(no subject)

[lightcastle]

Did the Supreme Court of Canada just outlaw talking to children on the internet?

A Supreme Court of Canada ruling has expanded the definition of Internet luring to include anyone having an inappropriate conversation with a child -- even if the chats aren't sexual in nature and the accused never intended to meet the alleged victim

[...]

"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," [said Mark Hecht, of Beyond Borders, an organization that lobbies against child exploitation]

Comments

[welcomingsong]

I'll repeat my LJ comment here for people who only read you on Dreamwidth:

No, actually the Supreme Court has not outlawed talking to children on the internet. Here is what they actually said.

As you can see, they were interpreting section 172.1(c) of the Criminal Code. This section says:

Luring

172.1 (1) Every person commits an offence who, by means of a computer system within the meaning of subsection 342.1(2), communicates with

...

(c) a person who is, or who the accused believes is, under the age of 14 years, for the purpose of facilitating the commission of an offence under section 281 with respect to that person.

And section 281 says:

Abduction of person under fourteen

281. Every one who, not being the parent, guardian or person having the lawful care or charge of a person under the age of fourteen years, unlawfully takes, entices away, conceals, detains, receives or harbours that person with intent to deprive a parent or guardian, or any other person who has the lawful care or charge of that person, of the possession of that person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.

The Court concluded that in order to convict someone of an offence under section 172.1(c), you needed to prove:

1) an intentional communication by computer; (2) with a person whom the accused knows or believes to be under 14 years of age; (3) for the specific purpose of facilitating the commission of a specified secondary offence with respect to the underage person.

The Court noted that:

I hasten to add that sexually explicit language is not an essential element of the offences created by s. 172.1. Its focus is on the intention of the accused at the time of the communication by computer. Sexually explicit comments may suffice to establish the criminal purpose of the accused. But 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.

However, in every case, the prosecution must prove all three of the elements listed above. So innocuously talking to a child on the internet is not illegal UNLESS there is proof that you're doing it for the purpose of unlawfully enticing them away from their parents, etc. as described in s. 281.

I hate newspaper coverage of Supreme Court decisions.

I would note that, in this particular case, there WAS significant sexual discussion by the 33-year old with the 13-year old, so strictly speaking, the court's comments on this point are not binding on future judges when they make their decisions.