NationStates Jolt Archive

OTTAWA (CP) - The federal Liberals have introduced a revamped child protection bill designed to crack down on child pornography and voyeurism.

But the Conservatives say it doesn't go far enough. The proposed law, tabled in the House of Commons on Friday, would triple prison terms for offenders, to 18 months from six months. It would broaden the definition of child pornography to include certain written material and audio recordings that describe prohibited sexual activity with children.

Full article (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1845&ncid=1845&e=7&u=/cpress/20041008/ca_pr_on_na/child_protection_bill)

Emphasis by myself. Now I can understand cracking down on child porn. I have no problem with that, in principle. But the problem with cracking down on stories and literature, however offensive one may find it, is that it's fiction. I can't say I would want to read a story about someone having sex with a kid, but if someone else wants to write it, I see it as being protected by freedom of expression.

Audio recordings pretty much fall under the same scenario, again assuming it's fiction; though given the only thing being prohibited are descriptions, it seems kind of bizzare to begin with.

Am I just crazy? o.o;

Full article (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1845&ncid=1845&e=7&u=/cpress/20041008/ca_pr_on_na/child_protection_bill)

Emphasis by myself. Now I can understand cracking down on child porn. I have no problem with that, in principle. But the problem with cracking down on stories and literature, however offensive one may find it, is that it's fiction. I can't say I would want to read a story about someone having sex with a kid, but if someone else wants to write it, I see it as being protected by freedom of expression.

Audio recordings pretty much fall under the same scenario, again assuming it's fiction; though given the only thing being prohibited are descriptions, it seems kind of bizzare to begin with.

Am I just crazy? o.o;

Thank god for the first amendment...

Full article (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1845&ncid=1845&e=7&u=/cpress/20041008/ca_pr_on_na/child_protection_bill)

Emphasis by myself. Now I can understand cracking down on child porn. I have no problem with that, in principle. But the problem with cracking down on stories and literature, however offensive one may find it, is that it's fiction. I can't say I would want to read a story about someone having sex with a kid, but if someone else wants to write it, I see it as being protected by freedom of expression.

Audio recordings pretty much fall under the same scenario, again assuming it's fiction; though given the only thing being prohibited are descriptions, it seems kind of bizzare to begin with.

Am I just crazy? o.o;
You are not crazy. The Charter guarantees freedom of expression as a "fundamental freedom", so any law enacted that appears surficially to voilate our rights would be interpreted by the courts in light of the Charter.

The real problem is that it's a waste of money and time on behalf of the legal system to have to look at such cases and rule in favour of the Charter-rights interpretation. If the law were worded well to begin with, such things would not even get to court.

Full article (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1845&ncid=1845&e=7&u=/cpress/20041008/ca_pr_on_na/child_protection_bill)

Emphasis by myself. Now I can understand cracking down on child porn. I have no problem with that, in principle. But the problem with cracking down on stories and literature, however offensive one may find it, is that it's fiction. I can't say I would want to read a story about someone having sex with a kid, but if someone else wants to write it, I see it as being protected by freedom of expression.

Audio recordings pretty much fall under the same scenario, again assuming it's fiction; though given the only thing being prohibited are descriptions, it seems kind of bizzare to begin with.

Am I just crazy? o.o;

That is...pretty far if you ask me. I mean I know I don't want to read about kids having sex and stuff...that is wrong. But how can they really stop it in books...and audio? I mean what, if say you are having sex with an adult - if she screams "I'm a little teen school girl" or something portraying herself as underage...are you under arrest?

This is a law they won't be able to police if you ask me.

does that mean that a teen romance kind of deal would be illegal? it woudl be depicting minors as sexual beings...

There is a quite strange novel by the science-fiction writer Samuel R Delany called Equinox which as written in the early 70s. It features under-age sex. A lot of underage sex. In order to avoid problems with the law he explained in a foreword that whenever a charcter's age is given in the text he is going to add a hundred years to it if they are under the legal age of consent. This leads to some very bizarre reading as "106" year olds have sex with 18 year olds...

