Child Porn

[afterhours]

..and following that line of thought, by reading the legal disclaimer at the bottom of the page and making sure it was present, would that constitute"reasonable" diligence in ascertaining a websites validity that it did not contain imagery or videos of underage persons?I have yet to be on a porn site that did not features babysitter/schoolgirl/mother daughter/father daughter porn ,(simulated of course)porn.Most of the vids actually state as part of the dialogue that the participants are 18 years of age.

I am unaware of any cases where people would be prosecuted for "depiction". Prosecuting for that, as worded in a current version of the Code*, seems fucked up on more than one level. I would think that should any case of that nature, i.e. with adult actresses, hit the system, a constitutional challenge will be brought.

*
(5) It is not a defence to a charge under subsection (2) in respect of a visual representation that the accused believed that a person shown in the representation that is alleged to constitute child pornography was or was depicted as being eighteen years of age or more unless the accused took all reasonable steps to ascertain the age of that person and took all reasonable steps to ensure that, where the person was eighteen years of age or more, the representation did not depict that person as being under the age of eighteen years.

 

[simon482]

it would seem to me that if people got arrested for the portrayal of an underage girl even if she was legal all the porn guys that do babysitter porn would be locked up as would most of the major movie directors in hollywood.

 

[afterhours]

it would seem to me that if people got arrested for the portrayal of an underage girl even if she was legal all the porn guys that do babysitter porn would be locked up as would most of the major movie directors in hollywood.

Canadian laws must be different from US

 

[simon482]

Canadian laws must be different from US

but those porn movies are legally sold and watchable in canada. as are all of the hollywood major movies that are put in our theaters.

 

[Scarey]

but those porn movies are legally sold and watchable in canada. as are all of the hollywood major movies that are put in our theaters.

Valid point.Would not going into a porn shop and viewing such"roleplay related" titles constitute "accessing child pornography" as written to the letter of the law?......could not the distributors and store owners be charged with possession and distribution?

 

[Babypowder]

Canadian laws must be different from US

possibly

Obscene’ U.S. Manga Collector Jailed 6 Months

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/02/obscene-us-manga-collector-jailed-6-months/

 

[buttercup]

this is not the current version

Bloody Hell! You're quite right! Here's the up-to-date version.


163.1 (1) In this section, “child pornography” means
(a) a photographic, film, video or other visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means,
(i) that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity, or
(ii) the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years;
(b) any written material, visual representation or audio recording that advocates or counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act;
(c) any written material whose dominant characteristic is the description, for a sexual purpose, of sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act; or
(d) any audio recording that has as its dominant characteristic the description, presentation or representation, for a sexual purpose, of sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act.

Making child pornography
(2) Every person who makes, prints, publishes or possesses for the purpose of publication any child pornography is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of ninety days.
*
Distribution, etc. of child pornography
(3) Every person who transmits, makes available, distributes, sells, advertises, imports, exports or possesses for the purpose of transmission, making available, distribution, sale, advertising or exportation any child pornography is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of ninety days.

Possession of child pornography
(4) Every person who possesses any child pornography is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of forty-five days; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of fourteen days.

Accessing child pornography
(4.1) Every person who accesses any child pornography is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of forty-five days; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of fourteen days.

Interpretation
(4.2) For the purposes of subsection (4.1), a person accesses child pornography who knowingly causes child pornography to be viewed by, or transmitted to, himself or herself.

Aggravating factor
(4.3) If a person is convicted of an offence under this section, the court that imposes the sentence shall consider as an aggravating factor the fact that the person committed the offence with intent to make a profit.

Defence
(5) It is not a defence to a charge under subsection (2) in respect of a visual representation that the accused believed that a person shown in the representation that is alleged to constitute child pornography was or was depicted as being eighteen years of age or more unless the accused took all reasonable steps to ascertain the age of that person and took all reasonable steps to ensure that, where the person was eighteen years of age or more, the representation did not depict that person as being under the age of eighteen years.

Defence
(6) No person shall be convicted of an offence under this section if the act that is alleged to constitute the offence
(a) has a legitimate purpose related to the administration of justice or to science, medicine, education or art; and
(b) does not pose an undue risk of harm to persons under the age of eighteen years.

Question of law
(7) For greater certainty, for the purposes of this section, it is a question of law whether any written material, visual representation or audio recording advocates or counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act.

* 1993, c. 46, s. 2;
* 2002, c. 13, s. 5;
* 2005, c. 32, s. 7.

 

[simon482]

Valid point.Would not going into a porn shop and viewing such"roleplay related" titles constitute "accessing child pornography" as written to the letter of the law?......could not the distributors and store owners be charged with possession and distribution?

or how about all those big money production movies with 18-20 year old actresses playing 16 year old high school girls dressing slutty and being in sexual situations be arrested for making child porn.

incest is also illegal but you can buy role play incest porn in canada and the u.s.

number 1 fantasy for guys in the school girl.

as long as you are not fucking minor or looking at a minor fucking, it is not illegal.

 

[afterhours]

or how about all those big money production movies with 18-20 year old actresses playing 16 year old high school girls dressing slutty and being in sexual situations be arrested for making child porn.

incest is also illegal but you can buy role play incest porn in canada and the u.s.

number 1 fantasy for guys in the school girl.

as long as you are not fucking minor or looking at a minor fucking, it is not illegal.

Animal porn is also legal) let's enjoy it before PETA screed it up for us)

 

[simon482]

Animal porn is also legal) let's enjoy it before PETA screed it up for us)

actually bestiality from what i know of it is ilegal in both canada and the u.s to make or do. you can watch it but that's all.

or are you trying to make a point that because you don't think it is moral to watch someone who is 18 get fucked it is therefor also illegal ?

