Canada Bans Talking to Children Online


A new legal ruling makes talking to children online a possible criminal offence, with the crime of Internet luring no longer requiring any sexually explicit communication or even any intention of meeting the child for prosecution to proceed.

According to a judge with the Supreme Court of Canada, the law against “Internet luring” now “makes it a crime to communicate by computer with underage children or adolescents for the purpose of facilitating the commission of the offences,” an expansion of the previous interpretation which required some intent to actually meet the child.

“Facilitating” is interpreted as including any act which might in some way increase the chances of a child somewhere being exploited.

Anything which exploits a child’s “curiosity, immaturity or precocious sexuality” is also criminalised under the new law, and the judge emphasised that such criminal contact need not be sexual in nature.

The judge maintains that the decision will stop the plague of Internet child molesters dead:

“Those who use their computers to lure children for sexual purposes often groom them online by first gaining their trust through conversations about their home life, their personal interests or other innocuous topics.

This is in keeping with Parliament’s objective to close the cyberspace door before the predator gets in to prey.”

The new ruling was prompted by an earlier case of “Internet luring” in which the perpetrator engaged in sexually explicit chats with a 12-year-old girl, but managed to convince the courts that he had no intention of actually meeting the girl for sex, exploiting an apparent loophole and resulting in his acquittal.

The updated ruling overturns this acquittal on the grounds that the judge’s interpretation of the law was too narrow.

Campaigners for tougher laws “protecting” children are delighted at the prospect of finally being able to lock people up for having the temerity to talk to a child:

“There’s been a very clear message that in fact this is something that is an offence, and as a result, I would think that there will now be more arrests and prosecutions of adults committing these kind of crimes.

If you’re an adult and if you’re having conversations with a child on the Internet, be warned because even if your conversations aren’t sexual and even if your conversations are not for the purpose of meeting a child and committing an offence against a child, what you’re doing is potentially a crime.”

Via CTV.

Leave a Comment


  • Anonymous says:

    This sounds really stupid, unless they also ban underage children from using the internet completely, this will make lots of people into “criminals”.

    What if you play some MMORPG and talk to someone who just happens to be underage? Maybe they are in your raid or something.

    What if they a question on a forum or something, and you answer them without knowing their age?

    What if someone uses a chat program to talk to an underage family member on their smartphone? Maybe telling them you will be coming home late from work.

  • Anonymous says:

    This is a step in the right direction – if old people can’t talk to children that means they can’t hero the girls’ rooms nor annoy them. The ones who really get girls to do stuff are guys their own age.

    • A step in the right direction? This means that I can no longer speak to my twelve-year-old cousin on Facebook! But what the hell, right? If you punish everyone, you’re bound to catch a few guilty people.

      • Just an FYI, judges and cops have brains, if your related to the child in question and obviously does not have any desire to rape the kid then ther is nothing to worry about. The law is passed because lolicons constantly exploit the system by coming up with said excuse. Besides even if you are caught chatting with a minor, THEY still have to prove that you really are a pervert.

  • Stephen Harper is an ass plain and simple.
    Look at what happens when the conservatives have a minority government.
    I hope they never get a majority, cause if they do then we will see some real infringement on their rights.

  • This lunacy was interesting when I first heard about it. Then it seemed to just die out and go away.

    I decided to stop giving a damn.

    Some times that's the only way to deal with insanity I suppose.

    • Ok, first off it was a judge. That’s completely different from passing bills through the parliament, what it means is that some dumbass did something really that stupid that the court thinks it needs to set a precedent for future reference.

  • *five year in the future*

    Canadian judges make talking to children illegal: ‘Child molesters talk to Children before they molest them.’

    To quote Benjamin Franklin here:
    ‘They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.’

    A democracy that allows censorship isn’t one! Period!

  • Laws aren’t just like it used to be…. Now they are so general and ambigious they might as well ban breathing, ban eating, ban drinking, ban smoking, ban going to the CR or ejecting waste, ban driving, ban walking, ban standing still, ban existing, and ban banning….

    To all the Canadians out there: I pity you…. Move to the Philippines! At least the cost of living is lower! Oh and forget the idea if your a jounalist: it seems to be journalist hunting season here for the politicians….

  • I give this law a month.

    It’s so gray, it’ll shatter quick. Right now nobody can talk to kids online, plain and simple–soon, when innocent people start getting caught in it, it’ll start to get more and more specific. If it doesn’t, the people will revolt. That’s how it works.

    • I’d agree with what you are seeing here.

      This is just a step towards taking our rights and freedoms away. In the name of protecting the child, they can use the law against other people who don’t really agree with what’s going on. It might be an useful tool to silence the opposition.

      When it comes to ‘child protection’, everybody agrees to it. However when it comes to blatantly taking our freedoms and rights, we oppose to it. People, wake up! It’s another blatant attempt to strip our freedoms away! Vote this fucker out of parliament already! He’s done enough damage already!

    • Well, the major number of pedophiles is part of family.
      Talk online to your over 18-years-old friend and pray to God for your friend give the information correctly to your family.

      Or write a letter.

    • yes why ban adults in such a stupid manor,i think they should ban children from it.
      Problem solved.
      Adults can always say stuff to brats,since they are the adults,soo banning them is logical before bringing adults into such problems.

  • EqualOpinion says:

    I have to say that this is the STUPIDIEST law I've ever heard of, and leaves things out to all other places that can be exploited too, that means soon sites might end up firewalling anyone from canada because of this so called law, anyone who speaks to anyone under the age of 18 that "exploits curiosity, immaturity or precious sexuality"? What the fuck, precious sexuality?

    you can tell that the person who said this was a totally moron who is not in touch with reality at all. I guess soon they'll be also charging teachers for talking about sex ed in schools, you better watch out teachers, you might be charged with sexual molestation just for teaching sex ed.

    This law won't stand at all, it's total and utter nonsense, so I guess it is true, you can't speak to your sons or daughters, nieces of nephews online because they might think you might be trying to molest them in some way. The slightest HINT is enough to make these worry-wart bleeding heart fuckers think you're gonna "rape" their kids will be enough. Totally sickening, they think they're making a difference? They should go and ship their kids off to a prison, there you go they'll be safe there, because the way it seems, soon enough that's what Canada will be, one big prison, for canadians on a law that was passed by someone they didn't even vote for.

  • EqualOpinion says:

    I have to say that this is the STUPIDIEST law I've ever heard of, and leaves things out to all other places that can be exploited too, that means soon sites might end up firewalling anyone from canada because of this so called law, anyone who speaks to anyone under the age of 18 that "exploits curiosity, immaturity or precious sexuality"? What the fuck, precious sexuality?
    you can tell that the person who said this was a totally moron who is not in touch with reality at all. I guess soon they'll be also charging teachers for talking about sex ed in schools, you better watch out teachers, you might be charged with sexual molestation just for teaching sex ed.
    This law won't stand at all, it's total and utter nonsense, so I guess it is true, you can't speak to your sons or daughters, nieces of nephews online because they might think you might be trying to molest them in some way. The slightest HINT is enough to make these worry-wart bleeding heart fuckers think you're gonna "rape" their kids will be enough. Totally sickening, they think they're making a difference? They should go and ship their kids off to a prison, there you go they'll be safe there, because the way it seems, soon enough that's what Canada will be, one big prison, for canadians on a law that was passed by someone they didn't even vote on.

  • I’d like to know how the fuck I’m supposed to find out the age of someone I’m talking to on the internet.
    This is just as bullshit as the Canadian “Human Rights” Commission.

    And of course within 5 comments this turned into the same thing as every other comment thread on Sankaku:
    I hardly ever bother to read the comments any more. Not that I give a shit about America, but because I want to read comments that are, y’know ABOUT THE FUCKING STORY.

  • let me say i once saw a few girls writing they were 16 and 17 while they looked like 11 or 12.I was close and saw this becouse it was a public internet place.
    You know where the talk could end if they lie about their age and then they continue that talk.

