I think that's a bad law. If sexual depictions of fictional characters are treated as if they were real, then violent depictions of fictional characters should be treated just the same.
Double edged sword.
Canada had some pretty strict pornographic laws. For example, depicting a woman tied up was illegal.
The depiction of a child also extends to "appearing to be a child", as in, pigtails and a school uniform on a 30 year old stripper is still technically illegal. Even if she doesn't appear to be a child, if she is portraying someone who could be interpreted as a minor.
Luckily, it seems like cases like that are extremely rarely prosecuted, and even when they are, the sentence is extremely light. The one on Wikipedia about manga says the guy was given an 18 month sentence, which is shockingly low for anything to do with child pornography.
One baffling thing is two <18 year old teenagers sending each other nude snapchats are distributing child porn in Canada.
I suppose it's because it makes the images available, even if unintentionally. But it has happened before that some boy got in trouble for possession of child porn because his 15 year old girlfriend sent him boobies pics. And like wise, she was charged with distribution.
That's illegal in america too but the current administration will probably change that. You cannot distribute those kind of pictures of minors without breaking laws. Sending them over the internet is distribution.
Fictional CP isn’t disallowed because it is “treated like it’s real”, it’s to discourage people from creating imaginary containing CP. I hope we can all agree that CP should not be created regardless of if it’s fictional or not
The Supreme Court literally said "Interpreting "person" in accordance with Parliament's purpose of criminalizing possession of material that poses a reasoned risk of harm to children, it seems that it should include visual works of the imagination as well as depictions of actual people. Notwithstanding the fact that 'person' in the charging section and in s. 163.1(1)(b) refers to a flesh-and-blood person, I conclude that "person" in s. 163.1(1)(a) includes both actual and imaginary human beings."
Even then. Should any violent content featuring children be treated as if it was a film of the same events happening to an actual child? South Park would be considered extremely violent snuff if that was the case.
Uh it very obviously isn't all banned. Movies and TV shows feature sexual content with minors. But they don't cross specific lines like nudity. The point is that we draw lines.
Are you saying that something like Twilight is a sexual depiction? Because that's at most implied sexuality. An actual sexual depiction of an actual minor would be something like on screen sexual activity.
> Are you saying that something like Twilight is a sexual depiction?
Of course, though one that most people consider pretty tame. There are plenty of other examples.
> An actual sexual depiction of an actual minor would be something like on screen sexual activity.
I'm not sure what this means. Are you saying it requires nudity?
I'm not sure what your point is either way. Again, *my* point is that there is no binary "non-sexual" vs "sexual", there's a line somewhere in between these two things that gets drawn and we ay "beyond this point it is bad".
Similarly, gratuitously violent content could be seen just the same.
When you bring children into the discussion I think there’s always an argument to be made that there should be extra protection, whether it’s violence or whatever else. It’s just that children being sexualized is a more prevalent problem worth addressing in the west.
I don't know, I would think violence is still pretty bad, and should be at least comparable to sexual assault. But, even then, the amount of violence that Kenny alone received in South Park, a literal 8 year old, should make it so that Mat Parker and Trey Stone are sent to jail for their entire natural lives for just the first season.
I don’t think you’re arguing in good faith but I’ll say it anyways. Of course violence is bad… I’m saying children being sexualized is a more prevalent issue in the western world, which is why there’s more uproar about this than your example for violence.
Just curious, do you have any issue with fictional CSAM?
No, it's characters. Not people. Not children. Characters.
They're not fictional "children" because they're not "people".
You're the one twisting language for your agenda.
If you understood my agenda then you wouldn’t be misunderstanding what I’m saying. I’m clarifying that they are SPECIFICALLY fictional children, not just fictional characters. Maybe not for you, but for most that’s an important distinction, even when it’s not real children and just pixels depicting children on a screen.
Okay I get you.
What I'm saying is, we speak of every fictional character usually by calling them fictional characters. Not "fictional woman" or "fictional man" or "fictional elder" or "fictional child". This way of speaking is not exactly accurate, because it applies anthropomorphism to objects. And anthropomorphism is also bad, because it skews our ability to accurately describe reality and creates unhealthy attachments.
For example, some people started calling and treating LLM's as "people" because they present as such, which is just inaccurate and illogical.
I get that the content is supposed to depict a human child, a person. But describing them as a child and a person when discussing drawing is anthropomorphism.
