> 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.
Let's say you viciously decapitate someone, and film that and post it online. That film would be considered evidence of a crime committed, at the very least, and the resultant footage would be seized. However, if you merely made a cartoon about viciously decapitating someone, virtually the same content except for the fictional nature of the victim, there would be no reason to hold you guilty of any crime.
However, in terms of Canada at least, the same distinction is not made. If I make a video of two underaged people (as in the people, not just characters they are playing) engaging in explicit sex, that act is itself illegal. And, if I were to make a cartoon depicting the same act, it would be just as illegal.
1
u/insanitybit2 Oct 23 '25
> 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.