# FA Policy Notice - "Cub" Art



## Dragoneer (Nov 5, 2006)

_1) the term â€œindistinguishableâ€ used with respect to a depiction, means virtually indistinguishable, in that the depiction is such that an ordinary person viewing the depiction would conclude that the depiction is of an actual minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. This definition does not apply to depictions that are drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings depicting minors or adults._
Note on US code Title 18, Chapter 2256

There are many kinds of activities which are illegal: rape, drug use, incest, bestiality, driving a car too fast, smoking a cigarette in a pub, etc. The list could go on and on. In some countries, homosexuality, democracy, freedom of speech and free-thinking are outlawed, held hostage under tight regimes, the penalties of which are anything but gentle. Some people have spent their entire lives in jail for exercising their independence.

Fur Affinity allows users to post art based on all of the above interests with no repercussions.

According to law based in the United States, furry art does not fall under the restrictions imposed towards pedophilia, and while similar, it is not the same thing. No actual child is hurt by the depiction in the art. Furries do not exist in real life, and as such are nothing more than imaginative xenomorphic entities. Given that, we feel that it is in our best interest as a website not to censor cub-related art.

If, however, we feel that the any art uploaded to Fur Affinity is based off of a real child, or meant to represent a real child, we will take action against that user and report them to the proper authorities and pull their artwork. The administration behind Fur Affinity does not, and will not, ever support pedophilia. We will, however, choose and defend people's rights to freedom of expression and choice.

The original Terms of Service, which has been undergoing re-write, did prohibit posting of such artwork. The rules have been under review for some time now and have been discussed as we move to revise our documentation. The rules have changed over time, and the TOS has not been updated to reflect these changes. We expect to have an updated TOS within the next two weeks to reflect changes made in time.

In the near future we will implement a series of filters to allow people to block and exclude art of all content types, giving them better control of how they use the Fur Affinity service. A great many people voiced that they felt for and against the art, but would be able to cope with given a proper filtration system was implemented on the site. We feel that this is the best method possible. Put the control and power in the hands of users for them to choose their own path.

We understand that many of you may not agree with this decision, but we felt that it was in the best interest of the site not to act as moral judges, not to choose for users what is ethically right or wrong. Why should cub art be the ultimate evil, when artistic depictions of rape, murder and drug use, all of which are quite illegal in the real world, are posted with no complaint? When do morals begin and end? Why does one moral high road state that cub art is the end all, be all of evil yet art depicting rape does not get the same brunt of the hate?

There are many things that we, as individuals, object to and find find repulsive, but as people, as individuals, we have both the power and ultimate responsibility to make our own decisions. The right belongs to the people to exercise their power of choice. They can choose not to look at a submission, pass it by, +fav or even opt out of using the entire website.

We understand this is not the popular decision with users, but we choose to represent the ideals of freedom of speech and the right for individuals to make their own decisions as to what they view.

Fur Affinity
Where Freedom of Expression Reigns

*People erupting drama in this thread may find their forum account meeting a 24 hour suspension. Flames/insults will not be tolerated. Counter flaming/insults will also LIKEWISE not be tolerated.*


----------



## Hanazawa (Nov 5, 2006)

How does this apply to precedented scenarios, such as Lisa Simpson porn?


----------



## ScyStorm (Nov 5, 2006)

In before drama. 

btw, thanks Dragoneer for the smart decision.


----------



## Alchera (Nov 5, 2006)

And the Animaniacs, and other Toon Porn. Remember Warner Brothers and VCL?


----------



## Dragoneer (Nov 5, 2006)

Alchera said:
			
		

> And the Animaniacs, and other Toon Porn. Remember Warner Brothers and VCL?


Fall under "Fan art" and will be discussed by the admins as a seperate issue.


----------



## Hulex (Nov 5, 2006)

Yay! So glad we came to a reasonable decision here :3

When it comes right down to it, it really is about freedom of speech and expression. Not everyone likes it, but it does seem to be the most fair route to take at least.

Not turning this into another debate since the decision is final and we don't want to drag this out to 100+ pages again.

I'm just glad we coudl resolve this. Here's to hoping future drama/whining is kept to a minimum :O


----------



## shinmew (Nov 5, 2006)

Thankyou for this.


----------



## Dragoneer (Nov 5, 2006)

Alchera said:
			
		

> And the Animaniacs, and other Toon Porn. Remember Warner Brothers and VCL?


Fall under "Fan art" and will be discussed by the admins as a separate issue.


----------



## tundra_arctic_wolf (Nov 5, 2006)

I applaud your decision, Dragoneer.


----------



## blade (Nov 5, 2006)

nicely worded and has a good layer of fairness as well as hinting at furthering the filters.

thank you.


----------



## Lando (Nov 5, 2006)

Hah, well my first post was spam; I admit. 

However, as a humanist; I fully support this statement, and applaud the upstanding logic and underlying goodwill portrayed within it.


----------



## Vilani (Nov 5, 2006)

Thank you for finally comming on an agreement about this.
It's your choise about what's best for the site and I believe you are right :3


----------



## Raven (Nov 5, 2006)

So the verdict is to keep it? Thats cool, i knew you guys wouldnt let the masses ban our freedoms. *hugs to the FA-ness*


----------



## Dragoneer (Nov 5, 2006)

Hulex said:
			
		

> When it comes right down to it, it really is about freedom of speech and expression. Not everyone likes it, but it does seem to be the most fair route to take at least.


I hate cub art, and dislike it with a passion. However, I am not going to vote to ban something that is clearly not against the law in the US (whose "moral standards" are exceptionally high when it comes to banning/blocking items).

Again, the issue comes down to (in my view) hypocrisy. Why is cub art bad, yet nobody is protesting rape, murder, drug use, etc. No real children are being harmed, and if we ever discover they are, or have reason to believe, we will take action with the law.


----------



## Arcturus (Nov 5, 2006)

Thank you for making the wisest choice.


----------



## VermyFox (Nov 5, 2006)

Well, seeing that so far people who want to see and take interest in fantasizing of pedophilia are being allowed as okay.  I'll head off to other ventures for a while.  Ah well been fun and either way, that wasn't an easy decision I'm sure on both sides.  I might come back later if the site stays about the same as it has been, but if it goes down, ah well.


----------



## Dragoneer (Nov 5, 2006)

VermyFox said:
			
		

> Well, seeing that so far people who want to see and take interest in fantasizing of pedophilia are being allowed as okay.  I'll head off to other ventures for a while.  Ah well been fun and either way, that wasn't an easy decision I'm sure on both sides.  I might come back later if the site stays about the same as it has been, but if it goes down, ah well.


The site is only going to improve, and we're adding to our hardware in December.


----------



## Thot (Nov 5, 2006)

Dragoneer said:
			
		

> If, however, we feel that the any art uploaded to Fur Affinity is based off of a real child, or meant to represent a real child, we will take action against that user and report them to the proper authorities and pull their artwork. The administration behind Fur Affinity does not, and will not, ever support pedophilia.


Does this refer to art depicting real humans or humans in general?

Thank you btw.


----------



## Vilani (Nov 5, 2006)

Thot said:
			
		

> Does this refer to art depicting real humans or humans in general?


*nods* yes, like anime-like characters, for example (edited because I just read that Fanart is being discussed)


----------



## Dragoneer (Nov 5, 2006)

Thot said:
			
		

> Does this refer to art depicting real humans or humans in general?
> 
> Thank you btw.


The rules will change so that art depicting human children in sexual situations *will no longer be allowed* -- this includes Anime series. The law is specific. Furries are not real, and thus cub art is permitted. The law, however, is specific as to humans, and they are no longer permitted.


----------



## GaeronDrasska (Nov 5, 2006)

Well, when the filters are in place, I'll be back, until then. See you

And as this thread will become a mass of drama, you should lock it quick.


----------



## nullenigma (Nov 5, 2006)

A very well-reasoned and articulate answer, I am very satisfied with this.  Hopefully we can put all the drama behind us and move on now.


----------



## Dragoneer (Nov 5, 2006)

GaeronDrasska said:
			
		

> Well, when the filters are in place, I'll be back, until then. See you
> 
> And as this thread will become a mass of drama, you should lock it quick.


*People who turn this thread into drama city may find a 24 hour suspension if they get out of hand. Our decision is final.*


----------



## Thot (Nov 5, 2006)

Dragoneer said:
			
		

> The rules will change so that art depicting human children in sexual situations *will no longer be allowed* -- this includes Anime series. The law is specific. Furries are not real, and thus cub art is not permitted. The law, however, is specific as to humans, and they are no longer permitted.


I may not like that part of the decision, but I can see and fully understand why it was made.


----------



## Faeon (Nov 5, 2006)

VermyFox said:
			
		

> Well, seeing that so far people who want to see and take interest in fantasizing of pedophilia are being allowed as okay.  I'll head off to other ventures for a while.  Ah well been fun and either way, that wasn't an easy decision I'm sure on both sides.  I might come back later if the site stays about the same as it has been, but if it goes down, ah well.



And so the exodus of the whiney and sulky begins. Farewell, may you find that magical land where you always get your way and you won't ever have to leave a wonderful furry-friendly website simply because it doesn't tailor to your every whim.


----------



## Alchera (Nov 5, 2006)

It will be come a drama here soon if you don't lock it, Dragoneer. Already there are comments offensive to both sides, and they'll only become worse.


----------



## nobuyuki (Nov 5, 2006)

I approve of the new policy


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 5, 2006)

Dragoneer, maybe you should close this thread to leave the announcement at is, but have a Q&A thread and have moderators make sure it stays on topic so you can answer people's questions.


----------



## Schatten (Nov 5, 2006)

since i have been labeled not less than three times as a pedophile by other users of this site, just because i tried to defend a friend who was labeled the same, this might not look good for you if i write the following, but, well, 

thank you.

and especially for this:



			
				Dragoneer said:
			
		

> If, however, we feel that the any art uploaded to Fur Affinity is based off of a real child, or meant to represent a real child, we will take action against that user and report them to the proper authorities and pull their artwork. The administration behind Fur Affinity does not, and will not, ever support pedophilia. We will, however, choose and defend people's rights to freedom of expression and choice.


----------



## cesarin (Nov 5, 2006)

seems we got our first drama victim, but I have to agree that these attention whores and drama whores must be stoped, I mean quite a bit of " do this or ill leave the website" like they were too important or imposible to replace for the survival of the community known as "furaffinity"


----------



## Kuriin (Nov 5, 2006)

The people who are saying they're leaving because of the new policy are nothing but attention whores. Dragoneer, you did the right thing and you said it very eloquently. Don't feel bad for a few bad apples in the stack.


----------



## InvaderPichu (Nov 5, 2006)

Remember remember the 5th of Novem*shot*

Anyway, much love. I approve.


----------



## GaeronDrasska (Nov 5, 2006)

When can we expect the new filters in place?


----------



## KaputOtter (Nov 5, 2006)

Dragoneer said:
			
		

> Fall under "Fan art" and will be discussed by the admins as a separate issue.



Good. I don't think fanart has a place here at all, unfortunately. But I won't say anything else, for fear of getting the thread off-topic again.


----------



## Dragoneer (Nov 5, 2006)

GaeronDrasska said:
			
		

> When can we expect the new filters in place?


They are being worked on for the Ferrox update, which may be 1 to 2 months out.


----------



## Wovstah (Nov 5, 2006)

Thank you for taking the time and thinking this over.

Thank you more so for giving artists, in the upcoming weeks, to block this material if they so wish not to view it.


----------



## jery (Nov 5, 2006)

Thankyou for a very reasoned decision. We appreciate how hard the last few days must have been.


----------



## Pico (Nov 5, 2006)

thanks dragoneer ;o)


----------



## Lyenuv (Nov 5, 2006)

Thank you for making a decision, now finally this drama can start to calm down.


----------



## just2draw (Nov 5, 2006)

I joined, and have actively encouraged others to join, Fur Affinity because I believed it to be sensibly run.

It, like DeviantArt, had an interface that focused on the art â€˜communityâ€™ rather than simple picture posting.  This set it apart from other sites like VCL.

As such, it has community-based features as an â€˜Adult Filterâ€™ and a TOS document (Terms of Service) that specifically excluded the type of art that many would be uncomfortable with â€“ and some would find deeply offensive.

There is a saying, â€œIt is important to keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out!â€

The depiction of pre-teen anthropomorphic animals in sexual situations is clearly outside the boundaries of reasonable artistic behaviour.  â€œCub Artâ€ is a sign of a sickness, not a legitimate form of artistic expression.  If the administrators of Fur Affinity do not share this view, then in all good conscience, I cannot continue to support them.

While a number of things have perturbed me, as the drama unfolded, and while I have no doubt the figures are inaccurate â€“ the number of Fur Affinity users who are â€˜okayâ€™ with sexualised â€œCub Artâ€ is disturbing.  Many people in the â€œFurry Communityâ€ clearly need to re-examine their personal moral and ethical standards.  Hiding behind â€œfreedom of expressionâ€ is treating Fur Affinity like an anonymous picture posting site, instead of an artistic community.

Sure, VCL might be anything goes... but the rules change when you aim to create an online community.

I donâ€™t want to be part of a community that condones paedophilia, regardless of if that paedophilia is fantasy based or not.

So goodbye.  And thanks for turning what could have been the greatest example of the majority Furry Communityâ€™s sense of fun and imagination, into a fetish site that will most likely end up high on the â€œFurryâ€™s are sick and evilâ€ example list.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 5, 2006)

Kuriin said:
			
		

> The people who are saying they're leaving because of the new policy are nothing but attention whores. Dragoneer, you did the right thing and you said it very eloquently. Don't feel bad for a few bad apples in the stack.



That's not fair, I have a good friend who left because he on a moral basis couldn't stomach the decision. Whether I agree with it or not, it was his personal choice, and I would far from call him an attention whore.


----------



## nobuyuki (Nov 5, 2006)

Dragoneer said:
			
		

> Thot said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Now I can't really pull up the show which actually said this, but from what I had heard the law's intent was to prevent photomorphs and things of that nature.  From the quote in your very first post it seems to imply that things like anime-related stuff is a cartoon and therefore IS distinguishable and can be made with no obvious real-life references.  If you continue to keep the policy on that arbitrary ban, don't do so on a misinterpretation of the legal precedents.  Please correct me if I'm wrong in how I read the USC quote.


----------



## blackdragoon (Nov 5, 2006)

so i'm confused...why did marthaen leave again? i mean this was the best decision you could make after all. i don't like that stuff either but i don't have to look so it doesn't bother me. you were in a lose lose situation with everything being split down the middle like that. what else could you have done?


----------



## timbatig (Nov 5, 2006)

Dragoneer said:
			
		

> The rules will change so that art depicting human children in sexual situations *will no longer be allowed* -- this includes Anime series. The law is specific. Furries are not real, and thus cub art is not _permitted_. The law, however, is specific as to humans, and they are no longer permitted.



You meant prohibited, right o_o Cub art is not prohibited?


----------



## BlueVon (Nov 5, 2006)

i still think its wrong cause what if later the pedofiles gets incouraged to do something like raping a 14 yr old girl in real life? it doesnt matter if it has to represent an actual person or not, its the thought of it. and by letting this by, its only encourges someone to actually take such action on some lil girl and then that person will blame FA for it..... its only a matter of time...


----------



## Zakassis (Nov 5, 2006)

timbatig said:
			
		

> Dragoneer said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Cub art is allowed, but fan-based artworks depicting human children (or any, for that matter) isn't, quite simply because "human" isn't "cub".


----------



## GaeronDrasska (Nov 5, 2006)

BlueVon said:
			
		

> i still think its wrong cause what if later the pedofiles gets incouraged to do something like raping a 14 yr old girl in real life? it doesnt matter if it has to represent an actual person or not, its the thought of it. and by letting this by, its only encourges someone to actually take such action on some lil girl and then that person will blame FA for it..... its only a matter of time...



Umm... no. That's not how it works.


----------



## Ruffy (Nov 5, 2006)

heh even if it was hard thanks for being the bigger man


----------



## Alevva (Nov 5, 2006)

I think I'm gonna have to agree with some who spoke earlier in the thread. This needs closing and quick, I can already see the drama start to build with more worn out arguments that don't have a ground anymore.


----------



## Kuriin (Nov 5, 2006)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> Kuriin said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sorry, Arshes Nei, I meant people who post in a thread saying "goodbye" because of a simple decision.


----------



## Dragoneer (Nov 5, 2006)

BlueVon said:
			
		

> i still think its wrong cause what if later the pedofiles gets incouraged to do something like raping a 14 yr old girl in real life? it doesnt matter if it has to represent an actual person or not, its the thought of it. and by letting this by, its only encourges someone to actually take such action on some lil girl and then that person will blame FA for it..... its only a matter of time...


What if somebody views rape art on FA and decides to rape a person? What if somebody sees inflation are and attempts to inflate themselves in real life, and hurts themselves? Somebody sees a furry character doing drugs and decides to inject heroine into their testicles?

At what point does the responsibility becomes ours or that individuals? We can not be responsible for people who have pre-existing mental images and may be set off by what they see, because if something IS going to set them off, it could be anything.


----------



## timbatig (Nov 5, 2006)

Zakassis said:
			
		

> timbatig said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's why I italicized the part where he said permitted in "Furries are not real, and thus cub art is not _permitted_" I just wanted clarification, because that could come back to bite someone.


----------



## mirroreyes (Nov 5, 2006)

I've noticed that some people don't even use the rating thingies.  I have my mature filter on and I end up seeing lots of porn.  Will the rating become manditory for upload in the future?


----------



## Growly (Nov 5, 2006)

I agree with the decision, but I am really pissed that half my watch list is gone now. -__-


----------



## Hanazawa (Nov 5, 2006)

Growly said:
			
		

> I agree with the decision, but I am really pissed that half my watch list is gone now. -__-



Respectfully; complain to them, not here.


----------



## BlueVon (Nov 5, 2006)

timbatig said:
			
		

> Dragoneer said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Pinkuh (Nov 5, 2006)

mirroreyes said:
			
		

> I've noticed that some people don't even use the rating thingies.  I have my mature filter on and I end up seeing lots of porn.  Will the rating become manditory for upload in the future?




Actualy it's illeagle now... if you would kindly point to the porn that has been mislabled to any of the admins we will handle it.


----------



## Zakassis (Nov 5, 2006)

BlueVon said:
			
		

> timbatig said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Dragoneer (Nov 5, 2006)

mirroreyes said:
			
		

> I've noticed that some people don't even use the rating thingies.  I have my mature filter on and I end up seeing lots of porn.  Will the rating become manditory for upload in the future?


It is mandatory. If you see people posting pr0n mis-categorized please notify an admin so we can take action.


----------



## BlueVon (Nov 5, 2006)

> What if somebody views rape art on FA and decides to rape a person? What if somebody sees inflation are and attempts to inflate themselves in real life, and hurts themselves? Somebody sees a furry character doing drugs and decides to inject heroine into their testicles?
> 
> At what point does the responsibility becomes ours or that individuals? We can not be responsible for people who have pre-existing mental images and may be set off by what they see, because if something IS going to set them off, it could be anything.



well, i will agree with you there. if they wanna go and screw up their life, then let them. less pervs and sexual prediters on the street. though the images still supports the whole idea of it...


----------



## Alevva (Nov 5, 2006)

BlueVon said:
			
		

> timbatig said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## SilverAutomatic (Nov 5, 2006)

So, you're allowing it then? Alright - that's fine.

Morally, it itches me a little, but it's not being thrown in my face, so i'm fine with it. However, this is something I have to ask for thoes of you who draw/post cub art. Please, out of respect for us who do not with to view such art, use a seperate thumbnail that says it's cub art. Sometimes thumbnail arn't all that clear to me (since certain pictures look different thanks to my screen resolution).