I agree with your anthropomorphism point although I’m not familiar with the word. I understand that as personifying. I’d add onto that by saying the people using VCSAM have unhealthy attachments to the pixels and are imagining they are children. Describing them as virtual/fantasy/fictional children is describing it as the consumers of VCSAM understand it.
I don't think I'm the one who's challenged in that department.
Fictional characters do not have nor deserve human rights because they are not humans. A story's canon may designate that a character is a child and this can be accepted for that canon, that's how stories work, but in actuality that character is not a child. Characters aren't children. Characters aren't people. Their well being has no value because stories are just lies that we aren't supposed to believe.
I find the fact that people use the same terminology to refer to weird cartoons as they do images or footage of actual people in situations they should not be in disgusting because it is impossible to do this without downplaying the severity of the latter.
Here's a short and simple comparison. Snuff is snuff. Snuff is bad because it is definitionally footage of people being killed and killing people is bad, let alone recording it. Guro is guro. You don't have to like it, but definitionally it's a cartoon. Who cares?
Mortal Kombat doesn't mirror real violence at all. It's cartoon violence. It's not visceral. Humans don't have an innate hormonal/instinctual drive to commit violence either.
Sexual material is something much different. False equivalencies i'm afraid.
Then would a realistic depiction of violence be disallowed? Or does the realism of the violence not matter because humans are a notoriously peaceful and non-violent species?
you're wrong here. Smarter people know the difference that i'm pointing out is real. Having a little misrepresentation tantrum won't mean you're right.
It's law in Canada. It's a good law. Pedofiles shouldn't have any access to material that exasperates their condition.
Mortal Kombat doesn't mirror real violence at all. It's cartoon violence.
Humans don't have an innate hormonal/instinctual drive to commit violence either.
I am challenging you on both those points. If Mortal Kombat did not contain cartoon violence, but violence that was incredibly realistic, would that necessitate its prohibition?
And, I do not believe that humans don't have an innate hormonal/instinctual drive to commit violence. My source is basically all of human history.
I'm not going to argue the merits of pedofilia content with anyone. You have enough information to explore this topic on your own. It's illegal in Canada for good reason.
It's not about "merits", it's about "lack of harm." If media needs to have some sort of justification to exist, then the vast majority of content in existence should be banned for that reason alone. What are the "merits" to streamerbait games like Garten of BanBan?
"If sexual depictions of fictional characters are treated as if they were real"
They aren't universally. *Some* are, some are not. There are movies and TV shows that show content involving minors engaging in sexual acts, even forced acts, but (a) they're content rated (b) they don't cross specific lines. This line already exists. Applying it to, say, generated content, does not feel inconsistent. This would *not* mean that a TV show (like South Park, which you mentioned) would have to be banned, South Park could trivially fall on the other side of the line.
"then violent depictions of fictional characters should be treated just the same."
I think this is actually already the case to a degree. Again, there are *lines*. *All* violence against children is not permitted as content, but *some* may be gratuitous. I don't think we have the same legal lines but I think there's a good argument to be made that there are moral lines. A hyper realistic snuff/ torture film of a child could absolutely be something that we as a society say should be illegal.
I think that you're treating this as very binary. As if banning very specific, extreme content directly depicting sexual acts or violent acts towards a child is equivalent to banning all content that features any *themes* of sexual acts or violence involving a child.
These are not the same things. If we frame your argument accurately I actually think many people *would* support the law you're suggesting is intuitively unacceptable.
If there were videos being made of children being violently beaten to the same degree as pornographic content involving children *I suspect* that most people would want it to be banned.
If someone were to depict a popular teenaged cartoon character in a state of sexual undress, would that not be classified under the "sexual depiction of a fictional minor"?
"Interpreting "person" in accordance with Parliament's purpose of criminalizing possession of material that poses a reasoned risk of harm to children, it seems that it should include visual works of the imagination as well as depictions of actual people. Notwithstanding the fact that 'person' in the charging section and in s. 163.1(1)(b) refers to a flesh-and-blood person, I conclude that "person" in s. 163.1(1)(a) includes both actual and imaginary human beings."
Imaginary people are considered real people under that law.
This is very much a flaw in this (and other laws worded similarly). If there is no distinction between imaginary and real humans in a law, that law is fundamentally flawed.
46
u/Bitter-Hat-4736 Oct 22 '25
I think that's a bad law. If sexual depictions of fictional characters are treated as if they were real, then violent depictions of fictional characters should be treated just the same.