    Anyway educate children,parents still exist so they should learn them about these problems.Don’t believe anyone on the internet,or don’t meet with people that are telling you to meet them at places.It’s not that hard to evade this.
    Btw for a total win they should tell them not believen anyone IRL ROFL.

    Catch the pedophiles who are really causing problems.
    Don’t abuse the law or make shitty laws that get innocent people.

    Even talking with children about interests is already wrong,becouse it goes to getting their trust,at least that is how i heard it in the news.
    And what is up with the reporter,the way he expresses himself,truly not a man at all.

  • One of the odd things I find is even with all this Canada still clings to it’s right to beat the hell out it’s kids, even with weapons and enough force to cause welts. Eventually the only legal way for adults to interact with a child will be to commit violence on them.

    • Hey, i got spanked by my parents when i fucked up. but i never got beaten with a weapon, sorry your parents told you it was legal in Canada , so they get away with beating you with one. Get out of the trailer asshole.

  • I have a feeling that this law is made with assumption that children are innocent angelic beings who speak truth all the time. If they’re asked to fill their age into the age form, they’ll do it truthfully. If they’re asked to leave a site because they’re U-18, then they’ll leave. It can’t be more wrong… If they think that children don’t have the thought of falsifying age, they (the lawmakers) are dead wrong…

    In the internet, people can’t be sure on who’s who on the other side. I can brag to people that I’m 14 or 122 years old – will you believe it? Well, one will need to be a moron to buy it. Do those lawmakers know this? If they don’t know, it can be assumed that they don’t know internet, and should not be allowed to make a law on one.

    • Hell, most teenagers I know are taking meth up the ass and fucking each other left and right.

      Children are worse than most adults in regards to illegal activities. And they’re perfectly aware of what they’re doing.

      Why do we have laws protecting the little shits again? They’re not going to follow them…

  • Fuck this. I’m renouncing my citizenship.

    I can see the writing on the wall, this is just the Supreme Court finding a way to legally put political enemies in prison.

    What adult who uses the internet DOESN’T have some form of contact with minors? Look forward to lots of arrests of radical speakers.

    I’m out. Fuck my country. God Bless America, etc.

  • So now in Canada it is only legal to talk to a minor if you’re a minor?

    Which means minors are now only allowed to talk among themselves? Even though minors always have at least one legally aged friend, usually the one they use to buy booze?

  • Deep-FriedMilk says:

    This is bull. I’m Canadian and underage and I’m sure I’ve talked to a few adults on the Internet before, but that doesn’t mean I’m stupid enough to go meet any of them in real life unaccompanied. I just talk to people who share my interests, I don’t even care how old they are.

    The government is way too paranoid about this. It was pointless when they banned loli too.

    • DFM and people like him: SPEAK UP WHILE YOU ARE STILL MINORS.

      Seriously, fucking hell, if you wait until you’re 18 then you’ll just be labelled a pedophile. Now, while you’re not someone who can get hurt from this law, but rather, someone who risks hurting others by communicating with them, SPEAK UP about it.

    • Not by much, though. Still too many Americans trying to use this same witch hunt to take away many freedoms all in the false promise of ‘protecting the children’.

      And in America, they’ll be prevented from banning something (simple child nudity), but still go after it with hate mobs and also try to get it banned elsewhere. Japan actually has harsher laws regarding production and distribution of real child pornography than the US, but the American witch hunters (unicef/equity now/etc) deride and complain that Japan is soft on CP laws because Japan doesn’t see the point of spending billions of dollars investigating/prosecuting/incarcerating for possession. America has been in love with the idea of throwing people they don’t like in jail and throwing the keys away for the past 2 or 3 decades and it’s led them to overcrowded prisons that they can no longer afford to keep running. Can you say massive budget deficits that predates the current financial meltdown? Good, I knew you could. And why should Japan follow this failed system?

      Sadly, it looks like Japan is investigating laws regarding all this with a working team:

      I’m all for eradicating REAL child porn, but WAY to many people have such ridiculous ideas about what child porn is, it’s impossible to have a intelligent conversation with them. For instance: Demi Moore once called a photo of her underage daughter showing a little cleavage as ‘child porn’ and wanted it removed from the internet (good luck with that). I’ve seen more cleavage at the beach on women of all ages.

      Sadly as long as the fear mongers can demonize anyone who dares talk back and pretend they are doing it for the children instead of trying to force their narrow minded, bigoted religious views on everyone, they’ll keep winning battles.

  • Ohhh dear. Hopefully this law won’t be abused (hahaha, yeah right).

    Thank God I don’t live in Canada…I talk to so many underaged people, but I never ask them creepy things or try to meet up with them.

    Well, this will throw off those Canadians that advocate, “Help the US citizens! Bring them to Canada, where they can REALLY live freely!” (and yes, I’ve encountered Canadians that have said this).

    • I would call him a pussified mangina,they are destroying society,when being affected by feminists.
      They ignore the consequnces and problems that come from this, jailing innocents,demonizing men.
      And they know they can get away with it and cause all those problems,becouse they don’t need responsibility.Why would they need responsibility when no one can punish them for what they have done.

      Now if there was a way to punish these people for wrong used laws,then we wouldn’t have such problems today.

  • I am today, finding it very hard to be proud to be Canadian.

    I'd likely leave Sankaku for my own safety sake (some of you nut cases could be 15 or under eh), if not for the simple fact that the site is knee deep in loli, pics of nice Japanese tits and cunts, and all sorts of discussion over masturbating habits already.

    It's not like I will stand out around here 🙂

  • agnes chan would be so proud of canada, maybe she should move over there?

    anyway… as absurd and unenforcable as this sounds, maybe… just maybe it’s nobody’s real concern unless they really like to ask shota and loli out on a date or something?

  • Well as a Canadian…. thankfully living in the states atm… wonder how they are going to go about online MMO’s where millions of adults play a game, where children also play and they interact with one another…

    MMO’s provides chat and nothing stopping someone from talking to children online thru a MMO… I can see a MMO ban in the making or mass prosecution to any gamer lol

    Seriously this is sad, I cannot believe they actually approved this… dont think I will be returning to Canada any time soon lol

  • First of all since when does a law stop a criminal from doing whatever he wants to do. So let’s get past the political smokescreen and see what is really going on. Therefore crimes are not going to go down. This law simply aids the government in being able to bust anyone that they suspect (and may not actually be committing a crime). It is a device to get legal niceties out of the way so that when they want to arrest and prosecute someone they can do it with legal impunity. It puts the burden of defense solely on the individual and since the law is so broad, anyone who is suspected will go to prison, no questions asked. It cleans up and goes overboard to make sure the problem is solved. Person liberties LOL. Secondly, have you been watching what kind of laws have been made concerning these types of freedoms in the rest of the Commonwealth? Canada is just a little slow jumping on the bandwagon. Do we have any Canadians out there who value personal freedom? Why don’t you say something about it to your politicians?

  • What a pathetic country.

    I can’t believe they are actually putting restrictions on the freaking internet. The INTERNET. Restrictions. You know you’re doomed.

    CP ban is understandable, and I can tolerate that, but merely talking to children? Haha, oh wow. What’s next, banned insulting people on the internet? Sad.

    • ….Anon 23:55 07/12/2009, do you actually understand what Anonymous mean? Dude you could be talking to a bloody terrorist or Jaba the Hut for all you know on the other side of the world. Here’s a tip: there is something called lying and pretending…and I’m sure any sane person here agrees. Internet is serious business.

      Don’t want to be a puppet of the state and pro censors? Try thinking a little bit more about the consequences and implicatins each law brings if it is created instead of looking forward to a delicious cake that these witch hunters so call promise you’d get. Because majority of time, the cake is a lie.

    • I suppose you don’t happen to run across underage children over the internet in the various internet communities you interact with, including this one.

      Example: you play Xbox Live and you meet a kid who is obviously underage. Seems like a nice kid and plays well, so you decide to carry over into some other games with him and add him as a friend.

      Your country considers this ILLEGAL.

  • How about this… a kid(maybe a 6-8yrs old) who I think is lost and crying in the street nobody was around so if I help him(or her) for talking I get arrested? So if he/she try to cross the street with fast moving car and the child don’t know the designated lane to cross to… Just ignore. CANADIAN GOVERNMENT LAW=RETARD LAW.