I know there may be one or two of you who will take that the wrong way and possibily finger me as a spamer or a troll. I'm not.

You have to understand, i'm 100% for freedom of speach. It's something I protect on a daily basis and it's something that I personally feel is the only true freedom left in America. However, I still have a point where in the back of my head I stop myself and say "this is a little too much", and cub art falls in that spot.

Again, freedom of spech, sweet!, but i'm asking that until the filters are in place that you please, out of respect for thoes of us who don't wish to view that art, that you mark of the image as such.


----------



## CaptainSaicin (Nov 5, 2006)

Well since we're all talking about "Freedom of Expression" here, allow me to freely express that I believe "The FA Administation" (or what's left of it) made a *very* poor decision in this matter. I am severely disappointed by your judgement, and with myself for believing FA had the integrity and intelligence to do better.

Today you backed down from the agreement you had with the artists who use this site, you forsook the moral standards of the community, and you drove an overwhelming number of skilled and respected artists to exile.

That is inexcusable in my eyes, even when done in the name of "Freedom of Expression".

Respectfully,
~Earthshine Saicin


----------



## Kuriin (Nov 5, 2006)

Like Dragoneer said, cub art is pretty much the same thing as rape. If you tolerate rape, and don't tolerate cub art, then that's sort of setting a double standard up. Because, in real life, they're both pretty damn bad.


----------



## Avylin (Nov 5, 2006)

SilverAutomatic said:
			
		

> Again, freedom of spech, sweet!, but i'm asking that until the filters are in place that you please, out of respect for thoes of us who don't wish to view that art, that you mark of the image as such.



I'm going to second this.

I'm also concerned that, after so vitriolic a debate, the "winning" side is going to want to assert the authority that the decision has effectively given them by being very prominent with their work. I would ask on behalf not of the outspoken anti-cub camp, but on that of those who simply don't wish to see it (as they might not want to see anything of fetishistic content), that cub artists show tact and discretion with presenting their work over the coming months.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 5, 2006)

CaptainSaicin said:
			
		

> Today you backed down from the agreement you had with the artists who use this site, you forsook the moral standards of the community, and you drove an overwhelming number of skilled and respected artists to exile.
> 
> That is inexcusable in my eyes, even when done in the name of "Freedom of Expression".



Oh god, stop with the grandstanding already. What is "overwhelming" what is "skilled" what is "respected"

This is, INSANE.

I'm so tired of this, I really am.


----------



## verix (Nov 5, 2006)

CaptainSaicin said:
			
		

> and you drove an overwhelming number of skilled and respected artists to exile.


Name 'em.

I'm serious. I hear this only on the anti-skub side of the aisle that says "IF YOU DO THIS EVERYONE WILL LEAVE!" Who will leave? Which artists?

And what's the concrete number? Is it half? 75%? "A ton"? What is the statistic of people who said they will _actually leave_ FurAffinity forever in boycott of this decision?

And among those who have actually said they'd leave, I'd like to document who actually leaves once the message germinates. If anything, the election in November of 2004 showed me that when people say "I'M LEAVING IF X HAPPENS" don't really mean it. There are a few apples on the tree that essentially give the root the finger and fall off, but most actually say "oh well um I guess I'll just stay here and hang around anyway."

As far as I can tell, threatening the administration with the claim that everyone will leave the community in a torrent of fury is unsubstantiated and nothing but scaremongering in a fallacious attempt to persuade them to go in the direction you prefer.


----------



## Farx (Nov 5, 2006)

In my opinion, having an open mind is an ideal and worthy thing to possess and strive towards. Tolerance is a key issue today in a bit of society's problems and freedom of expression is a right to hold near and dear to one's self. This subject has been a sticky wicket, where does one draw the line ? I have no issue with non sexually themed cub art, personally I voted keep the 'ban' in place because I could not distinguish the place where that line was drawn.
Having voted, and seeing how incredibly divided the populace was, I am curious to know if the voting results held any weight in the final administrative decision ? Or perhaps if the voting outcome was more titled to a particular side, than it would have more of an influence ? 

I do agree with the wisdom put forth in saying that "rape, drug use, etc... are illegal, but not when depicted in illustration." 
I also have to say to that note, just because you can, doesn't mean you should.


----------



## neowolf (Nov 5, 2006)

To the mods here, especially the beloved Dragoneer (*wink*, *wink*), I truly feel sorry for you guys. Considering how the vote went you were setup to definitely get about half of the population really pissed off no matter what you did. With all of them preaching and whining about their own version of morality not being made into law.

Though I must admit, the not real humans aspect of the clause seems somewhat obtuse. After all what happens when we start getting into minotaurs, centaurs, and then fairies and elves? I'm not trying to suggest thing either way. It just seems like a really slippery setup to me.


----------



## Fennec (Nov 5, 2006)

thank you for this decision - it is fair and logical.
I applaud you.


----------



## N3X15 (Nov 5, 2006)

An announcement on the site asking artists to add warnings to cubart thumbnails would be nice :|

Also, gj.


----------



## KCat (Nov 5, 2006)

> Today you backed down from the agreement you had with the artists who use this site


TOSs change all the time. They handled the material before as stated in the TOS, the TOS changed, and they'll continue to handle things as stated in the TOS. At least they actually make it known the TOS is changing (and asked for input on it), unlike most places that tend to remain hush-hush about it.


----------



## X-Monkey (Nov 5, 2006)

i just canÂ´t spect less of this side... one more time FA show why is one of the best place on the web for the fur artist.....    of course the decition doenÂ´t like to all but the respect  than FA show is something than everyone can see...   thanks a lot to all (not for allow cub art) by permit to exprese myself and exprese to all


----------



## SilverAutomatic (Nov 5, 2006)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> CaptainSaicin said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



AGREED! loldrama

Guys, most of the really, really, really well respected and well known (i.e. MBR, EWS, and one other I really can't put my finger on) didn't even comment on the matter. I doubt they'll be taking off any time soon.


----------



## Litre (Nov 5, 2006)

I'm sorry but I couldn't pass this up: http://img85.imageshack.us/my.php?image=110506illeaglejk9.png (language)

;D


----------



## Lance_Foxx (Nov 5, 2006)

Although I believe that it is socially irresposible for those who draw pornographic cub pics to post their art in such a public manner, as I believe it _could_ inspire pedophiles to become further intrigued and possibly act out their actions, making it a case where this _could_ be harmful...

I agree that the responisibility falls on the individual who drew the pic and not that admins who allowed it to be posted. 

I support the decision to post "Cub" art. I realize it was not an easy one to make since I have a hatred for this subject as well, but I see this as the most fair of all possible decisions. I'm glad to hear more filters will be in place and that if an actual child _is_ being represented, that action will be taken by the admins.

I will be staying. It disheartens me to know that this will make others jump ship, but with the vast numbers of people involved, I know a difference of opinion is inevitable. I hope they eventually find what they're looking for in an art community. I still believe I'm comfortable enough to call FA home.


----------



## cesarin (Nov 5, 2006)

id say they should change the submission background colors..

example:
normal submissions  ( PG ) = blue
Suggestive  and mature (R) = green
Mature up to porn = Yellow
fetichs art or extreme = Red.

also each fetish should have their own icon ( like...they block the default minimized image and put a cub warning icon )


*edit*
also, since some retards love to never add the filters or stuff to the submissions because they're too lazy or retard...
Id say by default, every picture will be selected to be blocked, so the PROPER INDIVIDUALS WHO CARE ABOUT FILTERS will uncheck the extreme filter, and thus activate the other filters manually.

so by default, extreme filter is on..


----------



## Metabird (Nov 5, 2006)

Boo hoo soob sob I'M LEAVING TEH FANDOMZ FOREVAH! *sob*

I mean it.

*spotlight* listen to me!  I'M GOING! PAY ATTENTION TO ME DAMMIT!  MY STRONG CHRISTIAN OVERTONES DEMANDZ AN ANGRY MOB AND ATTENTION AND *LOOK AT ME!* 

---

...Seriously though, I like this decision.  This way nobody gets screwed over for having a toony style *coughInukicough*, and no real children get screwed either.  That and if there's anyone genuinely offended by the lack of "moral righteousness" here... well, there's always SheezyArt.  (or in a less abrasive case, VCL.)


----------



## CaptainSaicin (Nov 5, 2006)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> CaptainSaicin said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I watch a lot of people. Anyone who is familiar with me on FA can attest to that. Of these people, there are friends, casual artists, professional artists and everywhere in between. There are a handful of people whom I consider the "best" artists on my list - they are the reason I come here as an appreciator of furry art. Of these, roughly 2/3 have already announced their intention to leave in wake of this poor administrative decision, and of the remaining third, less than half have logged on to FA since the whole debacle began - the effect on them is still unknown.

I can tell you how this affects me though. The total volume of decent art in my watch list has been reduced by more than half, and of the people I respected and whose company I enjoyed on this site, most are leaving. I'm halfway inclined to leave myself as a matter of principle, but instead will stay for the interim, just to see if there's anything left really worth staying for.


----------



## Hollywood_8 (Nov 5, 2006)

Question ?  I want to make this thing clear   .. So since Cubart is allowed ... does this also apply to  "Human" anime loli and shota and westernized toons like the ones found in the chan sites  ?


----------



## Alchera (Nov 5, 2006)

Metabird said:
			
		

> Boo hoo soob sob I'M LEAVING TEH FANDOMZ FOREVAH! *sob*
> 
> I mean it.
> 
> ...



That's enough. It isn't just Christians who go around with that sort of philosophy. What did Dragoneer tell you? Apparently some people can't read English very well, can they? All of you need to stop it. Bickering like this will further drive people away. The Admins made their decision, and while I even don't like the fact Cub Porn will be allowed, I'm not making fuss over it. Now grow up, ALL OF YOU!

Dragoneer, close the thread before it worsens!


----------



## Mahila (Nov 5, 2006)

Thank you Dragoneer! I was worried I admit. Yay for freedom from one who isn't even a fan of cub art!


----------



## cesarin (Nov 5, 2006)

Hollywood_8 said:
			
		

> Question ?  I want to make this thing clear   .. So since Cubart is allowed ... does this also apply to  "Human" anime loli and shota and westernized toons like the ones found in the chan sites  ?



they already said VERY CLEARLY that anything reasembling humans are banned.
thus I supose shota, loli, anime-like catgirls, catboys..etc.. will be for sure in the ban.


----------



## Ignatius (Nov 5, 2006)

just2draw said:
			
		

> I joined, and have actively encouraged others to join, Fur Affinity because I believed it to be sensibly run.
> 
> It, like DeviantArt, had an interface that focused on the art â€˜communityâ€™ rather than simple picture posting.  This set it apart from other sites like VCL.
> 
> ...



Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Oh and, dude, if you haven't read the whole damn thing, it says they do not condone real pedophilia (with human children, whether depicting it through drawings or real pictures or the act itself.), FURS ARE NOT REAL.

So get off your high horse... and, well, you're already gone, so thank you.


----------



## Alchera (Nov 5, 2006)

That is enough. Antagonizing people isn't going to help.


----------



## Ashkihyena (Nov 5, 2006)

Okay, now that this decision has been made, its imperative that the filters be fixed, without slowing the site down to a crawl, this is a must, A MUST!!!


----------



## Hollywood_8 (Nov 5, 2006)

cesarin said:
			
		

> Hollywood_8 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What does resembles  a human ? Do you mean photorealistic drawings ? Everything here resembles humans  man ,  in one way or another , so does this mean anything underage without "fur" is not allowed ? I would like an answer from an admin please , thank you !


----------



## Alchera (Nov 5, 2006)

Ashkihyena said:
			
		

> Okay, now that this decision has been made, its imperative that the filters be fixed, without slowing the site down to a crawl, this is a must, A MUST!!!



The filters will be fixed, just sit and wait. Is isn't going to kill you to wait for the update, is it?


----------



## Ashkihyena (Nov 5, 2006)

An't really going to bother me, but I'm sure that alot of people won't come back (well, some probably won't come back anyways) until the filters are fixed.


----------



## cesarin (Nov 5, 2006)

Hollywood_8 said:
			
		

> cesarin said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



pm them Id say, they dont post that constantly ( specially with the drama shitstorm still roaring aroound  )


----------



## SynjoDeonecros (Nov 5, 2006)

This is a rather sensible and 'middle-ground' decision. But I have a question: how does this affect the cub stuff in written media? Now, I know that the main concern is with the art media, since it's more 'in your face' and obvious than written media is, but since FA is open to both art AND stories, the decision for one form of media should have some impact on the other, correct?


----------



## Alchera (Nov 5, 2006)

Well, that is one underlying problem. There are people who won't return even if the filters are put into action. That is their decision. Let them make it.


----------



## Ashkihyena (Nov 5, 2006)

Thats true, but there are some people that might come back, if the filters are ever fixed, and I mean without bringing the site down to where it takes a year for another page to load.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 5, 2006)

CaptainSaicin said:
			
		

> I watch a lot of people. Anyone who is familiar with me on FA can attest to that. Of these people, there are friends, casual artists, professional artists and everywhere in between. There are a handful of people whom I consider the "best" artists on my list - they are the reason I come here as an appreciator of furry art. Of these, roughly 2/3 have already announced their intention to leave in wake of this poor administrative decision, and of the remaining third, less than half have logged on to FA since the whole debacle began - the effect on them is still unknown.



I'm sorry Internet math is extremely bad math. Your viewpoint of how many artists left is irrelevant compared to 30,000 accounts. I watch a lot of artists too, heck I probably have better morals than you to the stuff or content I handle you know like I don't post rape fics. But saying that isn't an attack, what I'm trying to say the difference is, that I respect your right to post them even though I find them HIGHLY offensive. But each person decided to make forsake their bankrupt morals to say someone else's is worse. I really wonder about the world sometimes when this became to rally against each other.

Your viewpoint on what constitutes as quality is not relevant either. People who think they are running off a platform use this talking point in politics to make their side seem like the winning team. It's frankly quite disgusting but here you also have a right to post this opinion no matter how vehemently I disagree with it.

I have a friend who left I consider a VERY GOOD Friend, who has been there for me in good and bad times. I was there for him too. But I'm not going to use him as a platform for what is right or wrong on this forum. It's very gross.

So again I ask you to stop using this as a greater good for your cause. It's not right.


----------



## Alchera (Nov 5, 2006)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> CaptainSaicin said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Though, there is a chance the fight could trickle down to all 30,000 members long after this problem is solved. You have some people who do not log on every day or every week, or fews weeks, I'm sure. This argument will keep coming up again, nor matter how much awareness if given. Now, I'm sure if 10,000 or so artists up and left, then that may something to worry about?


----------



## CaptainSaicin (Nov 5, 2006)

verix said:
			
		

> CaptainSaicin said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Azalea
Cybercat
Darby
Dustmeat (Megan Giles)
Kaji
kattinthebag (AWD)
Nimrais
Silber
StarFinder
SwanDog
thegentilcat

My friend Shani-Hyena is also considering leaving, and Lupinator has already left.

That leaves miyabita_cheetah, Balaa, Kamicheetah and XianJaguar in my list of favored artists, only one of which has announced an intention to stay.

If you want a full list of names, you're welcome to read them in my journal.
http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/51387/

As for how many go through with it, I'll be more than happy to get back to you on that within the week. This isn't a case of people leaving in protest(lolDRAMA). It's people leaving because they have strong moral standards and beliefs which have been violated. Something people like you don't seem to understand about people with strong moral standards, is that they say what they mean, and they always mean what they say.


----------



## creepygoth666 (Nov 5, 2006)

What about kemonomimis? Will they be allowed too, or do they fall under anime?


----------



## ebonyleopard (Nov 5, 2006)

Zakassis said:
			
		

> timbatig said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




What is the difference between cub and human? And why make that distinction. That's censorship. It's a cartoon human, it's not like it's real, just lines on a piece of paper. Chippo form Inuyasha should be allowed, he's half furry.


----------



## N3X15 (Nov 5, 2006)

creepygoth666 said:
			
		

> What about kemonomimis? Will they be allowed to, or do they fall under anime?



...What the hell are those?


----------



## Alchera (Nov 5, 2006)

ebonyleopard said:
			
		

> Zakassis said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Shippou would also fall under Fan Art, which is still in discusion.


----------



## k454i (Nov 5, 2006)

Ok hold on... are they also banning art that isn't furry? Like, not just the cub/shota whatever. But um, is this going to be another strictly furry site now or not?

I personally feel all of it should be allowed (in regards to cub/shota), so long as it isn't a drawing of say, Macauley Culkin (sp?) or something- when it's obviously a fantasy character. Elves dont REALLY exist either, you see.


----------



## Dickie (Nov 5, 2006)

Cool. I really dig how into the whole "freedom of speech and expression" thing you guys are.


----------



## Alchera (Nov 5, 2006)

k454i said:
			
		

> Ok hold on... are they also banning art that isn't furry? Like, not just the cub/shota whatever. But um, is this going to be another strictly furry site now or not?
> 
> I personally feel all of it should be allowed (in regards to cub/shota), so long as it isn't a drawing of say, Macauley Culkin (sp?) or something- when it's obviously a fantasy character. Elves dont REALLY exist either, you see.



I beleive they implying depictions of humans. Though...they also say human based--wouldn't anthros also be human based since is a humanization of an animal? Well, I'm not going to get into that.


----------



## creepygoth666 (Nov 5, 2006)

N3X15 said:
			
		

> creepygoth666 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



animal-people. Kinda like Catboys or raptor boys.


----------



## N3X15 (Nov 5, 2006)

Dragoneer said:
			
		

> The rules will change so that art depicting *human children* in sexual situations will no longer be allowed -- this includes Anime series. The law is specific. Furries are not real, and thus cub art is not permitted. The law, however, is specific as to humans, and they are no longer permitted.



Human Kid art is B&, but now I'm confused about the cub art.  The decision says its OK, but that quote says it isn't.

WAHT DA FUX


----------



## Alchera (Nov 5, 2006)

N3X15 said:
			
		

> Dragoneer said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




It looks like it means strictly humans, and Anime. Nekomata, Kemonomini...whatever that is...would be in Anime, no?


----------



## CaptainSaicin (Nov 5, 2006)

k454i said:
			
		

> Ok hold on... are they also banning art that isn't furry? Like, not just the cub/shota whatever. But um, is this going to be another strictly furry site now or not?



Due to laws surrounding the issue, it would be extremely unwise for the admins to allow many forms of explicit non-furry art. Photographic art is an obvious one, since FA doesn't have a system in place to comply with record-keping laws.


----------



## Midnite (Nov 5, 2006)

Excellent decision

To be honest i feel that there are alot of injustices in the world, and its better for every person to sit down and try to see the light through anothers eyes, and everyone desrves to be heard, and to live in a world where they are acknowledged and respected.

But its about doing things the right way, to make ppl happy, about accepting the limitations of yourself and your acts towards others, and also setting limitations around yourself, for the sake of those around you too.


----------



## KCat (Nov 5, 2006)

> If you want a full list of names, you're welcome to read them in my journal.


I still don't know how accurate that list is. I've seen names on it that shouldn't be, namely KaputOtter and XianJaguar, and I'd also ask about Kaji and Nimrais since I also watch them, haven't seen them make any journal posts about it (and Nimrais just made a post today, 11/05), and Nimrais, at least, hasn't said anything in her LJ either. So, I'm curious to where you get these names from.


----------



## Alchera (Nov 5, 2006)

KCat said:
			
		

> > If you want a full list of names, you're welcome to read them in my journal.
> 
> 
> I still don't know how accurate that list is. I've seen names on it that shouldn't be, namely KaputOtter and XianJaguar, and I'd also ask about Kaji and Nimrais since I also watch them, haven't seen them make any journal posts about it (and Nimrais just made a post today, 11/05), and Nimrais, at least, hasn't said anything in her LJ either. So, I'm curious to where you get these names from.



