6 ms·

There are cases at the Canadian border in which the investigators search for "boy" or "girl" using the Windows search tools to see if there is child pornography

There are cases at the Canadian border in which the investigators search for "boy" or "girl" using the Windows search tools to see if there is child pornography on your device. In other circumstances, they uncover hentai[0] showing characters that appear to be underage - and bringing that into Canada is illegal (in fact, much like Australia and New Zealand, any sexual depiction of fictional minors is illegal, and that can include stories or other text). There are anecdotal and well-documented cases for the latter[1]. One Reddit user claimed that the investigators at the border found browser-cached thumbnails of such material (since it used to be permitted on Redddit) and he was jailed for a day or something like that. Not to suggest that all of the 38% count for that, but with the popularity of drawn pornography I'd wager it makes up a sizable chunk. [0] Hentai refers to anime-style drawings of fictional characters. [1] https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=canadian+border+hentai https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=canadian+...

leetrout 8y ago
Doesn’t that make Season 1 of Californication illegal since David Duchovny’s character has sex with a portrayed 16 year old girl (with full frontal nudity)?
- claudiawerner 8y ago
  The representation has to be pornographic; I should have clarified. That said, "borderline" pornography, including a "chibi" (characters drawn with no definition or detail, no genitalia visible) parody of a famous Japanese print, were prosecuted in Canada[0]. If I could I would link the image in question if you wanted to see just how ridiculous this prosecution was. [0] https://www.cbr.com/canadian-court-drops-criminal-charges-in-manga-customs-case/ https://www.cbr.com/canadian-court-drops-criminal-charges-in...
beagle3 8y ago
Is there an exception for religious texts? There are Is more than one common religions whose holy texts depict sexual activity with minors. Also, if I have a copy of Nabokov “Lolita” on my kindle, will I get in trouble? Stephen King’s It? An apt pupil?
- ghjjjj 8y ago
  “Also, if I have a copy of Nabokov “Lolita” “ Enforcement is selective.
enriquto 8y ago
> any sexual depiction of fictional minors is illegal, and that can include stories or other text So the bible and the quran cannot be imported legally into these countries?
deogeo 8y ago
It's sickening to think that, despite the ban in Canada, countless innocent anime girls are being abused in Japan every day - many of them children! The UN should apply pressure to get Japan to stop this vile abuse, and import of cartoons into Japan should be banned, as their safety cannot be guaranteed there.
- frosted-flakes 8y ago
  Fictional child pornography does not directly harm children, but it is likely that it does so indirectly by creating demand for actual CP. To me, it seems totally reasonable to make all sexualized depictions of children illegal for this reason.
  - deogeo 8y ago
    That's one way to look at it. But there's evidence that access to porn reduces the amount of rape [1]. In light of that, it seems reasonable to ask - how many children are we willing to allow to be raped, to protect our precious anime girls? [1] https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/all-about-sex/201601/evidence-mounts-more-porn-less-sexual-assault https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/all-about-sex/201601...
  - claudiawerner 8y ago
    >but it is likely that it does so indirectly by creating demand for actual CP Until there is evidence of that, it seems strange to say that's a conclusion at all, or that it's likely. In fact, Patrick Galbraith's work on how users of fictional CP actually interact with their materials suggests exactly the opposite: they have developed a form of sexuality for the representations themselves - the more fictional, the more real to them. To add to that, the research I've read shows that pornography is not associated with increased rates of sexual assault or rape. If the link isn't even there for regular porn, what would make you say it's "likely" there for cartoon representations? Furthermore, do we apply this standard elsewhere in society? If there were no research on the link between video games and violence, would you conclude that it is "likely" it indirectly creates a demand for videos of real violence? Is the fact that someone might be spurred on to do a different act sufficient to illegalize the original act which spurred them? I would say not, unless we were to illegalize drugs (for example) because those who partake are likely to be violent? Should we prosecute cannabis users because they create demand for drug cartel products which finance murder? Apple users because they create demand for the appalling treatment of Chinese workers? Most researchers on the philosophy of law in this area (e.g Suzanne Ost) while obviously opposed to actual child pornography find no philosophical basis in the harm principle to illegalize fictional representations. As such, it's not reasonable at all. You need to justify why you think it's "likely" and just what that standard means. If it cannot be justified, then we may say that any likelihood is sufficient to illegalize any material, but I doubt that's a conclusion you'd want to follow to its extreme. Finally there's the issue of penalties - isn't punishing someone for something they might do (access real CP) unjust? This seems shockingly close to the notion of pre-crime. To avoid that, you'd want to look more at punishing the creators of the material rather than those who have consumed it and harmed nobody (other than themselves perhaps). If there is no cultural understanding of the real people themselves, how they read the text and how they interpret it, any law is based merely on speculation and I must stand firmly against such speculative laws.
tomcam 8y ago
OK so that search is NSFW

leetrout 8y ago

Doesn’t that make Season 1 of Californication illegal since David Duchovny’s character has sex with a portrayed 16 year old girl (with full frontal nudity)?