    • Erm…that kind of exists here in the UK sadly…I heard that an old lady around 67 who was dropping off(?) a grandson, tried to console a crying girl she met on a corridor in a SCHOOL. So the old lady took her to the reception. Guess what happens? The receptionist called police. The police told her that she should be careful not to interact with children, even if they are crying and in a school.

      I also heard in one of the guidelines dealing with children as a profession, states one should never be in a room with a child by themselves…I can kind of understand that, but can you imagine staying in a room by yousrself minding your own business and a child walks in out of the blue. You would have to try and avoid that situatiohn like the plague. Otherwise some passer-by would have called PC Plod.

      Paranoia and fear mongering sure goes hand in hand.

  • I must ask,how will people see they are talking,writting with children?
    Is there gonna be an age mark everwhere,or will everyone have to check his age somehow which would be too much work anyway.

    Or you won’t see that he is a child and get prosecuted becouse you talked with a child.
    How do you even know if those people are lying?(sounds like a way to trick people for $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ in courts)
    In the end people can say they didn’t know they were talking to children.

  • People are too lazy nowadays. “Oh, lookie, we have one guy guilty of talking some peverted things with little girl online, lets make a law so that everybody who talks to little children online gets punished even if its their sister, cousin, neighbours or some old granny posing to be a loli. We are to lazy to care what the hell they are talking about because every people especially men who talks to little children are perverts.”

    Next episode: ‘You can’t touch this(children) law.’ because grownups might do something peverted to the children body.

    Way to go Canada justice system, way to go.

  • I lol’d at what happened to the Anon at 17:34.

    His post makes lots of valid points, and your answer is to hide it and use the kindergarten logic of “if you don’t express yourself like a fucking retard, then you are a fucking retard”? That’s some nice logic, chaps.

    Inb4 renewed kindergarten logic.

    • I have to agree that it’s quite stupid how they treated that Anon. The logic they used is similar to how some people just decide what a “man” is: “If you can’t drink 3 shooter of vodka at once, then you aren’t a man!”

      • When you try to pose as 3 different people, it may be worth to consider not using the exact same writing style, 17:34.

        And before you ask/deny:
        – overquoting
        – short bursts of sentences mixed with unnecessarily long ones
        – lots of emotional appealing
        – quick to throw insults without provocation
        – a bunch of illogical bullshit that’s meant to sound smart
        – too much parallel comparisons
        – irregular line of throught


        • 17:34,
          Being critical is a good thing. I like criticism and regardless weather it’s directed towards me or not.

          With that said, let’s start with one thing – no one is flawless. We all make errors – you and me are not exceptions. And neither is anyone on SanCon.
          If you are getting strongly opposed, maybe it’s time to consider if you are wrong. And even if you are not, getting angry at it will certainly not help. You should understand by now that people don’t like being told they are wrong and respond with increased hostility to you. It’s fine to just drop the argument if you can’t win. It’s not like you loose anything, being anon.

          BTW, it’s very beneficial to learn how to control your temper. I speak from personal experience.

        • No I am fine by that, I am just too picky/sensitive to things people say to post on here, and I am completely willing to admit that fact.

          Glad you agree with the part about parents needing to take responsibility. Around here I have noticed that my parents are pretty much the only ones I know of that even give a rat’s ass about what I am doing online.

          But anyway, I will just refrain from posting here after this comment from now on. I’ll still come to read but not like there has ever been a reason for me too post.

        • Well actually 17:34, I liked the last part of your post (particularly about it being the parents’ responsibility to watch their kids online). But frankly, the first half or so just had no semblance of logic and that’s probably why it got voted down.

          Assuming people were actually serious about an 18+ internet, confusing the intent of this law and making it a question of maturity somehow, confusing the law itself with its method of enforcement (which, by the way, can be as simple as chat-logging and reporting or enforcing ISP logs), and far-reaching paranoid speculation… those are all I saw in your first few paragraphs in your first post way up there.

          I’m sorry… am I being too critical?

        • @anon 2:04, I am anon 17:34

          Now to address some of the crap people have pointed out about my post about how I type.

          To start this, I grew up in a military family, and have politics blasted in my ear all the time! I have horrible grammar and I don’t know how to shutup when I am told too, I get angry EXTREMELY EASY.

          I am extremely long winded and hate bastards that try and counter everything you may say, be it right and or wrong. People like you are too damn critical, hell everyone here is too critical.

          Oh and for the record I am 16, and I know alot more truth about this situation than likely even HALF the people here on SanCom do.

          I am just going quit posting here, because every time I try and make a single post, just stating the facts, or even agreeing with someone who made sense; all these skeptics come out and bash me down with their bullshit. Its absolutely annoying.

  • Ok, so now i can be thrown in jail for coordinating and communicating with my 12-year old party member on World of Warcraft during a raid

    Seriously, this is like using a 12-gauge shotgun to kill a cockroach…

    • Yeah dude, and you have befriended this child (and a preteen child at that!). That’s totally grooming behaviour right there anon! You should disband the party immediately, PK him, hack his account and steal it so he can’t come online anymore, this may reduce the chances of communication occuring.

    • wrong, twelve-gauge shotgun vs. cockroach is hilarious – it is a cockroach. = )
      These are people, ostensibly people educated better than cockroaches, smarter than cockroaches, etc. Makes it less funny, somehow.

  • Is it just me or are UK, Austrailia and Canada competing for the most flawed laws, censorship and moralfagottry this decade on Western shores? Surely they will realize how stupid these law-….Who am I kidding. Stick the word ‘Pedo’, ‘Terrorist’ or attatch ‘Think of the Children!’ to anything and people en mass will blindly let their rights and freedom be eroded away while passively being criminalized. Sounds like eary stages of Communism or Theocracy if you ask me. They say it’s all for the good of the people. But in the end it gives those in power just that more control over people. Snowballing to complete totalarian state. Letting dogma be a number one principle. Minority Report in the making for reals.

    If it’s not violent videogames, it’s ‘dangerous’ drawings. If it’s not dangerous drawings it’s the freaking internet. They all have ones thing in common though. Thought crimes. Give it another 5 years and we’ll be hearing ‘Witch! Witch! Burns em on ze stakes!!’. You can forget the whole ‘Innocent till proven guilty’.

    Did they seriously think this law through?
    Did these people actually know how large the interwebz is?
    Do they actually believe that it’s just adults starting conversations with kids and can apply vice-versa? (A.k.A Do these retards honeslty think that kids don’t falsify age to bypass Age Restricted sites?)
    Do these campaigners know that should they talk to their kids over the internet for personal reasons or whatever, could very well incriminate them?
    What about MMO’s? That pretty much screws everyone.
    Have they thought about how much this can be abused?
    Internet. Serious business?
    Why on earth are we letting more less educated people whose justification are nothing but personal opinion and slander have more control over laws?!
    When will PARENTING ever come into question?…I know rhetorical…

    Remember Orwell’s quote on ‘Opression for our own good’. He’d be crying in his grave looking at the state of UK since his death…and other countries.


  • Anything which exploits a child’s “curiosity, immaturity or precocious sexuality” is also criminalised

    In other words, the Government wants the children (<17) to be ignorant, immature and sexually repressed. Next step, they'll extend this to the general population ?

  • Maybe this is one of the rare instances where Anonymous can make a difference.

    Get a Canadian kid to send an email to the judge who made this law official, asking for an online interview about judge and court work. If the judge responds, then that judge can be reported under this law.

    They made this law because of how a few people were able to exploit loopholes, not knowing that creating this new law would create even more loopholes, but this time to the detriment of everyone else.

    I think it would be best to prove to them that setting up this law would mean sending more than half the population of innocent Canadians into jail, with only one or two real criminals getting caught.

  • Be a picky public and pick on whatever the judges/lawmakers are doing. It might not take long for them to break their own law, either intentionally or unintentionally. Expose that up, and see if they rethink about the law they just passed.

