# On Censorship



## Rakuen Growlithe (Jul 23, 2009)

I saw a topic on whether art should be censored on a forum. To my horror some people actually support censorship! Granted this was the Fur Affinity forum so perhaps it's not really that surprising. Back on topic, I just can't see how you could support such a thing. You are throwing away your freedom and rights. The ability to freely express yourself and to have access to other thoughts and opinions is one of, if not the, most important of all freedoms and rights. Without that one the rest fade away into nothing. You can't take advantage of any of the others if you aren't able to make an informed decision.


To make sure we're all on the same page I'd like to tell you what censorship is and is not. Censorship is not putting an age-restriction on porn, or warning people that something might offend them. That's just good manners and social responsibility. I have a feeling that some people think that filters that only allow registered users to see mature content is a form of censorship. It's not.
Censorship is the complete suppression of an idea. The Concise Oxford Dictionary Ninth Edition defines a censor as "an official authorized to examine printed matter, films, news, etc., before public release, and to suppress any parts on the grounds of obscenity, a threat to security, etc." That means if they don't like what they see they refuse to let it be released. About the only time censorship could possibly be justified is of soldier's letters to prevent them revealing their position. although I disapprove of war so that's still rather iffy.
The difference between filters, age-restrictions etc. and true censorship is that one is total. You do not know what has been censored because you aren't able to see what was there beforehand. Age-restrictions and filters are similar but give you the choice of whether to see certain content or not, and in the case of age-restrictions prevent you getting that content before you are able to handle it. What age is a good one for what content is tough to decide of course but when you reach it you will have access to that information.


Most furs have no idea what censorship actually is. You've grown up in a world and culture where ideas may be expressed freely, or at the least with far more freedom than probably at any other time in society's history. Yes, there is gay bashing and racial attacks and gender inequality but just remember that not too long ago segregation was the law. Inter-racial sex was considered to be bestiality and woman were not equal to men. Trying to promote a different view to this resulted in harsh punishments and ruined careers. Nowadays you can lobby for an idea in relative safety, regardless of those ideas. Why would you want to turn back the clock?
True censorship is when books were banned for containing sexual content or ideas that contradicted ruling party's own. This still continues in some countries. China was just this year trying to install a massive internet filter which would block access to any sites that they deemed inappropriate. This included sites such as Yahoo. Censorship retards progress in academic circles. There's the classic story of Galileo, who was forced, by the church, to recant his, correct, claims that the Earth revolved around the Sun because it conflicted with the Church's view.  
In modern times charges were brought against Josephine Ho by 13 conservative Taiwanese organisations for "propagating obscenities that corrupt traditional values and may produce bad influence on children and juveniles". In reality she was sexologist and had two hyperlinks to bestiality sites in her sexuality studies databank. Luckily she was found not guilty by the Taipei District Court and, subsequently, the High Court, after the prosecution appealed the verdict.


Often people say that we need censorship to protect us and that not censoring something like child pornography leads to the act being committed. This, of course, they extend to both art and photography.
Firstly learn the difference between fantasy and reality. Art is not real and the right to express your opinion should not be sacrificed on the off-chance that something bad might come of it. Photography and real-life child pornography of course requires the actual act to be committed and so that is already covered in law. There  is no reason however to stop people arguing for child pornography or anything else, regardless of how you may feel about it.
Secondly this argument is as flawed as the one which states that playing violent video games will encourage violent actions. As far as I know there is very little to no evidence to support this view, and if there were do not forget the implications that would have. You cannot apply a philosophy or principle willy-nilly. It has to be consistent. If you'll suppress depictions of an illegal act or if you believe that artwork of child pornography should be censored on the basis that it will promote the act then you have no choice but to censor and suppress all games depicting theft or killing.


In any case what will be censored? Will we put it to a vote? As much as democratic societies embrace votes they do not mean that something is right. What a vote will do is suppress minorities and prevent new ideas from having a chance to be analysed and accepted. If there is a censor what's to stop him from doing whatever he feels? If he's suppressing a new idea that might put his position in jeopardy how would you even know?


Who would you choose to be this censor anyway? Who do you trust enough to be the one who decides what you can see or say? Is there someone like that?  This isn't just a question of should things that people dislike not be seen, it's whether certain ideas should be suppressed and hidden from view. It's not that you will just not see them, you won't even know that they're there. How can you accept someone hiding something that may just change your life.


Censorship denies you the right to express yourself and denies you the right to hear what others say. It restricts you and suppresses you. It's not protecting you. The only way to ensure that a process is made fair is that it is made without the knowledge of what position you will be in. Sure you want censorship to hide ideas that you dislike but what if it were your ideas that were censored? What if your thoughts were banned and you didn't even have the opportunity to discuss and fight for them? Would you still accept censorship then? Is it really worth it? If you aren't the censor how can you trust the person that is to have your best interests at heart? How would you even know if they didn't divulge the information of what they censored. If they did let you know what they were dong then they wouldn't be doing their job.


If you support censorship how can you even discuss the topic? Are you intellectually capable of having a discussion about it when you are supporting a system that insults your own intelligence? You are standing up and saying that you do not think you are capable of thinking for yourself. You are saying that you shouldn't be allowed access to all the facts but only the select few that are deemed good for you. Why are you discussing censorship and not someone on your behalf? Do you somehow think that you are capable of discussing that one topic but can't handle any others? What if you hear something you shouldn't during the discussion? What would you do then? If you think you can handle hearing it then why the hell would you need a censor! If you can think for yourself and tell the difference between what is beneficial and what is detrimental to yourself then you do not need a censor! If you aren't capable of doing that then there is no way you are capable of actually having a meaningful,intellectual discussion. If that's the case then perhaps you should go and find someone to censor what you see but do not presume that everyone else is as unable to think for themselves.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Jul 23, 2009)

People don't like to confront ugly ideas because it makes them feel uncomfortable.


That can probably explain a lot of things


----------



## LizardKing (Jul 23, 2009)

making the text smaller doesn't make it any easier to read fyi


----------



## Internet Police Chief (Jul 23, 2009)

tl;dr

Furaffinity is not America and your rights do not apply here. Shut up, dog humper.


----------



## ToeClaws (Jul 23, 2009)

Giant post is GIANT!  

I would agree that censorship is bad if humanity were a responsible race of higher beings who would dare not tread on the feelings of others or cross unethical lines.  But ah... we're mostly just crap-slinging apes who know how to type/talk, so I don't see a little censorship as a bad thing.


----------



## Carenath (Jul 23, 2009)

A private website, banning cub-porn/cub-art is not censorship. They are a private website and are free to allow and disallow what they please. Just tought I'd point this out.


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 23, 2009)

tl;dr past first paragraph.
Don't care, lots and lots of boards don't allow any images at all, even avatars and signatures.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Jul 23, 2009)

> tl;dr
> 
> Furaffinity is not America and your rights do not apply here. Shut up, dog humper.


Then don't post. Rights aren't an American thing either.



> making the text smaller doesn't make it any easier to read fyi


It looks normal sized to me.



> A private website, banning cub-porn/cub-art is not censorship. They are a private website and are free to allow and disallow what they please. Just tought I'd point this out.


I'm not just talking about any one website. I am talking in general.



> tl;dr past first paragraph.



If you don't read then don't post.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Jul 23, 2009)

> having a meaningful, intellectual discussion.



Something no one here can do.


I enjoy your essays though.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Jul 23, 2009)

If the Mods and Admins support it, then great. They will be very unpopular, and the purpose of FurAffinity being a civil location will just fall to pieces. 

Like most BUSINESSES and Establishments, FAF's owners can choose who does and who doesn't get to be on this site. And it would be a good decision on their part to listen to the peoples who frequent this website, and perhaps mirror that tide in their decision-making to banish such vile acts.