Rumors and speculation.


----------



## verix (Nov 5, 2006)

CaptainSaicin said:
			
		

> If you want a full list of names, you're welcome to read them in my journal.
> http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/51387/


That's not "overwhelming." That's idly significant. How many artists and users does FurAffinity boast, exactly? How many other amazing artists go unrecognized which haven't really voiced an opinion in this issue, or a care, for that matter? Certainly, I can understand why people will leave, and if they want to, frankly, they're free to. But most people who complain and say that they will leave don't truly wind up following through with it.

Compare this to the number of people who are willing to truly go through with your boycott, and I suspect you'll notice that your rhetoric is exaggerated.


			
				CaptainSaicin said:
			
		

> It's people leaving because they have strong moral standards and beliefs which have been violated. Something people like you don't seem to understand about people with strong moral standards, is that they say what they mean, and they always mean what they say.


I'm willing to take a 24 hour ban for this: *fuck you.* Get off your fucking high horse, you hoi polloi piece of shit. 

So you're going to tell me that _I'm_ immoral because I'm calling you out for your bullshit scaremongering tactics? By your iron-fisted rule-of-majority argumentative ideals? _I'm_ immoral because I'm defending a side you disagree with?

All YOU are doing is trying to pander against others by fucking scaring them into thinking that the entire community is going to collapse just because a few artist say they're going to leave. All I'm doing is saying "no, you're wrong, and I doubt you can prove it." So what the fuck does this make me now, you fucking idiotic prick? A pedophile? Well then BRING ON THE CUBS, BECAUSE I'VE GOT SOME GOD DAMN _FUCKIN'_ TO DO!

Are you honestly going to assume that every single one of these people who are leaving is high and mighty? All-moral, all-willing? Chris Sawyer has the representation of being called *HORSE FUCKER*, for CHRIST'S SAKE. Is that person moral just because he's taking YOUR SIDE?

You're retarded. Plain and simple. You are mentally challenged; you're an idiot, a dunce; you're "a bit slow in the head." Every single thing I've said here can certainly sum up to an ad hominem attack, but it's well-warranted if you're going to come after me and assume that I'm simply attacking those people for their decision and morality, indeed, that I don't understand them. I am not. I am calling _you_ out for your bullshit arguments. 

*Fuck you*, CaptainSaicin. Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 5, 2006)

Alchera said:
			
		

> Though, there is a chance the fight could trickle down to all 30,000 members long after this problem is solved. You have some people who do not log on every day or every week, or fews weeks, I'm sure. This argument will keep coming up again, nor matter how much awareness if given. Now, I'm sure if 10,000 or so artists up and left, then that may something to worry about?



Did you ever consider, that when the cub stuff is allowed it will only be on the condition the AH filter would be in place? Since that filter would be already set to ON, how do they see something unless....mislabled of course. Stuff that's already on there is far in the backlogs of browsing, so it's only when people see the new stuff they'll notice it IF the AH filter was removed.

That means even if this new ruling is in place, chances are those that log on infrequently will NEVER BE AWARE OF THE CHANGE.


----------



## Alchera (Nov 5, 2006)

verix said:
			
		

> CaptainSaicin said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



[size=xx-large]HEY![/size] What did Dragoneer say? It doesn't matter that you're willing to suffer a ban, but God damn. Listen up!

Right now, everyone needs to avoid impulse. If you're going to reply here, please take time to sit down and think your responses so you don't start throwing mud at one another. Remember why we are here, at the community in the first place. We aren't here to be a congress that is always throwing shit at one another. We're here for a common reason. And you know what I see right now? A bunch of children who are bickering at one another; Fight! Fight! Fight! You guys fight before the vote, you fight during the vote, you fight after the vote is closed, and now fights are starting here with derogatory remarks towards other members. That's really brilliant. You award the Administration team with slander towards one another. You should be ashamed of yourselves. Remember this is a privately owned site? The Admins make the rules, and the players must abide by the rules in order to win for the team.Â Â Sure, there may be decisions you guys don't like, and sure there will be hard feelings, but attacking one another here on the forums, there on FA itself in shouts, journals, and comments on artwork, and furthermore on Deviant Art and other websites is not going to help. And this, seen by people not of our own groups will think us as bunch of raging emos. Who's resposibility is it to make our group function? It is ours. Who's responsibility is it for the image we portray as Anthro Artists and members of FA, and in broad terms, the FC? Us. And look what you're doing.

Edit: Arshes, I mean through the journals where people are bickering.


----------



## ebonyleopard (Nov 5, 2006)

So why can't we have fursuit sex photos uploaded? How come that get's censored now? It's art and free expression.


----------



## SilverAutomatic (Nov 5, 2006)

Alchera said:
			
		

> KCat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Rumors, specualtion, 3rd party information, or heresay doesn't amount to actual evidence.


----------



## neowolf (Nov 5, 2006)

Why is it no one seems to realize that taking either stance to the extreme is stepping up on a moral high horse. Whether you're against the decision or even for it. The admins made a decision on a close call. With how the vote went arguably they could've gone either way and been respecting the opinions of the site to the best of their ability. Either way being a cry baby about not getting your way or an ass to those that just don't like the decision is just mindless trolling. If people don't like the decision it's certainly their right to leave. (Freedom of expression and all entails choosing where you want to after all.) Not everyone that's doing it's making a hissy fit of it. (And in that vein, if you're not the person leaving don't bring them into it unless they've at least asked you to whine for them.)


----------



## cesarin (Nov 5, 2006)

ebonyleopard said:
			
		

> So why can't we have fursuit sex photos uploaded? How come that get's censored now? It's art and free expression.


I hope you're being sarcastic, if not, you're scaring me Lamar!! XD



			
				neowolf said:
			
		

> Why is it no one seems to realize that taking either stance to the extreme is stepping up on a moral high horse. Whether you're against the decision or even for it. The admins made a decision on a close call. With how the vote went arguably they could've gone either way and been respecting the opinions of the site to the best of their ability. Either way being a cry baby about not getting your way or an ass to those that just don't like the decision is just mindless trolling. If people don't like the decision it's certainly their right to leave. (Freedom of expression and all entails choosing where you want to after all.) Not everyone that's doing it's making a hissy fit of it. (And in that vein, if you're not the person leaving don't bring them into it unless they've at least asked you to whine for them.)




problem is.. these guys keep with their bullshit of "ohh noes im leaving until you do this.." over and over, but yet they dont LEAVE!
hell they just want to feel dramatic, whoring the attention .
the door always opens but they walk like 5% of the distance to said door to just insult back.. then walk another 5% and soon..


----------



## Rilest (Nov 5, 2006)

Dragoneer said:
			
		

> _1) the term â€œindistinguishableâ€ used with respect to a depiction, means virtually indistinguishable, in that the depiction is such that an ordinary person viewing the depiction would conclude that the depiction is of an actual minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. This definition does not apply to depictions that are drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings depicting minors or adults._
> Note on US code Title 18, Chapter 2256
> 
> There are many kinds of activities which are illegal: rape, drug use, incest, bestiality, driving a car too fast, smoking a cigarette in a pub, etc. The list could go on and on. In some countries, homosexuality, democracy, freedom of speech and free-thinking are outlawed, held hostage under tight regimes, the penalties of which are anything but gentle. Some people have spent their entire lives in jail for exercising their independence.
> ...






My Friend, I salute you, this could not have been handle any better.  Complete show of outstanding leadership.  His word is Law people, and he actually did research on the law, and his decition is the law!.

No more drama, no more flaming.  Alas... It is writen in stone now!. 

Night People,  one of the great debates of all times trully.


----------



## Hanazawa (Nov 5, 2006)

ebonyleopard said:
			
		

> So why can't we have fursuit sex photos uploaded? How come that get's censored now? It's art and free expression.



I think fursuit sex implicitly falls under the category of human photographic nudity/sex, which isn't allowed. That's just my observation and guess, though.


----------



## Ashkihyena (Nov 5, 2006)

> My Friend, I salute you, this could not have been handle any better.  Complete show of outstanding leadership.  His word is Law people, and he actually did research on the law, and his decition is the law!.
> 
> No more drama, no more flaming.  Alas... It is writen in stone now!.
> 
> Night People,  one of the great debates of all times trully.



I guess you haven't seen some of the post here, and some of the journals around the site, even though its in stone, theres still going to be griping, bitching, flaming, etc.[/quote]


----------



## Wookiee (Nov 5, 2006)

I am glad to see the final decision addressed the concerns I had.  There are many things I dislike when it comes to furry art but to get so upset over just one while no one bothered to address the rest didn't seem to make sence.  I am glad for this well thought out decision and think increasing the filters is a great idea.

Thanks Dragoneer (the the rest of the FA staff) for keeping this site a great place for artists to express their artistic freedome, even if I don't happen to agree with them.

http://www.furaffinity.net/view/275789/


----------



## Luna Nuri (Nov 5, 2006)

Dragoneer..please lock the thread...


----------



## Dickie (Nov 5, 2006)

Luna Nuri said:
			
		

> Dragoneer..please lock the thread...


Seconded


----------



## kieranwolf (Nov 5, 2006)

Thanks, admins, and I respect Dragoneer's decision to the utmost.

Being tolerant to others' views, and even their kinks, is a sign of both maturity and an affinity for reason.

Embrace openness, folks. Or else ignore it until the filters get turned on. Things will be less convenient for those who want to view the potentially offensive stuff, after all.


----------



## Alchera (Nov 5, 2006)

Yes, the thread needs to be locked. I know it might undermine, or appear to support undermining Dragoneer, but I got to say it: If an admin has a power lock this, it needs to be locked. It will only escalate. Someone lock it.


----------



## Rilest (Nov 5, 2006)

Ashkihyena said:
			
		

> > My Friend, I salute you, this could not have been handle any better.  Complete show of outstanding leadership.  His word is Law people, and he actually did research on the law, and his decition is the law!.
> >
> > No more drama, no more flaming.  Alas... It is writen in stone now!.
> >
> ...


[/quote]

Yeah, they will still be, but the law already have been passed, if they don't like it people can still leave FA, I mean, nobody is holding them to stay right? ... I do wonder where are they going to go though, SA? DA? YG?, they will complain and bitch, but they would not leave,  now with thing like Acrturus coming back as I heard, thing might get quite nasty, but what you all expect it is all part of a circle.  Now if I was a admin, I would damn right be neutral with everybody and hear their parts, but once a decition is taken I would take deaf ear to any complaining about the matter or anything related.  

AFTER ALL PEOPLE... FA IS FREE!, WE HAVE TO THANKS PREYFAR FOR GIVING US A PLACE TO POST OUR ART AND THAT HE IS NOT CHARGING US ANYTHING! 

That is all

Yes, do lock the tread and let the past be past!   Amen.


----------



## Alchera (Nov 5, 2006)

Rilest said:
			
		

> Ashkihyena said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, they will still be, but the law already have been passed, if they don't like it people can still leave FA, I mean, nobody is holding them to stay right? ... I do wonder where are they going to go though, SA? DA? YG?, they will complain and bitch, but they would not leave,Â Â now with thing like Acrturus coming back as I heard, thing might get quite nasty, but what you all expect it is all part of a circle.Â Â Now if I was a admin, I would damn right be neutral with everybody and hear their parts, but once a decition is taken I would take deaf ear to any complaining about the matter or anything related.Â Â 

AFTER ALL PEOPLE... FA IS FREE!, WE HAVE TO THANKS PREYFAR FOR GIVING US A PLACE TO POST OUR ART AND THAT HE IS NOT CHARGING US ANYTHING! 

That is all
[/quote]

Yes, most certainly. I don't think people are appreciative of how much Dragoneer goes through to keep this place up. And its beginning to seem like people don't care about the other Admins for that matter.


----------



## DavidN (Nov 5, 2006)

I have a feeling that if the admins lock this thread, it'll just explode all over the other boards again...

I've just been watching all this without expressing an opinion, and I think the decision that Dragoneer posted is well-explained enough to at least be understandable to everyone even if they don't agree with it.

Optimism!


----------



## ebonyleopard (Nov 5, 2006)

cesarin said:
			
		

> ebonyleopard said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## ferretsage (Nov 5, 2006)

I respect Dragoneer's decision. This was a rough call, and the admins/moderators deserve several blowjobs for being trussed out into the judgement arena to settle our collective squabbling at the expense of their reputation with some of the people on this site.

Maybe this is a suck-up post, but I really do feel sympathy with those involved in this decision.

Thank you for preserving free expression -- even when the topic is something few would invite to marry their daughters.


----------



## Alchera (Nov 5, 2006)

ebonyleopard said:
			
		

> cesarin said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Dereck Dingo (Nov 5, 2006)

*I can empathize with how hard it must have been, Dragoneer, and all the other Admins too, to come to this decision. During this entire situation, I repeatedly second guessed my own decision and vote in the poll (that I only found later that my vote was rendered useless in the face of false account voting). I'd nearly reached a road block in my own set of "morals". I am no fan of cub art. I do not find it appealing in the slightest. As insults were flying, I stayed out of the fray, but couldn't help but feel that those opposing this measure would all too quickly lable me "immoral" and/or "pedophile" if they knew of my opposition to the ban. Those thoughts didn't sit well with me, and yes, they haunted me a little after making my decision and casting my vote.

However, what carried me through and helped me to stand by my decision without backing down was my sincere faith in freedom of expression, correlated with the current standing laws in the United States regarding artistic depiction of minors.

That said, I applaud the decision of the Fur Affinity Administrators and staff in reaching the best compromise that could be afforded. Once completed, the filters will be put to good use by myself and many other users of Fur Affinity. And my personal thanks go out to all those involved who helped in the decision making that resulted in continued freedom of expression for all those who interact in this community. As well, my personal respect has been earned by those in the community who didn't stoop to mudslinging, who didn't resort to spamming and childish name calling, or flaunting "holier than thou" attitudes regarding comparison of moral standards and personal values. It seems there are very few that did abstain from those actions, and they deserve the respect of the Furry community as a whole, regardless of their support, opposition, or indifference of the ban.

As for me, my nest here at Fur Affinity feels much more comfortable and secure now that a decision, and really this decision in particular, has been reached. Had it gone the other way, I doubt with certainty that I would have left. But now, I am 100% certain that, barring a massive technological failure or heavy distraction from real life matters, I'll will remain a member of the Fur Affinity community for a very, very long time.

"Fur Affinity: Where Freedom of Expression Reigns!"

~Dereck Dingo*


----------



## *morningstar (Nov 5, 2006)

> We understand that many of you may not agree with this decision, but we felt that it was in the best interest of the site not to act as moral judges, not to choose for users what is ethically right or wrong. Why should cub art be the ultimate evil, when artistic depictions of rape, murder and drug use, all of which are quite illegal in the real world, are posted with no complaint? When do morals begin and end? Why does one moral high road state that cub art is the end all, be all of evil yet art depicting rape does not get the same brunt of the hate?
> 
> *There are many things that we, as individuals, object to and find find repulsive, but as people, as individuals, we have both the power and ultimate responsibility to make our own decisions. The right belongs to the people to exercise their power of choice. They can choose not to look at a submission, pass it by, +fav or even opt out of using the entire website.*
> 
> We understand this is not the popular decision with users, but we choose to represent the ideals of freedom of speech and the right for individuals to make their own decisions as to what they view.



Thank you, Preyfar. I'm very impressed, not with the decision, but in the way that it was handled. In the end, it is about user choice. We can choose to embrace it, hate it, ignore it, or even leave if we see fit. If people choose to leave, then that's their decision and it's our job to respect it, even if we don't agree with why they're doing it. This is what maturity and personal responsibility are about.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 5, 2006)

ebonyleopard said:
			
		

> Not really, why should artistic furry expression be limited to just paper? This is the site for freedom of expression, and photography is just another form of art, so technically since fursuits are indeed furry related and are already posted on the site, why should fursuit sex be banned and censored. Not like you know or see the person in the suit, for all visual purposes it's just 3D anthros screwing just like in the digital 3D art. I mean, lt's go all the way, down with censorship of any kind.



The reason this was no longer permitted was because of the new act that required all people to have a model release when it had nudity. This was to verify that the person was 18 or over and that the picture was used with their consent. That was actually to help prevent real child porn too.


----------



## Pinkuh (Nov 5, 2006)

I am going to close this thread for the time being.


----------



## uncia2000 (Nov 5, 2006)

DavidN said:
			
		

> I have a feeling that if the admins lock this thread, it'll just explode all over the other boards again...



*nods*. And personally it can be good for everyone in the community to see the feedback *here* /if/ that can be kept level headed, given that we have hundred of people "checking in" and wanting to hear other's thoughts on the matter.

Anything off-topic/inflammatory, I'll happily delete if Dragoneer isn't around to hand out tempbans.


----------



## uncia2000 (Nov 5, 2006)

- OK, you got there first, Pinkuh... I was still typing in several other places at once and had thought this was being watched over.

(Anyhow; I could do with an early night's sleep for a change and 3am is pretty good going )


----------



## greyfur (Nov 6, 2006)

Dragoneer said:
			
		

> Hulex said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hiding behind the law shows that you propably aren't that against this. Admins have the right to decide and to say "no". So if you really were against it, you wouldn't allow it. Even the Poll ended 50 : 50, the calls for a ban had 1 more vote than those to allow it. So you ignore more than 50% of the users which stated they don't want that to be here. So don't hide behind the law. It's you, the admins, who's decision it was and you will pay for it by the users which will leave and which already left...


----------



## kurst (Nov 6, 2006)

Dragoneer said:
			
		

> Fur Affinity
> Where Freedom of Expression Reigns



As I told a friend in car yesterday even though I myself don't like that art, it makes me itch and sick.  If we believe in the spirit of the site we need not to go down the slippiry slope.

The decision that was laid down was the right one for the spirit and idea of the site.

Thank you for doing the right thing.


----------



## DracoOfZeradaith (Nov 6, 2006)

verix said:
			
		

> "I'm willing to take a 24 hour ban for this..."



*snicker*  I love you, Verix.

Dragoneer, Admins, I salute you.  I joined the forums today, and good gods, am I glad I missed out on all the drama here.  It was a difficult decision.  It was an unpopular decision.  But you made the right one.  Sure, I don't absolutely *love* the idea of cub porn, but I would much rather have the choice of filtering something for myself than impeding on someone else's First Amendment rights.

To all the artists leaving over this, I'm sorry to see you go.  May you find happiness somewhere out there in the great big Intarnets.

To those of us staying, let's let this drop and get on with our lives.

The Dragon Hath Spoken 
--Draco of Zeradaith, Geosexual Golden God


----------



## GuitarSolo (Nov 6, 2006)

And the hammer has been brought down! Wise words from the waffler.


----------



## Shira (Nov 6, 2006)

First, to the administration, thank you for making a decision. Hopefully the fallout from this won't be as dramatic as some of us fear it will be. I'd say roughly 5% of artists have expressed their urges to leave the site, and some have already done so, but honestly, I feel it's their loss. They're turning away one of the largest, most interactive audiences they could get.

Second, and I know some people have asked this already... where does the line get drawn between "furry" and "human" art? I couldn't draw to save my soul (and it would take a lot more than art!), so it doesn't affect me, but it does seem to be a valid concern. Also, anime-style characters can look significantly older or younger than their actual ages, so saying "anime" as a baseline is rather fuzzy itself. Some people are going to try skirt as close to the line as possible, no matter where it gets drawn, but it would be wise to at least draw it clearly as possible.

Third, how are the filters for this going to be handled? Some people have proposed expanding the existing adult-rating system (from three tiers to four), but there's a lot of other art that would have to go into that top level as well. Will it just be added to the existing list of filters, and will they be re-enabled soon, hopefully by the end of the year?

Fourth, since we have so many flames on the forums these days... who brought the marshmallows? I want s'mores!


