ANGRY HOBO Posted:

Btw, if forumwarz is hosted on a american server why do you have to follow the canadian rulles? Do you have rulles about online companies even if they are hosted in a difrent country?

Heh heh heh.

Kind of f-d up, ain’t it?

Without going into a long winded talk on Civil Procedure — or international business transactions, for that matter — if a prosecutor in Texas wanted to go after Trout, he could and his charging instruments would be Texas law.

Likewise, if a prosecutor in Toronto wanted to go after Trout, he could and his charging instruments would be Ontario law.

For what it’s worth, the legal community has been doing a collective Log in to see images!

Log in to see images!

MC Banhammer Posted:

Just to let you know: Hobo’s ban was indeed done by a mod (me), but only after I consulted with someone who might go to jail. ET said to ban.

This isn’t a judgment call over something which doesn’t have legal ramifications, like the judgment calls we make on shock pics. So I left, and will continue to leave, those decisions to the people who could be affected by them. They’re not legal experts, so they err on the side of caution.

If YOU aren’t a legal expert on what constitutes child pornography in Canada, then your opinion doesn’t matter, because it’s just an opinion. Three hundred non-experts can say it’s okay, but that means nothing in the eyes of the law. So the poll is meaningless, and no amount of discussion should have any bearing on their decisions regarding this matter.

EDIT: Ninja’d by JB!

In Canada, CP is illegal to posses, distribute and create. Lolicon however is considered legal so long as it cannot be proven that there was no underage model being treated in a sexual manner, which is damn near impossible of course but would likely apply to when the creator of the lolicon is found to be a sexual abuser.

Which makes it amusing that Context’s pic was so similar since if someone linked the two they could claim that it was the illegal variant although I highly doubt that to be the case.

Unless this law has changed in the last few years anyways…

Does this mean I can post links to child model sites? A picture of a young lady in normal clothing must be less sexual than a toddler clothed only in feminine hygiene products. I realize that the issue involved is more or less resolved, but I still don’t know where the line is drawn here.