Dog-Fucking is beyond Sodomy. It is not sodomy with a man or woman... It is sodomy with mangy fido. For many people, that is a bit of a turn-off...

BTW... Freedom does not exist. All your actions can be traced back to your own experiences and cognitive processes (programming). We simply have this inter-subjective perception of freewill.


----------



## Internet Police Chief (Jul 23, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> Then don't post. Rights aren't an American thing either.




Why can't I post? You're censoring me, hypocrite.


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 23, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> If you don't read then don't post.


Yawn, read above; doesn't mean what I said isn't true.


----------



## LizardKing (Jul 23, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> It looks normal sized to me.



You put size tags around each paragraph.

Surely you didn't manage to 'accidentally' click the size button for each one.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Jul 23, 2009)

> You put size tags around each paragraph.
> 
> Surely you didn't manage to 'accidentally' click the size button for each one.



Copy pasted out of a word processor. Sorry if that happened. Didn't mean for it.



> Why can't I post? You're censoring me, hypocrite.



Or not. If you haven't read the essay you don't know what I'm saying and so are incapable of joining the discussion.



> I enjoy your essays though.



Thank you^^


----------



## Carenath (Jul 23, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> I'm not just talking about any one website. I am talking in general.


Yes, but so long as you're free to start your own website, and publish your own content, then you cant call 'censorship'.


----------



## Jashwa (Jul 23, 2009)

tl;dr, but I'm going to assume this is another thread about zoophilia.  You should be ashamed of yourself.


On topic:  Disgusting things SHOULD be censored and should not be allowed on sites where the majority of people don't like them.  Why should 95% of the people have to put up with disgusting stuff being on the site just so that 5% can upload their nasty porn?


----------



## pheonix (Jul 23, 2009)

There should be specific buttons to block specific material, not just mature and adult.


----------



## micolithe (Jul 23, 2009)

Websites are private property. Whatever the owner says goes.


----------



## LizardKing (Jul 23, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> Copy pasted out of a word processor



lol


----------



## HoneyPup (Jul 23, 2009)

You make some very good points, however you start off saying "I saw a topic on whether art should be censored on a forum" but then discuss issues in the past that are not related to running a website at all. Different situations.

A website owner deciding what is and is not allowed on their site is not denying the members any rights. It is their website, they can run it however they want.



pheonix said:


> There should be specific buttons to block specific material, not just mature and adult.


That would be nice. 
Typically I just ignore the content I don't like. At least there are thumbnails.


----------



## pheonix (Jul 23, 2009)

prettylilpup said:


> That would be nice.
> Typically I just ignore the content I don't like. At least there are thumbnails.



It would be really nice but I wouldn't know. I can't look at mature and adult stuff. XD


----------



## Gavrill (Jul 23, 2009)

Shut the fuck up.

Hooray for not being censored!

*USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST*


----------



## Ricky (Jul 23, 2009)

Load_Blown said:


> > having a meaningful, intellectual discussion.
> 
> 
> Something no one here can do.



This ^ ...and it probably has to do with the average age of people on this forum.  People want to shout their opinions but most aren't mature enough to have an intelligent debate. This thread is going to be mostly inane responses.



Jashwa said:


> tl;dr, but I'm going to assume this is another thread about zoophilia.  You should be ashamed of yourself.



Case in point.



Jashwa said:


> On topic: Disgusting things SHOULD be censored and should not be allowed on sites where the majority of people don't like them. Why should 5% of the people have to put up with disgusting stuff being on the site just so that 5% can upload their nasty porn?



25% of all porn offends 35% of people, and so half of that 5% is actually 3% of the porn those 95% like.


----------



## Ozriel (Jul 23, 2009)

Freedom of Speech is not free, it always comes with a cost.

Besides, if a creator of a website doesn't want X material on a his/her site and stated thus on the site's TOS, then it is your duty to follow it or reap the consequences from the admins who enforce it.


----------



## HoneyPup (Jul 23, 2009)

pheonix said:


> It would be really nice but I wouldn't know. I can't look at mature and adult stuff. XD


Oh. I assumed you could since you made the comment. Basically, I think it would only work if everyone properly tagged and labeled their submissions. Or it might make things more complicated, I don't know. But I think its a good concept.
If you don't look at adult stuff, it doesn't matter because it all can be blocked. But a lot of people here, myself included, like some adult stuff yet have some content they just do not want to look at. Doesn't mean it should not be allowed, but if the individual can control what they see, maybe it would be better. Those who don't like ____ can just avoid looking at it.


----------



## pheonix (Jul 23, 2009)

prettylilpup said:


> Oh. I assumed you could since you made the comment. Basically, I think it would only work if everyone properly tagged and labeled their submissions. Or it might make things more complicated, I don't know. But I think its a good concept.
> If you don't look at adult stuff, it doesn't matter because it all can be blocked. But a lot of people here, myself included, like some adult stuff yet have some content they just do not want to look at. Doesn't mean it should not be allowed, but if the individual can control what they see, maybe it would be better. Those who don't like ____ can just avoid looking at it.



I can't I just made the comment cause I wish you could do that on other sites. It would most likely cause too many problems and that's why they didn't do it. I'm sure the idea has been mentioned before. And I hate when people miss tag things. ]:<


----------



## foxmusk (Jul 23, 2009)

Shenzebo said:


> Shut the fuck up.
> 
> Hooray for not being censored!



sigging RIGHT NOW :U


----------



## Jashwa (Jul 23, 2009)

Ricky said:


> 25% of all porn offends 35% of people, and so half of that 5% is actually 3% of the porn those 95% like.


 What kind of logic is that and where are you getting those numbers?  I was just guessing numbers because it makes it look better.


----------



## Gavrill (Jul 23, 2009)

HarleyParanoia said:


> sigging RIGHT NOW :U


D'aw I feel so spechul :V


----------



## foxmusk (Jul 23, 2009)

Shenzebo said:


> D'aw I feel so spechul :V



you are special, bby. now why don't you come in my van and lemme give you a bicycle <3


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jul 23, 2009)

As George Carlin once said, you have no rights, you only have privileges.  These privileges are derived from what is mutually acceptable in a given community.  If the community of FA decides that they want a certain type of art removed and the admins are petitioned it to the point where they'd actually give a shit, then that's just politics in action.  This same principle can be applied to just about any media you can think of.

tl:dr, you don't have any right to post whatever shit you want, you're just given the privilege to do so out of the graces of the admins.


----------



## Gavrill (Jul 23, 2009)

HarleyParanoia said:


> you are special, bby. now why don't you come in my van and lemme give you a bicycle <3


You have a van too? =O


----------



## foxmusk (Jul 23, 2009)

Shenzebo said:


> You have a van too? =O



yes. i use it to take little boys away and give them bicycles. and by bicycles, i mean i do bad things to them.


----------



## Ricky (Jul 23, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> What kind of logic is that and where are you getting those numbers?



iunno but it sounded good...


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Jul 23, 2009)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> As George Carlin once said, you have no rights, you only have privileges. These privileges are derived from what is mutually acceptable in a given community. If the community of FA decides that they want a certain type of art removed and the admins are petitioned it to the point where they'd actually give a shit, then that's just politics in action. This same principle can be applied to just about any media you can think of.
> 
> tl:dr, you don't have any right to post whatever shit you want, you're just given the privilege to do so out of the graces of the admins.


 
That is actually one of the most recent vids I have favorited on the Yewtube. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWiBt-pqp0E

And from his last stand-up act, too...