----------



## shy_matsi (Nov 6, 2006)

I'm not one who looks at cub art, but I fully agree with this decision.  It would've been the start of banning a whole lot more then just mature cub art, that or it would've been the start of the first furry site to discriminate against a class of furs.  Either way, I think, would be bad for FA.


----------



## roninotter (Nov 6, 2006)

This makes me sad. :cry:
Tell me, are negative comments counted as "drama" and therefore censored?  Because I'd like to say something which might have been overlooked in the reasoning for this decision.


----------



## blade (Nov 6, 2006)

Actually it (the drama)was those that were stating that anyone that voted "allow" were thus pedos because of that, even if they weren't, along with other bouts of namecalling...but to answer the question, from what I've seen they didn't seem to get censored, only the stuff that took away from the topic ("so what shows are you watching?") were deleted so that things could be kept on track.

If it has to do with moral/legal/previous TOS, it's probably already been said.  The law had been quoted numerous times, moral statements have been said numerous times and the TOS had been quoted many times.  As had the argument of beastiallity, cubs vs human children, and there's probably a few that I'm forgetting.

As for now, let's just let things be how they are considering that this topic has brought up a lot of bad blood and it was the decision of the admin to do this in the fairest way possible in what seemed to be a no-win situation.


----------



## StalkerAT (Nov 6, 2006)

I don't want to argue about or against a specific group of furs. I also think that art should be free. 

Nevertheless the desission that cub porn is completely allowed on this site seems not very wise to me. 
Maybe there will be some lawsuit which can make clear if cub and child porn is the same of not, however I wouldn't want to have that battle running directly against FA.
Quite a lot of people are disgusted by underage characters in adult situations and other forms of alternative furry porn. This is a problem, that's concerns a lot of pics here on FA. "Cub porn" is just a very popular example. Please try to get that filter working or get a new category ("General - Mature - Adult - ???") for submiting.


----------



## Lt_Havoc (Nov 6, 2006)

I think it speaks volumes that a lot of artists are leaving, cuzÂ´ of that decsion. The site is bleeding dry, the wrost thing that can happen. But no one is doing something against that. I asked, if you where sure about the outcome of your decsion, but in fact, you never cared.


----------



## blade (Nov 6, 2006)

I have yet to see it bleed dry.  I still see artwork being posted reguardless and I still see journals posted (albeit the majority that pop up in my inbox being about the current situation), and comments given.

Opinions can be taken at face value, but should not distributed as fact.


----------



## Lt_Havoc (Nov 6, 2006)

blade said:
			
		

> I have yet to see it bleed dry.Â Â I still see artwork being posted reguardless and I still see journals posted (albeit the majority that pop up in my inbox being about the current situation), and comments given.
> 
> Opinions can be taken at face value, but should not distributed as fact.


Sure, but not from those I loved to watch. They will all go and my watch list will be left with a few people who are brave enough to stay. There is no danm other site where so many good artists are at the same place. 

It all got destroyed through this and thats why I not support the whole thing at all.


----------



## blade (Nov 6, 2006)

And thus I take another drink.

Tolerance is something that should be accepted rather than something a war is started over.


----------



## Pawsie (Nov 6, 2006)

Did I hear that people are leaving because FA allows a certain type of art that has been on the site in the past?  Eh... whatever.  It almost sounds like the gay marriage thing, but on a much lower scale.


----------



## Lt_Havoc (Nov 6, 2006)

IÂ´m just not sure what to do. Its a community falling apart over one thing and its all stupid and whatnot. I just dont see why all this had to happen in the first place. It was not nesscary. Wehn somone could give me a real answer to all this, so I understand, but its all so surreal at the moment. 

I also dont know about any gay marriage thing, I dont live in the states. 

That brings a question up: what is with Lolicon and shota, how this is going to be handeld? What if people do not make the right tag on thier submissions for the filter? How does it look with international users, like me, where cub,lolicon and shota are forbidden? 

Its always focused on the USA, but what is with the users not living there that have diffrent laws?


----------



## blade (Nov 6, 2006)

Pawsie said:
			
		

> Did I hear that people are leaving because FA allows a certain type of art that has been on the site in the past?  Eh... whatever.  It almost sounds like the gay marriage thing, but on a much lower scale.



Actually it does in a way.


----------



## N3X15 (Nov 6, 2006)

Lt.Havoc said:
			
		

> IÂ´m just not sure what to do. Its a community falling apart over one thing and its all stupid and whatnot. I just dont see why all this had to happen in the first place. It was not nesscary. Wehn somone could give me a real answer to all this, so I understand, but its all so surreal at the moment.
> 
> I also dont know about any gay marriage thing, I dont live in the states.
> 
> ...



Its focused in the USA because that's where the servers are.  If someone posts shit that's illegal, the server admins could be held liable.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 6, 2006)

You know anime used to be counted as pedophilia. Just because of the style. There were furry artists getting heat for it everyday because of the style they drew. There was never going to be a clear line here, but people had to push it. Zaush made a good point because I was gonna say that to someone else. His Citras would fall under "sexually underdeveloped" Does that mean he was a pedophile, or because he was a good artist people were turning blind eyes, or even doing their own interpretations of Citras. I kinda find that ironic.

Yes, some people left, but as I said before there was a lot of shit that was morally bankrupt that wasn't against the TOS they were perfectly able to look away. I guess child abuse in phyiscal is ok these days now, since that wasn't something addressed, but people sure do get bothered by sex.

I dunno people try to justify a lot of crap here that doesn't with me morally, but again at least I do understand my difference between reality and fantasy.


----------



## psion (Nov 6, 2006)

While I finally joined FA's forums too late for the drama, I respect your final decision on this issue.  Don't like it, but I can respect it and understand your reasons for it.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 6, 2006)

N3X15 said:
			
		

> Its focused in the USA because that's where the servers are.  If someone posts shit that's illegal, the server admins could be held liable.



True, but everyone keeps talking and not doing the walk, let's not put this to the test and you know report FA?


----------



## N3X15 (Nov 6, 2006)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> N3X15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm not, I'm clarifying some people's concerns.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 6, 2006)

I understand that. I'm just saying that a lot of people are saying "illegal this" "illegal that" ok, since FA wanted to push the new stance on cub porn, why not equally push back and see how liable they actually are?


----------



## uncia2000 (Nov 6, 2006)

StalkerAT said:
			
		

> Canada already stamped furry porn as illegal.



Do you have a link and specific context on that, please?

Thank you,
David/u2k


----------



## CoyoteTail (Nov 6, 2006)

-in after drama-
Thanks to the admins and Dragoneer for coming to such a reasonable conclusion, instead of following the poll results. Even for as many as we're losing now, I think FA would be experiencing more artist loss if they were to actively ban (instead of loosely TOS ban) cub art.


----------



## Thot (Nov 6, 2006)

Lt.Havoc said:
			
		

> That brings a question up: what is with Lolicon and shota, how this is going to be handeld? What if people do not make the right tag on thier submissions for the filter? How does it look with international users, like me, where cub,lolicon and shota are forbidden?


Depictions of human children aren't allowed. I don't know if there were other reasons for this, but obviously this would be the part that could (in theory at least) get FA in trouble, given a realistically enough drawn picture. Though I believe the law excluded drawings and the like. Ah well...
They're getting a warning or something along the line.
What about simply not viewing the forbidden content where it may be seen by others (read: in public places)? If you're concerned about possibly getting caught viewing the site itself by other means, I'd suggest using a good (far off) Proxy.


----------



## Shira (Nov 6, 2006)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> let's not put this to the test and you know report FA?



We really don't need to even bring that idea up. No need to suggest even more possible causes for trouble. o.o


----------



## jill (Nov 6, 2006)

i hope nobody leaves the site over my hot cub porn...
won't somebody...think of the babies...
http://www.furaffinity.net/full/277673/

[perfectly *worksafe* artwork done in parody, enjoy]


----------



## Pawsie (Nov 6, 2006)

Well.. what I was going towards was the idea that this is extremely little.Â Â The fact is.. cub crap was here before this discussion began.Â Â It was not allow in this community, but no one enforced it.Â Â Now it's officially allowed, and people want to leave because of it?

If cub porn was such a big problem, people would have left when the administration refused to enforce their law.Â Â The only why people are "threatening to leave" -- which shouldn't be confused with people whoÂ Â are really going to do it -- is that they did not get the answer they expected.Â Â I suppose this is some childish stunt in the hope that the administration would regret driving them off.Â Â 

Truthfully, cub art only affects two people; the people who want to see that form of art and the people who want to make it.Â Â The people who are disgusted by this art does not fit the equation because they are not the targetted audiance.Â Â What they think shouldn't matter because they're not the ones who would want to see it.Â Â 

The only real problem is the "principle" that something they dislike is allowed in a place they go to.Â Â People are basically threatening to leave a free community because it'll feature art they are not going to look at, instaed of simply not looking at it.Â Â 

This is like the gay marriage fiasco because a large majority of non gays are making rules on gay, even though it has nothing to do with non gays.


----------



## foreverwhiteknight (Nov 6, 2006)

I sat here this morning and read this whole entire thread.  All the drama all the flaming and a good amount of banning. 

I had no clue this was going on, even though I come here every day :lol:

I came here just following someone I deeply care about from another art site, because I wanted to continue to watch their artwork and also because I like furry art as well.  I honestly can't see what the huge issue is.  Some people like this and some people don't.  I can't sit here and say I like "adult" cub art, but at the same time I'm glad to see that they decided to let the people draw it as they wish.  In the weeks that I've been here on this site, I've barely seen any cub porn at all.  

I personally don't see how any of us can sit and judge other people for their type of art. Some people draw rape stuff, some people draw guy/guy or girl/girl stuff, some draw cub stuff, some don't draw anything but tame art, but everyone here does it for art.  I may be wrong, but I doubt any of the people drawing cub porn would do that kind of thing to a real human.  The judging should be left to the authority figures of wherever you are, in this case the admins and mods of this site.  They ususally do whats best, even if its somthing we don't agree with.


----------



## bluedrache (Nov 6, 2006)

This is a furry community...and nowhere else is there the level of drama and insider "hate" than anywhere else.  I applaud the decision of the moderators for this.  Though I do not care for cub art, it is neither my place nor my policy to deny one's freedom of expression.  If I do not care for something *I* am responsible enough to use my better judgment and use any filtering that the site provides.  In lieu of said filtering, I will just not go to those areas.  It's not going to make me forgo the entire site and miss out on all the wonderful artwork because of an unpopular decision affecting a relatively MINOR subset of the fandom.

Once again, thank you for choosing freedom over fascism.


----------



## Zelinko (Nov 6, 2006)

This is becoming a nightmare. We are CREATING a Red vs Blue Scenario. We need people to work for a comprimise or we go ultra polarized and neither side will want to move...

This is insane as with heated emotions everyone is going and being rash and insane.


----------



## Lt_Havoc (Nov 6, 2006)

Now, there was it, the word I waited for "fascism". Does anyone even know what that word means? Its always used in situation like this, but ya know, even if they banned it, it wouldnt be "fascism" then. Ah, what the hell. 

I agree with Zelinko here, he is right. As I said, the site will break in 2 factions about this and many leave, its not a good sign and I dont like it where that is going.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 6, 2006)

Pawsie said:
			
		

> If cub porn was such a big problem, people would have left when the administration refused to do enforce their law.  The only why people are "threatening to leave" -- which shouldn't be confused with people who  are really going to do it -- is that they did not get the answer they expected.  I suppose this is some childish stunt in the hope that the administration would regret driving them off.



You know that is a good point. You can yell all about the admins enforcing or not enforcing it all you want. Just because an "arbritary" TOS got lifted, now you're leaving. Where was the real moral outrage before this? If it was still there why did you stay?

That's why it just got really stupid.

It's not that I'm saying it was or was not enforced, it's just that I felt with the wording there was room for interpretation and no one would get happy unless it was done *their way only* and not what was the most reasonable.


----------



## KCat (Nov 6, 2006)

> Just because an "arbritary" TOS got lifted, now you're leaving. Where was the real moral outrage before this?


To be fair, not everyone knew there was cub porn here already. They assumed the TOS was a strict no, instead of the vague interpretation it was. Then they found out when all this hooplah started, and decided to wait for the official ruling instead of just leaving.

Though I find it funny that some people leaving here now were full and active members of Y!Gallery (which had accepted not only cub porn, but also anime-human children) right up until their ban of furries.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 6, 2006)

KCat said:
			
		

> > Just because an "arbritary" TOS got lifted, now you're leaving. Where was the real moral outrage before this?
> 
> 
> To be fair, not everyone knew there was cub porn here already. They assumed the TOS was a strict no, instead of the vague interpretation it was. Then they found out when all this hooplah started, and decided to wait for the official ruling instead of just leaving.
> ...



OF COURSE. Which meant ignorance was bliss. The assumption the TOS was strict was also THEIR fault too. It means they didn't READ it either.


----------



## N3X15 (Nov 6, 2006)

KCat said:
			
		

> > Just because an "arbritary" TOS got lifted, now you're leaving. Where was the real moral outrage before this?
> 
> 
> To be fair, not everyone knew there was cub porn here already.



Uhm, it was in the friggin' browse dropdown lists 

Cub (Mature)


or something


----------



## Pawsie (Nov 6, 2006)

So what does this mean.. that people know cub art is legal and it's perfectly reasonable for people to leave this community over cub art they didn't know existed until now?Â Â 

Personally I like cub art and voted to keep it in (though the majority went against it).Â Â If they took it away I wouldn't take it that seriously.Â Â It's not as if the entire community will be flooded with a mass amount of cub porn art from the minority that enjoys it.Â Â Truthfully, nothing changed.Â Â If you haven't found cub art accidently in the past, you won't accidently find it in the future.Â Â It's just a kink that creeps out a lot of people.

All the people making these childish threat of leavign FA.. how about trying to force admin to finish with the filter.. as a resident of this community, I believe you have the right to not see things you don't wish to see.


----------



## Merlynn27 (Nov 6, 2006)

Honestly. What's the big goddamn deal? "OMG,cub pornz!" Yeah,it's "immoral". More immoral than,say,demons. How many of you have or draw demon characters? How about rape? Torture? Vore? How about a giant penis eating someone? 

How many times as some uptight jerkwad come up to you and said "This shit is amoral and offensive and you should take it down NOW!"? And now,when you have a chance to stick up for your fellow artists and say "They have every right to draw what they want!",you instead grab a torch and join the mob.

It's a funny thing about free speech. Everyone wants to use it,but noone wants to deal with it when it works against them. When you want to put up your controversal porn,we should just all sit down and accept it,but if it's something you don't like,it should be outlawed. Fucking hypocrits.

If someone says something I don't want to hear,I either ignore them,or I use my right to free speech to call them an idiot and to leave me alone. Why is this so hard for everyone else to deal with? Why can't you just let people have their fun?

There are a lot of people who draw rape porn. Does that mean you're going to go rape someone? Does it mean you'd be ok with being raped? How about murder? I see lots of works with people dying horribly. Doesn't that mean that you really want to kill people? Should we be enabling this kind of behavior?

You're not fooling anyone. You're here for the same reason the "cub artists" are. Cause it's a free site to post your art and fantasies. To freely talk about what you like. And now you want to take that away from others.

Well,the next time someone comes on your page and tells you how "sick" your art is and that you should be ashamed of yourself,you look them straight in the eye and say "You're absolutly right". And then take it down. Cause deep down,you don't have the guts to stand up to them and you shouldn't benifit from those who do.


----------



## Solaris (Nov 6, 2006)

> i still think its wrong cause what if later the pedofiles gets incouraged to do something like raping a 14 yr old girl in real life?



What if someone listens to marlin manson, and decides to shoot up his or her school? Who's responsability is it? In your example where does the blame fall, the artist or the rapest?

I think the decision made was in the best intrest as a whole. We can not deny one group from having the freedoms others so openly enjoy and express.


----------



## uncia2000 (Nov 6, 2006)

N3X15 said:
			
		

> Uhm, it was in the friggin' browse dropdown lists
> 
> Cub (Mature)
> 
> or something



=> http://www.furaffinityforums.net/showthread.php?tid=4209&pid=60800#pid60800

d.


----------



## uncia2000 (Nov 6, 2006)

Heh. /not/ that topic, N3X15; the link above is just 'bout the filter/category and another reason, why it was it in the system, and why it didn't necessarily just mean "cubporn".

Apologies for not stating that out in full, 'coz I'm having fun elsewhere watching out and banning new accounts.


----------



## dave hyena (Nov 6, 2006)

uncia2000 said:
			
		

> Heh. /not/ that topic, N3X15; the link above is just 'bout the filter/category and another reason, why it was it in the system, and why it didn't necessarily just mean "cubporn".
> 
> Apologies for not stating that out in full, 'coz I'm having fun elsewhere watching out and banning new accounts.



Don't forgot to go up the wooden hill to bedfordshire tonight. I know I get grumpy and bad tempered If I go to bed at 12, so going at 3am is just not accceptable.


----------



## StalkerAT (Nov 6, 2006)

uncia2000 said:
			
		

> Do you have a link and specific context on that, please?
> Thank you,
> David/u2k



Please ignore this statement. 
I haven't found anything valid and believe now that this might be nothing more than a rumor spread in some chatroom.


----------



## tacticalsnake (Nov 6, 2006)

I'm getting really confused.... 
I understand what's going on with cub-- whatever, really-- but I'm curious as to why it's thought we have to deliniate between human cub and furry cub... 
The law states only illustrations *based on an actual child or done to appear like an actual child, such as photo-realism* are illegal, not any illustration of a human. ^.^; I mean, yeah, you can't draw porn of the kid who plays Harry Potter in the Harry Potter movies, but you can draw porn of how you picture harry and it's perfectly OK (in so far as an example of illustrated CP being ok-- it's not ok as far as copywrite is concerned but no one really gives a shit about that any way. ). He just can't look exactly like daniel radcliffe or however his name is spelled. Or like a real kid, so you need to keep it stylised. Not really a big deal. The consideration is to block photographs, images based on photographs/using children for models, and images that can be confused with photographs. 
If we couldn't have illustrations whatsoever, then 4chan would have been in a lot of trouble by now. I mean, shit, we all know the Party Van was there _recently_ over the whole stadium bombing threats. And we've still got all our loli and shota, so yeah. 

Also-- discussing what to do about fan art in this regard, or fan art as a whole--- I'm pretty sure it's meant fan art in this regard, but all the same-- huh? I don't understand why there would be special considerations for this. ^.^; At all. 

I just really hope that things don't get narrowed, specified and restricted. In short, I'm really hoping this doesn't turn into another sort of Y!Gallery. The fact that there's delinations being made based on species and then whether it's original or fan work is making me a little nervous on whether or not the site will decide to up and close its self off from anything non-furry. Seriously. I would hope we could stay the great, open and free site this is, and that it does not become just another highly controlled 'theme' gallery, which really doesn't do any good for any one and could only lead to problems. Nothing like 'clear restrictions and regulations' to start fights. ^.^; There's already been several questions asked in the thread about what makes something furry enough to be cub and not human any more. And the last thing needed is for there to be a list of requirements, which is only going to be disputed and fought over by the users who have their own delineations until the end of time. again, I'm ssure some of us remember the debacle at Y!Gallery, which thought it could define 'furry', and still thinks it can define what makes something too furry for the site. It's really quite insane. 
Concrete definitions don't work out very well, in other words. 

ANOTHER ITEM... 
Is there going to be an update on the main site about any of this, or are we going to have to look in the forums? I only popped in because i had absolutely no idea what was going on and there were a thousand confusing journals mucking up my inbox. Since i have material in my gallery that may or may not be allowed (human fan art cub, depending on what the cut off is... Since I'm talking about characters who are generally 12/13 and 15 in the image) I'd like to know before hand if I have to get rid of it/never upload Naruto pr0nz again, etc. Before I get banned or something. That would be... full of not fun. :/


----------



## Summercat (Nov 6, 2006)

lol furries.

