Conversation
Notices
-
Embed this notice
Join what?
-
Embed this notice
?
This a gay thing?
-
Embed this notice
Safe bet. There's not much straight about this thread so far.
-
Embed this notice
us running a train
-
Embed this notice
Did you hit him with a broom?
-
Embed this notice
Billington I don't know if you should be making gay jokes when you're about to spend time in prison lmao
-
Embed this notice
Don't think so.
Met my lawyer this morning.
-
Embed this notice
I'm not into that go ask @matty that's more his speed.
-
Embed this notice
You're so friendly Bloomfer.
-
Embed this notice
@arielanimefan i need your assessment in regards to @CurtisThePegasusCat
-
Embed this notice
You and your names.
-
Embed this notice
?
-
Embed this notice
Day 5
-
Embed this notice
we talked about it, stop drinking
-
Embed this notice
Hold my Mike's
-
Embed this notice
Jack Daniels hard lemonade
-
Embed this notice
You should still be careful, you know.
-
Embed this notice
@Bloomfer @Graf @BearButthole @CurtisThePegasusCat @SimpleThots @Sui @TonyTheTiger @YarnSmith @BillingtonYVR @alex @matty @mk Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 163.1 as enacted by SC 1993, c 46, s 2.
One early application of this law was the Eli Langer case. In 1993, this Toronto artist had an exhibition at the Mercer Gallery. His drawings included images of children in sexual positions. Police raided the gallery and confiscated the works. Langer was eventually acquitted after a trial because his work was considered artistic enough to be justified as protected speech.
Visual and written representations
Prohibition covers the visual representations of child sexual abuse and other sexual activity by persons (real or imaginary) under the age of 18 years or the depiction of their sexual organ/anal region for a sexual purpose, unless an artistic, educational, scientific, or medical justification can be provided and the court accepts that.
It also includes the written depictions of persons or characters (fictional or non-fictional) under the age of 18 engaging in sexual activity. Courts in Canada can also issue orders for the deletion of material from the internet from any computer system within the court's jurisdiction.
The current law criminalizes possession of purely fictional material and has been applied in the absence of any images of real children, including to possession of fictional stories with no pictures at all, or vice versa, cartoon pictures without any stories.
Criminal Code provisions
Canadian laws addressing child pornography are set out in Part V of Criminal Code dealing with Sexual Offences, Public Morals and Disorderly Conduct: Offences Tending to Corrupt Morals. Section 163.1 of the Code defines child pornography to include "a visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means", that "shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity", or "the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years."
The current minimum penalty for possession of child pornography is six months of imprisonment.
Cases
Eli Langer art show trial
Main article: Eli Langer 1993 art show
One early application of this law was the Eli Langer case. In 1993, this Toronto artist had an exhibition at the Mercer Gallery. His drawings included images of children in sexual positions. Police raided the gallery and confiscated the works. Langer was eventually acquitted after a trial because his work was considered artistic enough to be justified as protected speech.
R v Sharpe
Main article: R v Sharpe
The whole law against simple possession of child pornography was declared void for two years in British Columbia following a 1998 ruling (R v Sharpe) by the Supreme Court of British Columbia, but this decision was subsequently overturned by the Canadian Supreme Court. Moreover, the definitive 2001 Supreme Court ruling on the case interprets the child pornography statute to include purely fictional material even when no real children were involved in its production. Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin wrote,
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[dead link](1)(a) includes both actual and imaginary human beings.
— Supreme Court of Canada, R v Sharpe, Paragraph 38
In October 2005, Canadian police arrested a 26-year-old Edmonton, Alberta man named Gordon Chin for importing Japanese manga depicting explicit hentai of child pornography. Chin's attorney claimed Chin did not know it was illegal, and that he was naive. Chin was sentenced by the judge to an eighteen-month conditional sentence, during which he was barred from using the Internet. This is the first-known manga-related child pornography case in Canada. It is also the first-known case that exclusively prosecutes this offense, not used in conjunction with other laws to increase sentencing.
Tl;dr but it's iffy.
-
Embed this notice
you are on thin ice my buddy, and it would be easy going after your domain registrar etc. if they only knew what you are doing. just look what happened to kiwifarms, do you have the same skill set as josh to keep poa.st alive?
-
Embed this notice
Let's talk legality then.
What's wrong with it?
And is loli illegal in Canada?
Also really trying to get me canceled with Alex, that's low. You sure your instance powered by Mastodon?
-
Embed this notice
maybe @alex should rethink doing business with you, and advertising your service on the official soapbox page. it's bad for the optics that the partner of @mk supports a person protecting lolicon like you.
-
Embed this notice
Make me bitch!
I got tabs on all you niggers.
-
Embed this notice
go run back to your hugbox
-
Embed this notice
Piss off
-
Embed this notice
maybe @Graf would also be interested
-
Embed this notice
Yeah.. if someone complained to the maple leaf feds, it’d be a problem for graf.
-
Embed this notice
Your graf RP's getting pretty damned good, just don't let it change you.
-
Embed this notice
You did enough already!
All you did is fuel these schizos from your quick Google search.
If you wish for bad things to not happen then don't post shit, alleging me into legal trouble in my home country.
-
Embed this notice
@bot @BearButthole @CurtisThePegasusCat @SimpleThots @Sui @TonyTheTiger @YarnSmith @Bloomfer @Graf @BillingtonYVR @alex @matty @mk I was simply informing. I don't wish for bad things to happen but it is good to know this stuff when you take on risk for other people.
-
Embed this notice
why do you respect a person that protects lolicon?
-
Embed this notice
@Graf @BearButthole @CurtisThePegasusCat @SimpleThots @Sui @TonyTheTiger @YarnSmith @Bloomfer @BillingtonYVR @alex @matty @bot @mk I guess I should have dm'd it or locked the post then. Much apologies, sir.
I honestly have only respect for you and hope only for your sucess and protection.
I don't see much loli on poast anyway and you seem take appropriate steps against real child porn instances.