----------



## Kommodore (Jul 23, 2009)

@Carenath

Censorship has a very defined definition and any organization can do it, not only governments. Every organization practices censorship in varying degrees, and this one is no different. The fact that it is a privately owned site does nothing to the definition of the word, and FA does indeed censor. Now, whether or not the censoring is a _bad_ thing is another matter entirely, but they still do it. 

Anyway I do not approve of censorship in any of its admittedly varied forms. The fact of the matter is that censorship, at least int he context of this thread, is based on the bad feelings of certain people and the assumptions based on those feelings. I am not going to go into too much detail, but suffice it to say that just because someone can censor something, like on this site, doesn't mean they should. Just because something weirds you out is no reason to censor it; unless you can prove it actually affects people you are just imposing your opinions on others. 

The problem with this line of thought should be obvious. 

But, I suppose none of that is relevant to this site. Society sets its own standards on what is acceptable behavior and what is not. Banning stripping in the street is a form of censorship that is never going to go away, along with a host of other "common sense" things. Society as a whole decides what they are by which censorship laws they allow to exist and which ones they do not. In this case, the society here has made itself very clear on what it does and does not approve of. You just have to deal with it, even if it is a totally subjective system.


----------



## Corto (Jul 23, 2009)

Man posting illegal shit that is also digusting is no "freedom of speech".


----------



## Aurali (Jul 23, 2009)

Corto said:


> Man posting illegal shit that is also digusting is no "freedom of speech".



^this. Though I doubt any change is gonna happen in terms of censorship.


----------



## Corto (Jul 23, 2009)

If you mean that this lone crazy crusader with his rant of fury will not be able to change this (or any other) site's "censorship" policy then yeah you're probably right.


----------



## Aurali (Jul 23, 2009)

Corto said:


> If you mean that this lone crazy crusader with his rant of fury will not be able to change this (or any other) site's "censorship" policy then yeah you're probably right.



People tend to forget that all these debates have happened on FA before... Hell This one remembers a few break off sites dedicated to not allowing this or that...


----------



## Jashwa (Jul 23, 2009)

Eli said:


> People tend to forget that all these debates have happened on FA before... Hell This one remembers a few break off sites dedicated to not allowing this or that...


 I think they know that it happened before, they're just naive enough to think that they can change things now.


----------



## Wulf (Jul 24, 2009)

I fail to see the point of this thread. All you have done is provide a prolix definition of censorship.

There is no specific purpose, there is no clear direction - no impetus for action. Just you whining about your inalienable rights that don't exisist, considering that this is a private site.


----------



## theLight (Jul 24, 2009)

Edit for personal security.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Jul 24, 2009)

> There should be specific buttons to block specific material, not just mature and adult.



Very much agreed. I don't think it'd be that difficult either.



> You make some very good points, however you start off saying "I saw a topic on whether art should be censored on a forum" but then discuss issues in the past that are not related to running a website at all. Different situations.
> 
> A website owner deciding what is and is not allowed on their site is not denying the members any rights. It is their website, they can run it however they want.



Sorry. Really bad grammar there. I saw a topic, on a forum, on whether art should be censored. That's what I should have written.

Actually if a website does prevent people from freely sharing their ideas then that would be denying freedom of speech. Yes, I hear that it's a website and private property and stuff like that, but just because it's private doesn't mean that you can ignore people's rights. If someone's on private property you can't just suddenly kill them and claim that it was private property and so you could decide the rules. Rights also should not depend on where you are, country or internet. 



> Besides, if a creator of a website doesn't want X material on a his/her site and stated thus on the site's TOS, then it is your duty to follow it or reap the consequences from the admins who enforce it.



That's not really any different from a taxi driver saying he won't take black passengers. It's his car but he's not allowed to make such decisions. The only time you should be able to specify what is allowed is when deciding what the site is for. If a sit is for furry artwork then obviously don't post non-furry artwork because that's not what the site's for. But then furry artwork must not be censored. There's a subtle but important difference between this site is for X, Y and Z and this site doesn't allow A, B and C. I'd also put the difference in that having a theme includes all sorts of things in that theme while censorship takes that theme and then throws out subsets of the theme.



> There is no specific purpose, there is no clear direction - no impetus for action.



It's saying censorship is bad and that we should resist it.


----------



## Xaerun (Jul 24, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> That's not really any different from a taxi driver saying he won't take black passengers. It's his car but he's not allowed to make such decisions. The only time you should be able to specify what is allowed is when deciding what the site is for. If a sit is for furry artwork then obviously don't post non-furry artwork because that's not what the site's for. But then furry artwork must not be censored. There's a subtle but important difference between this site is for X, Y and Z and this site doesn't allow A, B and C. I'd also put the difference in that having a theme includes all sorts of things in that theme while censorship takes that theme and then throws out subsets of the theme.



Okay, just no.
That is in the real-world, and suffers from something called "discrimination". That can be brought straight to the courts. He does not own that car, you're right, but Dragoneer _does_ own Fur Affinity from top to bottom (for example) and can choose to cut out whatever art he'd like. If he wants, he can only allow furry art drawn on toilet paper with pencils. That cannot ever be brought to a court or a tribunal. Taxi driver --> website is a very, VERY bad parallel to draw.


----------



## Thatch (Jul 24, 2009)

Shitposting in a shitty thread.


----------



## Corto (Jul 24, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> Actually if a website does prevent people from freely sharing their ideas then that would be denying freedom of speech. Yes, I hear that it's a website and private property and stuff like that, but just because it's private doesn't mean that you can ignore people's rights. If someone's on private property you can't just suddenly kill them and claim that it was private property and so you could decide the rules. Rights also should not depend on where you are, country or internet.


Hey, the secret of this "private property" thing: You don't need to register. You can happily live your whole life without ever being a member of Furaffinity or whatever other forum. But when you register you choose to accept the local rules and to obey them. You are completely fucking free to start your own "POST ANYTHING YOU WANT" forum and see how long that retarded bullshit of a place will last. Either it collapses into itself or turns into something completely stupid like 4chan. 



Rakuen Growlithe said:


> That's not really any different from a taxi driver saying he won't take black passengers. It's his car but he's not allowed to make such decisions. The only time you should be able to specify what is allowed is when deciding what the site is for. If a sit is for furry artwork then obviously don't post non-furry artwork because that's not what the site's for. But then furry artwork must not be censored. There's a subtle but important difference between this site is for X, Y and Z and this site doesn't allow A, B and C. I'd also put the difference in that having a theme includes all sorts of things in that theme while censorship takes that theme and then throws out subsets of the theme.


If you're the kind of person that thinks banning drawings of child pornography and fucking racial discrimination are similar or comparable _at all_ then you're a fucking lost case and this discussion is over. 

This post was much longer but I don't want to be banned.


----------



## Armaetus (Jul 24, 2009)

So you are complaining about how you get flak for defending dogfuckers?


----------



## Mayfurr (Jul 25, 2009)

Censorship: I feel that ***** and ***** should be **** and ****, but ***** with ***** and *******, *******, while **** **** *******, ****** ***** with ****** watermelon. 

***** ******* ******* ******* ******* GCHQ ** **** ****** Waihopai ******* ECHELON


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Jul 25, 2009)

> Hey, the secret of this "private property" thing: You don't need to register. You can happily live your whole life without ever being a member of Furaffinity or whatever other forum. But when you register you choose to accept the local rules and to obey them. You are completely fucking free to start your own "POST ANYTHING YOU WANT" forum and see how long that retarded bullshit of a place will last. Either it collapses into itself or turns into something completely stupid like 4chan.



So then if it's private you could post porn regardless of the law because it's private? Why should private property not be subject to free speech but still subject to other laws?



> If you're the kind of person that thinks banning drawings of child pornography and fucking racial discrimination are similar or comparable _at all_ then you're a fucking lost case and this discussion is over.



