted Tale of Amanda Knox'

Time​ Magazine

time9 hours ago

  • Time​ Magazine

The Problem With 'The Twisted Tale of Amanda Knox'

In a notorious video that circulated around the globe, 20-year-old exchange student Amanda Knox is kissing her boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito. Out of context, it looks like banal, sun-dappled vacation footage—American girl goes to picturesque Perugia, falls for scarf-wearing Italian boy. In fact, the couple had just learned, after an eerie morning at the apartment Knox shared with three other young women, that police had found her roommate Meredith Kercher brutally murdered in Kercher's bedroom. The kiss became a key piece of a prosecutorial propaganda campaign, giddily inflamed by the tabloid media, that framed Knox as a perverse, cold-blooded killer. You only have to keep watching for a few more seconds, as the lovers turn away from one another, to catch the look of pain and confusion on her face and realize she's not celebrating. The moment is recreated in The Twisted Tale of Amanda Knox, a true crime drama that traces the since-exonerated Knox's Kafkaesque ordeal in an Italian justice system that tarred her as a psycho sex fiend who masterminded Kercher's rape and murder. What's strange, considering that Knox, her husband Chris Robinson, and public-shaming expert Monica Lewinsky are among the series' executive producers, is how much more ambiguous the kiss looks in this telling. When Grace Van Patten, who plays Knox, turns to face the camera, her expression is wide-eyed and inscrutable. Twisted is otherwise overwhelmingly sympathetic to its protagonist, and Van Patten (Nine Perfect Strangers, Tell Me Lies) does an admirable job with limited material. Yet the fumbling of this scene captures what is so frustrating about the show. For all its fidelity to the complicated facts of one of this century's most infamous murder cases, Twisted fails to deliver the one element of Knox's story that might be best expressed through scripted drama: insight into who its viciously caricatured, widely misunderstood subject really is. The eight-part series, helmed by showrunner K.J. Steinberg (This Is Us), often plays like an extended version of the broad reenactments you see in crime docs. In a way, this makes sense. There is much to reenact, to explain and unravel and contextualize, in a legal saga that began on Nov. 2, 2007, the morning Kercher's body was discovered, and had yet to be fully resolved as late as this year. Italy's justice system differs greatly from its American counterpart; prosecutors lead police investigations, criminal and civil trials can be consolidated into the same proceedings, juries in even the highest-profile cases are unsequestered. From paparazzi photos to footage recorded at the scene by the forensics team to TV news reports to interviews with Knox, plenty of imagery exists from throughout this story—much of which already appeared in the 2016 Netflix documentary Amanda Knox before being restaged, shot-for-shot, in Twisted. Following a flash-forward to Amanda's return to Italy in 2022, during which she spends a tense car ride hiding under a blanket from local media ravenous for a glimpse of its favorite villain, the tale unfolds in mostly chronological order. We watch an ingenuous Amanda skip around Perugia, in the fall of 2007, living out a study-abroad fairytale with her new boyfriend, Raffaele (Giuseppe De Domenico, heartbreaking), and three female roommates, including Meredith (Rhianne Barreto), a British student. About 10 minutes into the premiere, the dream sours. Amanda returns to her adorable apartment to shower after a night at Raffa's but slowly realizes something isn't right. There are blood stains in the bathroom, a revolting mess in the toilet. Meredith's door is locked, and no one answers when Amanda calls out to her. Soon after the body is found, the young couple become crucial witnesses in the police investigation, detained at the station for days' worth of questioning. Bilingual scripts effectively demonstrate how the language barrier exacerbated Knox's predicament, as she was far from fluent in Italian at the time and often lacked an adequate translator. It is (almost cartoonishly) clear from the outset that Amanda has rubbed the investigators the wrong way. They don't like the kiss, or her sexual candor, or the vibrator that was found among her toiletries; their prejudices are reinforced when Meredith's British friends express their own dislike for Amanda. A pair of nightmarish, physically and psychologically violent marathon interrogations ends with Raffaele manipulated into destroying her alibi and a disoriented Amanda implicating Patrick Lumumba (Souleymane Seye Ndiaye), the proprietor of the bar where she worked, in the murder. (Though she almost immediately recanted this accusation, Lumumba was arrested, then quickly cleared, and a slander charge was added to list of crimes for which she'd face trial.) The middle half of the series wades, somewhat laboriously, through years of legal wrangling and incarceration, as Amanda and Raffaele are found guilty and serve four years of their sentences before seeing their convictions overturned due to an astonishing absence of reliable physical evidence. The arrival in Italy of Amanda's fiercely loyal mother, Edda Mellas (the usually great Sharon Horgan, struggling with an American accent), should raise the emotional stakes, but, as is the case with so much of the show's dialogue, the women mostly speak in gloomy exposition. Richer and more thoughtfully depicted is