Isn’t that why these laws criminalizing lolicon/shotacon keep existing?
I made this post on another thread: The use of spanking as a punishment - #13 by anon81903312
In it, I said:
The following quote (which is from R v Sharpe) is taken from: Child pornography laws in Canada - Wikipedia
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(1)(a) includes both actual and imaginary human beings.
This is, essentially, the Supreme Court’s justification for banning lolicon/shotacon. Since minor fictional characters look like children, then it might pose a risk to real children getting abused. Better safe than sorry!
On paragraph 108 of its ruling on R v Sharpe, the Supreme Court states the following (btw, s. 163.1(4) is about the possession of child pornography in Canada):
The restriction imposed by s. 163.1(4) regulates expression where it borders on thought. Indeed, it is a fine line that separates a state attempt to control the private possession of self-created expressive materials from a state attempt to control thought or opinion. The distinction between thought and expression can be unclear. We talk of “thinking aloud” because that is often what we do: in many cases, our thoughts become choate only through their expression. To ban the possession of our own private musings thus falls perilously close to criminalizing the mere articulation of thought.
In other words, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the current law could be an issue, since it comes pretty close to criminalizing thoughts. However, on paragraph 135, they state:
In this way, “child pornography” was defined by Parliament to encompass a broad range of material that it determined was harmful to children. It includes both representations that involve real children in their production as well as products of the imagination, such as drawings and written material. Importantly, the provisions do not distinguish between representations created by electronic or mechanical means. Both are captured. The definition is designed to cover representations involving persons either under the age of 18 or depicted as being under the age of 18. Nevertheless, Parliament has limited the protection from the harm of child pornography to a certain degree, striking the balance it deemed appropriate between the rights and values at stake.
The law is purposely written to include fictional depictions of minors as CSAM. It doesn’t matter, according to the Supreme Court, that lolicon/shotacon involves fictional minors: “If it looks like a child, then it’s a child.”
It doesn’t matter to them how close to criminalizing thoughts the current law is, if it’s for the safety and well-being of children, then that’s just fine with them.
Who’s gonna argue about it? Most people either don’t care about the issue, find lolicon/shotacon disgusting or actively want to keep it criminalized.
And just in case that wasn’t clear enough, check out paragraph 239:
In most cases, the prohibition’s restriction on expression will affect adults who seek fulfilment through the possession of child pornography. These adults seek to fulfill themselves by deriving sexual pleasure from images and writings which objectify and degrade children. It is important to emphasize that the self-fulfillment denied by the law is closely connected to the harm to children. The benefits of the prohibition of the possession of child pornography far outweigh any deleterious effect on the right to free expression.
Remember, if they were only talking about real CSAM, then it would probably be fine. But, they’re talking about both real and fictional depictions of minors.
Prohibiting lolicon/shotacon would have the same benefits as prohibiting real CSAM, according to them.
Except, it doesn’t. If anything, the problem is made worse. If lolicon/shotacon is banned, what stops someone from going after real minors?
How much time is wasted in arresting and prosecuting people who create / distribute / possess / view lolicon/shotacon when there are real children getting abused?
How many people actually “think of the children”?