That's sadly the best comment I could think of. Ah well.

But.... I think this will eventually be a good thing, for we have NOT cut off a portion of the fandom because they are 'too weird'. That's a good thing, IMO.


----------



## GranDragon (Nov 6, 2006)

Why do you use the Us code? Is not the FA a international community of artist? Did you ask us our opinion?


----------



## Vekke (Nov 6, 2006)

tacticalsnake said:
			
		

> Also-- discussing what to do about fan art in this regard, or fan art as a whole--- I'm pretty sure it's meant fan art in this regard, but all the same-- huh? I don't understand why there would be special considerations for this. ^.^; At all.



It's a legal issue. Companies and copyright owners who've created certain things that are supposed to be okay for everyone to see are probably not going to be too happy about pornographic derivative work. *I* wouldn't. Angry people could complain to the people who own the original work, not knowing who was responsible for the art. The company could take legal action against _any_ sort of derivative work, clean or not. I would imagine that they don't care much about the clean stuff (it's free advertising, dude), but pornographic work can be pretty damaging (Disney, for example, has already gotten all kinds of crap for tiny things supposedly included in their movies) . . . then imagine, on top of that, the characters being underage. Not good news. And most likely, any action taken would be against FA.



			
				GranDragon said:
			
		

> Why do you use the Us code? Is not the FA a international community of artist? Did you ask us our opinion?


Already been addressed at least a couple of times. FurAffinity's server is hosted in the United States, so the website is subject to US laws. They won't get in trouble for hosting something that is illegal in another country if it's legal in their area.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 6, 2006)

GranDragon said:
			
		

> Why do you use the Us code? Is not the FA a international community of artist? Did you ask us our opinion?



Because servers are accountable by the country they are hosted in. In this case the server is US based.


----------



## kittizak (Nov 6, 2006)

Section 163.1 of the Canadian Criminal Code defines child pornography as "a visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means", that "shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity", or "the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years." The definitive Supreme Court of Canada decision, R. v. Sharpe, interprets the statute to include purely fictional material even when no real children were involved in its production. From paragraph 38 of the decision:

    Interpreting "person" in accordance with Parliament's purpose of criminalizing possession of material that poses a reasoned risk of harm to children, it seems that it should include visual works of the imagination as well as depictions of actual people. Notwithstanding the fact that 'person' in the charging section and in s. 163.1(1)(b) refers to a flesh-and-blood person, I conclude that "person" in s. 163.1(1)(a) includes both actual and imaginary human beings.

    â€”Supreme Court of Canada, R. v. Sharpe, Paragraph 38

http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/2001/vol1/html/2001scr1_0045.html

In April 2006, an American was sentenced to 30 days in jail for bringing child pornography to Canada. While he had possession of three videos and three images of real children, a criminal investigator cited the 13,000 "mostly cartoon" or "anime" images in his possession and the "prohibitive nature of these goods"

http://www.cbc.ca/ns/story/ns-porn-anime20060404.html

While it is true that it does not specifically mentions furry, they refer to a depiction of a fictional being that is visibly underaged and enganged in a sexual act to be encompased under Section 163.1




			
				uncia2000 said:
			
		

> StalkerAT said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## kittizak (Nov 6, 2006)

President George W. Bush signed into law the PROTECT Act of 2003 (also dubbed the Amber Alert Law) which again criminalizes cartoon child pornography, so far as it would be found obscene under the Miller test. In December 2005, Dwight Whorley was convicted under this law for receiving both "...obscene Japanese anime cartoons that graphically depicted prepubescent female children being forced to engage in genital-genital and oral-genital intercourse with adult males," and "...digital photographs of actual children engaging in sexually explicit conduct." Neither Whorley's, nor any other conviction under this law has been reviewed by the Supreme Court. However, the reason that "lolicon" was used against him in his trial was because he was on parole from prison, and the charge that put him there was having child porn also. Having any depiction of "child porn", this includes lolicon, violated his parole

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/04/30/bush.amber
http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD/MGArticle/RTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1128768481527
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/ceos/Press%20Releases/EDVA%20Whorley%20Verdict%20PR_120105.pdf
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/ceos/Press%20Releases/EDVA%20Whorley%20Verdict%20PR_120105.pdf
http://www.fbi.gov/page2/march06/obscenity031006.htm



			
				Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> GranDragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## uncia2000 (Nov 6, 2006)

Thanks for the clips, kittizak.



			
				kittizak said:
			
		

> <legislative clip>Interpreting "person" in accordance with Parliament's purpose of criminalizing possession of material that poses a reasoned risk of harm to children, it seems that it should include visual works of the imagination as well as depictions of actual people. Notwithstanding the fact that 'person' in the charging section and in s. 163.1(1)(b) *refers to a flesh-and-blood person, I conclude that "person" in s. 163.1(1)(a) includes both actual and imaginary human beings.*


 (emphasis mine)

Person => human beings.

Is a photo of a horse's rump classified as "child porn" because the horse is under 18?

To say nothing of a fantasy character that cannot have a flesh-and-blood analog.



			
				kittizak said:
			
		

> While it is true that it does not specifically mentions furry, they refer to a depiction of a fictional being that is visibly underaged and enganged in a sexual act to be encompased under Section 163.1



Does the highlighting above help assuage that concern?

Yup; depictions of underaged humans in a Canadian legal context was mentioned in passing earlier by myself; q.v. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolicon


----------



## uncia2000 (Nov 6, 2006)

StalkerAT said:
			
		

> uncia2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And many thanks for the honest, visible reply, StalkerAT.

_Rumors have a lot to answer for..._


----------



## kittizak (Nov 6, 2006)

You're right -- it actually says person/human being, but it settles a judicial precedent where they treat a fictional depiction as real child pornography.

Its ironic that Sweden has one of the thoughest laws on child pornography for its broad interpretation, since it states that no matter how abstract the depiction, if its underaged is, therefore, illegal.



			
				uncia2000 said:
			
		

> Thanks for the clips, kittizak.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## uncia2000 (Nov 6, 2006)

(re. Canada)


			
				kittizak said:
			
		

> You're right -- it actually says person/human being, but it settles a judicial precedent where they treat a fictional depiction as real child pornography.



Yep. Fictional depiction of a human child.
A precedent, perhaps, but only in the context of human children.

We've also had legislation here in the UK since 1994 when it comes to pseudo-photographs that are also not necessarily relating to RL human children. (I do work in Criminal Justice myself, these days...).

All of this is still far removed from anything furry-side, but still good to pin down properly.



			
				kittizak said:
			
		

> Its ironic that Sweden has one of the thoughest laws on child pornography for its broad interpretation, since it states that no matter how abstract the depiction, if its underaged is, therefore, illegal.



Human children again?
(Any links, please?)

Kindest regards,
David.


----------



## Trickster (Nov 6, 2006)

Dragoneer said:
			
		

> The rules will change so that art depicting human children in sexual situations *will no longer be allowed* -- this includes Anime series. The law is specific. Furries are not real, and thus cub art is permitted. The law, however, is specific as to humans, and they are no longer permitted.


I'm sure this has been covered by someone else, but drawn erotica of children is not against Federal law in the US.  As long as it's clear that something isn't an actual child, it isn't a child by law.  It's a drawing.

Not only was this interpretation upheld by our Supreme Court 7-2, it featured a 6-member majority opinion.  So it isn't likely that this will change anytime soon.  The only materials that legally constitute "child pornography" are 1) photographs of children in lewd positions, or 2) sexualized photomorphs based on the photographs of identifiable children (whether or not the photographs were erotic).

Trickster


----------



## Master_Oki_Akai (Nov 6, 2006)

Trickster said:
			
		

> Dragoneer said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


See, if ya say that that happened, ya gotta prove it.


----------



## kittizak (Nov 6, 2006)

President George W. Bush signed into law the PROTECT Act of 2003 (also dubbed the Amber Alert Law) which again criminalizes cartoon child pornography, so far as it would be found obscene under the Miller test. In December 2005, Dwight Whorley was convicted under this law for receiving both "...obscene Japanese anime cartoons that graphically depicted prepubescent female children being forced to engage in genital-genital and oral-genital intercourse with adult males," and "...digital photographs of actual children engaging in sexually explicit conduct." Neither Whorley's, nor any other conviction under this law has been reviewed by the Supreme Court. However, the reason that "lolicon" was used against him in his trial was because he was on parole from prison, and the charge that put him there was having child porn also. Having any depiction of "child porn", this includes lolicon, violated his parole

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/04/30/bush.amber
http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Sat...8768481527
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/ceos/Press...120105.pdf
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/ceos/Press...120105.pdf
http://www.fbi.gov/page2/march06/obscenity031006.htm



			
				Trickster said:
			
		

> Dragoneer said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Trickster (Nov 6, 2006)

kittizak said:
			
		

> President George W. Bush signed into law the PROTECT Act of 2003 (also dubbed the Amber Alert Law) which again criminalizes cartoon child pornography, so far as it would be found obscene under the Miller test. In December 2005, Dwight Whorley was convicted under this law for receiving both "...obscene Japanese anime cartoons that graphically depicted prepubescent female children being forced to engage in genital-genital and oral-genital intercourse with adult males," and "...digital photographs of actual children engaging in sexually explicit conduct." Neither Whorley's, nor any other conviction under this law has been reviewed by the Supreme Court. However, the reason that "lolicon" was used against him in his trial was because he was on parole from prison, and the charge that put him there was having child porn also. Having any depiction of "child porn", this includes lolicon, violated his parole


The Protect Act defines illegal obscenity as any â€œdigital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is <b>indistinguishable from</b>, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct.â€

The fact that the law was bent to affect a parolee is not unusual, as parolees are not held to the same standard as law-abiding citizens.  Several years ago a parolee was convicted for writings in his diary, even though nothing written has been obscene for normal citizens since the Supreme Court last overturned the ban on Naked Lunch.  This doesn't mean that citizens are in danger for owning written erotica--it just means judges don't enough about care about convicts on parole to try their cases with merit.

Trickster


----------



## kittizak (Nov 6, 2006)

Actually, also in the US.

PROTECT Act of 2003
http://judiciary.senate.gov/special/S151CONF.pdf

And the first man sentenced under it:  Dwight Whorley
http://www.fbi.gov/page2/march06/obscenity031006.htm
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/ceos/Press%20Releases/EDVA%20Whorley%20Verdict%20PR_120105.pdf
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/ceos/Press%20Releases/EDVA%20Whorley%20Verdict%20PR_120105.pdf

So, technically, the judicial precedent has also been established in the US courts.

Dismissing this precedents over something being human or not is walking over a very fine thread that can snap at any time, specially since the PROTECT Act of 2003 uses the Miller Test as its basis (Miller v. California)

    * Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
    * Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions [1] specifically defined by applicable state law,
    * Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Part 1 and 3 are fully satisfied and and Part 2 can go either way, depending on the judge (Either by using a broad approach of the Miller Test or the Protect Act) and thus making it obscene.



			
				uncia2000 said:
			
		

> (re. Canada)



http://www.police.se/inter/nodeid=33909&pageversion=1.html
It never states human children, only children -- Concordingly, considering Sweden's broad approach to the issue states that no matter how abstract (a child with cat ears and a cat tail for example) the depiction is - ergo, its still illegal. 



			
				uncia2000 said:
			
		

> Human children again?
> (Any links, please?)
> 
> Kindest regards,
> David.


----------



## Trickster (Nov 6, 2006)

Master_Oki_Akai said:
			
		

> See, if ya say that that happened, ya gotta prove it.


In Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 2002, the majority opinion only left room for the definitions I mentioned.  The recent attempts by the government to circumvent this are only written such a tone as to target pornography that is "indistinguishable" from children.  Nobody at the capitol cares about cartoon porn of Lisa Simpson.

Trickster


----------



## kittizak (Nov 6, 2006)

Actually, as long as it passes the Miller Test, it will fall under the Protect Act -- Not to mention that, like I've stated before, it does set a legal predecent in the US Courts.



			
				Trickster said:
			
		

> kittizak said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Aikon (Nov 6, 2006)

kittizka dude you're rokin', keep goin.  Seriolusly you're on a roll.


----------



## Trickster (Nov 6, 2006)

kittizak said:
			
		

> It never states human children, only children -- Concordingly, considering Sweden's broad approach to the issue states that no matter how abstract (a child with cat ears and a cat tail for example) the depiction is - ergo, its still illegal.


Really?  Find me one definition in law where a child can be non-human.  Every legal definition of "child" in Federal law is human.  The precedent for this is exhaustive--otherwise animal rights activists could sue breeders for "raping three year-olds".

Trickster


----------



## InfinitysDaughter (Nov 6, 2006)

First off, I'll just say that I agree that this was probably the best decision that the admins could have made in order to make as many users happy as posible. Obviously your not going to make everyone happy and, given that fact, they did a verry good job of compramising. Anyone who gives them a hard time about it should realy attempt to create a membership site and try to moderate it. Its not easy and your verry tempted to just go with what "you" think is right an not what would be best for as many people as posible. So please for the love of cake leave them be. Their job is hard enough as is. Dont make it worse by trying to make them feel bad.


Now, for the actual reason I posted. Their is a part of this that is confusing to me and, though its been asked several times, I have not found an answer. Its the same debate Y!G is still having. What makes a fur? At least where this rule comes in to play? Are characters that have ears, a tail, and a bit of fur, but otherwise human considered human or fur?


----------



## kittizak (Nov 6, 2006)

Why thanks! Ironically, I aint taking any sides (although I'm leaning towards the yay for the ban since they actually won on the poll)-- I just consider the legal precedents and ramifications, and how they can be applied to this issue.

Kinda like Roe vs Wade, one of my favorite legal cases, but that's opening another can of worms.



			
				Aikon said:
			
		

> kittizka dude you're rokin', keep goin.  Seriolusly you're on a roll.


----------



## Trickster (Nov 6, 2006)

kittizak said:
			
		

> Actually, as long as it passes the Miller Test, it will fall under the Protect Act -- Not to mention that, like I've stated before, it does set a legal predecent in the US Courts.


The Miller Test is virtually impossible to apply to Internet traffic because there is no single "community" to which the viewing of obscene material can be isolated, thus no clear "community standard" is available for the test.  This has made prosecuting Internet obscenity based on the Miller Test very difficult.

I fail to be concerned if the only precedent for some new attempt at going over the Supreme Court's head is a parole violator, particularly when the Feds are up to their necks in REAL child pornography.

Trickster


----------



## MolotovCaracal (Nov 6, 2006)

Thank you, extending the filters is a great idea.


----------



## uncia2000 (Nov 6, 2006)

kittizak said:
			
		

> Actually, also in the US.



New page: was making it clear to anyone else that that was referring to Canada.



			
				kittizak said:
			
		

> PROTECT Act of 2003
> http://judiciary.senate.gov/special/S151CONF.pdf



I've read the relevant sections. 

Per that other legislation...
*"(14) To avoid this grave threat to the Governmentâ€™s unquestioned compelling interest in effective enforcement of the child pornography laws that protect real children, a statute must be adopted that prohibits a narrowly-defined subcategory of images."*

A direct link is made in the stated purpose of the legislation, clearly showing that "child" is in the context of real, human children.

I thought I read enough legislation in my day-job, thanks. 

Could you please point out anything that permits the sort of scope-creep to "furry", etc., that you are strongly implying is there?
Not just supposition and clips of *irrelevant* stuff such as a pointer to the use of the Miller Test which is a basis for determination of obscenity not the actual species depicted.

Cheers,
David.


----------



## kittizak (Nov 6, 2006)

By your definition as well, you can have a drawing of an underage girl engaged in a sexual situation, with cat ears and tail, and therefore its not illegal anymore. 

Remember, Sweden's law states No matter *how abstract* the depiction is, its still illegal. 

As for the breeders (and real animals), that's what animal-welfare laws are for. And I'd not be surprised if PETA or Greenpeace decide to sue for that... considering they're a bunch of morons. 



			
				Trickster said:
			
		

> kittizak said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## uncia2000 (Nov 6, 2006)

kittizak said:
			
		

> Why thanks! Ironically, I aint taking any sides....-- I just consider the legal precedents and ramifications, and how they can be applied to this issue.



In which case, please stick to the facts and not your personal interpretation or potential scaremongering.



			
				kittizak said:
			
		

> .... (although I'm leaning towards the yay for the ban since they actually won on the poll)...



I'll bite my tongue, rather than make any personal observation on what that says about many people simply adopting a herd mentality.


----------



## Trickster (Nov 6, 2006)

kittizak said:
			
		

> By your definition as well, you can have a drawing of an underage girl engaged in a sexual situation, with cat ears and tail, and therefore its not illegal anymore.
> 
> Remember, Sweden's law states No matter *how abstract* the depiction is, its still illegal.


And remember, you're the only one arguing about Sweden.    I've been saying US over and over because that's where I live.  I could bring Japan into this, but that wouldn't be fair either.



			
				kittizak said:
			
		

> As for the breeders (and real animals), that's what animal-welfare laws are for. And I'd not be surprised if PETA or Greenpeace decide to sue for that... considering they're a bunch of morons.


Morons or no, it illustrates what happens when you try to interpret law to mean things it was never intended to mean--turning paper dolls into real children.  It's a legal can of worms, and the portents of doom don't worry me for a moment.  These are the last, desparate gasps of people who see the world becoming inundated with objectionable ideas due to new information technology.  It will pass, and drawings will still be legal at the end of it all.

Trickster


----------



## kittizak (Nov 6, 2006)

Yet, it wasn't real child pornography, rather computer generated images of child pornography that landed Dwight Whorley back in jail... ok, he was a parolee with a previous sex offender record (so he deserves to be jailed to begin with) but it was because they used a broader application of the Protect Act that enabled the court to land him in jail.

As for the Miller Test, The Protect Act does use it as part of the criteria to establish if something depicting a minor is obscene or not.

Yes, its a flawed test, no, its not perfect... but its one of the tools we have to fight obscenity and child pornography - whether people like it or not.

Such is the constitution and our founding fathers left like that with the option to ammend it as we require it as our society evolves.

Don't get me wrong, I love the 1st amendment, but I love the 2nd amendment even more.



			
				uncia2000 said:
			
		

> A direct link is made in the stated purpose of the legislation, clearly showing that "child" is in the context of real, human children.
> 
> I thought I read enough legislation in my day-job, thanks.
> 
> ...


----------



## kittizak (Nov 6, 2006)

Please, dont get me wrong -- I love this place, this place has so much potential -- so the last thing I want to see is it being closed over legal issues.  

All I'm saying is that I'd rather see FA to be on the safe side of the law rather than testing it. 

BTW, I didn't even vote (poll had been closed by the time I decided to cast my vote) -- and it wasnt until today that I decided to give my input when they started to ask about legal precedents on this thread. 



			
				uncia2000 said:
			
		

> kittizak said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Trickster (Nov 6, 2006)

kittizak said:
			
		

> Don't get me wrong, I love the 1st amendment, but I love the 2nd amendment even more.


Er, what?

Though I don't understand why you're bringing guns into an argument, I agree that the 2nd amendment is important.  Like the Anti-Federalists for whom the amendment was crafted, I believe that under no circumstances should the United States have a standing army.

Trickster


----------



## icywolfy (Nov 6, 2006)

kittizak said:
			
		

> From paragraph 38 of the decision:
> 
> Interpreting "person" in accordance with Parliament's purpose of criminalizing possession of material that poses a reasoned risk of harm to children, it seems that it should include visual works of the imagination as well as depictions of actual people. Notwithstanding the fact that 'person' in the charging section and in s. 163.1(1)(b) refers to a flesh-and-blood person, I conclude that "person" in s. 163.1(1)(a) includes both actual and imaginary human beings.
> 
> ...


