But chances of a successful prosecution for mischief are just as remote. Police suggested the other charge they could lay is mischief. So the guy on the Transit Windsor bus was well within his rights to watch what the police called "regular sex." Regardless, the abundant plain vanilla explicit sex available for downloading from, or viewing on, the Internet, so long as it's not violent, degrading or dehumanizing, doesn't constitute undue exploitation, and therefore isn't obscene.
What's illegal is the undue exploitation that transmutes it from porn (legal) to obscenity (illegal). The key word in the definition is "undue." What's criminal isn't the sex, or even its exploitation, be it solo or in concert with crime, horror, cruelty or violence.
The Criminal Code defines obscenity as "any publication a dominant characteristic of which is the undue exploitation of sex, or of sex and any one or more of the following subjects, namely crime, horror, cruelty and violence, shall be deemed to be obscene." And so long as adult porn doesn't run afoul of the Criminal Code's obscenity provision, it's perfectly legal to watch it, or even expose it to "public view," as the Code puts it. Pornography and obscenity are sometimes used interchangeably in popular speech. Unlike child pornography, which is flat-out illegal, porn that displays explicit sex acts between consenting adults is legal, so long as it's not obscene. Police suggested it could lead to charges of obscenity, or possibly mischief, under Canada's Criminal Code.