I'm talking about comparing two ideas. In both cases you control a certain place and are deciding what you will allow on. Why is one so different to the other?


----------



## ShadowWeaver (Jul 25, 2009)

I vote yes on censorship for the purpose of wanting to restore a level of decency to art.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Jul 25, 2009)

As long as its your level of decency?


----------



## ShadowWeaver (Jul 25, 2009)

As long as it's a level of common sense decency. Like the golden rule, "Do onto others as you would have done to yourself." Bestiality and child molestation are forms of rape. You want to be raped?


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Jul 25, 2009)

> As long as it's a level of common sense decency. Like the golden rule, "Do onto others as you would have done to yourself." Bestiality and child molestation are forms of rape. You want to be raped?



Art's not doing anything to anyone. And bestiality isn't rape so that doesn't fall under that philosophy.


----------



## Nocturne (Jul 25, 2009)

I believe it was Ben Franklin that said "Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak because a baby can't chew it."  Let the parents decide what kids should and shouldn't see.  Life isn't all pretty and therefore art shouldn't have to be either.  Limiting human expression for the sake of protecting a child from what they will eventually see anyway seems silly to me.  I'm not saying we should market DEATH GORE RAMPAGE III to kids (and parents shouldn't kids near something like that either probably), but there's something to be said for creative freedom.


----------



## CAThulu (Jul 25, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> Art's not doing anything to anyone. And bestiality isn't rape so that doesn't fall under that philosophy.



As a professional artist, I have to comment on this.

If my art isn't affecting people emotionally on any level, then I'm not doing my job right.   Art is a tool to convey emotions and ideas...even more powerful then the written word because in one glance you can say so much then a thousand words on a page.  It also inspires people to think in different directions...or desensitize them to bad ideas.

And again, growlithe....*Art =/= Bestiality.**sigh*


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Jul 25, 2009)

> As a professional artist, I have to comment on this.
> 
> If my art isn't affecting people emotionally on any level, then I'm not doing my job right. Art is a tool to convey emotions and ideas...even more powerful then the written word because in one glance you can say so much then a thousand words on a page. It also inspires people to think in different directions...or desensitize them to bad ideas.
> 
> And again, growlithe....*Art =/= Bestiality.**sigh*



Affecting something yes, but that's not necessarily harm. Most people here seem to be against bestiality so an artwork of bestiality could provoke feelings of disgust, which would pretty much be what they want. So why would they want that censored?

And I didn't bring up bestiality. Other people did. I know art is not an action.


----------



## Ratte (Jul 25, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> Art's not doing anything to anyone. And bestiality isn't rape so that doesn't fall under that philosophy.





			
				http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bestiality said:
			
		

> Although sex with animals is not outlawed in some countries, it is not explicitly condoned anywhere. In most countries, such acts are illegal under *animal abuse laws or laws dealing with crimes against nature.*



:/

It is often referred to as rape, because animals cannot consent with people.


----------



## ShadowWeaver (Jul 25, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> Art's not doing anything to anyone. And bestiality isn't rape so that doesn't fall under that philosophy.



An animal can NOT consent to any kind of sex act. Non-consensual sex IS rape. Therefore, bestiality IS in fact rape.


----------



## Corto (Jul 25, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> So then if it's private you could post porn regardless of the law because it's private? Why should private property not be subject to free speech but still subject to other laws?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm talking about comparing two ideas. In both cases you control a certain place and are deciding what you will allow on. Why is one so different to the other?



Man talking to you is like punching a brick wall. I only get more and more annoyed but the brick wall doesn't feel anything.


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 25, 2009)

ITT: OP isn't allowed to post the illegal stuff that gets his rocks off on an Art site, and he wants to be allowed as well as it being accepted by using backwater retardation in his posts in attempt to confuse lazy people (who don't know and won't bother looking up the truth) with fabrications; doing this he's trying to use pity as a ploy to gain peoples vote on removing censorship, the ones that are tricked into believing he means something that is infringing on the normal rights of people off-site, but in-fact it's just bestiality and zoophillia...possibly other things.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jul 25, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> ITT: OP isn't allowed to post the illegal stuff that gets his rocks off on an Art site, and he wants to be allowed as well as it being accepted by using backwater retardation in his posts in attempt to confuse lazy people (who don't know and won't bother looking up the truth) with fabrications; doing this he's trying to use pity as a ploy to gain peoples vote on removing censorship, the ones that are tricked into believing he means something that is infringing on the normal rights of people off-site, but in-fact it's just bestiality and zoophillia...possibly other things.



tl:dr, business as usual on FAF for OP.


----------



## Jashwa (Jul 25, 2009)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> tl:dr, business as usual on FAF for OP.


QFT.

Also, Rakuen. With regards to your free speech argument:  Free speech gives you the right to speak your mind.  You don't need to be on a certain site to speak your mind. It's like claiming that a newspaper not publishing your essay on why it's ok to fuck your dog is a violation of free speech.  It's not, it's just them not wanting to play host for your sick philia.


----------



## Azure (Jul 25, 2009)

ITT LoliCubBeastialityGuro porn.  OP, nobody wants to see it.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Jul 25, 2009)

AzurePhoenix said:


> ITT LoliCubBeastialityGuro porn.  OP, nobody wants to see it.



Lolis (& Guro) > FAF > Radiohead


----------



## Excitement! (Jul 25, 2009)

ShadowWeaver said:


> I vote yes on censorship for the purpose of wanting to restore a level of decency to art.


How so? It's not like furry art/fiction is/has been/ever will be high art. Some of you act like the fetish porn people are coming in and taking a shit in the middle of your art museum, when in reality, it's more like they're coming in and taking a shit in the middle of your comic book convention. Sure, a lot of furries can draw and write fantastically. I wouldn't be here otherwise. But it's not like if we removed (censored is far too strong of a word) all the crazy pornography, furry fandom would suddenly be producing Hemingway's and Kandinsky's left and right.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jul 25, 2009)

Excitement! said:


> How so? It's not like furry art/fiction is/has been/ever will be high art. Some of you act like the fetish porn people are coming in and taking a shit in the middle of your art museum, when in reality, it's more like they're coming in and taking a shit in the middle of your comic book convention. Sure, a lot of furries can draw and write fantastically. I wouldn't be here otherwise. But it's not like if we removed (censored is far too strong of a word) all the crazy pornography, furry fandom would suddenly be producing Hemingway's and Kandinsky's left and right.



This is inherently the problem here because I don't see this as being an issue of art quality rather than a general commentary of what this fandom is going to accept and/or endorse.  Obviously in no way will someone like Dragoneer ever publicly endorse something like bestiality/zoophilia/whatever, our good friend Rauken's cause de jour.   However, harboring people who by admission and/or by their work posted online have made public their sexual interest in animals gives off not only the air that everyone on the site is like those people, but also everyone in the fandom.  Otherwise, why would it be accepted?  

tl:dr, the goal here isn't to improve art, it's to make sure "normal" people aren't associated with someone/people who generally believe that having sex with animals is acceptable behavior.


----------



## Aurali (Jul 25, 2009)

Corto said:


> Man talking to you is like punching a brick wall. I only get more and more annoyed but the brick wall doesn't feel anything.



Just tell him that a law is bounding. A right (free speech) is only given by the governing body. That usually shuts them up. Free speech isn't a law.


----------



## Surgat (Jul 25, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> So then if it's private you could post porn regardless of the law because it's private? Why should private property not be subject to free speech but still subject to other laws?



I'll try to explain this as simply as possible.

Not all laws apply to the same things. For example, individuals don't have to put wheelchair ramps and separate mens' and womens' bathrooms in their homes. People can decorate their homes with religious iconography, but not courthouses. Courts have specific procedures judges need to follow for trials, which private business employers don't have to follow to fire someone, or go through if they need to remove an unruly customer from their store. 