 

[simon482]

You are wrong.. it is legal in 16 states, and only a misdemeanor in 34 states while being a felony in the rest

what about canada ? i was just thinking it was illegal in the u.s from what i heard about it, i jumped to that conclusion.

 

[buttercup]

number 1 fantasy for guys is the school girl.

If that is your own No.1 fantasy, I think you should assume the courts regard you as one of the child-sex perverts they are trying to stamp out.

I don't see any other interpretation, given the way the Canadian law is set out.

 

[shack]

If that is your own No.1 fantasy, I think you should assume the courts regard you as one of the child-sex perverts they are trying to stamp out.

I don't see any other interpretation, given the way the Canadian law is set out.

What is the hotline number to the thought police?

I know they want to get rid of murderers as well so they might as well jail anybody who ever wished anybody else dead.

 

[69Shooter]

..and following that line of thought, by reading the legal disclaimer at the bottom of the page and making sure it was present, would that constitute"reasonable" diligence in ascertaining a websites validity that it did not contain imagery or videos of underage persons?I have yet to be on a porn site that did not features babysitter/schoolgirl/mother daughter/father daughter porn ,(simulated of course)porn.Most of the vids actually state as part of the dialogue that the participants are 18 years of age.

What? It's not "real"???

 

[buttercup]

Do you not see it as a problem?

Have you ever seen a photo of a girl who looks 16, nude, legs apart? Have you ever seen a picture like that?

If you live in Canada, and if it can be proved that you accessed such a picture on the internet, or that you possess such a picture (e.g in your porn collection), you are liable to imprisonment (15 days minimum), and you get registered as a sex-offender.

Of course, it's unlikely that you will be prosecuted for just one. But maybe you find such pictures a turn-on, and you've looked at hundreds of them, over the years. If that can be proved, now you're really in danger.

You could declare that it is beyond your imagining that you would ever do harm to any child. You could prove you are a family man, and your children love you. You could prove that the girl in the photo is actually over 18. You could even prove you drew the picture yourself, from your own imagination. Still you fall foul of Canadian law, and the penalty is a minimum 14 days in jail.

There are plenty of people who view men who are turned on by nude schoolgirls as perverts. There are plenty of people who think perverts have forfeited all human rights, and should be locked away -- with some real perverts. Canadian law gives them the weapons they need.

 

[shack]

Do you not see it as a problem?

Have you ever seen a photo of a girl who looks 16, nude, legs apart? Have you ever seen a picture like that?

If you live in Canada, and if it can be proved that you accessed such a picture on the internet, or that you possess such a picture (e.g in your porn collection), you are liable to imprisonment (15 days minimum), and you get registered as a sex-offender.

Of course, it's unlikely that you will be prosecuted for just one. But maybe you find such pictures a turn-on, and you've looked at hundreds of them, over the years. If that can be proved, now you're really in danger.

You could declare that it is beyond your imagining that you would ever do harm to any child. You could prove you are a family man, and your children love you. You could prove that the girl in the photo is actually over 18. You could even prove you drew the picture yourself, from your own imagination. Still you fall foul of Canadian law, and the penalty is a minimum 14 days in jail.

There are plenty of people who view men who are turned on by nude schoolgirls as perverts. There are plenty of people who think perverts have forfeited all human rights, and should be locked away -- with some real perverts. Canadian law gives them the weapons they need.

It looks similar to deciding your risk tolerance with something like BBBJ or even seeing an escort.

Some people are more willing to accept risk than others. Each person can find their own comfort level.

 

[FatOne]

Have you ever seen a photo of a girl who looks 16, nude, legs apart? Have you ever seen a picture like that?

Yes, just about all non MILF and bolton porn is like that. But then I don't try to delude myself into thinking I can tell the difference between a picture of a fully grown 16 year old and a fully grown 26 year old. If I were to post picks of Kelly Bundy from the second season of Married with Children and the last season of MWC I doubt anyone but the most hard core fan would be able to place the right pick to the right season with more than a 50% chance. Sidenote, although I don't have a Milf thing Christina Applegate as well as Heather Locklear are two gals who started to look better once they hit their mid 30's, was never a fan of Kelly Bundy. I can however tell the difference between a 6 year old and a 16 year old and I find it disturbing as fuck how many people on terb can't.

 

[Babypowder]

Yes, just about all non MILF and bolton porn is like that. But then I don't try to delude myself into thinking I can tell the difference between a picture of a fully grown 16 year old and a fully grown 26 year old. If I were to post picks of Kelly Bundy from the second season of Married with Children and the last season of MWC I doubt anyone but the most hard core fan would be able to place the right pick to the right season with more than a 50% chance. Sidenote, although I don't have a Milf thing Christina Applegate as well as Heather Locklear are two gals who started to look better once they hit their mid 30's, was never a fan of Kelly Bundy. I can however tell the difference between a 6 year old and a 16 year old and I find it disturbing as fuck how many people on terb can't.

+1 :thumb:

 

[oldjones]

Canadian laws must be different from US

Say it ain't so!!

 

[wigglee]

this bullshit law is just an excuse for the cops to monitor us freely and hassle us at any time....have you seen Brook Shields first film? Yes? Then you could be busted and added to the list of sexual offenders!

If they want to catch the real pedos, all they have to do is join the existing sites and get to know the other members, or the cops could create a fake pedo site and lure the sickos in.

All the rest is just Vic and Julian and Steve enacting their fascist police state vision of law and order.