Isn't there a book called "Lolita" that is about pædophilia? Also, such a law would make the US more authoritarian than Japan in some ways, which would pretty much make "Land of the Free" an implausible nickname.

"So if I write a murder mystery, will I get 25 to life?"

One can only hope! JUST KIDDING! :D

from the article:
QUOTE
But the legislation would still recognize the so-called "artistic merit" defence allowed by the courts, provided a person could prove that questionable material fulfilled a "legitimate purpose" - for example, some art works.
UNQUOTE

i expect that what they are trying to remove is stuff that is in essence a manual of how to sexually exploit a child. very few artistic endeavors "need" explicit descriptions of pedophilia. if they can show that it is a legit work of "art" and not just vile child porn, it will be OK.

didnt john ashcroft try to ban cartoon child porn here in the US?

Isn't there a book called "Lolita" that is about pædophilia? Also, such a law would make the US more authoritarian than Japan in some ways, which would pretty much make "Land of the Free" an implausible nickname.

It is a Canadian law.

i expect that what they are trying to remove is stuff that is in essence a manual of how to sexually exploit a child. very few artistic endeavors "need" explicit descriptions of pedophilia. if they can show that it is a legit work of "art" and not just vile child porn, it will be OK.

didnt john ashcroft try to ban cartoon child porn here in the US?

The material you speak of (instructions for illegal activity) is already illegal by existing laws. As for artistic merit, the article itself also says:

He argued that although the new bill tightens the conditions around when the artistic merit defence can be used, it still leaves a big loophole.

Artistic merit has existed for some time, this new bill will actually make it harder to use it as a defence. In fact, they say so earlier in the article as well:

It would also create a new offence prohibiting the advertising of child porn, and narrow existing legal defences.

Emphasis by me. And on a final note of importance about artistic merit:

But the legislation would still recognize the so-called "artistic merit" defence allowed by the courts, provided a person could prove that questionable material fulfilled a "legitimate purpose" - for example, some art works.

The person shouldn't have to prove that their creation serves any purpose whatsoever, nevermind one deemed legitimate by courts. They are just rewording the previous bill, which tried to do the same thing by requiring it to serve "public good." They can't wipe out artistic merit altogether, people won't let them, but they are going to lessen it bit by bit.

Wow. I sure hope the feds aren't scanning my computer as we speak, because, I have so much stuff on here that I've written that would land me in jail... ;)

Full article (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1845&ncid=1845&e=7&u=/cpress/20041008/ca_pr_on_na/child_protection_bill)

Emphasis by myself. Now I can understand cracking down on child porn. I have no problem with that, in principle. But the problem with cracking down on stories and literature, however offensive one may find it, is that it's fiction. I can't say I would want to read a story about someone having sex with a kid, but if someone else wants to write it, I see it as being protected by freedom of expression.

Audio recordings pretty much fall under the same scenario, again assuming it's fiction; though given the only thing being prohibited are descriptions, it seems kind of bizzare to begin with.

Am I just crazy? o.o;

The last thing I want to do is give Pedophiles a break. But Criminal prosecution for fictional writings is one tiny step away from thought policing.

You can't pick and choose who deserves free speech and who doesn't. Because that's the slippery slope to someone deciding that NOBODY deserves it except for those in power.

Isn't there a book called "Lolita" that is about pædophilia?

Yes, and it is very much worth reading, as are most of Vladimir Nabokov's other works. Note however the use of the word 'certain written material' in the article - I believe this is a way of skirting around having to define exactly what is to be considered pornographic and what isn't. Lolita certainly isn't a pornographic novel, and so would be excluded from the legislation (by any sane standard).

Lolita certainly isn't a pornographic novel, and so would be excluded from the legislation (by any sane standard).

I wouldn't expect sanity from a government making laws even Japan doesn't make.

I wouldn't expect sanity from a government making laws even Japan doesn't make.

Interestingly enough it seems there are copies of Lolita in Canada's library of parliament (as of 1999):

http://www.efc.ca/pages/media/ottawa.citizen.03feb99.html