Paragraph 39: 
This definition of child pornography catches depictions of imaginary human beings privately created and kept by the creator.  Thus, the prohibition extends to visual expressions of thought and imagination, even in the exceedingly private realm of solitary creation and enjoyment.  *As will be seen, the private and creative nature of this expression, combined with the unlikelihood of its causing harm to children, creates problems for the lawâ€™s constitutionality.*

P61.  Section 163.1(6) provides a defence for a representation or written material that constitutes child pornography if it has â€œartistic meritâ€. 


(The statute) S163(6)    Where the accused is charged with an offence under subsection (2), (3) or (4), the *court shall find the accused not guilty if the representation* or written material that is alleged to constitute child pornography *has artistic merit* or an educational, scientific or medical purpose.

P63.  I conclude that â€œartistic meritâ€ should be interpreted as including any expression that may reasonably be viewed as art.  *Any objectively established artistic value, however small, suffices to support the defence*.  Simply put, artists, so long as they are producing art, should not fear prosecution under s. 163.1(4).

P81. I conclude that the argument that *limitations on possession of child pornography can never be justified as a matter of principle must be dismissed*.  We  must conduct a detailed analysis of whether the lawâ€™s intrusion on freedom of speech can be justified under s. 1 of the Charter.

P128.5    The various statutory defences (i.e., artistic merit; educational, scientific or medical purpose; and public good) must be interpreted liberally to protect freedom of expression, as well as possession for socially redeeming purposes.


Emphasis mine.

Canadian Law explicitly mooted the 1993 hastily written law in that it prohibits freedom of speech and expression.  Something, that in canada is much more strongly upheld than in the US.

However not to be very one sided, it was also said (you can read the summary [I have a highlighted copy from the campus law library])  that artistic merit is not an absolute proof, and that unless it is required for the piece, and that it's primary purpose is not to merely depict a youth, it is not a valid defence.   

And one must take in the context: The ruling was made specifically to the charge of having photographs of boys under 14 (the age of consent in Canada), and stories of paedophilia.  The defense was using expression and artistic merit.  Written content was ok.  The imagery caused the clarificiation of artistic merit as it applies to this section (it is defined per offence, not blanket for all).

It was left to future courts to further clarify the laws, and to tackle the creative expression of youths in other depicted manners.


----------



## uncia2000 (Nov 6, 2006)

kittizak said:
			
		

> Yet, it wasn't real child pornography, rather computer generated images of child pornography that landed Dwight Whorley back in jail...



=> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_Whorley

Yup. But still depictions/pseudo-depictions of human children, per our legislation in the UK on pseudo-photographs of human children, as noted above.

There is *NO* scope creep beyond depictions of real or pseudo-real "human children", nor any possibility of such under current legislation. The expired equine is well-and-truly flogged.


=
*(re. deleted post/s: please keep on topic; there are too many people around to let important stuff be lost on previous pages for the sake of that... Thanks.)*


----------



## kittizak (Nov 6, 2006)

I thought the servers were in the US to begin with



			
				uncia2000 said:
			
		

> Yup. But still depictions/pseudo-depictions of human children, per our legislation in the UK on pseudo-photographs of human children, as noted above.



It's not pinin', it's passed on! This horse is no more! It has ceased to be! It's expired and gone to meet its maker! This is a late horse. It's a stiff. Bereft of life, it rests in peace... yadda yadda

I always wanted to do the Dead Parrot joke



			
				uncia2000 said:
			
		

> The expired equine is well-and-truly flogged.


----------



## czgoldedition (Nov 6, 2006)

Hey, kiddies, not to throw this off topic - but Election day is tomorrow in the US of A! Do you know which Senators you're voting for yet? What issues in your particular State? It would be beneficial for all of us to spend less time beating a dead horse on this issue and more time worrying about things that will actually have an impact on the world we live in.

Personally, I don't care whichever way it ultimately went - I hopped in the arguements once just on principle/to play devil's advocate, but honestly, it doesn't matter. Preyfar made the choice he thought was correct. It's his website. Respectfully, to all of you: end of discussion.

Good night, and happy voting tomorrow! I <3 you all, and since I do not use any other gallery sites frequently anymore, I do sincerely hope you'll stick around.. because I love giving critiques and feedback on everyone's work as well as receiving them on my own. Cheers!


----------



## Master_Oki_Akai (Nov 6, 2006)

kittizak said:
			
		

> I thought the servers were in the US to begin with




Since nobodies answered this one yet...are you saying they're NOT in the US?  That FA is NOT a U.S. site?
Now that I think about it I never bothered to check to know...


----------



## uncia2000 (Nov 7, 2006)

Master_Oki_Akai said:
			
		

> Since nobodies answered this one yet...are you saying they're NOT in the US?  That FA is NOT a U.S. site?
> Now that I think about it I never bothered to check to know...



Hosting is US-based.


----------



## Summercat (Nov 7, 2006)

Because it interupts the flow of conversation
What's wrong with top posting?


Dear lord, please.... put your replies UNDER what you are replying >.<


----------



## Tabuu-Lion (Nov 7, 2006)

Some people would rather get their opinion in before the reader's tl;dr (too long; didn't read) instinct kicks in.


			
				Summercat said:
			
		

> Because it interupts the flow of conversation
> What's wrong with top posting?
> 
> 
> Dear lord, please.... put your replies UNDER what you are replying >.<


----------



## tigermist (Nov 7, 2006)

Ok now I know Ill more than likely get flammed for this but, I agree with the decission while still having qualms. The only thing I really feel strongly about it the reaction to it, what started out as calm, cool headed disscusion turned rapidly into all out name calling. Why not try to come up with a fitting comprimise right off the back instead of going after each other, because if it isnt obvious there is never just black and white there is a thousand shades of gray. My opinion doesnt matter, but what I do think needs to be talked about is what the issue is really about, how is it the we jump to moral attacks and slander to try and force our opinions and then say we have the moral high ground?


----------



## uncia2000 (Nov 7, 2006)

tigermist said:
			
		

> ...because if it isnt obvious there is never just black and white there is a thousand shades of gray. My opinion doesnt matter, but what I do think needs to be talked about is what the issue is really about, how is it the we jump to moral attacks and slander to try and force our opinions and then say we have the moral high ground?



*nods da tiggy*. Very rarely are there _not_ thousands of shades of grey.

And yes, your opinion does matter; and stated in a calm, level tone-of-voice. Thank you.


----------



## Summercat (Nov 7, 2006)

tigermist said:
			
		

> Ok now I know Ill more than likely get flammed for this but, I agree with the decission while still having qualms. The only thing I really feel strongly about it the reaction to it, what started out as calm, cool headed disscusion turned rapidly into all out name calling. Why not try to come up with a fitting comprimise right off the back instead of going after each other, because if it isnt obvious there is never just black and white there is a thousand shades of gray. My opinion doesnt matter, but what I do think needs to be talked about is what the issue is really about, how is it the we jump to moral attacks and slander to try and force our opinions and then say we have the moral high ground?



There are never absolutes outside of philosophy. But people like to make it so - their way, or no way.

*sigh* Not enough have tried my way. It involves popcorn, confettie, and three gallons of whipped creme.


----------



## StoneHawk (Nov 7, 2006)

I applaud you, Dragoneer.

Society left without rules will make its own rules. People will filter out their own associations to not include things they don't like. Smaller social groups will form with their own unspoken codes of conduct just like they do out on the streets. We as furries especially know what it's like to be socially taboo, and know how to avoid becoming targets. Now that there is no disallowed genre, and we are within reach of true freedom and personal expression (which inflicts on no others), I only hope that those who most take the advantage now presented to them shall NOT rub it in everyone else's FACES like some kind of gods damned pride march.

However... why are we thrusting it into the center stage? Surely it is a GOOD thing that we are not turning into thought police, but there are obviously socially detrimental facets of the self that, though healthy to come to terms and find peace with, are NOT necessarily healthy to show to complete strangers. All I'm saying is, the fur fandom's capability to accept and promote various outlandish lifestyles should be seen as a FEATURE, not a FLAW. 

Can't we be satisfied to accept it but keep it to ourSELVES? This kind of lampooning and spotlighting of everything people find the most DETESTABLE about our interests borders on griefing against the entire community ;_; are you TRYING to feed more material to MTV!?


----------



## Summercat (Nov 7, 2006)

StoneHawk said:
			
		

> I applaud you, Dragoneer.
> 
> Society left without rules will make its own rules. People will filter out their own associations to not include things they don't like. Smaller social groups will form with their own unspoken codes of conduct just like they do out on the streets. We as furries especially know what it's like to be socially taboo, and know how to avoid becoming targets. Now that there is no disallowed genre, and we are within reach of true freedom and personal expression (which inflicts on no others), I only hope that those who most take the advantage now presented to them shall NOT rub it in everyone else's FACES like some kind of gods damned pride march.
> 
> ...


That's the issue a lot of people have. But...

*shrug* I don't want another Burned Fur movement over this, just as I don't want to have to star the Frozen Fur movement.


----------



## StoneHawk (Nov 7, 2006)

Summercat said:
			
		

> StoneHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Nope, I don't want any movements over this whatsoever >_> I'm ALL FOR people being able to do what they want with themselves as long as it hurts nobody else. 

I'm only upset that there is a deal, made big-ly, about this chain of events.
We've turned this into a fiasco. 
You do realize that nobody would give a shit if people weren't so hung up on having AMMUNITION to get others banned with.
"THATS BANED PR0N SAY GODBYE 2 UR SIGHT LOL"

*shudder... growl...* it's all... so... selfish.


----------



## Summercat (Nov 7, 2006)

StoneHawk said:
			
		

> Nope, I don't want any movements over this whatsoever >_> I'm ALL FOR people being able to do what they want with themselves as long as it hurts nobody else.
> 
> I'm only upset that there is a deal, made big-ly, about this chain of events.
> We've turned this into a fiasco.
> ...



Yup. That's why you, me, and everyone else has to stop fighting and start working on healing NOW.

This was about inclusion, not exclusion. This way, anyone who left, left because they decided to. And I bet less than 5% of the total userbase will go away...


----------



## GreenReaper (Nov 7, 2006)

I'm really just an onlooker to this, but . . . honestly, nobody ever said there had to be one art site that fit everyone's tastes, where everyone could agree on the rules and live in harmony. Perhaps that was the objective of Fur Affinity, but given that it's been described as "allowing people from the furry/anthro fandoms to upload art, music and stories regardless of rating", it doesn't sound like it. 

No one site can be everything to everyone. Eventually, something has to give. I think this is why no decision could initially be made on banning people, even among the admins. There was an assumption that an agreement could be found between two mutually opposing views; that cub art should be allowed here, or that it should not.

Well, it turns out that it is. I believe this is because of the principle that is behind the site, and has been for as long as I've known it. I see this as "anything goes, as long as it's furry and legal for us to display". This is perhaps an oversimplification, but then I'm a simple norn. 

Methods are available for those who want to remain here but don't want to see certain pieces of art. If this is not sufficient, then there are plenty of other places to go. Please don't go there in anger. But you _should_ go, because to stay at a site when you don't agree with its principles is bad for everyone's happiness. We've had people find that they couldn't live with how WikiFur worked either. Life goes on, for all concerned.

Lastly, I don't think FA is going to get shut down over things people post here, given that the recent changes have been made with specific consideration of the applicable law. My understanding is that the vast majority of such cases focus around images appearing to be real people. People here are making drawings of imaginary furry people. The law recognizes a difference. Anyone suggesting otherwise, I want some of the cookies you're eating.


----------



## Summercat (Nov 7, 2006)

GreenReaper said:
			
		

> I'm really just an onlooker to this, but . . . honestly, nobody ever said there had to be one art site that fit everyone's tastes, where everyone could agree on the rules and live in harmony. Perhaps that was the objective of Fur Affinity, but given that it's been described as "allowing people from the furry/anthro fandoms to upload art, music and stories regardless of rating", it doesn't sound like it.
> 
> No one site can be everything to everyone. Eventually, something has to give. I think this is why no decision could initially be made on banning people, even among the admins. There was an assumption that an agreement could be found between two mutually opposing views; that cub art should be allowed here, or that it should not.
> 
> ...



I have some brownies...


----------



## GreenReaper (Nov 7, 2006)

Summercat said:
			
		

> I have some brownies...


Not anymore! :mrgreen:


----------



## Summercat (Nov 7, 2006)

GreenReaper said:
			
		

> Summercat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, I still have some, just less than what I used to before I gave some to you.


----------



## StoneHawk (Nov 7, 2006)

I've lost friends because of this. People who refuse to associate with me now that I continue associating with FurAffinity. Now, you might think that people like that must not be very good friends in the first place, but in all matters until this came up, they have been by my side through many thicks and many thins. It kind of hurts that FurAffinity has become the scalpel of this abrupt amputation. 

I won't leave FurAffinity because it is the only one of its kind, the only community I know of that fulfills all THREE of the following:
a) it's FURRY!
b) it doesn't arbitrarily censor anything above R rating
c) it's still a community.

Maybe It'd be a little less painful if there were viable ALTERNATIVES that DO support all three of those points, but there's only ONE place like this right now and it's sort of shooting itself in its own foot with this issue.

Maybe IF 
a) the filters worked
b) the owners of furaffinity would take NO RESPONSIBILTY for their content by signed and sealed disclaimers plastered everywhere ESPECIALLY where you must agree to its terms while you're signing up
c) the fringe stuff didn't get special attention. 

nowhere but in the furry community could I ever expect to see entire sections RESERVED for Vore, Inflation, Pokemon, Sonic, hyperherms... ...christ, what happened to all the OLD tried and true fetish favorites like yuri >_< 
I'm not saying "BAN IT ALL" or "IT ALL SUCKS AND SHOULD DIE", but I am asking someone to step forward if they like it and to explain to me why it's so bloody vital that these things get their very own private attention positions in an already furry-specific drop box x.x 
I didn't think I'd see lobbying like that outside of washington...


----------



## Luukra (Nov 7, 2006)




----------



## Summercat (Nov 7, 2006)

StoneHawk said:
			
		

> I've lost friends because of this. People who refuse to associate with me now that I continue associating with FurAffinity. Now, you might think that people like that must not be very good friends in the first place, but in all matters until this came up, they have been by my side through many thicks and many thins. It kind of hurts that FurAffinity has become the scalpel of this abrupt amputation.
> 
> I won't leave FurAffinity because it is the only one of its kind, the only community I know of that fulfills all THREE of the following:
> a) it's FURRY!
> ...



They get no more attention than anything else.


----------



## Katzblager (Nov 7, 2006)

So Cub art.. is gonna be banned or just have an option to filter?


----------



## Katzblager (Nov 7, 2006)

What IS cub Art?


----------



## Summercat (Nov 7, 2006)

Katzblager said:
			
		

> What IS cub Art?



Please read the first post by the threat creator. IT explains both your questions.


----------



## Kuriin (Nov 7, 2006)

If you lost friends over this issue, then they weren't really friends to begin with.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 7, 2006)

I dunno, despite me meeting people from various art archives, I've always had a way to contact them OUTSIDE of the archive. If your friendship was just based on comments and notes, and you didn't get their IM and have a conversation outside of this I kinda wonder how close of a friend you were.


----------



## Vekke (Nov 7, 2006)

Luukra said:
			
		

>


this is spectacular



			
				StoneHawk said:
			
		

> However... why are we thrusting it into the center stage? Surely it is a GOOD thing that we are not turning into thought police, but there are obviously socially detrimental facets of the self that, though healthy to come to terms and find peace with, are NOT necessarily healthy to show to complete strangers. All I'm saying is, the fur fandom's capability to accept and promote various outlandish lifestyles should be seen as a FEATURE, not a FLAW.
> 
> Can't we be satisfied to accept it but keep it to ourSELVES? This kind of lampooning and spotlighting of everything people find the most DETESTABLE about our interests borders on griefing against the entire community ;_; are you TRYING to feed more material to MTV!?



I'm only against the ban because stuff like rape and murder are already allowed, and it'd be hypocritical to ban cub art, because some of what is allowed is *just as bad*.

and think of the drama banning all the other stuff would cause. And then there would be drama about what is on that level of "terrible" and what isn't. I think allowing _one more_ taboo thing would cause less drama than taking everything else out.


----------



## KCat (Nov 7, 2006)

> Some people would rather get their opinion in before the reader's tl;dr (too long; didn't read) instinct kicks in.


That's why you should refrain from quoting huge spans of text.  Just quote the relevant part(s), and reply to it. Like this (note how I didn't quote your whole post? )

The problem with top-posting is context. Or lack there-of. Often times if someone just starts spouting a reply without a quote to put the reply into context, it'll make no sense. And that's more likely to make sure your post isn't read than even a long quote (or worse, is read, but gets mis-interpreted).


----------



## Lt_Havoc (Nov 7, 2006)

Ya know, its sad, really. The whole thing. What pisses me off is, that IÂ´m here and cant do anything about this all. A lot of good artists left the site, cuzÂ´ of that one descion. I would really like to express my feelings, the anger, the sadness and all, but if I would do that, you guys had to ban me. 

So, wehn will you post about it in the front page, so the people who dont know about the chages get to know it? I belive, if you do so, a lot more will leave the site. How many users has FA? Did you ever asked those who never saw the forum, did you ever though about them? 

Well, the whole thing was perfect and now, its all destroyed. We all suffer from what happend. Everyone predicted the outcome, yet no one seemed to listen. A minority off people won over the mass, you made a descion wihch does not reflect the majority of the users on this site. 

Well, just wait and see, the rest of the top artists, like MBR, GnaW and Geidon will follow suit and leave and I bet a lot will follow them. Its the death to this site, no other site had the varity of artists in one place before, now its gone. 

No one thinks on us, the odenariy user, the art fan, we didnt had a voice, we didnt got asked what we think. It was wrong to make this descion and the time was too short to really think about all this. If this where truly democratic, then the Admins would have asked every user of FA what thier view and opinon is. The poll, I knew it was useless from the beginning on, still no one cared. The whole debate was useless, I wished the ToS stayed like they where before, it was all good back then. 

That the admins where pushed by a small group of people to make this descion, that even an admin stepped down over it and that many left, is reason enough to belive that this whole thing was hirrued, only to please some loud screamers. Yeah, if you scream liud enough, you get what you want, thats how I feel about it. 

You have no idea what box of pandora you opned, what gates of hell has be pushed open, did you guys really wanted all this, the drama, the insulsts, the leaving of good artists? Was it worth all that? I think the price was way too high we all have to pay now. I thimnk it was not worth it. 

Many say "Wehn you ban cub porn, ban the rest too", but why not trun it around and say "wehn you allow cub porn, why not allow everything lese"? So, why not allow lolicona and shota, propaganda, racism, real people having sex, or having sex in a fursuit? I see it coming "we cant do that, thats gross!" or "its illegal!", sure it is, but I could relativate it and say "its just art, no one gets hurt" or "its just staged, its not real". I would force my opinon on you, just like some did in the whole debate. 

Also, everyone was talking about respecting views and opinons, but ya know, no one respected the opinons of those, who opposed the allowance, but more then often where called "freedom hates" and "fachists", only while they gave reasons why it shouldnt be on the site. Who was the respect? If you truy respect the views of them and the other people on the site, you would have said "ok, then I think IÂ´m going to post my art where its allowed and more accepted" but no one did, instead, everyone screamed how somone could take away thier rights. 

Freedom of expression is a good thing, thats for sure, but without any form of regulation, even that can go out of hands. 

So, I sit here, type those wrods, trying to finding an asnwer, but there isnt one. I feel so helpless and so sad about what is going on here. I would love to trun back the time, so this never had be happend and everything can go like normal, but it wont and IÂ´m angry about that. I just feel that sometimes what seems so right on the first look, may be wrong later. 