    Really, this law is very… I don’t know. Banning underages from accessing internet at all sounds more reasonable compared to this, IMO.

  • Unless there’s a drastic increase of falsely accused pedophiles I don’t see any problem with allowing the judges more freedom when it comes to convicting. As the article states a pedophile did manage to evade conviction here. This seems like a reasonable attempt at correcting that.

    Personally, I don’t communicate with children over the internet now, nor do I plan on in the future. This has little effect on me and if it gets pedophiles convicted then yay. I mean, Canada DOES have one of the top rape rates in the world. Last thing we need is more sexual mental cases on the streets.

    • Jeed the guy in question wasn’t diagnosed with pedophilia, you have no grounds to call him that. He should be prosecuted for harassing phone calls and perhaps stalking, that’s plenty.

      This is NOT a reasonable attempt at correcting that. It goes far beyond what is required (and actually doesn’t stop this, it just relies on fear to dissuade people, like it has with them before…).

      People getting falsely accused and convicted is a very bad thing. Also, we don’t have the top rate rape until you can show me proof of this. Perhaps we have a high rate of REPORTS and PROSECUTIONS since we protect women and allow them to do that, whereas many shit countries oppress them and do not.

  • Tyrannical as this is, it does raise an interesting question- what reason would an adult have to talk to a child they haven’t met before on the internet OTHER than grooming them for sexual abuse?

  • Just get your child or young relative you know in real life to IM/Facebook/whatever your local politician a few times, then prosecute them under this law – nice and easy way to get rid of all the politicians you don’t like if it doesn’t cause them to rethink this over.

    • Dude, you’re my hero. I wish I thought of that… actually we need btards/lolicons in the police departments and prosecutor’s office to do this kinda thing, lol. Take that Dalton McGuinty!

      Actually, you know the Speaker of the House? The guy who moderates all the arguments between parties and stuff in Legislature? He’s surrounded by Pages… and if he pages a Page, doesn’t a page travel through the internet? Like how you can page people through MSN messenger? Bingo!

  • All online guilds/clans/forums etc better ban their 12 year old members to protect the rest of the community. Imagine accidentally pissing off some 9-14 year old (we all know how fast those can be ticked off over the internet).

  • lawls frikin lawmakers these days: old balding guys who sit around twiddling their thumbs and make up convoluted, backwards, and useless laws, and then get paid a shitload.

    Just wait till the new copyright law thats being collaborated by several countries come out to mainstream public attention; its gonna be a major WTFBQQ fest.

  • So I wonder what happened to responsible parenting… Oh wait never mind….

    That law is much too broad there’s so much potential for abuse it’s not funny.
    Edit: (Fixed to get my point over better)
    Also what happens to those people who play mmos such as World of Warcraft where the age and gender of a character is ambiguous?

    The judge seriously needs to rethink his position he could get jailed for talking to his grandchildren over the internet.

    Anyway the first step to controlling access to the internet at home is the parents wise up and control what content their kids are viewing.
    It’s lazy parenting and nanny state laws that are messing up kids and country.
    The same thing is happening over in Australia at the moment just we don’t stupid laws like this just yet but we’re already becoming a nanny state.

  • So if I was a parent staying in say… Vancouver and I communicate with my child on a regular basis via MSN/Skype…

    Wouldn’t that mean I would be a candidate for arrest too?

    I mean… they wouldn’t know if I was potentially going to exploit my child, would they? But safe to say, they’d assume so even though I was the parent, in which case the law just became extremely retarded.

  • Note that this is “another law” WRITTEN by a judge rather than their Parliament or Congress…
    Congratulations Canada, you ARE like America, getting screwed by judges who don’t understand that laws should be written by their elected officials after DEBATE and DUE CONSIDERATIONS and with a possible veto (or whatever passes for same) by a second branch of government.
    THEN REVIEWED by judges…

  • Next step: Prohibiting adults from having any kind of contact with children. Just empty an entire country, toss them all there, and ship some books so they can learn everything by themselves.

    Adults are not needed, since they all are perverts (parents included) and nothing good can come from them.

    I wonder if that judge has some Neverland syndrome or something.

    Humanity won’t disapear by some natural disaster, sudden black holes, meteors, war against aliens or other things like that.

    Humanity will kill itself. Because in the end, when everything else human ceases to exist, the only thing left will be stupidity.

  • This whole thing seems like an over reacting knee jerk on part of the law makers. So just talking to young people is against the law. Right.

    I guess that makes me a criminal because I play MMOs, and occasionally converse with people under 18. The best part is I had no idea that they weren’t 18 until I’d been friends with them for a while. Now I know that this law isn’t really talking about MMOs but if they wanted to they could extend it to include them.

    I do understand what they are trying to do, but I don’t think that this is the way to do it. Besides, you never really know who your talking to on the Internet; and you shouldn’t be demonized just for having young friends.

  • oh please, with news like 12 years old try to rape 19 years old, 10 years old gang rape 8 years old, 12 years old mum have a baby wif a 13 years old ‘dad’ only to find out he’s not even the baby’s father… are children really worth protecting these days?

    • Funny you mention that, because 2D lolicon is still legal in the US for all practical purposes, and there are no laws telling us who we can talk to on the internet. As much as I hate some things in the US, the Constitution is absolutely brilliant and protects our freedom of speech and expression. We need to protect it of course, if the people no longer support the principles of the Constitution, it can fall.

      • Yo Blitz, what about those obscenity laws of yours? You have a man in jail (Chris Handley) for lolicon. Ask Neil Gaiman about him. You’re not in the clear until you ditch obscenity. That outlaws loli and anything else prurients find gross.

      • kajunbowser says:

        Unfortunately, there are some of our idiot politicians (or “elected employees”) that would rather use the Constitution to wipe their own arse. If anything under the first Amendment offends them (or ppl using it), they’ll just circumvent it. Just think of govt-backed “net neutrality” (not the original concept) and “Localism.”

  • “Anything which exploits a child’s “curiosity, immaturity or precocious sexuality” is also criminalised under the new law, and the judge emphasised that such criminal contact need not be sexual in nature.”

    Oh great, now we’ll have more boys who think a female’s vagina and anus are connected, girls who think they’ll get pregnant for kissing, and kids who believe babies came from pelicans and storks..

    • I still remember when I mentioned female genitalia to some of my female classmates (we were in the last year of high school) and told them there were different holes for both urine and penetration (urethra and vagina, respectively). They said that was not possible; I thought they were joking.

      …They weren’t.

  • I think they would get a better result by banning children from teh internets for their own protection = =”…

    The problem lies with the parents though. Where the fuck are they when their children are talking to pedophiles on the internet??

      • Most people lead lives the upper echelong would consider ‘pathetic’.

        Fact: it’s more pathetic to go get laid with an ugly or fat chick just because you feel ronery and want some kind of validation.

        Fact: Night Elf Female avatars in WoW have better physiques than the majority of real women. The eye candy is so good that it compensates for the lack of touch, which you can just provide yourself.

    • Yes lets completely ignore the fact that police and judges are sane people.

      I guess the people on here have all been transformed into paranoid tinfoil hat wearers that fear of going to jail for giving theyr daughters a kiss in public

      • So by your logic 18 and 17 year olds have consensual sex would never have to do jailtime. (oh noes near-adults have sex)

        Noone would be arrested by their underage girlfriend sending them a nudepic of her own free will. (oh noes childporn)

        You have a lot of misplaced trust in those who are in charge.

      • this is actually a somewhat valid point, but on the other hand, we are in a society where people literally DO get jailed for giving their daughters kisses in public. Including that in your argument kind of weakens it. precisely BECAUSE that happens people are buggering about this new law.
        You’re right that the law can be really poorly implemented, but we’re relying on a system that does make mistakes.
        Check out the Stella awards sometime. Admittedly, they’re only for court settlement cases usually, but still.
        You have to hope you end up with a reasonable judge, but the sad reality is the number of imbeciles in positions of power seems to be on a rise.
        Then again, there have probably been a fairly static number of imbeciles in power.
        The issue stems from handing them more power they can misuse. It seems like overkill, and either it’s going to be enforced literally for a while, then collapse upon itself like Prohibition, another unrealistic law,or it’ll be used perfectly, and maybe it’ll solve world hunger and cure cancer. I’m betting it collapses or is swiftly revised to something more realistic. Ideally, that revision will actually solve the problem without jailing people unlawfully

        • @ canti
          if you shout from the bottom of your lungs, you’ll be louder. Just remember, if you shout from the bottom, you’re speaking out your ass.

