Back to Bills

Criminalizing Non-Consensual Sexual Videos

Full Title:
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sexual assault material)

Summary#

This bill would add new crimes to the Criminal Code for making, sharing, selling, advertising, importing, exporting, possessing, or accessing visual recordings that explicitly and realistically depict non-consensual sexual activity. The goal appears to be to deter the creation and spread of recordings that show sexual assault, whether the assault is real or staged to look real.

Key changes:

  • Creates a new offence for knowingly making, printing, publishing, or possessing for publication “sexual assault material,” with a maximum penalty of up to 14 years in prison or a fine up to $100,000, or both.
  • Makes it a crime to knowingly transmit, make available, distribute, sell, advertise, import, export, or possess for those purposes such material, with the same maximum penalties (up to 14 years or $100,000, or both).
  • Creates offences for knowingly possessing the material (up to 5 years in prison or a fine up to $50,000; or on summary conviction, up to 2 years less a day or a fine up to $20,000) and for accessing it (up to 10 years or a fine up to $50,000; or on summary conviction, up to 2 years less a day or a fine up to $20,000).
  • Defines “accesses” to include knowingly causing the material to be viewed by oneself (for example, viewing online without downloading).
  • Treats intent to make a profit as an aggravating factor at sentencing.
  • States it is not a defence for makers/publishers to say they believed the activity was consensual unless they took all reasonable steps to confirm consent and, if it was consensual, ensured the material did not depict it as non-consensual.
  • Provides a defence if the conduct has a legitimate purpose related to justice, science, medicine, education, or art.
  • Applies to visual recordings only (not text or audio).

What it means for you#

  • Viewers

    • Knowingly viewing or possessing videos that depict sexual activity as non-consensual could lead to criminal charges, even if the people in the video actually consented but the video is presented as non-consensual.
    • Streaming or otherwise causing the video to be shown to yourself can count as “accessing.”
    • Maximum penalties range up to 10 years for accessing and up to 5 years for possession, with possible fines.

  • Content creators, publishers, and studios

    • Making, editing, or publishing videos that explicitly and realistically depict non-consensual sexual activity would be a serious offence (up to 14 years or a $100,000 fine, or both).
    • You cannot rely on “we believed it was consensual” unless you took reasonable steps to confirm consent and ensured the final product does not depict non-consent.
    • Making such content for profit can increase the sentence.

  • Websites, platforms, advertisers, and distributors

    • Knowingly hosting, making available, transmitting, advertising, selling, importing, or exporting this material would be a serious offence (up to 14 years or a $100,000 fine, or both).
    • You would likely need stronger screening, moderation, and takedown practices to avoid “knowingly” making such material available.

  • Educators, researchers, artists, journalists, and the justice system

    • There is a defence for legitimate purposes related to justice, science, medicine, education, or art. How this applies will depend on context and purpose.
    • Documentation of purpose and limiting distribution could be important in practice.

  • General public

    • This bill mainly affects people and businesses who make, host, sell, or view explicit videos that depict sexual assault. It does not target written stories or audio-only content.

  • What is unclear

    • The bill does not define how “explicit and realistic” will be judged.
    • Timing of when these changes would start is not stated here.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

Possible implications if passed:

  • Law enforcement and court costs could rise due to new investigations and prosecutions.
  • Platforms and distributors may face compliance and moderation costs to detect and block prohibited material.

Proponents' View#

  • The bill appears intended to reduce the creation and spread of videos that depict sexual assault, whether real or staged to look real.
  • It could deter profit-driven production and distribution by setting high maximum penalties and treating profit motive as an aggravating factor.
  • By criminalizing accessing and possession, it aims to reduce demand for this content.
  • Defences for legitimate justice, scientific, medical, educational, or artistic purposes could preserve uses seen as serving the public interest.
  • Defining “access” to include viewing may help address online streaming, not just downloads.

Opponents' View#

  • One concern is vagueness: it is unclear how “explicit and realistic” will be applied, which could create uncertainty for creators, platforms, and viewers.
  • The bill could capture consensual “role-play” pornography that is depicted as non-consensual, even if all participants agreed, raising questions about scope and free expression.
  • Platforms may face heavy moderation burdens to avoid “knowingly” making such material available, and it may be hard to judge intent based on user uploads.
  • Although there is a defence for legitimate purposes (justice, science, medicine, education, art), how broadly or narrowly courts interpret “legitimate purpose” is unclear.
  • It is unclear how these new offences would interact with existing Criminal Code provisions dealing with non-consensual intimate images or obscene materials, which could lead to overlap or confusion.