Words in the courtroom are changing, and readers notice

If you read police releases, court briefs, or federal statutes today, you’ve likely seen a shift: language that once felt blunt is being replaced with terminology that’s more clinical, more precise—or, depending on your view, more sanitized.

This is not just a style debate. In criminal law, the words chosen shape public understanding, influence how juries and judges frame harm, and can affect whether victims and survivors feel seen—or erased.

George Carlin’s warning about “soft language”

Comedian George Carlin famously mocked what he called “soft language”—terms that, in his view, dull reality until it becomes easier to ignore. In a widely circulated bit from his 1990 HBO special Doin’ It Again, Carlin used the evolution of war trauma language (from “shell shock” onward) to argue that longer, more professionalized phrasing can bury pain under jargon.

Carlin wasn’t making a legal argument. But his routine is a useful lens for a modern newsroom question: when lawmakers update language, are they hiding harm—or naming it more accurately?

The case study: Canada replaced “child pornography” with “child sexual abuse and exploitation material”

In Canada, the most significant recent terminology change is the federal move away from the phrase “child pornography.” In October 2024, Parliament passed legislation (S.C. 2024, c. 23 — Bill C-291) replacing “child pornography” with “child sexual abuse and exploitation material” across federal laws. The statute was assented to on Oct. 10, 2024, with the change coming into force on the first anniversary (Oct. 10, 2025).

Advocates for survivors have argued the old wording was misleading: “pornography” can imply consent or adult sexuality, while these images and videos are evidence of abuse. The Canadian Centre for Child Protection described the terminology shift as a milestone that more accurately reflects violence and exploitation against children.

Canada’s legal framework for what was long called “child pornography” has undergone major change in the past decade-plus, shaped by three forces: Parliament repeatedly raising penalties, advocates pushing for victim-centred language, and courts—most recently the Supreme Court of Canada—reasserting that mandatory minimum jail terms must comply with the Charter.

What follows is a plain-language guide to the biggest shifts that matter to readers, families, and local court watchers in Northwestern Ontario.

1) The biggest language change: “Child pornography” is now “CSAEM”

In October 2024, Parliament passed legislation replacing the term “child pornography” with “child sexual abuse and exploitation material” (CSAEM) across federal law—recognizing that the material documents abuse, not “pornography.” The law received Royal Assent on October 10, 2024, and came into force on the first anniversary—October 10, 2025.

That change is reflected in the Criminal Code’s core CSAEM provision (formerly s. 163.1 “child pornography”), including the definition and offence wording.

Why it matters: it shifts legal and public discussion toward victimization and exploitation—without changing what conduct is illegal.

2) Penalties ratcheted up in two major steps (2012 and 2015)

2012: Mandatory minimums introduced for possession and accessing

In 2012, amendments associated with the Safe Streets and Communities era added mandatory minimum jail for offences including possession and accessing, and adjusted penalty ranges.

A snapshot from the 2012 version of s. 163.1 shows:

• Possession / Accessing (indictable): max 5 years, minimum 6 months

• Possession / Accessing (summary): max 18 months, minimum 90 days

2015: Minimums and maximums increased again

In 2015, Bill C-26 (“Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act”) further increased mandatory minimums and maximum penalties for several child-related sexual offences, including CSAEM-related provisions.

By the 2015–2025 version of the section, Parliament had increased:

• Possession / Accessing (indictable): max 10 years, minimum 1 year

• Possession / Accessing (summary): max 2 years less a day, minimum 6 months

Bottom line: Parliament steadily moved the law toward higher ceilings and higher floors—especially for possession and accessing.

3) The SCC’s “recent” ruling: some mandatory minimums are unconstitutional

On October 31, 2025, the Supreme Court of Canada released Attorney General of Québec v. Senneville (2025 SCC 33), striking down the one-year mandatory minimum for the offences of possession and accessing (as charged by indictment) because it could produce grossly disproportionate sentences in reasonably foreseeable situations—violating section 12 of the Charter (cruel and unusual punishment).

This is the key nuance for readers:

• The SCC did not say all mandatory minimum sentences are unconstitutional.

• It reaffirmed that a mandatory minimum becomes unconstitutional when it can impose a grossly disproportionatepunishment in real or reasonably foreseeable cases.

Also important: even when the Criminal Code text still prints a minimum sentence, once the SCC declares it unconstitutional, courts cannot apply it (unless future legislation changes the framework in a constitutional way).

4) What this means in practice for Ontario courts

Judges have more discretion at the low end—but serious sentences remain available

After Senneville, a judge sentencing for possession/accessing is no longer forced to start at the (now invalid) one-year floor for indictable prosecutions.

But nothing in the decision reduces the maximum penalties (up to 10 years for those offences when prosecuted by indictment), and the SCC did not downplay the gravity of CSAEM offending—only the constitutionality of blanket minimums.

For Thunder Bay readers watching local cases: the practical effect is that sentencing turns even more on facts—volume, conduct, risk factors, prior record, harm, and court-accepted aggravating/mitigating circumstances—rather than a fixed minimum.

5) What’s next: Parliament is still moving on online enforcement and reporting

In December 2025, the federal government introduced Bill C-16 (Protecting Victims Act), which includes child-protection measures and proposes updates to Canada’s mandatory reporting framework for online CSAEM—such as longer data preservation requirements and clarifying obligations for internet services with a connection to Canada.

So is this “softening” — or the opposite?

Here’s the twist: this change is arguably less euphemistic than what came before.

• “Child pornography” can sound like a category of illicit media.

• “Child sexual abuse and exploitation material” puts the harm in the title.

In that sense, Parliament did something Carlin would likely appreciate: it made the words harder to look away from.

But there’s another side to the Carlin critique, and it lands on one detail: acronyms.

Where “soft language” creeps back in: the acronym problem

Even when the full term is blunt, the shorthand can become a cushion.

CSAEM is efficient for courts and professionals—but to the general public it can read like bureaucracy. Over time, repeated use of an acronym risks turning a brutal reality into an administrative label: a file type, a category, a statistic.

That’s the tension NetNewsLedger—and any newsroom—has to manage:

• Use legally accurate terminology that respects victims and survivors, and

• Avoid language that becomes so technical it disconnects readers from what the crime actually is.

Why lawmakers change terms in the first place

Legal language evolves for several reasons, often overlapping:

1. Accuracy and precision (terms that match what the law is addressing).

2. Survivor-centred framing (language that identifies harm rather than implying consent).

3. Consistency across statutes (cleaner drafting, clearer cross-references).

4. Court-driven evolution (judges interpreting definitions, Parliament responding).

A reminder that Canadian criminal law is actively evolving: in Quebec (Attorney General) v. Senneville (2025 SCC 33), the Supreme Court of Canada struck down one-year mandatory minimums for certain possession/accessing offences as unconstitutional under Charter section 12. While that case was about sentencing, not terminology, it shows the legal landscape is in motion on multiple fronts at once.

What this means for Thunder Bay readers

Northwestern Ontario readers don’t experience this debate in theory—they see it in local court coverage, police releases, and sentencing decisions.

For clarity and accountability, the practical approach is simple:

• Use the full term at first reference: “child sexual abuse and exploitation material.”

• Explain the acronym once: CSAEM.

• Avoid drifting into pure shorthand when the story is about harm, sentencing, public safety, or institutional accountability.

Carlin’s routine wasn’t an argument against progress; it was a warning against hiding reality behind polite phrasing. In the CSAEM shift, Canada may be doing the opposite—naming the harm more directly—while still needing to guard against the new “soft language” of acronyms and institutional habit.

What do you think? Is this a shift toward softer language? Share your thoughts in the comments?