We all will regret this descion sooner or later, we all payed a terrible price for a clear cut ToS. Call me melodramatic, but thats how I see it. 

IÂ´ll bet that I will get a hail of insults and heat from what I just posted, but thats normal wehn somone says what he feels and thinks about controversial desciosons. 

I just feel I have to post this, no matter what. 

"IÂ´m all broken up, on that mans rights." Harry Callahan


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 7, 2006)

*Takes the needle off the broken record*

Thanks for the fallacy of bad internet math too.


----------



## Lt_Havoc (Nov 7, 2006)

Knew you would make a witty remark here, as always.


----------



## BijouxDeFoxxe (Nov 7, 2006)

That's cus Arshes is a witty type girl!  I dunno, I think of myself as a pretty top notch artist, but i'm not goin anywhere   And I am sure that there are plenty of "top notch artists" who, like me, didnt care about this topic to BEGIN with, and so therefor, see no point into leaving.  Not to mention that furry art, by default already has a stigma attatched to it.  And if you dont believe that, ask anybody.  Like my teachers.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 7, 2006)

Yes, and Havok what of it? What is going to change now? You and I can soapbox all day on the issue for and against it. Why not just I dunno wait it out before screaming the sky is falling. It hasn't been a week yet, and quite frankly time heals all wounds.

Some of the artists that left, delete their galleries EVERY year (or month day whatever) now, I can set a timer on it. If it wasn't this it would be some other over emotional thing that gets to them. Now what? Their stuff gets reposted on a *chan style site. This is nothing new, then they complain about their art being reposted 

So I ask you again, what is it going to solve?


----------



## Lt_Havoc (Nov 7, 2006)

Get bakc to the orginal ToS, go back to the beginning, that is. And dont tell me its not possible, it is. Go back to the planning table and overthink it once again, thats what I want.


----------



## cpctail (Nov 7, 2006)

> That the admins where pushed by a small group of people to make this descion, that even an admin stepped down over it and that many left, is reason enough to belive that this whole thing was hirrued, only to please some loud screamers. Yeah, if you scream liud enough, you get what you want, thats how I feel about it



Actually if there was some way to read through the poll thread and reread the other threads in relation, I'd say both side did their fair share of loud screaming.


----------



## Lt_Havoc (Nov 7, 2006)

Well, yeah, I think thats true. Still, its not a compromise we have here and non of these 2 side really won with the current situation. I know, that some artists left cuzÂ´ the publisher they are working for dont want to have thier artists on a side that allowes cub pron, due to the bad image, I think thats also a good reason. 

Ya know, I just dont want to have to slallow the cookie you gave me, I just dont want to sit here and do nothing wihle my fav artists leave this site. Something has to be done.


----------



## yak (Nov 7, 2006)

Lt.Havoc said:
			
		

> That the admins were pushed by a small group of people to make this descion, that even an admin stepped down over it and that many left, is reason enough to belive that this whole thing was hirrued, only to please some loud screamers. Yeah, if you scream liud enough, you get what you want, thats how I feel about it.
> 
> You have no idea what box of pandora you opned, what gates of hell has be pushed open, did you guys really wanted all this, the drama, the insulsts, the leaving of good artists? Was it worth all that? I think the price was way too high we all have to pay now. I thimnk it was not worth it.


i felt a strong urge to quote this that i could not resist.


----------



## Damaratus (Nov 7, 2006)

Lt.Havoc said:
			
		

> Well, yeah, I think thats true. Still, its not a compromise we have here and non of these 2 side really won with the current situation. I know, that some artists left cuzÂ´ the publisher they are working for dont want to have thier artists on a side that allowes cub pron, due to the bad image, I think thats also a good reason.
> 
> Ya know, I just dont want to have to slallow the cookie you gave me, I just dont want to sit here and do nothing wihle my fav artists leave this site. Something has to be done.



Havoc, you have said your piece and we understand how you are feeling about this.  The fact remains that the decision has been passed and we are making sure that things will be set up so that those who wish to stay and not look at certain things will be able to do so.

This is a compromise, we are not simply letting things fly around willy-nilly, we're trying to keep this controlled.  If you see your favorite artists taking flight, then keep a tracking device on them.  They are always going to want to post their works somewhere.  Yes, it may not be as convenient, but that's the way things work sometimes.  Artists come and go, things change, everything is mutable at a certain level.

If you try and keep chasing your tail after a decision has been rendered, it isn't going to get you very far.  Besides, if you take a step back, this whole thing is very, very small.  It won't kill you, turn things upside down, it isn't a life changing event.  It is just a change being made on a website, one of a good many that exist on the internet.  And perhaps if we work on being progressive in how the site is handled, those artists who left, just might return (this occurrence has been documented in the past).


----------



## Lt_Havoc (Nov 7, 2006)

Well, I hope that they return some day and I hope that things go well, but thats all I can do, hoping. I just feel so danm helpless in this matter and I cant stad to just wait and see. Sometimes chages happen to often and too fast, so you cant adjust yourself too it, sometimes too many things happening at once, so you dont know what you else should do. 

Its not the end of the wrold, thats sure, but the end of a dream, the dream that there is a place where all kinds of artists post thier art, do trades and all, but this bubble bursted a while ago. Dreams trun into nasty habits wehn you dont look. 

" That's all I have to say about that." Forrest Gump


----------



## Damaratus (Nov 7, 2006)

Lt.Havoc said:
			
		

> Well, I hope that they return some day and I hope that things go well, but thats all I can do, hoping. I just feel so danm helpless in this matter and I cant stad to just wait and see. Sometimes chages happen to often and too fast, so you cant adjust yourself too it, sometimes too many things happening at once, so you dont know what you else should do.
> 
> Its not the end of the wrold, thats sure, but the end of a dream, the dream that there is a place where all kinds of artists post thier art, do trades and all, but this bubble bursted a while ago. Dreams have nasty habits wehn you dont look.
> 
> " That's all I have to say about that." Forrest Gump



I do believe that an artist (all kinds, in fact) can still do that here.  Some of them are doing the same thing somewhere else.  All changes you can adjust to over time.  It's a matter of being flexible when the tougher changes occur.  

Perhaps this is the end of this particular dream for you, but one can always dream again, something new, something vibrant, something far more intersting perhaps.  Only time will tell.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 7, 2006)

Waxing and waning the poetic and philosophical Damaratus? I agree though. People made their choices you just have to adapt.

Your prose however needs the appropriate music. Just for reading effect of course


----------



## uncia2000 (Nov 7, 2006)

Lt.Havoc said:
			
		

> Well, I hope that they return some day and I hope that things go well, but thats all I can do, hoping. I just feel so danm helpless in this matter and I cant stad to just wait and see. Sometimes chages happen to often and too fast, so you cant adjust yourself too it, sometimes too many things happening at once, so you dont know what you else should do.



*nods*. Sorry 'bout that, and can empathise there since we're all pretty much in the same boat on that one.

And yes, I did read through what you'd written on the previous pages.  Thanks.


----------



## Vekke (Nov 7, 2006)

Lt.Havoc said:
			
		

> Many say "Wehn you ban cub porn, ban the rest too", but why not trun it around and say "wehn you allow cub porn, why not allow everything lese"? So, why not allow lolicona and shota, propaganda, racism, real people having sex, or having sex in a fursuit? I see it coming "we cant do that, thats gross!" or "its illegal!", sure it is, but I could relativate it and say "its just art, no one gets hurt" or "its just staged, its not real". I would force my opinon on you, just like some did in the whole debate.



Problem is, including mature art of human children is _really_ borderline. It could get the site _shut down_. As it is, the worst thing happening is the drama and people leaving the site.

I wonder, why is FA not limited to furry art anyway?  I mean, it is FUR affinity, and there are other general-art places. Off-topic. Sorry. I just wonder what made the admins come to that decision.

There's a difference between racism and cub art.

Racist art *IS* real racism in itself. You can't just say it's a fictional picture depicting racism and that nobody's getting hurt. Because what is racism? At its mildest level, it's simply the hatred of a certain race of people. Take it a step further, it's sharing that sentiment with another person, and that's what the art would fall under. 

I think racist images are more comparable to images that communicate the message "I love raping children! I think its practice should be encouraged!" Or actual child pornography, where it's a photo of a real kid.

A mature picture of a kid that does not exist, however, IS fiction. While it is, by definition, pedophilic art, it is NOT a child getting raped. It is only depicting that (and cub art, the "child" in question isn't even human). As was stated, most people who draw cub art wouldn't touch a real child. So do they condone the actual practice? Probably not.

It is pretty hard to define though, because you really need to consider the artist's motives. I'm guessing most people on this website who draw it do it just for enjoyment, rather than _actually condoning_ the activity of raping a child. Maybe some of them even do it to release any feelings they might have in a way that doesn't harm anyone, I don't know. That is not illegal, FA can host it, they already host things just as bad (but are still legal).


----------



## tigermist (Nov 7, 2006)

But that's the thing, I think the only ones who actually debated and at least tried to handle this with tackt were the admins. I can't count how many angry journals I read that just depriciated into all out your supporting pedophillia, your a sick pervert. What I saw was an unwillingness to even listen and understand. I never saw anyone say look theres nothing wrong with pedophillia, it never happend and yet so many had that idea. No one was defending the concept they where however defending the freedom to create the art and to view it. To many took this to a far to personal level as an attack on themselves and their beliefs. 
  I'm more than certain if these people would have stated their thoughts with respect and not gone after people in a personal manner alot of the drama could have been avoided.To all those who threatened and have leaft because of this issue, if you love something you dont abandon it when it has a problem you stay and do your best to make things right. I respect your choice to leave and your opinion but I can't help but think it was just the easy way out. 

  I just hope we can work this out, and move on in the right direction.


----------



## TonyWolf (Nov 7, 2006)

...

Oh well...

:evil:

I have nothing to say.

Except goodbye to some really skilled artists... they will be missed.


----------



## Summercat (Nov 7, 2006)

TonyWolf said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> Oh well...
> 
> ...



"I wish you would stay, but I will not follow."

Only had to post that twice ^^


----------



## TonyWolf (Nov 7, 2006)

Summercat said:
			
		

> TonyWolf said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Im staying... But  I am greatly disappointed.

I have a very strong vendetta for any depicting of underage pr0n being a victim of a pedophile myself. 

However... I believe that you are entitled to think the way you want, like what you want, and say what you want, just don't push it on me.

I dont jump on any side of conflicts as I have my own beliefs... and I dont push them on anyone else... In short: I never follow the crowd.


----------



## RedMoogleXIII (Nov 7, 2006)

I had a police officer tell me as long as its not an explicit photograph of an underage person, legally there is nothing wrong with that type of image at all.  So basically from a legal standpoint, any cub pics that are uploaded here should be totally legal.


----------



## Flame10885 (Nov 7, 2006)

RedMoogleXIII said:
			
		

> I had a police officer tell me as long as its not an explicit photograph of an underage person, legally there is nothing wrong with that type of image at all.  So basically from a legal standpoint, any cub pics that are uploaded here should be totally legal.



You trusted the cops? o_o


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 8, 2006)

Flame10885 said:
			
		

> RedMoogleXIII said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why not, if he didn't commit any crime there is no reason to be afraid.

See the problem is something I've noticed with people in general. If there is real child porn, you encounter it, calling the cops and letting them know immediately is a GOOD thing. Letting it sit or thinking you can wipe it off your hard drive because it scares you into getting into trouble makes it worse.

Asking a question about something you are insure about, is not something to be afraid of.


----------



## Master_Oki_Akai (Nov 8, 2006)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> I dunno, despite me meeting people from various art archives, I've always had a way to contact them OUTSIDE of the archive. If your friendship was just based on comments and notes, and you didn't get their IM and have a conversation outside of this I kinda wonder how close of a friend you were.



Now, is it just ME or does it seem that THESE are the types of people who are most concerned with preserving their "reputation", not realizing that their reputation as Furries already has them on the short end of a slippery stick anyway?


----------



## Master_Oki_Akai (Nov 8, 2006)

Summercat said:
			
		

> tigermist said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, personally, as in after my own field of study.  Absolutes exist in the Natural World, NOT in the human mind or culture.  I'm talking about gravity, chemistry, physics, the things that govern the physical world around us.  That includes animal instinct, some of which is also included in human behaviour.  THese things are unchanging, we may not UNDERSTAND them yet but that doesn't matter.  The Earth has never been flat nor at the center of our solar system, no matter how badly we wanted to believe so at some point.

Humans capacity for what we call "higher thought" is where the flexibility comes in because we have the ability to interpret and apply information and be creative with it, animals do not.

Seriously man, gimme that popcorn already!

And as far as the Black & White vs. grey thing... welll... and again this is my opinion as it helps me sort things out more realistically.  the more narrow you focus on to the aspect of a particular subject, the more you see it's either black or white given the appropriate context.  But as you pull out, and see things from the BROADER perspective, all those dots of black and white turn into shades of grey.  WHat do we call the darkest shades of grey?  Black.  What do we call the lightest shades?  white (or some derivitive therof that's more or less indestinguishable).  
My point would be, balance is necessary yes, but by taking things apart and breaking them down, you're better able to understand them.  Throwing up a moral wall with an "all or nothing" or "nothing is ever this or that" kind of mentality is only self defeating.

Again that's my own opinion for rational thought and now that I think of it, it may not be appropriate to stay here, but I'm not sure, I'm a little grey in that area.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 8, 2006)

Master_Oki_Akai said:
			
		

> Arshes Nei said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Actually the huff and leave is also what gets them on sites that post the same stuff they don't stand for like on image boards and stuff.


----------



## Flame10885 (Nov 8, 2006)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> Flame10885 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




It was meant to be taken as a joke... Sorry, guess I didn't make that clear enough.


----------



## Summercat (Nov 8, 2006)

Flame10885 said:
			
		

> It was meant to be taken as a joke... Sorry, guess I didn't make that clear enough.



Sadly, there are people who honestly believe that.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 8, 2006)

Summercat said:
			
		

> Flame10885 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That is true. Know it first hand.


----------



## Flame10885 (Nov 8, 2006)

Summercat said:
			
		

> Flame10885 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What? Believe that it's not safe to trust the cops?


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 8, 2006)

Flame10885 said:
			
		

> Summercat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*Creates more boxwang quote*

Yes, they believe anything they do that the cops will get them. LOL.


----------



## tigermist (Nov 8, 2006)

I trust some cops. Some of my own family are cops and I trust them, I have met cops and I find that most of them are quite nice, and respectfull people. But like every thing else theres always a few bad apples and a few fanatics. I've seen cops harass people for the sheer fact that they didnt like the way they looked. Long hair a darker style of clothing, can get you a closer inspection. Its just like people there some good, some great, some bad, and some horrible. Cops are people to and thus not perfect.


----------



## Mitch_DLG (Nov 9, 2006)

I don't agree with the decision; it seems to me as if it were pushed by an underwhelming minority who--through the power of making sure they were heard--got others with the hard-fixed stands of "Censorship is evil" to follow them, meanwhile most of those who don't approve shook their heads and hoped that common sense would prevail, as we're quite tired of getting smacked with the "you're wrong!!!!1!!" hammer each time we try to express our own opinion.

But, before Arshes Nei can make a snide comment guised as wit, I'll say this:  I don't have another gallery of decent platform built at the moment.  The publicity I've garnered from this site has served my own ends well.  While I am at a toss-up over staying--not because of the decision that was made, but because of the great hubbub it had to turn into instead of being normally dealt with--my gallery will remain, and I will probably continue to add pieces to it as I have in the past, at least for now.  

Should this trend of the screaming Me-Me's and the Gimmie Gimmies continue, however, and the administration buckle under the volume of their cries, that will be the real telling point of the validity of decisions made on this site.  Some people have left, and to them I wish them well, many are friends of mine.  But, perhaps against better judgement I am still here for the time being, and I hope to see a more positive trend occurring on this site.  Not only positive in features, but in the attitudes of the members on the site itself.  Please, step back, take a deep breath and try to be civil.  If someone else makes a point, please try to weigh their ideas for a moment, then respond.  These knee-jerk arguments and bickering really accomplish nothing.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 9, 2006)

Mitch: no, actually that's the thing. I agree with keeping the ban up. However, the sides got so polarized it didn't matter anymore. To scream moral outrage on a site that allows some other rather disgusting stuff to slide is silly. If you feel uncomfortable and want to leave that's fine. Personal choice is a good thing. 

The people that made it some political thing like "I'm gonna threaten you with lists of people leaving" instead of letting people mull things over and make the choice for themselves. It just got sad. People tried to rationalize other atrocious acts saying they weren't as bad. That was just wrong and insensitive too.

The side screaming OMG CENSORSHIP F'U WHINERS was ridiculous as well. Saying everyone who left was an attention whore isn't right. Saying everyone is a baby because they didn't like the decision is wrong too.

I actually got fed up with both sides, but sadly the people making sense were the people who still don't confuse their fantasy with reality. The only reason I seem snide now is that I'm jaded, I've seen this before in various fandoms. This actually isn't anything new. I dunno if you really read what I've been saying or you just see my presence in all these threads and just feel threatened by words. But I haven't really said things like "Don't let the door hit you on your way out" or similar stuff. People leaving is nothing new to me. Policy changes made users on other sites scream and threaten to leave too. Heck even I've fallen folly to it. But that's internet life for you.

Also people start up the SAME DAMN RHETORIC each time they joined a thread. They start new threads about how bad the decision is, borrowing each other's cliches. As if a new thread about it when you see other topics talking about it, somehow made it more important. At least you haven't. You disagree with the decision and at the same time *properly assessed what happened*


----------



## Summercat (Nov 9, 2006)

The worst I say to artists is "Sorry to see you leave; I shall not follow."

Beyond that, I think Arshes Nei has (her? his? Arshes, which is it?) the best put arguement.

Beyond that, Mitch said that a vocal minority were the ones who were listened to. That may be true, because as far as I could tell, the vast majority didn't really care. Oh, they had an opinion of it, yup. But it wasn't an issue they would have really cared about. Presented with a a simple Yes/No choice, they went with whatever they went with. But if the question was 'Do you think mature cubart is an issue?'...

Well, I'd like to think that the answer would be no. *shrug*


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 9, 2006)

Summercat said:
			
		

> Beyond that, I think Arshes Nei has (her? his? Arshes, which is it?) the best put arguement.



I'm female. Take it for what you will. Most people who didn't know my gender assumed I was a guy "because you argue like one".


----------



## cesarin (Nov 10, 2006)

neowolf said:
			
		

> Why is it no one seems to realize that taking either stance to the extreme is stepping up on a moral high horse. Whether you're against the decision or even for it. The admins made a decision on a close call. With how the vote went arguably they could've gone either way and been respecting the opinions of the site to the best of their ability. Either way being a cry baby about not getting your way or an ass to those that just don't like the decision is just mindless trolling. If people don't like the decision it's certainly their right to leave. (Freedom of expression and all entails choosing where you want to after all.) Not everyone that's doing it's making a hissy fit of it. (And in that vein, if you're not the person leaving don't bring them into it unless they've at least asked you to whine for them.)





			
				Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> Summercat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




aaand, because you have not gone for the boob atack combo yet? XD


----------



## tacticalsnake (Nov 10, 2006)

Vekke said:
			
		

> I wonder, why is FA not limited to furry art anyway?  I mean, it is FUR affinity, and there are other general-art places. Off-topic. Sorry. I just wonder what made the admins come to that decision.



Because it's supposed to be an open site...? 
Beyond that-- _where else_ is there for 'general' art? Because if we're talking about porn, uh... FA is pretty much the only place I have to post a good portion of my work-- which further, does contain a lot of humans (usually fan art). I mean, sure some stuff I can put on DA, but I can put furry stuff there too, and as far as porn goes... Yeah, this is pretty much the only place I got. 

