On “The Haraam Bit”: Free Speech, Trolling, and Our Red Lines

This post titled “The ‘haraam’ bit” sparked pushback both on the site and in our internal chat. This note sets out the problem, our editorial responsibility (as X.T.M I have overwritten this post), and what this means for BP.

1. What happened

An anonymous author (Bombay Badshah who has used a number of pseudonyms) posted a list of Pakistani-origin porn performers and highlighted a scene where a British Pakistani actress jokes about “haraam” and foreskin. He framed it as an “interesting observation.” The issue was not that he mentioned porn. It was how he used it.

2. Why the post was unacceptable

• Low-effort, low-signal.

  No argument, no analysis—just a crude anecdote.

• Mocking a specific community.

  The tone targeted Pakistani Muslim women without intellectual framing. A similar post about Hindu women would never have made it through.

• Author’s record.

  Regulars flagged a pattern: fixation on Muslims in bad faith. The intent here was provocation, not commentary.

• Humiliation, not critique.

  This was not a study of diaspora sexuality or South Asian moral contradictions. It turned a small, vulnerable group into a punchline.

• It lowered the tone.

  Multiple readers—none prudish—said it read like a meme, not a BP post. This is why people objected. The post was a cheap shot disguised as insight.

3. Free speech ≠ obligation to host

BP is not the state. We curate. We already filter violence, doxxing, porn clips, and rants. The real question is simple: Does this meet BP’s standard? It does not.

4. Porn as a BP topic

Porn is not off-limits. South Asia’s public morality vs private behaviour is worth writing about. Serious posts on:

• porn consumption,

• diaspora modesty,

• religious norms and digital culture,

• South Asian performers’ agency

  would all be acceptable. The problem is not the subject, but the execution.

5. The prurient-Islam pattern

There is a long-standing habit, seen in parts of the Hindu right, the Western right, and online trolls, of sexualising Muslims to demean them: digs about circumcision, fantasies about Muslim women’s modesty, and “exposing hypocrisy” through sexual content.

Critics often show a fixation with what they claim to despise. Hate and desire merge. The post fell into that pattern: taking Pakistani Muslim women, a taboo act, and a religious term, and serving it up to an audience already primed to mock Pakistan.

6. Why it hit a nerve

In South Asia, women’s bodies stand in for community honour. Mocking “our women” lands differently from mocking policy or politics. If this same tone had been directed at Hindu women, there would have been immediate outrage. Letting it pass only for Pakistani women would signal a double standard. We will not do that.

7. Editorial call

• The post goes.

  It was communal trolling, not analysis.

• The author is warned.

  Future posts will be screened strictly. Any communal baiting will be blocked.

• Comments remain.

  They show how the community responded.

• Serious work on this topic is welcome.

8. Editorial principles going forward

• Controversial is fine; trolling is not.

• Analysis is fine; targeted mockery is not.

• Author patterns matter.

• BP is not a locker room.

• Free speech elsewhere does not create a right to BP’s homepage.

This episode clarified important boundaries. I initially erred on the side of free speech because the line was unclear. After reading the responses and considering the intent, it is clear. BP is alive; we do not need cheap provocation to prove it. If we engage sex, shame, hypocrisy, and South Asia—as we should—we will do so with thought, not smirks.

— X.T.M