          Taking on an opinion other than your own just to get attention and because it’s in opposition to the majoriety isn’t fighting the establishment, especially when the majority is against the establishtment to begin with. Failfail at being double agent.

        • It’s not bashing, it’s refuting your argument with another argument even with the nasty vocabulary thrown here and there.

          From what I see it you’re sorely misinformed and have some idealistic opinions about the justice system and the people who run it that are not applicable in reality.

          “When the majority calls black i’l always yell white from the top of my lungs regardless of my personal opinion.”

          That’s just… sigh. why would you just automatically go against “black” just because the majority calls “white”? first work it out in your head instead of jumping to the chance to look like a martyr.

          Just because you’re a minority doesn’t mean you’re right, and just because a lot of people disagree with you doesn’t mean they’re bashing you.

        • Can agree with the sentiment, “all bash, no thought does not equal solution.” However, “all contrarity, no thought” doesn’t help find the solution too well either…
          your opinion must be compelling and able to be supported by a an intelligent, reasonable party. (Unfortunately, “intelligent, reasonable parties” seem to be on the endangered/extinct species list, especially in politics.) I don’t think any intelligent person who believes in reason and freedom could swallow what this law implicates without coughing up blood and at least three lungs.
          Embracing and swallowing this law merely to prove an ephemeral point is foolery. Even to make a point, this one’s just not worth defending.
          On the other hand, provided you’re willing to accept the terrible ratings from your peers, post away. It makes lurkers post, even if it’s just to reiterate how poorly thought out the law really is.

          (shite, now I sound like I’m trying to run a cheap “A Real Irishman does…” campaign with that “believes in freedom and reason” and whatnot shit.)

          I can agree with you on a few points – there needs to perhaps be more to protect people; an “it can’t be helped” mentality doesn’t achieve much.

          But given that it’s a serious problem, serious time should be spent on coming up with a serious solution. This solution is a totalitarian excuse for not thinking further.

          I’d like to think we can use some disgression and not carpet-napalm a country in an attempt to kill one man.
          Oh shi- that’s just what we do. stupid, stupid Americaaaa… Why do I still love yooouuu (a very little)?

        • Haha it is actually much apreciated Rocco and you do manage to hit the nail well on its head.

          Frankly i find the straight on bashing sickening. Everyone is quick to shoot down a change and nobody offers insightful info or alternatives.

          Playing the moralfag may be painfully close to trolling. When the majority calls black i’l always yell white from the top of my lungs regardless of my personal opinion.
          And i learned a new word for my engrish vocab, profit!

        • @Anon18:56
          …but this troll can be redeemed!
          Canti’s position is perhaps misinformed, however s/he is continuously supporting it, meaning it’s an attempted debate, not just a “lulz i chroll’d jooz.”
          Perhaps it’s optimistic, but I also think Canti is attempting to play devil’s advocate in order to encourage the debate – and flaws in his reasoning exist primarily because it is a hard position to take. I doubt he completely believes in his own statements – they’re too unrealistic(Canti, feel free to prove me wrong if I am)

          Why we’re really debating it when we seem to be in unison against this law is up for debate-our answer is universally WTF canada?! However, a differing opinion certainly made me take a moment to think more about the issue and respond, and made the forum posts more interesting to read than an unending bash fest. Now it’s basically a flame-war massacre. Perhaps I am the living definition of “easily trolled.”
          The challenge is proving that some good could come out of this law, a fact virtually no one else has acknowledged. Because it’s almost completely inherently wrong.
          The flaw lies in the simple conclusion that whatever good can be drawn from this law is outweighed by the number of potential misapplications of it.
          it’s kind of like the aphorism “A good answer today is better than the perfect answer tomorrow.” This is AN answer to a srslyguiz problem, but it’s a shitty one.
          I’ll settle for a good answer whenever it comes, not a knee-jerk “protect the kiddies, and damn the consequences” one.

        • To post a more ‘REAL’ example.
          With this law I can’t no longer do D&D session with a groups that I’m mastering.
          We have some underage people.
          And they talk about their life during the session when we are waiting, just for talking.
          Some time (No ten years old… 😛 ) they make stupid sex jokes that’s normal for their age (14-19)!
          Sometimes they make sex jokes in the games for character interpretations!
          If some apprensive parents will see our conversation I really don’t know what they could think, some parents are simply irreasonal.
          We talk about meeting one day for a real session in a library…
          Luckily i live in a more free country than Canada…

        • I don’t form my opinion from any one source, and nor do most of the people that post here.

          The truth is, people don’t like your answers because you’re completely naive. You can’t see the forest for the trees! You’ll trust that the government is infallible/incorruptable or will exercise “common sense” when common sense is one thing people are running short on these days. This “if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear” mantra you live by is what’s going to end up shaving off the speech and expression rights of people in many countries that are supposed to have “free speech”. This isn’t about one case. This is about what’s going on on a much larger scale, something you’re oblivious to apparently.

        • Nice post. I deliberately chose that example to question wether people are actually so easily manipulated to take sancom nitpicks as universal facts

          I guess what arte is thinking cant be far from “dance little puppets, dance”

      • lol, not “bitter freedom-hating feminazi,” “concerned for the safety and well being of children!”
        Hopefully To be protected via never having to learn the concept of “responsibility,” bubble shields, bulletproof hazmat suits to prevent germs and bullets, tazers to prevent molesters or muggers. We could actually build a mecha army out of these kids.

        At least she’s an Equality Now member enforcing ridiculous policies to protect real kids, not 2d lolis.
        but regrettably it changes not the fact that she’s a moron incapable of basic logic

  • *rage* I’m canadian and it doesnt help most of the friends I have on the internet are older then me. about 6 years older, ****ing great, gee thanks canadian laws, gee****in thanks. Geez as much as I love being a Canadian are frigen lolicon laws suck monkey.

    • Calm down, look at the good side, keep making more law like this and your country will no longer need to worry about immigrant problem. Oh wait, most of those immigrant people may working they ass out for food and may not give a damn about the Internet as much as those local do. Maybe in a near future Canada will mostly inhabit with immigrant and lolicon laws suck monkeys…uh-oh can somebody tell me a reason to go to Canada ???

      • is this law really a surprise, think of all the anti loli laws prosecuting people for violating non-existent loli (aka drawings)

        disclaimer 😀
        this comment is for everyone but the Anonymous above me. lol if u read this its your own fault lol (had to write it for teh lol’s)

      • Considering how understaffed the reserach teams usually are it is definetly worth asking yourself what you did to catch theyr attention

        This does not change anything for the average joe, a teacher can still freely chat with hiss/her pupils and there is no reason not to keep in touch with your nephews/nieces

        This new law only serves to ease the prosecution process and cover the immensely vast amounts of grey areas the internet has brought us.

        shamefully 10 yeaars from now this WILL lead to a 2D ban for all western countrys.

        • The reason we don’t trust this law is because, unlike you we KNOW the investigators are shitheads, the law can be and will be abused that’s a fact, deal with the reality

          “Considering how understaffed the reserach teams usually are it is definetly worth asking yourself what you did to catch theyr attention”

          They get paid to put people in jail, with this law is easy to investigate and press charges against anyone

        • directed to the first comment. “Considering how understaffed the reserach teams usually are it is definetly worth asking yourself what you did to catch theyr attention”

          is canada’s government supposed to be viewed as a monster, whose attention you don’t want out of fear of being devoured? canada doesn’t sound too free to me.
          how do you know that they are understaffed? have you been there? did you see it? if they were, which i doubt they are, does it make it okay to take away someone’s liberty? Just because they don’t have enough people working the case, does it make it right to bust one single innocent person? i think it would be worse to have a smaller, underfunded staff. if they couldn’t prove they were effective they would have to get a conviction soon, or their job could be in jeopardy.

          they would find a suspicious looking innocent and bust him in order to keep their job, it’s human nature, it’s self preservation. IT’S THE TRUTH.