the relationship that Amanda, an avowed atheist, develops with Don Saulo Scarabattoli (Alfredo Pea), the prison's open-minded, in-house priest. The advice he gives her when she's on the verge of yielding to despair over what could become a life sentence—"You can serve humanity even if it doesn't serve you'—will shape her future. Knox and Lewinsky have talked about how they insisted on ending Twisted not with Amanda and Raffaele's first acquittal, on appeal in 2011, but with a pair of episodes that trace the case's aftermath: the bumpy reacclimation to freedom, the permanent reputational damage, the search for purpose in a life derailed, the ongoing legal woes and media circus. The instinct to move beyond the true crime template, avoiding a false happily-ever-after ending, is a good one. But as executed, the penultimate episode just feels like more trudging from point to point on a timeline of well-documented events. Amanda endures an aggressive interview with Chris Cuomo (Josh Burdett): Check. Amanda finds community with other exonerees: Check. The finale—which is, unfortunately, the only episode co-written by Knox—goes deeper. We see Amanda, now an author, wife, and mother, compare battle scars with Raffaele and confront the prosecutor, Giuliano Mignini (Francesco Acquaroli), who, despite the early emergence of airtight forensic evidence implicating the third person convicted of Kercher's murder, perpetrated the character assassination that led to her imprisonment. It's in this coda that the series finally feels like it's about something other than the obvious fact that Knox suffered a grave injustice. We discover that, just as Amanda is not the sex-crazed monster Mignini created, Mignini is not the bloodthirsty misogynist her allies imagined; he's a man tortured by personal demons. Everyone is more complicated than tabloid headlines make them out to be. (Knox took this argument to an extreme in a recent Atlantic essay that called the common description of University of Idaho killer Bryan Kohberger as, simply, evil 'an excuse to stop thinking, to ignore the evidence, to hate and punish someone law enforcement didn't, or wouldn't, understand.') This perspective tempers the hysteria of an earlier episode, which opens with a mini-biography narrated by Mignini that races from a childhood steeped in the Madonna-whore complex to his father's untimely death ('You're the man of the house now,' the boy is told, graveside, in an egregiously canned bit of dialogue) to the debacle that was his involvement in the Monster of Florence serial killer case. The Italian-stereotype quotient is high in this rendering, as it also is in another episode's more empathetic portrait of Raffaele. Perhaps out of respect for the privacy of the real people or their families, we barely spend any time with Meredith or Patrick—another innocent victim, whose experience as a Black, Congolese immigrant feels under-acknowledged in a story so concerned with Amanda's gendered shaming. But Raffa, a sweet, inexperienced romantic hoping for another shot at love with a woman he adores, comes through clearly. I left the series feeling as if I knew him much better than I knew Amanda, even though she gets far more screen time than any other character and Van Patten narrates most of the episodes. (These voiceovers can get pretty purple: 'Telling my tale is a sticky, tricky thing—especially when I was a stranger to my story's true beginning.') This is not for lack of discussion about her personality. She is described, variously, as quirky, impassive, naive, vulgar, blithely optimistic. 'Everyone says I'm like Amélie'—the eponymous gamine from the movie she and Raffaele watched the night of Meredith's murder—'because I'm a weirdo,' Amanda says at one point. Edda calls her 'sunny despite everything.' One of Meredith's friends testifies that the defendant struck her as 'cold,' 'unfeeling,' and 'quite open about her sex life.' It's fine that none of these contradictory characterizations bear much resemblance to the Amanda we observe. This is, after all, the story of a woman who was misread by a significant chunk of Earth's population. But The Twisted Tale of Amanda Knox should have a compelling counternarrative to offer about Amanda Knox. To the extent that she's defined, it's in terms of what she self-evidently is not—not a killer, not a sex freak, not a callous American femme fatale. With ample evidence of Knox's innocence available for over a decade, Steinberg and her writers had the chance to do something more than mount yet another defense. They could've made us understand Amanda's thinking in the most awkward and insensitive-seeming moments of her trial by media. Instead, the show tends to replay these gaffes without adding much new perspective. Amanda's alleged weirdness is mentioned more than it's explored; how much could we have learned about her if Steinberg hadn't rushed through a scene set at her time-traveler-themed wedding? A flashback episode that gave us more time with Amanda before Meredith's death might also have helped. Some of the best crime docudramas, like Hulu's own The Dropout and The Girl From Plainville, thrive on nuanced portraiture of real women whose mass-media villain edits contain far more truth than 'Foxy Knoxy.' Without powerful insight into a person who is also Twisted's executive producer—and who has drawn more perceptive conclusions from her ordeal in two memoirs, multiple podcasts, and the Netflix doc—it's hard to justify the reopening of 18-year-old wounds.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store