In 1992 our Supreme Court came up with a new definition of obscenity from a case which involved a Winnipeg video store (Regina vs. Butler). Traditionally, material could be deemed obscene if it failed the "community standards test", that is, what the community (meaning all Canadians) would tolerate being exposed to. The Butler Decision changed this. The court determined that community standards are what the "community" would tolerate others being exposed to on the basis of the degree of harm that may result from such exposure. To be perfectly clear, the court decided that obscene material includes not merely what the court supposes Canadians wouldn't want to see, but what they think Canadians would not want other Canadians to see "...not because it offends against morals but because it is perceived by public opinion to be harmful to society, particularly to women." Further, the decision allows policing agencies extremely wide latitude in deciding what is "degrading or dehumanizing". The declared intent of the decision was to protect women from the supposedly harmful effects of pornography on the minds of men, and it contains "Artistic Defense" if the portrayal is "essential to a wider artistic, literary or other similar purpose" whereby any doubt must be resolved in favour of freedom of expression. However, it has proven to be an expensive burden on artists and art distributors when they are forced to demonstrate their doubt in court.

Link to an abridged text of the Butler Decision.