Welcome to DNC.ca

DNC.ca is a free community for domain name owners, buyers and website developers. Once registered, you can list your domains for sale, post topics to other Canadian domainers and learn more about the domain industry. Take a moment and join Canada's best domain name forum. - Join Today!

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17

Thread: Twat.ca

  1. #11
    I think that was wise, I think I would have done the same.

  2. #12
    Samer Jouaneh CIRA Member



    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    7,561
    Surprisingly no one even picked it up. I would have dropped it as well, I admit I own a couple of adult names but nothing like this.
    Follow us on Twitter

  3. #13
    adult names or better yet, porn names are not a good investment as you cannot do anything with them, it is illegal to have a porn site in Canada so... why waste your money..

  4. #14
    I'm not sure about the illegal part, I have not heard that

  5. #15
    In the course of his reasons, Mr. Justice Sopinka provided some guidance in applying the various tests to determine what constitutes undue exploitation: the community standards test, the degradation or dehumanization test, and the internal necessities test or artistic defence. He also divided pornography into three categories:

    explicit sex with violence;
    explicit sex without violence but that is degrading or dehumanizing; and
    explicit sex without violence that is neither degrading nor dehumanizing.

    He believed that the first two categories would almost always constitute undue exploitation of sex, but the third category would generally be tolerated. However, two of the other judges disagreed, arguing that not only the content but also the representation can be objectionable. A more detailed discussion of the case appears in Library of Parliament BP-289, Obscenity: The Decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Butler.

    The Supreme Court’s decision in Butler helped to clarify the provisions of the Criminal Code, but there continues to be confusion about what constitutes obscenity. As expressed in an article in The Globe and Mail on 26 March 1993: “A year after Canada became the first country to define pornography as materials that harm women by degrading them, enforcement is infrequent, inconsistent and based on ill-defined terms.” Police authorities complain that they cannot act without more guidance as to what constitutes “degradation.” Some women’s groups, while admitting that few charges have been laid, believe that the law and the Supreme Court decision have nevertheless had a self-policing effect on distributors.

    In September 1991, Toronto police seized sexually explicit videotapes as being obscene. Two people were charged with various criminal counts of owning and distributing obscene material, notwithstanding the fact that the tapes had been viewed and cleared by Ontario’s Film Review Board. In October 1993, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that the definition of obscenity is limited in order to capture only material that creates a substantial risk of harm. Moreover, the fact that films or videos have been approved by a provincial agency such as the Ontario Film Review Board, while relevant in terms of community standards, does not amount to a lawful justification or excuse for their content, or a bar to prosecution: “The [film] board’s approval is not binding on a court or determinative of whether the films are criminally obscene” (R. v. Hawkins (1993), 15 O.R. (3d) 549). This incident highlights the differences between federal and provincial laws. It also illustrates the problems of enforcement of the obscenity provisions when some provinces adopt a more lenient attitude than others, as well as the difficulties and unpredictability inherent in the “community standards” test.

    In November 1995, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that retailers cannot assume that a film is not obscene simply because it received prior approval from a film review board. At the same time, the Court held that retailers of pornographic material must have at least a “general idea” that their products are obscene if they are to be found guilty of knowingly selling obscene materials. The Court warned, however, that retailers cannot avoid liability by simply turning a blind eye to whether or not the material could be obscene under the law, or viewing the material themselves and deciding whether or not it is obscene (R. v. Jorgensen, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 55).

    In the autumn of 1994, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, the Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium in Vancouver and its owners challenged provisions of the Customs Tariff and its Schedule VII that authorize the seizure of obscene materials at the border, or “prior restraint,” arguing that the system violated the Charter’s section 2(b) freedom of expression guarantee. It was also contended that the law’s application discriminated against the authors and consumers of the prohibited material on the basis of their sexual orientation, contrary to section 15. Government defendants conceded the section 2(b) infringement, but argued that it was justified under section 1 of the Charter; they denied any section 15 violation.

  6. #16
    such a grey area that it is a big risk having a "dot-ca" porn name

  7. #17

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    You know...that really hot place at the core of the planet
    Posts
    79
    well...it was reg'd yesterday...
    Real character is doing the right thing when no one is watching
    Immortality is achieved by living a life worth remembering
    Please be sure brain is engaged before putting keyboard into gear

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
burun ameliyati burun estetigi travesti travestiler sikis izle