        • Canti, it’s not whether or not you’ll be jailed, it’s whether or not you’ll be a criminal. And any adult talking to a kid, would become a criminal. This can lead to jailing innocents, and will definetly undermine the authority of law in general ( laws people don’t abide, will do that ).

        • Damn you Canti, police and judges are idiots when it comes to these kinds of laws.
          In the US there’s young men of 18+ getting arrested and labeled sex offender because their underage girlfriends send them nude photos.
          That’s what we’re talking about, dumbass.
          Even worse, in the US underage teenage girls can’t take pictures of themselves and distribute them without getting arrested and filed charges against them.

          See the madness?!
          Understand why this new Canadian law is even worse and will be used to the max like the sex offender law in the US, and i understand this, even though living in the Netherlands.

          The justice system consists of humans and due to previous judicial idiocy, i expect the lowest common denominator to take over the cops’ and judges’ spongy brains and make the (ab)use the law to its fullest.
          If you can’t understand that, then you’re better off moving to Canada and using the internet to contact minors for innocent help.

        • When was the last time I heard of a girl being put on the sex offender list for sending people naked pictures of herself, or of a boy scout getting suspended from school for having a knife in his car he used to open meals for the elderly? These happened very recently u dumbfuck.

        • Anyone who thinks this is gona be acted upon to the letter is a complete and utter idiot and should seriously consider contacting a shrink.

          Police and judge alike are sane and rational people. When was the last time you heard of timmys parents going to jail for sharing the bed with him after he had a nightmare, i am pretty sure sleeping with kids is illegal where you live.

          This law is a obvious rushjob and i’m as curious as the next person to know how far the final version will take it.

        • Canti, you realize your avatar would probably be considered child porn in some places, right? A child licking a popsicle! Obviously sexual imagery!! Who cares if it isn’t a real child or what your intent in using it, we’ll lock you up just to be safe!!

        • Look if they want to search my german porn collection under the suspicion of finding childporn i say let them.

          i have nothing to hide and while unlucky to get handpicked out of the crowd the worsed thing to happen is a verbal warning and tap on the wrist.

        • “This does not change anything for the average joe, a teacher can still freely chat with hiss/her pupils and there is no reason not to keep in touch with your nephews/nieces”

          But that’s not what the law says. If you are an adult, you simply cannot talk to non-adults about anything for any reason. Intent was already thrown out. Content was even thrown out.

  • kajunbowser says:

    “If you’re an adult and if you’re having conversations with a child on the Internet, be warned because even if your conversations aren’t sexual and even if your conversations are not for the purpose of meeting a child and committing an offence against a child, what you’re doing is potentially a crime.”

    Damn, they beat us to this kind of Draconian law. This is the result of painting society over with a broad brush. If this keeps up, just looking at kids funny will have you arrested for being a paedo.

    I facestairs at your plight, people of Canada.

    • Meh, loli was already illegal, and I don’t seem to be running into any issues there. Making these laws is one thing, bothering to enforce them is another. My experience with Canadian law is that as long as you don’t somehow provoke someone into reporting you, no one’s gonna give two shits about it. That aside, this law IS rather idiotic.

    • Holy Hell, this is ugly! Methinks it is soon to be our plight too. Our idiot politcians and do-gooders are not likely to take this one-upsmanship from the Canuckleheads lightly. Didja hear that inquisitions are coming back next Spring?

    • Yeah its much better with outdated laws that leave investigators powerless against internet predators!

      Sadly the internet is so exploitable that these draconian laws are simply needed. It is dumbfounding how far a pedo actually has to go before you are even allowed to notify the police in my country.

      • These “draconian laws” are useless, the laws are useless the moment they disturb the order of society and start to trouble the public, especially the family.

        This is just jailbait, and many are going to fall for it because this laws is just a bomb, you mess up and you get caught in the explosion along with others

      • It seemed so simple when I was a child.

        My parents never told me, “Don’t talk to strangers.”

        They told me, “Don’t take candy from anyone you don’t know. Don’t get in anyone’s car you don’t know. Don’t go off with anyone you don’t trust.”

        I knew I could trust my parents; if someone (relative or not) had tried luring me or touching me in a bad way, I knew I could tell them.

        I also knew that they would go to war for me or my brother.

        They were good parents.

        The Internet doesn’t change anything in that regard. Chat rooms and forums are like telephone conference calls. Unless you can hear and recognize their voice, you don’t know who they really are.

        (Me at computer): “Mommmm! Some guy wants to meet me after school to talk with me about astronomyyyy!”

        Mom, to me: “Okay.”

        (She dials a phone number.)

        “Gordy, come home from work early. Some guy your son met in a chat room wants to meet him after school, supposedly to talk about astronomy. Bring Wes and a couple of your other Marine buddies. We’ll talk beforehand.”

        Maybe the wants-to-talk-astronomy guy’s legit, maybe he’s not. Bad end for him if he’s not.

      • You sir a good example of a moralfag. Track this guys ip and ban him from the interwebs lest the net becomes banned for the “goodness of morality”

        Remember : Internet age starts from 1-to-infinity.

        and since one loophole is closed, another one gets wide open. Thanks moralfags.

      • Shut the fuck up. Instead of going around preventing “to-be” crimes the fucking parents should step up and do what they’re supposed to: TAKE CARE OF THEIR CHILDREN. If they know their child is not yet mature enough to use the net, then restrict PC-use (or stop use altogether). If they need material for school, then search together. It’s something called SUPERVISION, have you heard of it?

        It’s like saying you should ban knives since they could be used for murder or because children might grab one and have an accident.

        It’s irresponsible people like you who don’t want to face how inept they are who need to be in jail for bringing children without the intelligence to keep them around.

      • Oh yes, we can’t have the investigators powerless, can we?

        Innocent before proven guilty? That’s just an annoying obstacle.

        Unlawful search and seizure, and warrants? Those just get in the way.

        Goddamn you’re stupid, Canti. Oh wait, you’re Canadian, that explains everything.

        • [quote]B. this will have no effect on the average joe, they must be selling alot of tinfoil hats over there considering you are afraid of heading to jail over domething as trivial as a chatsession.[/quote]

          “Goddamn you’re stupid, Canti.”

          I can only second that notion. Have you been paying no attention at all to the world around you, Canti?

          These kind of laws get abused [b]ALL THE TIME[/b]. From parents being charged with child pornography for taking pictures of breastfeeding their children, over kids being charged with the same for taking pictures of themselves, to fathers charged for giving their daughter a kiss. All the damn time. All over the world.

          And you are nothing short of an idiot for assuming otherwise, let alone labelling those trying talk some sense into as “tin-foil hat” conspiracy nuts.

        • What Canti doesn’t realize is that the law is not a fine chisel, it is a sledge hammer. The law is not subtle, you can’t aim well with it, and if it hits, it is hugely destructive.

          Laws like these are what make that sledge hammer bigger every day.

        • @canti anon is right, it doesn’t say the specifics with the law, and the lawmakers think that the judge will rule accordingly, but the truth is they will be persecuting anyone who seems suspicious.

          you yourself would be suspicious. this website has lots of bizarre news, that’s why i come here, but it also has loli references. they would assosciate that with your character and automatically the jury would be against you. presto, your behind bars for persuing a minor with the intent to exploit their body, and all you really did was check up on the weird news for the day then play cod: modern warfare2 online with a 17 year old boy.

          now i know what your thinking, the jury won’t find you guilty if you were playing an fps with a 17 year old boy, but what if you happened to be playing against a 15 year old girl? now is it ok to lock someone up, brand them a sex offender, and ruin their life for still not committing a crime? no.

          Laws are needed to protect the children, that is true, but they are not needed to incarcerate innocent people in place of the guilty. just throwing innocent folks behind bars isn’t fixing the problem with online sex offenders. it is just denying people liberty.

          if you agree with this law, you’re a commy.

