things I never knew were illegal - Written child pornograpy....

[nottyboi]

Does that mean Blue Lagoon is illegal? What is this exactly and how is it defined? Does this mean any discussion of sex under 18 or 16? Does this mean any of those porn interviews where the actress may say she lost her virginity at less then 16 is illegal? Is typing this illegal? :Eek:

 

[nobody123]

Does that mean Blue Lagoon is illegal? What is this exactly and how is it defined? Does this mean any discussion of sex under 18 or 16? Does this mean any of those porn interviews where the actress may say she lost her virginity at less then 16 is illegal? Is typing this illegal? :Eek:

That depends. Are you masturbating to it?

 

[oldjones]

Does that mean Blue Lagoon is illegal? What is this exactly and how is it defined? Does this mean any discussion of sex under 18 or 16? Does this mean any of those porn interviews where the actress may say she lost her virginity at less then 16 is illegal? Is typing this illegal? :Eek:

Don't fret; not everyone moves at the same speed. A decade or two ago there was a wall mural on Queen St West listing numerous standard works — like Romeo and Juliet — that could be charged under the recent Child Porn Bill (C-20 I think). There was subsequently a notorious prosecution (Sharpe) where the defence was that the writings were not only fictional pieces of some literary merit but private and unpublished, and the SCC agreed, sending the matter back for retrial in which the finding was not guilty on the writings.

I suggest you Google 'Canada Criminal Code' for the answers to your specific questions, note that 'obscenity' is often the term rather than 'pornography'. You should also note that the pols once again left the hard work of clear, meaningful definitions to unelected judges, who they could then blame for any unpopular decisions. So if you want the real answers you'll have to look up the case law.

 

[buttercup]

Does that mean Blue Lagoon is illegal? What is this exactly and how is it defined? Does this mean any discussion of sex under 18 or 16? Does this mean any of those porn interviews where the actress may say she lost her virginity at less then 16 is illegal? Is typing this illegal? :Eek:

This is what the Criminal Code of Canada has to say about "written material':

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.


Canlii refers to some commentaries:

Written materials must provide some "active inducements" or "encouragement" of sexual activity with persons under 18 years.
This may be be implicit from the narrative of the stories themselves.
R v Beattie (2005) (ONCA):
"[14] None of the 33 stories explicitly counsel or advocate committing sexual offences with children. Overall, however, these stories send two explicit and clear messages to the objective reader of them. First, they send the message that children want and enjoy sex with adults. Children encourage sex with adults -- even their fathers -- by becoming precocious, flirtatious, even manipulative. They are sexually insatiable and ready for repeated sexual encounters. And they enjoy sexual activity even when it is painful and violent.
[15] Second, these stories send the message that although society seemingly disapproves of sex between adults and children, those adults who love children the most and understand them the best (their parents) and those adults who are responsible for their well-being (their parents and doctors) routinely have sex with children. According to the stories, adults do so because they appreciate that children not only enjoy but benefit from sexual activity."

 

[Marla]

Lolita would definitely be illegal today.

 

[nottyboi]

This is what the Criminal Code of Canada has to say about "written material':

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.


Canlii refers to some commentaries:

Written materials must provide some "active inducements" or "encouragement" of sexual activity with persons under 18 years.
This may be be implicit from the narrative of the stories themselves.
R v Beattie (2005) (ONCA):
"[14] None of the 33 stories explicitly counsel or advocate committing sexual offences with children. Overall, however, these stories send two explicit and clear messages to the objective reader of them. First, they send the message that children want and enjoy sex with adults. Children encourage sex with adults -- even their fathers -- by becoming precocious, flirtatious, even manipulative. They are sexually insatiable and ready for repeated sexual encounters. And they enjoy sexual activity even when it is painful and violent.
[15] Second, these stories send the message that although society seemingly disapproves of sex between adults and children, those adults who love children the most and understand them the best (their parents) and those adults who are responsible for their well-being (their parents and doctors) routinely have sex with children. According to the stories, adults do so because they appreciate that children not only enjoy but benefit from sexual activity."

So under this law, a 17 year old that tells another guy that he should try and have sex with another 17 year old can be charged under this law. Or if I send a text to anyone under 18 that is sexually suggestive is considered child porn? (even if sex with people over 16 is legal?)

 

[Aardvark154]

As is the case with such laws in the U.S. it I'm petty certain boils down to a question of "artistic merit" is it Lolita or is it just plan porn advocating pedophilia, and that is why there are courts and juries.

 

[TeeJay]

Does that mean Blue Lagoon is illegal? What is this exactly and how is it defined? Does this mean any discussion of sex under 18 or 16? Does this mean any of those porn interviews where the actress may say she lost her virginity at less then 16 is illegal? Is typing this illegal? :Eek:

Another one of your brilliant gems
Ok so explain to me why an american movie filmed overseas would be subject to a recent Canadian law?

 

[buttercup]

So under this law, a 17 year old that tells another guy that he should try and have sex with another 17 year old can be charged under this law. Or if I send a text to anyone under 18 that is sexually suggestive is considered child porn? (even if sex with people over 16 is legal?)

In "written material" (e.g you send a text) S.163 prohibits you from advocating a sexual act that would be illegal under the cirminal code. A 17yo having sex with another 17yo is not a criminal offence, and therefore encouraging someone to do it, is not a criminal offence.