Besides, it's not like the community is inundated with non-furs, in so far as I've seen (or maybe I assume too often that it's just others like my self that do fan art or occasionally play non-beast races in RPGs, etc. ). 

Anyway, there's VCL if you want fur only,


----------



## Master_Oki_Akai (Nov 10, 2006)

Well that's a good question
one would assume that the vast majority of material here on FA is furry or related.  One would also assume, however, that the majority of material is also porn of some kind...but apparently the admins say that it's only about 15% of the overall material here, at least that was what I heard about a week ago now.  With all the people bailing I'm sure that percentage has shifted.


----------



## SokiTwopaw (Nov 12, 2006)

Now that I have calmed down on the matter here is a summary of what I have learned and feel on the subject:

-I would be happy if it was gone and done with for good.
-But we have to respect the few that like the stuff, like we have to respect the minority in the country that speaks Spanish. So we spend billions typing things in Spanish.

-I left.
-Why? Not because itâ€™s some moral thing, morals are taught to you. And if you feel it is morally wrong, you will feel it in the frontal lobe of your brain. I feel this in the center near the main survival glands which says itâ€™s not immoral; itâ€™s beyond words to describe.

-Will I come back?
-Dunno. I would like to, but something clicks and burns that says I shouldn't be on here un-till a certain date.

-Do I think you should care that I left?
-Naw, my art was just halfway good jerk material any who.

-Should other art be considered banned as well?
-No. This I feel goes back to the grade school idea of "If one person messes up, the rest pay." Inflation, Rape, Drug, Speeding Cars, and such should not be accused of the same things as cub porn. They are a completely different animal. They are still Sharpies' but none the less they are still dogs. Just because one is considored bad, doesnâ€™t mean the rest are as well.

-Does artist merit count towardsâ€™ anything?
No. Artist merit was taken away with the patriot act back in 02'. But that is political merit. Artist merit is the ability to express, convey, tell a story. Not get some one off. Now is there no merit in well done porn art? Yes there is merit, but that merit is of a completely different species all together. One of which, the general public does not like.
Â Â 
-Is FA "basically" a porn site?
Yes. In my opinion. From what I have seen "500 artist or so that are 1/2 way good" their art is of an adult genre'.

-Is Cub Art a legitimate type of art?
-Yes it is. 

-Is Cub Art a public "out side of artist and fandom" welcome art style?
-No it is not. Most people that I have talked to informed of the laws or not, found it heinous.

-Freedom of speech shield or truth?
-YES Freedom of speech to convey worthful helpful information without being imprisoned. Not freedom of speech to scare, hinder or falter others or others family's' freedom of feeling safe.

-Is it illegal?
-Touchy subject. It's illegal from Britannica to Canada to America to have computer generated images of child porn, or humanoid-ish porn. It is also illegal to have written stories that posses minors in a sexual situation. Beastiality is also illegal in these countries and certain US states. Is it 100% illegal to have furry child porn? I donâ€™t know, but I will know this Monday when I get to talk to a high ranking federal agent that I know. Odds are its best to hear it from the horseâ€™s mouth, especially if he is high in the ranks he would have to know.

-Does computer generated child porn fuel desires, anthro or not?
-Yes. In cases in 88â€™, 96â€™ and 2001 offenders in Canada admitted that their online obsessions helped fueled their fires to rape and kill a 14 year old BC resident, 10 year old girl, and an 8 year old boy. Others have admitted that their on line addictions fueled their desires and actions to molest any where from 8 month olds to 16 year old teenagers.

-Does Cub Art constitute a revision of TOS under the examples given by the mods and or loop holes in state laws IMO?
-No. Loop holes are good for one time jumps. After that they snag and strangulate all that try them. This was a case back in 96' with a man who wrote kiddie porn stories. Also with all the laws that it could be associated with, it could land people in massive trouble and long jail terms. The data shown by the mods did not also show how the law was revised, nor did they give sources for their lawâ€™sâ€™ that they found. 

-Is a Filter an answer or a band aide?
-Band aide. Even though one will be in place, the fact that a justification, if the law comes in to play, as to why it is there will cause more issues. It does not make it go away, nor does it actually fix the problem. It makes the problem invisible to other FA goers.

-Is the Filter a good choice when regarding possible new subscribers?
-No. This filter may spark new fires about why it is there. It may also, in the event the site is scanned, and shut down, that the causal FA goers that click and forget may be in harms way for something they have nothing to do with.

-Was it truly the Fur Affinity Moderators choice to change the TOS and put themselves in possible legal harm and do we have anything that we can honestly say about it?
-Yes it was their choice to change the TOS, was it a good one? That is left up to the viewer. I say no from a legal background. Yes it is their right to put them selves in the path of harm even if we try to save them. No, we cannot say anything about changing it back, for it is not our computer to change

So over all, itâ€™s past itâ€™s done, every one drop it. If the site gets shut down, it gets shut down. If furs get burned â€œliterallyâ€ for being associated with this years from now, so be it. There is nothing you can do about it. People will leave; people will jerk or rub off to this type of art. There is really nothing we can do about it or how people will interpret this type of art. That is left up to the federal government and the Supreme Court no geniuses like us.

Sources for info:
www.wikipedia.com
Microsoft Encarta
Webster
www.cbc.com
www.cnn.com
www.copa.com
www.nbc.com
www.fbi.gov
Free the Net.com
Spokane Police Department
Ellensburg Police Department
CWU Law School Students and Teachers 
â€œwhen asked the morality vs artistc merit of child porn artâ€


----------



## snow (Nov 12, 2006)

-Claps at soki's wonderful post-


----------



## uncia2000 (Nov 12, 2006)

I'm very tempted to say 'no ripping that to shreds' to the usual suspects, but instead I'll just wait for you to report back on Monday, Soki.
I trust you know what question you're actually asking of that "high ranking federal agent"?
Thanks.


----------



## Kathalla (Nov 12, 2006)

SynjoDeonecros said:
			
		

> ... but since FA is open to both art AND stories, the decision for one form of media should have some impact on the other, correct?



My opinion has always been that 'art' doesn't refer to a specific media-type.  I've got a number of stories that, while young characters are almost never the core focus of the tale, I've avoided posting here while cub art was against the TOS because some of the characters _are_ either children or just a bit younger than is considered adult.  I'll be posting them soon enough, with the change, but I'm sad to say that anyone looking for pedophilic wankbait will have to look elsewhere.  Character-age aside, I write things with (ewww!) plots, for the most part.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 12, 2006)

You actually mentioned a good point, because one could be writing about young children in sexual situations would would have fallen against the TOS at the time. However, the story or even art piece that's involved could be the viewpoint of how wrong it is as well. Just like people who make rape stories to show brutal the attack is, not as a glorification, but to say how horrible it is. One who did a story featuring a child, no matter how graphic it is, could also be doing the same message.


----------



## Kathalla (Nov 12, 2006)

I wasn't out to make any sort of point in the story in question (which I did post in the interim, same FA username as here).  I'm not out to portray underaged sex in any light whatsoever, good or bad.  The younger characters I used were simply appropriate to the plot-line at the time.  Even if a psychologist tried to analyze the tale and assign some deeper motivation to the events depicted, they'd get both the good and the bad of things, with some enjoying it and others coming to a horrifying end.  This sort of interpretation, though, is completely secondary; I'm just glad that, with the policy change, I _could_ post the story...  It's a full-sized novel, and very little of it has to do with cub or teen-furry sex; it was just the incidental inclusion of such that kept it off FA for as long as it did.


----------



## ediskrad (Nov 12, 2006)

Awesome post, SokiTwopaw. I'm just gonna skip all the things I considered it's your personal point of view, or that have already been discussed a gillion times, and poke at one thing that sort of bothers me a bit, because it's a flawed truth.



			
				SokiTwopaw said:
			
		

> -Does computer generated child porn fuel desires, anthro or not?
> -Yes. In cases in 88â€™, 96â€™ and 2001 offenders in Canada admitted that their online obsessions helped fueled their fires to rape and kill a 14 year old BC resident, 10 year old girl, and an 8 year old boy. Others have admitted that their on line addictions fueled their desires and actions to molest any where from 8 month olds to 16 year old teenagers.



A couple of cases does not set a rule. Truth is, there is no formal research on the effects of fake cub porn on people. I might as well say that, for each person that gets fueled, 250 thousand actually relieve their fantasies through pictures, instead of committing the act. But since there is no study on the topic, both arguments are invalid.

There, that's off my chest now


----------



## SokiTwopaw (Nov 12, 2006)

uncia2000 said:
			
		

> I'm very tempted to say 'no ripping that to shreds' to the usual suspects, but instead I'll just wait for you to report back on Monday, Soki.
> I trust you know what question you're actually asking of that "high ranking federal agent"?
> Thanks.



Yes I know exactly what I'm going to ask. Do I hear a bit of cynisysm in that comment? Im not being a douche, I wont say something that I dont mean. This person is I belive #3 or #4 in over all rank at this current time. So I feel that asking a higher up person then the average joe cop, would know the law and would be less open to interpritation.


----------



## Master_Oki_Akai (Nov 13, 2006)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> You actually mentioned a good point, because one could be writing about young children in sexual situations would would have fallen against the TOS at the time. However, the story or even art piece that's involved could be the viewpoint of how wrong it is as well. Just like people who make rape stories to show brutal the attack is, not as a glorification, but to say how horrible it is. One who did a story featuring a child, no matter how graphic it is, could also be doing the same message.


That is a good point, and I'm sure one could write songs about it, and I know of at least 1 performance piece put on by a professional artist about rape, I mentioned it earlier but I can't remember on which thread.


----------



## SokiTwopaw (Nov 13, 2006)

ediskrad said:
			
		

> Awesome post, SokiTwopaw. I'm just gonna skip all the things I considered it's your personal point of view, or that have already been discussed a gillion times, and poke at one thing that sort of bothers me a bit, because it's a flawed truth.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




First off, thank you for your response! And I whole heartedly respect your opinion and disigreeance with me. Its well thought out and not offenseive! n_n

Yes that is also true, but none the less those where the ones that I found on the first two hits for stats. I do not know the actual % in the entire US for sex offenders allthough I do know there where 12 of them registered within a 10 block radius of my parents house in spokane wa. which is kind of scary; And also, we have to think about the kids that are still molested and sadly some times killed because of fueled desires no matter how few it is. Here are some interesting, yet older, stats that I did find after your response though!

# On a given day in 1994 there were approximately 234,000 offenders convicted of rape or sexual assault under the care, custody, or control of corrections agencies; nearly 60% of these sex offenders are under conditional supervision in the community.
# The median age of the victims of imprisoned sexual assaulters was less than 13 years old; the median age of rape victims was about 22 years.
# An estimated 24% of those serving time for rape and 19% of those serving time for sexual assault had been on probation or parole at the time of the offense for which they were in State prison in 1991.
# Of the 9,691 male sex offenders released from prisons in 15 States in 1994, 5.3% were rearrested for a new sex crime within 3 years of release.
# Of released sex offenders who allegedly committed another sex crime, 40% perpetrated the new offense within a year or less from their prison discharge.

-http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#sex
(first hit on yahoo)

Obviously this does not state thier justifaction of thier crimes, nor thier motives behind the crimes. Yet something had to trigger it? Was is actual child porn, or could it have been art? We can only speculate.
I do feel though that this is how stuff needs to be gone about. I would still like to know where Dragoneer got his information though.


----------



## Hanazawa (Nov 13, 2006)

Soki; are you adjusting for the fact that in some jurisdictions you have to be signed up as a "registered sex offender" simply for having relations with a person who is only one or two years younger than you (like a 19-year-old with a 17-year-old girlfriend)?


----------



## uncia2000 (Nov 13, 2006)

Ain't got a clue why this is relevant; but in passing on the way out of the door... may I say 'nice selective quoting'?


			
				SokiTwopaw said:
			
		

> Here are some interesting, yet older, stats that I did find after your response though!
> ...
> # Of the 9,691 male sex offenders released from prisons in 15 States in 1994, 5.3% were rearrested for a new sex crime within 3 years of release.
> # Of released sex offenders who allegedly committed another sex crime, 40% perpetrated the new offense within a year or less from their prison discharge.
> -http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm


 Recidivism
# Of the 272,111 persons released from prisons in 15 States in 1994, an estimated *67.5%* were rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years, 46.9% were reconvicted, and 25.4% resentenced to prison for a new crime.

- same link.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 13, 2006)

I believe I also posted facts that a majority of sexual molestations were not done by strangers. They were done by family members and/or people the person trusted/knew.


----------



## shinmew (Nov 13, 2006)

Online obsessions could be anything from child porn pics to downloading movies, to chatting with kids on myspace.


----------



## ediskrad (Nov 13, 2006)

SokiTwopaw said:
			
		

> Yet something had to trigger it? Was is actual child porn, or could it have been art? We can only speculate.



Sick people will be triggered by anything. If child porn (either real or fake) doesn't trigger them, anything else would. A semi naked kid on a pool, a short skirt on a girl. Anything. Or you think child rape didn't happen before the internet?

Still, I believe that having cub smut doesn't make you any more of a criminal than possessing a gun in your house. Sure, murders happen, but you can't blame the gun, now can you?. If someone has the will to kill, he will do it with or without a gun. Just as a child rapist will rape with or without porn.


----------



## Dragoneer (Nov 13, 2006)

ediskrad said:
			
		

> SokiTwopaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


See: Columbine.

People tried to blame Marilyn Manson and id Software's Doom for the Columbine massacre. The killers had a pre-existing condition that was triggered, and it was only a matter of time before they carried out the things that were in their head.

If somebody has the intention or motive to kill somebody it really doesn't matter if they watched Natural Born Killers moments before committing the crime. They had the intent to do so long before.


----------



## SokiTwopaw (Nov 14, 2006)

Dragoneer I need to talk to you.


----------



## Dragoneer (Nov 14, 2006)

SokiTwopaw said:
			
		

> Dragoneer I need to talk to you.


dragoneer@thedragoneer.com or send me a note over the forums.


----------



## tigermist (Nov 14, 2006)

See this is why I don't like to get involved in discussions like this. When you open up a door like this no sooner do you open it five more open with it. Now we've gone from "cub porn" to columbine. Lets just say it peopel its human nature. We are NOTperfect we all make mistakes, a father abuses his child in anyway right of the bat this child is at a much higher risk to inflict the same abuse on his future children. Its a vicious cycle that has no end in sight. But taking this issue and applying it to other topics in esence only proves that the same outline applies to that subject as well. We're running in circles here people, don't you think its time to stop take a deep breath and just admit that in our life times this debate will never be solved. More than likely this debate will never come to a reasonable end for such is the complex duality of man that whats right today will be the horror of tomorrow.


----------



## MistressLeathurkatt (Nov 14, 2006)

Actually, depictions of underage pornography other than photos and movies are illegal under a whole different category as of I believe 2004 under illicit depictions of under aged pornography.  Regardless of how you look at it, under age porn of any kind is still illegal.  As for rape, murder, and such, they are allso illegal, but under different rules since fictional depictions of such are not made illegal, only doing the actual crime is illegal.  Fur Affinity as a whole is burning bridges and all but asking for suits against it and those connected to it, nevermind the feds taking interest in the site as they did FChan in their hunt for pedophiles.  Anyone who draws, or favorites, or even watches pedophile art will be subject to such scrutiny.  And I am betting that if the admins of this site had been molested or had children of their own, they would not have allowed such art to be on FA in the first place.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 14, 2006)

Does anyone read anymore?


----------



## uncia2000 (Nov 14, 2006)

MistressLeathurkatt said:
			
		

> Actually, depictions of underage pornography other than photos and movies are illegal under a whole different category as of I believe 2004 under illicit depictions of under aged pornography.  Regardless of how you look at it, under age porn of any kind is still illegal.


Of humans? Or otherwise...

Heya there: would appreciate if you could cite precise legislation on this, if possible.
Compare with http://www.furaffinityforums.net/showthread.php?tid=4283&pid=62488#pid62488 for example, where "child pornography" is associated _specifically_ with RL human depictions.

Taking one step back, Wikipedia currently has, and has had for some time, what could be taken to be an artistic depiction of RL "child porn" save for a slight fantasy context. No action has been taken against Wikipedia.
If anything like that was posted here, it would be gone as soon as we found out about it.
*
The scope of the issue was _not_ purely about adult depictions of fantasy or otherwise non-human(/oid) characters: that extended right down lower-end "mature" contexts (e.g. subtle breastfeeding of a cub) or where it is impossible to determine the "age" of the character (not that rough pencil strokes of a reptilian character could be said to have an "age", say) - and that is often in the eyes of the viewer as much as the artist, anyhow...

02c for ongoing discussion, anyhow (albeit somewhat repeated).
Regards,
David/u2k


----------



## Master_Oki_Akai (Nov 14, 2006)

I keep trying to hold back, but I've watched and participated in this same arguement three times on this same thread.
And I gotta ask, are we done yet?
How many more people do we gotta listen to who come in with "TL DR" and start the whole arguement / explanation over and over again?


----------



## Twile (Nov 18, 2006)

Ah man. I wanted to reply to this the day it was formed but David locked it. Meanie-pants.

Anyway, what I think is irrelevant at this point, I'd just like to tack my hopes (that people can let the arguments die down) onto the end of this beast-of-a-thread.

If ya argued that a minority of loud users shouldn't be able to influence the admins to change the TOS, then you shouldn't be trying to do the same thing. Decisions were made, tempers flared, some people left, some people rejoiced, some decided to not leave after all, some are here tentatively... for now though let's just relax and try to mend things over with each other. *smacks FA to see if it de-polarizes like a magnet* :0


----------



## kukul (Nov 21, 2006)

I dont understand you people, why do got so damm friked out by something UNEXISTENT?, I mean, we furries are all zoophilics because we like humans with animal heads?, think about it, this are just draws, not pictures of real kids being forced to do something that they don't want to, this pictures just came from ADULT PERSONS imagination, there's no any dammage done here.


----------



## uncia2000 (Nov 21, 2006)

Twile said:
			
		

> Ah man. I wanted to reply to this the day it was formed but David locked it. Meanie-pants.



 (missed that, Twile...)

Heh... not me: I was just going to sit down gently on the thread: had thought someone else was watching over this one.



			
				Twile said:
			
		

> Anyway, what I think is irrelevant at this point, I'd just like to tack my hopes (that people can let the arguments die down) onto the end of this beast-of-a-thread.
> 
> If ya argued that a minority of loud users shouldn't be able to influence the admins to change the TOS, then you shouldn't be trying to do the same thing. Decisions were made, tempers flared, some people left, some people rejoiced, some decided to not leave after all, some are here tentatively... for now though let's just relax and try to mend things over with each other. *smacks FA to see if it de-polarizes like a magnet* :0



Would be a good trick. (Yeah, and the other 100+ page thread, too).

From what I could see, more people left because of the drama and tempers flaring than because of the actual decision. Still not particularly large numbers in _percentage_ terms, but always sad; especially when largely avoidable...


----------



## kukul (Nov 21, 2006)

I don't know U, but I think that this thread is generating lot's of publicity.... or something.... 'cuz I really can't understand why you just don't close it,


----------



## Twile (Nov 21, 2006)

kukul said:
			
		

> I don't know U, but I think that this thread is generating lot's of publicity.... or something.... 'cuz I really can't understand why you just don't close it,



It would go against the thread's initial reasoning, about how FA is about letting people say what they want. Plus, it would spill over into other threads or journals.

This should get publicity though. They're not trying to sneak one past us. They want us to know about changes that are taking place.


----------



## uncia2000 (Nov 21, 2006)

kukul said:
			
		

> I don't know U, but I think that this thread is generating lot's of publicity.... or something.... 'cuz I really can't understand why you just don't close it,



_*wonders who bumped in a new reply after 3 1/2 days...*_


----------