Different rules also apply to different parts of governments. In the U.S., the president can't declare war or issue legislation, congress can't declare things unconstitutional, Judges can only rule on issues that come up in appeals, etc.

Laws concerning the freedom of speech are like this. Like the other parts of the U.S. Constitution, they only apply to the government. If there was to be a legal right to free speech on private property, it'd have to be statutory. There is no such statute here, not on the federal level nor in any of the states, to my knowledge.




> I'm talking about comparing two ideas. In both cases you control a certain place and are deciding what you will allow on. Why is one so different to the other?



Racial discrimination is an issue of distributive justice. Everybody ultimately has some interest in preventing or counteracting arbitrary employment discrimination. Arbitrary discrimination can help keep more qualified individuals out of positions where they best could use their skills, is bad for businesses and commerce, and it contributes to social tensions. No similar situation exists with a site owner's refusal to host certain types of art on their website. 

Furthermore, discrimination tends to be widespread, making it hard for minorities to get jobs and generally inconveniencing them. On the internet, it's much easier to find places to host whatever you want; geographic location isn't much of an issue.

In many places here, employers can fire their employees for any reason anyways.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Jul 26, 2009)

> Laws concerning the freedom of speech are like this. Like the other parts of the U.S. Constitution, they only apply to the government. If there was to be a legal right to free speech on private property, it'd have to be statutory. There is no such statute here, not on the federal level nor in any of the states, to my knowledge.



Okay, that makes sense as how things are but is it how it should be? Why must only government respect people's rights. And this isn't for just a specific country or topic, it's in general. Shouldn't we move to have everyone respect free speech?



> Furthermore, discrimination tends to be widespread, making it hard for minorities to get jobs and generally inconveniencing them. On the internet, it's much easier to find places to host whatever you want; geographic location isn't much of an issue.



You could still move somewhere else to find a job, even though not as easily. But if you allow people online to ignore other's rights then why would they suddenly respect them offline? They won't suddenly change their behaviour and employ black people and help gays fight for rights while online they run a neo-nazi website.


----------



## Thatch (Jul 26, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> Okay, that makes sense as how things are but is it how it should be? Why must only government respect people's rights. And this isn't for just a specific country or topic, it's in general. Shouldn't we move to have everyone respect free speech?



No, because some people just need to STFU. Your dogfucking hippy ways do not work in real life.


----------



## Aurali (Jul 26, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> Okay, that makes sense as how things are but is it how it should be? Why must only government respect people's rights. And this isn't for just a specific country or topic, it's in general. Shouldn't we move to have everyone respect free speech?


 Starting to stray into dangerous territories love. Free speech is used by many groups to commit hate crimes of all sorts. Also slander.





> You could still move somewhere else to find a job, even though not as easily. But if you allow people online to ignore other's rights then why would they suddenly respect them offline? They won't suddenly change their behaviour and employ black people and help gays fight for rights while online they run a neo-nazi website.


 NOT having the right to total free speech gives black people and gays a chance to have a better job and live without prejudice.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Jul 27, 2009)

> Starting to stray into dangerous territories love. Free speech is used by many groups to commit hate crimes of all sorts. Also slander.



Hate crimes are a separate issue to free speech. It's one thing saying something and another acting on it, especially if it hurts someone. In any case I'd definitely put the responsibility of truth. While you'd be allowed to say anything you want, it has to be true. You cannot just go around making things up for you.



> NOT having the right to total free speech gives black people and gays a chance to have a better job and live without prejudice.



Actually I doubt it helps. Not letting people talk about something doesn't remove the feelings, it just leaves it hidden and festering. If it's brought out into the open then you can show the anti-gay, anti-black arguments are a load of nonsense, ie. the obligation to tell the truth.

And for those who mocked the issue of free speech, don't forget that 4chan has been blocked. http://forums.furaffinity.net/showthread.php?t=46513


----------



## ShadowWeaver (Jul 27, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> Hate crimes are a separate issue to free speech. It's one thing saying something and another acting on it, especially if it hurts someone. In any case I'd definitely put the responsibility of truth. *While you'd be allowed to say anything you want, it has to be true.* You cannot just go around making things up for you.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I doubt it helps. Not letting people talk about something doesn't remove the feelings, it just leaves it hidden and festering. If it's brought out into the open then you can show the anti-gay, anti-black arguments are a load of nonsense, ie. the obligation to tell the truth.



Free speech allows you to say anything, it does NOT have to be true.

Most people don't want to hear about or see things related to your desire for a sexual relationship with an animal. This is way we have therapy sessions that occur behind closed doors. If you need to talk to someone, go see a doctor or psychologist. 

Censoring art is not unreasonable. You can express yourself without fully revealing your desires.

E: Also, free speech doesn't apply everywhere. Even at my own colllege, if you wanted to speak your mind you had to ok it through the school board. And even then, it had to be done in a designated free speech area.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Jul 27, 2009)

> Free speech allows you to say anything, it does NOT have to be true.



No, there should definitely be a difference between free speech and lying. There enough people running around and spouting lies as it is. Just because it can be said doesn't mean it should be.



> Most people don't want to hear about or see things related to your desire for a sexual relationship with an animal. This is way we have therapy sessions that occur behind closed doors. If you need to talk to someone, go see a doctor or psychologist.



Do you have an obsession with bestiality? People on here seem to associate it with everything. There are other topics for it.


----------



## Jashwa (Jul 27, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> No, there should definitely be a difference between free speech and lying. There enough people running around and spouting lies as it is. Just because it can be said doesn't mean it should be.


You may be the biggest hypocrite I've seen in a long time.  You go talking about how there should be complete free speech, but want to censor people that are lying?  Bullshit.  You said it yourself in numerous other threads, "You can't take a principle and just apply it sometimes, you have to apply it all the time."  You can't just say you support free speech and no censorship for the things that you don't want to be censored, but for everything.  It's either censor or don't censor.  You can't say "Well, let me draw my dogfucking art, but if that dude says something that isn't true, censor it."




> Do you have an obsession with bestiality? People on here seem to associate it with everything. There are other topics for it.


 Not everything, just you.  That's what we do when people admit they've tried bestiality.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Jul 27, 2009)

> You may be the biggest hypocrite I've seen in a long time. You go talking about how there should be complete free speech, but want to censor people that are lying? Bullshit. You said it yourself in numerous other threads, "You can't take a principle and just apply it sometimes, you have to apply it all the time." You can't just say you support free speech and no censorship for the things that you don't want to be censored, but for everything. It's either censor or don't censor. You can't say "Well, let me draw my dogfucking art, but if that dude says something that isn't true, censor it."



Yeah freedom to discuss and exchange ideas, not make up a load of rubbish and pass it off as fact. Some people actually care about the truth. If you're going to let people say whatever thy feel like then you'll never be able to trust anyone. Lying to people isn't exchanging ideas, it's setting out to decieve them in order to acomplish some other purpose.


----------



## Jashwa (Jul 27, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> Yeah freedom to discuss and exchange ideas, not make up a load of rubbish and pass it off as fact. Some people actually care about the truth. If you're going to let people say whatever thy feel like then you'll never be able to trust anyone. Lying to people isn't exchanging ideas, it's setting out to decieve them in order to acomplish some other purpose.


If people have a right to say whatever they want, they should be allowed to say whatever they want.  Plus, once yous tart censoring things for being "lies", you open up a whole new can of worms with regards to corruption.  How long would it be until anyone speaking out against something was just censored because they were "lying"?


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Jul 27, 2009)

And you completely forget that thing called evidence. If people are saying something that can't be backed up, it's useless. Not that hard to check on things.