claudiawerner 8y ago
The representation has to be pornographic; I should have clarified. That said, "borderline" pornography, including a "chibi" (characters drawn with no definition or detail, no genitalia visible) parody of a famous Japanese print, were prosecuted in Canada[0]. If I could I would link the image in question if you wanted to see just how ridiculous this prosecution was. [0] https://www.cbr.com/canadian-court-drops-criminal-charges-in-manga-customs-case/ https://www.cbr.com/canadian-court-drops-criminal-charges-in...

beagle3 8y ago

Is there an exception for religious texts? There are Is more than one common religions whose holy texts depict sexual activity with minors. Also, if I have a copy of Nabokov “Lolita” on my kindle, will I get in trouble? Stephen King’s It? An apt pupil?

ghjjjj 8y ago
“Also, if I have a copy of Nabokov “Lolita” “ Enforcement is selective.

enriquto 8y ago

> any sexual depiction of fictional minors is illegal, and that can include stories or other text So the bible and the quran cannot be imported legally into these countries?

deogeo 8y ago

It's sickening to think that, despite the ban in Canada, countless innocent anime girls are being abused in Japan every day - many of them children! The UN should apply pressure to get Japan to stop this vile abuse, and import of cartoons into Japan should be banned, as their safety cannot be guaranteed there.

frosted-flakes 8y ago
Fictional child pornography does not directly harm children, but it is likely that it does so indirectly by creating demand for actual CP. To me, it seems totally reasonable to make all sexualized depictions of children illegal for this reason.
- deogeo 8y ago
  That's one way to look at it. But there's evidence that access to porn reduces the amount of rape [1]. In light of that, it seems reasonable to ask - how many children are we willing to allow to be raped, to protect our precious anime girls? [1] https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/all-about-sex/201601/evidence-mounts-more-porn-less-sexual-assault https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/all-about-sex/201601...
- claudiawerner 8y ago
  >but it is likely that it does so indirectly by creating demand for actual CP Until there is evidence of that, it seems strange to say that's a conclusion at all, or that it's likely. In fact, Patrick Galbraith's work on how users of fictional CP actually interact with their materials suggests exactly the opposite: they have developed a form of sexuality for the representations themselves - the more fictional, the more real to them. To add to that, the research I've read shows that pornography is not associated with increased rates of sexual assault or rape. If the link isn't even there for regular porn, what would make you say it's "likely" there for cartoon representations? Furthermore, do we apply this standard elsewhere in society? If there were no research on the link between video games and violence, would you conclude that it is "likely" it indirectly creates a demand for videos of real violence? Is the fact that someone might be spurred on to do a different act sufficient to illegalize the original act which spurred them? I would say not, unless we were to illegalize drugs (for example) because those who partake are likely to be violent? Should we prosecute cannabis users because they create demand for drug cartel products which finance murder? Apple users because they create demand for the appalling treatment of Chinese workers? Most researchers on the philosophy of law in this area (e.g Suzanne Ost) while obviously opposed to actual child pornography find no philosophical basis in the harm principle to illegalize fictional representations. As such, it's not reasonable at all. You need to justify why you think it's "likely" and just what that standard means. If it cannot be justified, then we may say that any likelihood is sufficient to illegalize any material, but I doubt that's a conclusion you'd want to follow to its extreme. Finally there's the issue of penalties - isn't punishing someone for something they might do (access real CP) unjust? This seems shockingly close to the notion of pre-crime. To avoid that, you'd want to look more at punishing the creators of the material rather than those who have consumed it and harmed nobody (other than themselves perhaps). If there is no cultural understanding of the real people themselves, how they read the text and how they interpret it, any law is based merely on speculation and I must stand firmly against such speculative laws.

tomcam 8y ago

OK so that search is NSFW