Note that S.163 only stops you encouraging others (in writing) to do illegal sexual acts. There's no similar law against inducing others e.g to murder a child, absent anything sexual.

 

[nottyboi]

Another one of your brilliant gems
Ok so explain to me why an american movie filmed overseas would be subject to a recent Canadian law?

It is not a matter of producing but possession. Why would you think it would be legal to possess child porn made overseas?

 

[nottyboi]

In "written material" (e.g you send a text) S.163 prohibits you from advocating a sexual act that would be illegal under the cirminal code. A 17yo having sex with another 17yo is not a criminal offence, and therefore encouraging someone to do it, is not a criminal offence.

Note that S.163 only stops you encouraging others (in writing) to do illegal sexual acts. There's no similar law against inducing others e.g to murder a child, absent anything sexual.

Where does is specify "illegal sexual act? " .

 

[buttercup]

Where does is specify "illegal sexual act? " .

S.265 of the Criminal Code defines assault, including sexual assault. S.273 defines aggravated sexual assault. S.266(3) defines "consent". The CCC also defines sexual exploitation, sexual touching, voyeurism, etc,etc. you can browse the CCC at justice.gc.ca

 

[oldjones]

Things I never "knew" not "new" lol

Since it was all new to him, perhaps notty was trying for one of those pun thingies.

 

[TeeJay]

It is not a matter of producing but possession. Why would you think it would be legal to possess child porn made overseas?

*shrugs*
By that logic are you aware even Friday the 13th is illegal in Canada?
Rape laws and all

Again though beyond random paranoia until someone is charged so what?

 

[wilbur]

A paedophile was convicted a few years ago of possessing child pornography. Since he couldn't buy it, and couldn't access it, he wrote it himself so he could read it again. It was his own and he did not distribute it.

So if you put your thoughts into writing, you may be breaking the law. It borders on mind control. I'm certain that if they could determine what he was thinking, they would charge him with that too.

One may not have any sympathy for an abuser of children, but there are some radical activists out there that don't figure there's much difference between child pornography and ordinary pornography (for them women are really not responsible for themselves anyway, thereby with the mental age of children). Joy Smith tried to get ordinary pornography banned, so it isn't too far fetched to think that, if these activists get into government and start changing things, it's going to be illegal to even write stuff for your own consumption.

 

[nottyboi]

*shrugs*
By that logic are you aware even Friday the 13th is illegal in Canada?
Rape laws and all

Again though beyond random paranoia until someone is charged so what?

Thats the point. Someone WAS charged. geez. dumb cop.

 

[nottyboi]

Things I never "knew" not "new" lol

I know that, never had a keying error ?..geez.

 

[nottyboi]

S.265 of the Criminal Code defines assault, including sexual assault. S.273 defines aggravated sexual assault. S.266(3) defines "consent". The CCC also defines sexual exploitation, sexual touching, voyeurism, etc,etc. you can browse the CCC at justice.gc.ca

Do the sexual assault laws apply to child porn laws? The child porn laws don't specify assault at all. Just discussing, or advocating sexual activity in relation to anyone under 18 seems to be illegal.

for example:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamil...rged-with-written-child-pornography-1.3095857

 

[oldjones]

Do the sexual assault laws apply to child porn laws? The child porn laws don't specify assault at all. Just discussing, or advocating sexual activity in relation to anyone under 18 seems to be illegal.

for example:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamil...rged-with-written-child-pornography-1.3095857

If you're suggesting it appears to be a badly conceived, overly broad and general law with few competent definitions that capture evil stuff while excluding classics you'll find few to disagree once they've read it. Famously it might capture Romeo and Juliet both of them underage in Shakespeare's version, but they clearly spent the night together. So if the audience thinks they fucked, is the Stratford purveying child pornography?)

Trouble was, when the law was passed a good long while back you just couldn't make people read the law. Or if they had, you couldn't get them to stand up against it. The time I tried, I wound up with a guy from the Customs Officer's union local telling me being against the law meant I was in favour of kiddy porn, and the exact sort of perv his guys were protecting Canada from.

 

[nottyboi]

If you're suggesting it appears to be a badly conceived, overly broad and general law with few competent definitions that capture evil stuff while excluding classics you'll find few to disagree once they've read it. Famously it might capture Romeo and Juliet both of them underage in Shakespeare's version, but they clearly spent the night together. So if the audience thinks they fucked, is the Stratford purveying child pornography?)

Trouble was, when the law was passed a good long while back you just couldn't make people read the law. Or if they had, you couldn't get them to stand up against it. The time I tried, I wound up with a guy from the Customs Officer's union local telling me being against the law meant I was in favour of kiddy porn, and the exact sort of perv his guys were protecting Canada from.

Well yes, and sure if you are innocent you will likely be acquitted, but after 2-3 years of hell and 250K in legal fees. Another problem I have with this is where is the victim? I am of course vehemently against any exploitation of children, but if someone writes a piece of fantasy fiction, no matter how distasteful, where is the victim of this crime and how is the goal of protecting society served by prosecuting this? Its all very Orwellian. We are told certain thoughts, transcribed to paper, are illegal, but the precise nature which thoughts are illegal is vague and a matter for the courts. Which will vindicate you after you have been destroyed.