----------



## Jashwa (Jul 27, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> And you completely forget that thing called evidence. If people are saying something that can't be backed up, it's useless. Not that hard to check on things.


So there should be practically an investigation on every single fact that anyone says ever? You know, to make sure they're not lying about them?  

What I'm saying is, if they censor stuff for being a lie, than no one will know what was censored,t hey'll just know it was a lie.  This enables them to censor anything that they damn well please and just say that the personw as lying about something.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Jul 27, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> So there should be practically an investigation on every single fact that anyone says ever? You know, to make sure they're not lying about them?
> 
> What I'm saying is, if they censor stuff for being a lie, than no one will know what was censored,t hey'll just know it was a lie. This enables them to censor anything that they damn well please and just say that the personw as lying about something.


 
There is a difference between keeping the internet honest, and censorship. They do not "Censor" Lies, but rather they prevent them from turning into something they shouldn't become. That is what gossipy websites are for...


----------



## Surgat (Jul 27, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> Okay, that makes sense as how things are but is it how it should be?





> Why must only government respect people's rights.



Individual citizens do have to respect each other's rights. For example, you can't restrict someone's freedom of movement, and there's a law against "unlawful imprisonment." 

Individual citizens can't take certain measures to prevent other people from saying things in public places by force, such as assault, battery, or destruction of property. In this way, they have to respect your right to speak your mind.

However, your rights do not include staying on or using someone else's property (unless it's part of a contract or something). If you hand out pamphlets in a grocery store, and the owner tells you to leave, this doesn't infringe on any of your rights. It hasn't stopped you from writing, printing, and distributing tracts without punishment.




> You could still move somewhere else to find a job, even though not as easily.



You're saying that finding different website to host your stuff isn't much different than moving to different parts of the country, where there is still a possibility of facing discrimination (stronger at different times in our history), or to a different country? Seriously?

I like how you ignored the paragraph before the one you're responding to in this quote, too.



Rakuen Growlithe said:


> But if you allow people online to ignore other's rights then why would they suddenly respect them offline? They won't suddenly change their behaviour and employ black people and help gays fight for rights while online they run a neo-nazi website.



Wait, are you advocating censorship here?


----------



## CAThulu (Jul 28, 2009)

Surgat:

One can never be sure with Growlithe.  His arguements have more turns then a washing machine on spin cycle (see Counter-Arguement to Bestiality thread)


----------



## Jashwa (Jul 28, 2009)

Surgat said:


> Wait, are you advocating censorship here?


 Read the post where he stated that we should censor lies.  He's for it when he wants it, but not when it's censoring the things he wants to look at/post.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Jul 28, 2009)

> So there should be practically an investigation on every single fact that anyone says ever? You know, to make sure they're not lying about them?



Do you check every fact you hear now? People are still able to lie but unless its a remarkable piece of information it's not that difficult to determine whether it's true or not based on what you already know. 



> You're saying that finding different website to host your stuff isn't much different than moving to different parts of the country, where there is still a possibility of facing discrimination (stronger at different times in our history), or to a different country? Seriously?
> 
> I like how you ignored the paragraph before the one you're responding to in this quote, too.



There's a chance of discrimination on other sites too, some countries have less discrimination. That's still similar. And I didn't make a specific reply to the paragraph before because it makes sense. I wasn't trying to argue it.



> Wait, are you advocating censorship here?



No, I thought the essay would make that clear. I was saying that it's strange and illogical how people's rights matter offline but not online. 



> Read the post where he stated that we should censor lies. He's for it when he wants it, but not when it's censoring the things he wants to look at/post.



You're not censoring lies. Lies aren't even true and have no value. If someone's going around saying gays are evil or whatever they say then they are harming those people's integration into society and promoting hatred with statements that are completely untrue.


----------



## Jashwa (Jul 28, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> You're not censoring lies. Lies aren't even true and have no value. If someone's going around saying gays are evil or whatever they say then they are harming those people's integration into society and promoting hatred with statements that are completely untrue.


 Says gays are evil isn't even a lie, it's an opinion.  People are entitled to their opinions.  Sure, you may not be allowed to say that in a work place when you're an employer, but you're allowed to have that opinion and make it known.  That's what a right to free speech does.  Are you now advocating censoring anyone who has a view different than yours?  

Just stop, Rakuen.  You're fighting a losing battle.  You're not making much sense here.  First, you go off trying to say how on the internet we should respect peoples right to free speech by not censoring anything, and then you turn around and say we should censor not only lies, but any view point other than yours?  You're being very hypocritical.


----------



## Surgat (Jul 28, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> Read the post where he stated that we should censor lies.  He's for it when he wants it, but not when it's censoring the things he wants to look at/post.



Well that's self-serving.


*Growlithe*: would you encourage the censorship of artwork designed to make a point you think is incorrect,support a cause that is misguided, or glamorize something you think is immoral?



Rakuen Growlithe said:


> You're not censoring lies. Lies aren't even true and have no value. If someone's going around saying gays are evil or whatever they say then they are harming those people's integration into society and promoting hatred with statements that are completely untrue.



Not all untrue statements are lies. Sometimes, people are simply mistaken or misinformed. It _is_ often difficult to tell whether or not many things are true, that's why we don't all think the same things. 

If a government was tasked with suppressing _all_ untrue statements, that would be no different than having no legal freedom of speech at all. Anyone in a position of power would simply silence their opponents on any controversial matters.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Jul 29, 2009)

Rakuen....no matter how much you baw about so called "censorship" you will never be taken seriously on two grounds. 1 being that you yourself fail to understand the ideas and real implications of actual censorship, and 2 everyone here pretty much understands your motive behind your attempt at tl;dr.

You are when it comes down to it bawwing about people advocating kicking things like Bestiality or Cub Porn to the curb here on FA, and yet you fail to understand that such a behavior or action is not backing or looking to instigate "Complete suppression".

It's not censorship okay? Deal with it.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Jul 29, 2009)

> Says gays are evil isn't even a lie, it's an opinion. People are entitled to their opinions. Sure, you may not be allowed to say that in a work place when you're an employer, but you're allowed to have that opinion and make it known. That's what a right to free speech does. Are you now advocating censoring anyone who has a view different than yours?
> 
> Just stop, Rakuen. You're fighting a losing battle. You're not making much sense here. First, you go off trying to say how on the internet we should respect peoples right to free speech by not censoring anything, and then you turn around and say we should censor not only lies, but any view point other than yours? You're being very hypocritical.



Gays being evil isn't an opinion, it's a lie. And even if it were just an opinion people spread it around as though it is true, not as if it is an opinion. Chocolate ice-cream tastes horrible is an opinion. When you try to stop the local ice-cream parlour from selling chocolate ice-cream because it tastes horrible then you're promoting it as fact and overstepping the opinion boundary.
where have I talked about suppressing other view points? I encourage discussion.



> *Growlithe*: would you encourage the censorship of artwork designed to make a point you think is incorrect,support a cause that is misguided, or glamorize something you think is immoral?



Not unless it's based on incorrect facts.



> Not all untrue statements are lies. Sometimes, people are simply mistaken or misinformed. It _is_ often difficult to tell whether or not many things are true, that's why we don't all think the same things.
> 
> If a government was tasked with suppressing _all_ untrue statements, that would be no different than having no legal freedom of speech at all. Anyone in a position of power would simply silence their opponents on any controversial matters.



So if they're mistaken or misinformed then you correct them. Don't let them continue with wrong ideas.
And it'd be far from having no freedom of speech. How could you think it'd be the same? You'd be free to express your opinion and interpretation of the facts. You wouldn't be allowed to suck facts out of your thumb.



