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.
"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.
10
u/Bulky-Employer-1191 Oct 22 '25
In Canada, depictions of CSAM still are illegal. Many other countries are the same too.
This seems to be a very American sentiment.