Analysis Of Adult Pornography Offences
Adult Pornography Offences in Canada – Legal Framework
In Canada, adult pornography offences are primarily governed by the Criminal Code of Canada, particularly under sections relating to obscenity (ss. 163-163.2):
Section 163(1) – Obscene material:
Defines material as obscene if it unduly exploits sex, sex combined with crime, violence, or degradation/humiliation.
Distribution, sale, or possession for the purpose of distribution is criminalized.
Section 163.1 – Child pornography (for reference, although it involves minors, the principles of material and harm are similar).
Section 163.2 – Possession of obscene material (prohibits possession if it contains explicit sexual activity combined with violence).
The courts use the “community standards of tolerance” test to determine obscenity, which balances freedom of expression under Section 2(b) of the Charter with public morality and harm prevention.
Key Canadian Cases on Adult Pornography
1. R. v. Butler, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 452
Facts: The accused was charged with selling pornographic magazines that depicted women being degraded and humiliated.
Issue: Whether the material was obscene under Section 163.
Decision: The Supreme Court adopted the “harm-based test”: material is obscene if it poses a substantial risk of harm, not merely because it offends moral standards.
Significance: Butler established that Canadian obscenity law focuses on risk of harm to society, especially harm to women, rather than moral disapproval. It remains the leading authority on adult pornography offences.
2. R. v. Sharpe, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 45 (though primarily a child pornography case, it sets principles for possession offences)
Facts: The accused possessed self-created sexual material and explicit written material.
Issue: How to balance possession offences with freedom of expression.
Decision: The Supreme Court upheld some restrictions but allowed a limited private use exception for self-created written material, not involving minors.
Significance: Emphasized that the state can limit obscene material, but freedom of expression is an important safeguard. For adult pornography, possession is generally legal unless the material depicts harm or violence.
3. R. v. Kopyto, [1990] 2 C.C.C. (3d) 481 (Ont. C.A.)
Facts: The accused published sexual materials involving bondage and sadomasochistic acts.
Issue: Whether such material was obscene under Section 163.
Decision: The court applied Butler, focusing on the risk of harm. It distinguished between material showing consensual sexual activity (which may be tolerated) and material promoting degradation or violence.
Significance: Reinforced the principle that consent alone does not make material legal if it has potential societal harm.
4. R. v. Osolin, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 595
Facts: Accused possessed pornographic videotapes depicting sexual acts combined with violent themes.
Issue: Whether possession of such material constituted an offence.
Decision: The Supreme Court applied Butler, holding that material combining sex and violence is presumed harmful and therefore obscene.
Significance: Clearly established that violent adult pornography is criminally prohibited in Canada.
5. R. v. Labaye, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 728
Facts: The accused operated a swingers’ club where consensual sexual activity occurred, including acts some found offensive.
Issue: Whether consensual sexual acts in a private setting can be considered obscene.
Decision: The Supreme Court held no, because obscenity requires harm to society, not merely offensive content. Consensual private sexual activity is not criminal.
Significance: Important distinction—adult pornography is only criminal if it is degrading, violent, or poses harm, not merely because it is explicit or offensive.
6. R. v. Labrecque, [2009] QCCQ 1125
Facts: Accused distributed BDSM-themed adult pornography.
Issue: Whether consent of participants removes criminal liability.
Decision: The Quebec court followed Butler and Labaye, emphasizing that consent reduces perceived harm, but material depicting extreme degradation or risk of harm can still be obscene.
Significance: Highlights that adult pornography depicting consensual acts may not be criminal, but courts maintain oversight regarding violence and degradation.
Analysis
Focus on Harm, Not Morality: The Butler test shifted obscenity law from moral offense to societal harm, especially harm to women.
Consent Matters but Is Not Absolute: Even if participants consent, material showing extreme degradation or violence may still be illegal.
Private vs. Public: Private adult sexual material is generally lawful, but distribution of obscene material is prohibited.
Evolving Community Standards: Courts consider changing social norms; what is tolerated today may differ from decades ago.
Key Principle: The criminal law does not aim to suppress sexual expression but prevents material that exploits, degrades, or poses a substantial risk of harm.
RELATED Blog
comments