> Rakuen....no matter how much you baw about so called "censorship" you will never be taken seriously on two grounds. 1 being that you yourself fail to understand the ideas and real implications of actual censorship, and 2 everyone here pretty much understands your motive behind your attempt at tl;dr.



1- Other than that I've pointed out real examples of censorship and some of the effects.
2- My motive is that ideas should be free. What some people think my motivation is is just porn. Unfortunately if you think that you're so far off the mark you're aiming backwards.


----------



## foxmusk (Jul 29, 2009)

Rakuen, dude, i applaud you for defending your point so strongly. that takes guts, for sure. but you pretty much set the standard early on that you really just want it to be okay to see bestiality and it be legal. so, changing your argument to just general censorship isn't changing anything because everyone knows already what you want it for. i'm not trying to be mean, but you're fighting a crusade on scorched earth. it's a topic no one here is going to agree with, and really, you're wasting your time. if you're honest to god against censorship, props. it is a little too strong.

but, bestiality crosses boundaries that censorship won't touch. it's a stance that morals take over, and not what should be hidden behind black bars. it's about what is right, and what actions SHOULD be taken rather than what some WANT to be taken. the stance taken should be the same taken with child pornography. however, with child porn, we know that is wrong because children are not of sexual maturity, and forcing it upon them is wrong. that's obvious.

however, bestiality is a more sensitive topic. while proof is given that it damages the animal's psyche, they cannot physically say no. and you can't say that a bite or an attack is a way of saying no, because animals often take a submissive attitude in sexual situations. often as bad as it is hurting them, they still will not oppose because they feel their owner is doing what he or she is supposed to be doing. a human on the recieving end doesn't make this any different. they are thinking this is what is supposed to happen.

not only will that lead to inappropriate sexual public behavior, but it upsets them mentally, in the same way that rape victims often are mentally damaged after the incident. there's something about the shock, the trauma of it all, that hinders the mind and often leads to mental issues. that is obvious of every species, and is not exempt in animals.


----------



## Ricky (Jul 29, 2009)

HarleyParanoia said:


> Rakuen, dude, i applaud you for defending your point so strongly. that takes guts, for sure. but you pretty much set the standard early on that you really just want it to be okay to see bestiality and it be legal. so, changing your argument to just general censorship isn't changing anything because everyone knows already what you want it for. i'm not trying to be mean, but you're fighting a crusade on scorched earth. it's a topic no one here is going to agree with, and really, you're wasting your time. if you're honest to god against censorship, props. it is a little too strong.
> 
> but, bestiality crosses boundaries that censorship won't touch. it's a stance that morals take over, and not what should be hidden behind black bars. it's about what is right, and what actions SHOULD be taken rather than what some WANT to be taken. the stance taken should be the same taken with child pornography. however, with child porn, we know that is wrong because children are not of sexual maturity, and forcing it upon them is wrong. that's obvious.
> 
> ...



I've kind of lost track of these threads but are we still talking about art (it doesn't seem so from your reply)?  There's a big line here I want to draw.  Art should not be censored in my opinion -- it's a form of expression.  This doesn't mean someone making a video of themselves fucking their dog is art and should be allowed.  This is illegal in most states, anyway.

If something is not illegal though why would you censor it?  Drawing something on a piece of paper isn't (well it shouldn't be) illegal.  Our laws are kind of changing with this though and I believe someone was busted with lolicon coming back to the states.  This is why I think it's such an important topic on a more general level.

I don't care what you think the art represents and if you agree with it or not but people should be allowed to draw whatever they want in my opinion, simple as that.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Jul 29, 2009)

He was arrested for importing the lolicon as it was considered obscene, despite the fact that he showed absolutely no tendencies to child pornography and was a manga collector! He had hundreds of volumes of manga from all genres. And the manga is all sold freely in Japan.


----------



## Ricky (Jul 29, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> He was arrested for importing the lolicon as it was considered obscene, despite the fact that he showed absolutely no tendencies to child pornography and was a manga collector! He had hundreds of volumes of manga from all genres. And the manga is all sold freely in Japan.



You see, this is what bothers me.  It's friggin' drawings and not the same as child porn.  It bothers people because they think "pedophilia" but nobody has actually done anything wrong.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Jul 29, 2009)

There's so much shit here that pisses me off, I don't even know where to begin attacking it and whose bullshit I want to murder first.


----------



## Azure (Jul 29, 2009)

ITT A whole lotta :roll::roll::roll::roll:


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Jul 29, 2009)

AzurePhoenix said:


> ITT A whole lotta :roll::roll::roll::roll:



ITT that just about every comment here of note, from the "zoophiles are being censored" to the "FA may as well be a self-contained world completely free from the laws of the U.S *or even the laws of the fucking universe*" to the "free-will doesn't exist everything comes down to chemical reactions in the brain ergo everything is as it should be" *are all unwitting members of ways of thinking that are at odds with the entire fucking world! GET OFF THE GOD DAMN LUNATIC FRINGE!*


----------



## Azure (Jul 29, 2009)

Wolf-Bone said:


> ITT that just about every comment here of note, from the "zoophiles are being censored" to the "FA may as well be a self-contained world completely free from the laws of the U.S *or even the laws of the fucking universe*" to the "free-will doesn't exist everything comes down to chemical reactions in the brain ergo everything is as it should be" *are all unwitting members of ways of thinking that are at odds with the entire fucking world! GET OFF THE GOD DAMN LUNATIC FRINGE!*


Exactly.


----------



## Ricky (Jul 29, 2009)

I must have missed a lot, I guess :roll:


----------



## foxmusk (Jul 29, 2009)

that's cool you totally ignored what i said, Rakuen.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jul 29, 2009)

HarleyParanoia said:


> that's cool you totally ignored what i said, Rakuen.



He ignores anyone he can't make an argument against.  Don't worry about it.


----------



## Jashwa (Jul 29, 2009)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> He ignores anyone he can't make an argument against. Don't worry about it.


^



Rakuen Growlithe said:


> Gays being evil isn't an opinion, it's a lie. And even if it were just an opinion people spread it around as though it is true, not as if it is an opinion. Chocolate ice-cream tastes horrible is an opinion. When you try to stop the local ice-cream parlour from selling chocolate ice-cream because it tastes horrible then you're promoting it as fact and overstepping the opinion boundary.
> where have I talked about suppressing other view points? I encourage discussion.


It's an opinion, don't you try to pull that bullshit on me.  Evil's a completely subjective term.  If I were to ask you if The Catholic Church was evil, what would you answer?  If you say yes, then it's easy to point out the good things they've done for people and that those people don't believe that the church is evil because it's been good to them.  If you say no, it's also easy to point out the crusades and the other horrible thigns they've done.  It's a matter of opinion, on what you believe is evil or not.  It doesn't matter if it's the popular opinion or not, it's still an opinion.  

Your ice cream analogy doesn't even make sense.  You're not promoting it as a fact, you're just trying to impose your opinion on others.  You're trying to make them believe as you believe, and it's perfectly legal.  You're talking about suppressing other view points by not letting that guy say how much chocolate ice cream sucks.  It's his opinion, it's his right to say how much it sucks just as much as it is your right to say how much you love chocolate ice cream. 




			
				Rakuen said:
			
		

> Not unless it's based on incorrect facts.


Gays being evil isn't based on incorrect facts, it's not based on facts at all and yet you want to censor that.


----------



## Surgat (Jul 29, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> Gays being evil isn't an opinion, it's a lie. ...Chocolate ice-cream tastes horrible is an opinion. When you try to stop the local ice-cream parlour from selling chocolate ice-cream because it tastes horrible then you're promoting it as fact and overstepping the opinion boundary.



