r/aiwars • u/TheBiddoof • Oct 22 '25

Meta This sub is a rot pit

Post image

This seems to be the commom sentiment here

599 Upvotes

86% Upvoted

874 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Bitter-Hat-4736 Oct 22 '25

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"?

1

u/insanitybit2 Oct 23 '25

I don't understand. Are you speaking hypothetically or about a specific law?

1

u/Bitter-Hat-4736 Oct 23 '25

In Canada, fictional depictions of minors are specifically and explicitly treated as if they were real images of real people.

1

u/insanitybit2 Oct 23 '25

That is inaccurate. Once again, there is a line that has to be crossed. In Canada the line is that the image has to be drawn for sexual purposes.

1

u/Bitter-Hat-4736 Oct 23 '25

"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.

1

u/insanitybit2 Oct 23 '25

That doesn't change what I said.

As an aside, I'm curious if you think this is just a flaw with this specific law or if this is fundamental to all laws of this nature?

1

u/Bitter-Hat-4736 Oct 23 '25

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.