        • These laws can and are abused. Have you heard any of the stories of 18 year old guys who have sex with their 17 year old girlfriends and get in trouble for it? What about all of the instances of sexting that put innocent guys and girls on the child predator list? Politicians do not have the intelligence of the motivation to follow the spirit of a law instead of its literal interpretation. If they did the other side is a lot larger than us.

        • A. i am not canadian and am curious why amarikans are always dishing on theyr neighbors.

          B. this will have no effect on the average joe, they must be selling alot of tinfoil hats over there considering you are afraid of heading to jail over domething as trivial as a chatsession.

          What are they gona sue you for, talking about the latest anime?
          Now if a 55 year old complete stranger seriously “hooks it up” with a 10 year old over the passing of several weeks any sane person will raise an eyebrow and i fully support a investigation

          I’l gladly share the contents of my porn filled PC with any research team if that voids me from said suspicions. as i know those same laws serve to make that much harder for the actual criminals.

        • Don’t knock the Canadians as a whole, there are quite a few on this site I’m friends with. Canti just doesn’t know what he/she’s talking about, or what the ramifications of this law really mean.

  • This law is so going to be abused. Plenty of things can be considered “exploitation”, when it isn’t at all.
    Love the picture of Saki and Mana, btw. Just finished that route about a week ago.

    • Actually i think this is a big step forwward, its rediculous how you have to silently standby for weeks waiting for specific flags. for lurking to become a offense

      In general a grownup has no business 1on1 chatting with a completely unrelated 10 year old.

      The internet is vast and wide, you dont acidentaslly end up in the nickelodeon chatroom asking if people want to see your spongebob collection

      This just helps speed up the process, the regular joe will experience no hinderance while investigators dont have to standby powerless till after the fact.

        • Yes, so? I am a kid here. If it’s illegal for you, so be it. It’s your politicians who are crazy, why don’t you fight against them?

          Like those pirate party in the Europe? Why don’t Canadians make a counter part party like that?

      • Where the fuck did you read “1 on 1”?

        This law’s definition is FAR too wide to tolerate. A judge could easily rule that I broke the law just by playing a few matches on Xbox Live earlier tonight.

        • HentaiKamen says:

          Fuck you Canada, as soon as I finish uni I’m going back to Europe (probably in vain, since pussy politicians will clog it up with “underprivileged” fanatically religious immigrants and feminazis will take away men’s rights in the name of the all-mighty vagina).

          The law was probably made with good intentions in mind, but such broad wording makes it so fucking easy to abuse…

          Like Anon says, playing Xbox Live can get you in jail basically… because you are likely talking to “children” (under 18) online. They should clearly define child and teenager in these laws.

          At 16 you can get your driver’s license and yet you are a child? What if an 18 year old fucks his 17 year old girlfriend? Oh that’s right he can’t even talk to her online…

          First world countries lose more and more freedom every day, and the governments give us shitty excuses like “protecting” women and children and rich people’s intellectual property (as if movies and music don’t make enough from cinemas, concerts and licensing fees).

          It was bad enough when they had to fucking guess at people’s “intent” to do harm; now they don’t even need to prove a person is thinking of doing harm before they bust him. I suppose teachers better stop using email to communicate with students and the government better cancel all those e-school classes that have live chat discussions between teachers and students.

      • I actually agree with this one (so sue me).

        In the end, the law is either going to overprotect or under protect… However, in cases in which the law is abused, the legal system can prevent it (a judge can toss charges, etc.)

        However, in the case that the law does not encompass what is happening due to loopholes, technicalities etc. there’s nothing that can be done.

        There’s no real way we’ll get a balanced, legitimate law, but going in this direction mitigates the damage the most efficiently.

        • I’m afraid you place far too much trust in the common sense of judges, and in their ability to just throw a case out of court.

          To make a long story short, let me just submit to you this: If something is The Law(TM), then in most cases it will be followed to the letter even if it is obviously completely unreasonable for the specific context of the case.

          This is just the way it is. And it’s not changing any time soon. So, yes, we have to scrutinize new laws with this in mind. As for your claim that it is better the law is too strict than too lenient, ask yourself this:

          What is better; One criminal getting away? Or one innocent man having his life ruined?

          And if you’re inclined to go with the former, how would you feel about it if that innocent man is [b]you[/b]?

      • @Canti:
        You know, normally I’m pretty understanding, and truth be told, I like Canadians. And Canada.

        But your (very misguided) opinion…really just makes me want to say “Kindly GTFO my Internet.”

        Have you EVER read a dystopian novel? This is called a first step towards the realization of one.

        I for one WILL NOT tolerate Thought Police.

        • I just had to use a V reference but they sure do remind me of the aliens off V.

          Oh gods yes! So very fucking much.

          And bonus internets to you for bringing up a very good analogy by using an old favorite TV show of mine.

          (BTW, I had a thing for Diana back then. She were hawt)

        • Same here I will never tolerate the thought police even if their intentions are good.
          Remember the road to hell is paved in good intentions of this type.

          These also are the same group of people who lied about 9-11 so they could take advantage of the situation for oil politics back in the US.
          They are very dangerous people so much so they make Osama and AQ look like your best friend.
          It’s enough to make you think they are reptilian aliens are plotting to take over the world.
          I just had to use a V reference but they sure do remind me of the aliens off V.

      • You don’t know what you’re advocating. There’s nothing wrong with having a conversation with someone under the age of 18 (and if you’ve been on the internet for any time at all, you should know that you can find any age group at pretty much any site). Sure, maybe it’s a bit *odd* to be talking with a 10 year old, but in itself it shouldn’t be criminal….and that’s not even going over whether you think it’s ok to talk to older teens such as those 16 and 17 years of age (the age that many first world nations consider the age of consent). These kinds of laws are painted with a very broad brush and as has been pointed out are extremely prone to abuse, resulting in many good people being thrown behind bars with the true scum of society such as rapists and murderers.

        People like you are the reason the freedom you take for-granted is dying.

        • “In general a grownup has no business 1on1 chatting with a completely unrelated 10 year old.”

          It’s not like the kids have to go out and tell everyone they are kids, duh. Do you know how old the people are you talk 1on1 to? I sure don’t know and don’t care. Kids should be banned from the internet. Everyone who chats with me can expect violent use of speech and anime/manga prOn (hentai) once in a while. I’m a nice guy, I share my prOn with friends.

        • NeonShadows says:

          Back in the days of Myspace I received many friend requests from “completely unrelated” children. Did I facilitate the commission of the offences by accepting them?

          I just watched Fahrenheit 451 today, somewhat jaded, thinking “this sort could not happen today; we have the internet, our indissoluble liberty.”

          There are active efforts to undermine our antient rights and privileges. Not all are by evil men. Some are merely misinformed.

        • And to think, I am having to talk to these kids every day in video games… shouldn’t they ban kids from using the internet?

          Or rather, the people of the government needs to be poisoned and nuked…

    • So.. People are no longer allowed to talk to their own children, nephews, or nieces online anymore in Canada?

      How about texting on cellphones or direct face to face conversations through web cams?

      Does the law fall on online social networks like Facebook or Twitter as well? It’s not a direct chat, more like a forum system. Do they count?

      What’s next? Regular phone conversations?

        • So.. I’m being an idiot for pointing out the realistic problems involving this law that any logical person with a brain can see, and the potential loose interpretation by the lawmakers, lawyers and the authorities?

          Only morons with an extremely narrow mind are unwilling to see there’s problems here, and when the law you support so much is turned around against you, I hope you’ll enjoy the long judicial process.

          Online Chat Alternative Methods:
          – Web cam (Direct face to face chat.)
          – Massive Multiplayer Online Games (Same system as an online chat, but with more children in the environment.)
          – Xbox Live, Playstation Network, WiiSpeak, Ventrilo, Teamspeak, etc. (Direct online voice chat systems.)
          – Facebook, Twitter, etc. (Online social networks.)

