Forum - View topic

NEWS: Nova Scotia Man Sentenced to 90 Days for Child Porn, Including 'Anime'

14 is the age on consent (with restrictions) in Canada

It's no surprise, but I didn't talk about what a lot of people would say, but whether it's natural or not, and it is.

Actually that's incorrect, it is 16 in Canada.
http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/clp/faq.html
.

a 14 or 15 year old can consent to sexual activity with a partner as long as the partner is less than five years older and there is no relationship of trust, authority or dependency or any other exploitation of the young person.

There is also a "close-in-age" exception for 12 and 13 year olds: a 12 or 13 year old can consent to sexual activity with another young person who is less than two years older and with whom there is no relationship of trust, authority or dependency or other exploitation of the young person.

Wow, I'm really sorry that your country throws actual living, feeling, human individuals in prison to protect non-existent children.

VCP is currently illegal in the USA as well, and Christopher Handley was sentenced to 6-months in prison for possession of VCP.

In both the Handley and Matheson cases, the images were manga. Both stories were extensively covered on ANN. In the case of Handley we published numerous op/ed in support of his defense.

So... the country that throws actual living, feeling, human individuals in prison to protect non-existent children is the USA.

You should have read the rest of the page you linked to.

Age of Consent to Sexual Activity wrote:

a 14 or 15 year old can consent to sexual activity with a partner as long as the partner is less than five years older and there is no relationship of trust, authority or dependency or any other exploitation of the young person.

The above is what I was referring to when I said "14 with restrictions."

Of course, it turns out that I was wrong. The actual minimum cut-off is 12...

Quote:

There is also a "close-in-age" exception for 12 and 13 year olds: a 12 or 13 year old can consent to sexual activity with another young person who is less than two years older and with whom there is no relationship of trust, authority or dependency or other exploitation of the young person.

VCP is currently illegal in the USA as well, and Christopher Handley was sentenced to 6-months in prison for possession of VCP.

In practice, pornography showing genitalia and sexual acts is not ipso facto obscene according to the Miller test. For instance, in 2000 a jury in Provo, Utah, took only a few minutes to clear Larry Peterman, owner of a Movie Buffs video store, in Utah County, Utah, a region which had often boasted of being one of the most conservative areas in the United States. Researchers had shown that guests at the local Marriott Hotel were disproportionately large consumers of pay-per-view pornographic material, accessing far more material than the store was distributing.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalition#Majority_opinion

The Court concluded that the "CPPA prohibits speech despite its serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." In particular, it prohibits the visual depiction of teenagers engaged in sexual activity, a "fact of modern society and has been a theme in art and literature throughout the ages." Such depictions include performances of Romeo and Juliet, by William Shakespeare; the 1996 film William Shakespeare's Romeo + Juliet, directed by Baz Luhrmann; and the Academy Award winning movies Traffic and American Beauty. "If these films, or hundreds of others of lesser note that explore those subjects, contain a single graphic depiction of sexual activity within the statutory definition, the possessor of the film would be subject to severe punishment without inquiry into the work's redeeming value. This is inconsistent with an essential First Amendment rule: The artistic merit of a work does not depend on the presence of a single explicit scene.

Thus, the CPPA prohibited speech for a different reason than anti-child pornography laws. Laws prohibiting the distribution and possession of child pornography ban speech because of the manner in which it is produced, regardless of its serious literary or artistic value. But speech prohibited by the CPPA "records no crime and creates no victims by its production." Child pornography is not necessarily without value, but it is illegal because of the harm that making and distributing it necessarily inflicts upon children. Ferber expressly allowed virtual child pornography as an alternative that could preserve whatever literary value child pornography might arguably have while at the same time mitigating the harm caused by making it. The CPPA would eliminate this distinction and punish people for engaging in what had heretofore been a legal alternative.

Incorrect. VCP is perfectly legal.

Only "obscene" VCP is illegal.