          These are all considered as online chats as well and all of these are popular chats systems for children. MMOGs are especially popular among children and adults alike, if a guild ever wants to hold a meeting together with everyone, it can be loosely interpreted as luring as well.

          If you read this law clearly, relatives or even guardians of the child can be persecuted by this law, as long as it’s an online chat. Even if you’re playing an online game with another child is considered a legal violation of this new law. If you’re already confused, then talk to a lawyer to explain it to you with diagrams.

          Next time if you want to call someone stupid, explain your reason on why you think the viewpoint is wrong, other than a blatant name calling without a clear thought in your head. All you’ve done is present your own ignorance and inept thought process.

    • Actually I’m pretty sure Sankaku Complex is not a lawyer because the first paragraph is in direct conflict with the second. The first paragraph says just talking to kids is against the law, the second actually doesn’t say this. It says any means of communication (computer) by which an offense (any) is influenced then it counts as a crime. Talking to a child is not a crime. This is basically allowing the Canadian government to press two charges or multiple charges against a criminal in the case that another charge is not obtainable.

      This is done in nearly every criminal case in the world it’s called stacking the charges, you might get a ticket for speeding then on top of that might get wreck-less driving, then on top of that endangering innocents, then when you get to court the prosecutor will drop everything but the speeding if you plead guilty.

      This is one of those deals.

      • However, just to support the sheer ludicrosity of this ruling, the actual rules text effectively states that parents are now banned from talking to their kids by way of instant messaging.

        “Oh hi honey- how was your field trip?”

        *Thirty police officers bust into Daddy’s office and arrest him for facilitating to exploit a minor*

        And the best part? It’s completely and totally loophole legal. It’ll happen- some smuck will be on a business trip or something and talking to his seven year old daughter about her school trip or the like- and the police will determine that this falls under the umbrella of the law- and arrest the man as the HORRIBLE PEDOPHILE THAT HE IS!

        • emailing your kids to see how they are is not exploiting, you dumb fuck. I know police officers and they say that if they had something like that come across their desks,
          a email message from a father to a daughter, or mother to a son, they would just toss it in the trash, because they are family. Also if a doctor’s or therapist’s office emails a an appointment. time same thing. Because it is a legitimate reason to be contacting your kids or patients. Sorry the law has eliminated your potential luring tools but hey that’s how the pedo gets bounced.

    • Well it’s sorta a decent law I guess. A statistic listed here on a previous article shows Canada having the highest amount of rapists that had loli material within a given population. Australia pretty much matches this as well.

        • And what to you idiots suppose we should do for an 18+ Internet. Give our ID number before entering every site? Yeah that would be hepfull to big brother. We all gonna be in nice little boxes now.
          And anyway let’s not forget that we were teenagers a few years back and we sure as hell would have hate it if they didn’t let us connect online.
          Let’s not forget where we where before we grew up because then the 55 year olds that want anime loli pics and anime ban from the internet are also right because they grew up and think we are little shitards for liking those things.

        • Anon17:34 here.

          I was not trolling and I was not defending anyone. I was just pissed off by a law like this since I have many friends who are below the age of 18 in Canada. I however am a 16 year old US Citizen.

          I was not trying to troll, hell I don’t even know what “Trolling” actually is. I was just stating my opinion. Plus it was around 2AM, I was tired, frustrated and just overall pissed off when I was given the link to this article.

          I basically just took out all my anger and frustration from yesterday on the people I had replied too.

          And think about an 18+ internet those of you who say its the ideal thing. I mean really put some thought into it, if that happened schools would no longer be allowed to have computer access for students. And you’d be taking away a form of free speech, which in the US in unconstitutional.

        • They should ban all people under the age of 18 from using the internet. I agree those that are under 18 are too annoying. I work at a gaming shop and everytime a bunch of first year high school kids are always yelling so damn loud that the businesses next to us would hear us. Sometimes these kids behaviors go through the roof, where all the sudden they would run around in our small tiny store and BAM they hit the wall with all my games, then they would walk like out like they didn’t do nothing wrong. Bad thing is my manager and the police guy next to him said “That he would have to arrest me for talking back to them!?!?” and I was like are you f***ing joking?!?!?!? and he wasn’t. So people older than them would have to let them throw out their frustrations through destruction while we can’t do anything to the little pricks!?!?!? F@#$!

        • to anon 17:34

          [quote]what the hell are they going to do? Actually track your IP? Have a government worker in your house all day? Have your ISP record everything you do, even when you AREN’T on internet? Or even stalking you?[/quote]

          have you ever heard of echelon?

        • @Anon 18:58:

          Nice approximation of the Hiratsuka Raichou (from Kyouran Kazoku Nikki) quote.


          It will be the ultimate excuse for doing nothing. Example:

          “Welcome to the Smell Corporation Technical Support Chat Room / Support Forum. I’m sorry, but we cannot assist you with your problem because this Chat Room and this Forum operate via the Internet, and you cannot prove that you are eighteen or older, so we cannot legally converse with you.

          Have a nice day, and thank you for choosing Smell.

          P.S.: This message was issued by an automated computer, not by an actual live human being, so there is no “person” to prosecute under Canada’s ‘Internet Luring’ law.”

        • Well, as how the internet have grown up, it might be a good idea to make the internet +18. But I still think it’s bad that the internet should be +18 just because people can’t stop posting porn everywhere and molesters luring out heir prey.

          It’s like banning children from entering the kitchen because there’s knives there.

          Honestly, I’m not sure what to do with this internet world.

        • theres a saying, “people who talks complicated stuff, complicatedly are either stupid…or those who talk about simple stuff to complicate things are morons”…and yes 18+ internets please…

          we have nothing but porn on the internet…just a quick google can give you tons of porn site to go to….internet should be for 18 and above

          but the question is how can we actually implement this law?

        • looks like anon@17:34 is one of those under 18. you can always tell because they try as hard as they can to use big words and talk political. i suppose it is just the passion of youth. either way, you don’t have to get all bent out of shape. it’s not like what hugegnome said would become law. i think maybe if the chatrooms were bumped up to adult status, and the web browser net-nannies stopped access to them without a password things would be safer. but then even myspace and facebook could be used to talk with kids, however, when searching for friends on myspace it won’t show anyone under the age of 18. so, i think you would have to know them first.

        • @17:34
          I agree that now all 12yo kids are annoying. But you sure are. And do try to be less obvious when you troll next time.

          On another note. The new law makes practically anyone aged >= 18 a criminal if they play any social computer game online.

          “Coming up next – an evil pedophile has been arrested for daring to play WoW with a child.”

        • You all are dumbasses, I mean seriously an 18+ internet? Are your heads so far up your asses that you find SENSE IN THAT?

          Not all people below 18 are annoying, whiny, or idiotic. Hell, I wouldn’t even find it surprising if most of them had more common sense than HALF the adult/so called “MATURE” internet users. I know for a fact that most of my underage friends are a whole hell lot mature than my friends who are “mature” as you would say it.

          Anyway, this whole issue REEKS of big brother tactics. I mean what the hell are they going to do? Actually track your IP? Have a government worker in your house all day? Have your ISP record everything you do, even when you AREN’T on internet? Or even stalking you?

          Sooner or later Canada is going to be come a communist country if idiotic laws like this continue to be passed. I mean do some research on the subject, it always starts with laws like this to see if the citizens will tolerate it.

          Come to think of it, this sounds like some of the same shit that Obama is trying to enforce here in the US. Seems that Governments all over the world are wanting more power than they actually NEED.

          I mean seriously people really need to use the common sense that they KNOW THEY HAVE, but refuse to pay attention to.

          Also, crap like this could EASILY be avoided if modern parents actually gave a flying flip what their kids are doing on the internet, instead of just giving them a laptop/desktop and saying “Have fun!”

          People today are brain dead and stupid.

    • hmm.. hey canada (and all the rest of the so called civilized world) maybe o say.. THE PARENTS! should be the ones that take care of the children.. and get the Damn government out of our lives!

      I parents actually did the parenting thing.. the problem would go away cuz there wouldn’t be any kids to chase.. Draconian.. i remember a group of people that left there country to get away from persecution.. now.. we’re the freakin