A lie is a false statement that the speaker intends to fool somebody with. Opinions are beliefs. I have a hunch that the majority of homophobes actually believe that homosexuality is immoral, and aren't all just lying to each other and everybody else.  

Beliefs, even even unreflectively held ones, are also not tastes or preferences. 




			
				Growlithe said:
			
		

> Not unless it's based on incorrect facts.



I'm not completely sure what you mean here. Let's say someone made propaganda art supporting a cause you thought was misguided, glamorized something you thought was immoral, or made something to try and prove a point you thought was incorrect. You're saying it'd be fine as long as the artists came to hold their positions from invalid reasoning from true statements, but if they reasoned from false information it's fine to censor them? 

Or are you just saying "yes?"



			
				Growlithe said:
			
		

> So if they're mistaken or misinformed then you correct them. Don't let them continue with wrong ideas.



I repeat, it is often difficult to tell whether or not many things are true, that's why we don't all think the same things. It's why there are scientific controversies and revolutions. 

Some people think that an asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs, some think it was diseases and parasites spread around when all the continents moved together. Doctors only recently began to think that bacteria caused ulcers. Some people think that all references to mental activity are "folk theories," equivalent of the four humors, most others don't, etc.   



			
				Growlithe said:
			
		

> And it'd be far from having no freedom of speech. How could you think it'd be the same? You'd be free to express your opinion and interpretation of the facts. You wouldn't be allowed to suck facts out of your thumb.



If an individual or committee had to censor things that were untrue, they'd have have to censor all hypotheses, theories, and statements they didn't believe. You'd never be able to disagree with them. 

There are times and places for things like that, like with laws against perjury and fraud (i.e. rÃ©sumÃ© enhancement). However, if we had categorical rules against making false statements, which is how you seem to be defining lies as, the only way to enforce said rules requires the obliteration of free expression. 

Prohibiting incorrect factual claims but not incorrect interpretation or reasoning is arbitrary, too.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jul 29, 2009)

Surgat said:


> A lie is a false statement that the speaker intends to fool somebody with. Opinions are beliefs. I have a hunch that the majority of homophobes actually believe that homosexuality is immoral, and aren't all just lying to each other and everybody else.



Fact: It's actually harder to sue someone for libel/slander if they truly believe the things they say.  Surgat is absolutely right and any lawyer will tell you this: it's not a lie if you believe it.  Lying implies that you're making up something to cover for what you believe is the truth.


----------



## Bateleur (Jul 30, 2009)

No one should ever have the right to tell someone what they can or cannot think of.
Personally, censorship should only ever be done by the person viewing the content.

Don't like it -- turn it off, browse something else, etc. Shouting at someone not to make material that you don't like yourself is futile.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Jul 30, 2009)

> that's cool you totally ignored what i said, Rakuen.



I don't have to reply to every single post individually. In any case your post wasn't on topic, you were trying to bring bestiality into things again and this isn't the thread for it.



> Gays being evil isn't based on incorrect facts, it's not based on facts at all and yet you want to censor that.



If it's not based on any sort of facts and doesn't stem from previous accepted ideas then it doesn't really deserve a place in a debate. If you're going to say  gays are evil you'd have to motivate that point of view, which I have never heard done. The most anyone has said is it's against the bible, which is a work of fiction. It's like taking The Lord of the Rings seriously. 



> A lie is a false statement that the speaker intends to fool somebody with. Opinions are beliefs. I have a hunch that the majority of homophobes actually believe that homosexuality is immoral, and aren't all just lying to each other and everybody else.
> 
> Beliefs, even even unreflectively held ones, are also not tastes or preferences.



It doesn't matter if they believe it or not. It doesn't make it true. Beliefs should not just stem from nothing. You have to have reasons and something to support your view. If you don't then there is nothing to stop you from saying you believe anything at all and then wanting to be taken seriously.



> I repeat, it is often difficult to tell whether or not many things are true, that's why we don't all think the same things. It's why there are scientific controversies and revolutions.
> 
> Some people think that an asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs, some think it was diseases and parasites spread around when all the continents moved together. Doctors only recently began to think that bacteria caused ulcers. Some people think that all references to mental activity are "folk theories," equivalent of the four humors, most others don't, etc.



Yes there is confusion in some places, but we must then work with our best possible knowledge at the time. Yes there are different theories about how dinosaurs died out but most of those, the ones taken seriously anyway, are all supported by evidence. The reason they are debated is that there isn't overwhelming support for any one theory. A plausible theory is a meteor, because of the iridium layer in the Earth's crust. Aliens killing off the dinosaurs is not a plausible theory because there is no evidence of it, or that aliens exist.


----------



## ShadowWeaver (Jul 30, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> It doesn't matter if they believe it or not. It doesn't make it true. Beliefs should not just stem from nothing. You have to have reasons and something to support your view. If you don't then there is nothing to stop you from saying you believe anything at all and then wanting to be taken seriously.



*Opinions* are the views and judgements formed off of the beliefs of an individual and are not necessarily fact or fiction.
*Beliefs* are based off of faith that a statement is true or that something exists. 
*Faith* is complete trust or confidence in someone or something. 

So then, people's opinions do NOT have to be based in facts, reasons, or any other form of logical data.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Jul 30, 2009)

They should be. We need to get rid of this whole idea that faith is some good thing. That's a religious promotion because it has absolutely nothing to stand on than faith. 

In any case I'd say belief is just the assumption that something is true without being totally sure. It doesn't have to be purely from faith.


----------



## Jashwa (Jul 30, 2009)

According to Rakuen's logic, we're not allowed to believe or have an opinion unless we have hard facts to back it up.  We can't simply say that french fries taste good or bad, we have to take a survey of 100 people and see if the majority like them or not in order to back up our claim.  Oh wait, those people aren't allowed to have an opinion either, so I guess we have to look up how the french fries stimulate our taste buds and measure the pleasure by brain activity and see if it's pleasurable.


----------



## lilEmber (Jul 30, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> According to Rakuen's logic, we're not allowed to believe or have an opinion unless we have hard facts to back it up.  We can't simply say that french fries taste good or bad, we have to take a survey of 100 people and see if the majority like them or not in order to back up our claim.  Oh wait, those people aren't allowed to have an opinion either, so I guess we have to look up how the french fries stimulate our taste buds and measure the pleasure by brain activity and see if it's pleasurable.



10/10 would read again.


----------



## ShadowWeaver (Jul 30, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> They should be. *We need to get rid of this whole idea that faith is some good thing. That's a religious promotion because it has absolutely nothing to stand on than faith.*
> 
> In any case I'd say belief is just the assumption that something is true without being totally sure. It doesn't have to be purely from faith.



You better watch what you say. A large majority of the people in this world, including most of our laws we have today, are rooted in faith and religion.


----------



## Ricky (Jul 30, 2009)

ShadowWeaver said:


> You better watch what you say. A large majority of the people in this world, _*including most of our laws we have today*_, are rooted in faith and religion.



It's a damn shame, too.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Jul 30, 2009)

Y'know, I'll give Scientologists at least one proper due. Their scheme/scam relies on faith, so they _call it what is is, *a religion*_. Now if Libertarians, Neoconservatives and bleeding-heart liberals would just do the same, we could drop the charade that logic and reason have any place in _any_ ideology that produces the cultural movements and codified laws you don't like; as well as the ones _you do_.


----------



## foxmusk (Jul 30, 2009)

Ricky said:


> It's a damn shame, too.



no, because it keeps crazies from having sex with animals and children.


----------



## Armaetus (Jul 30, 2009)

Beastiality is *illegal*, end of story.

http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/police-sc-man-charged-with-having-sex-with-horse-103441.html

Really, it is.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Jul 31, 2009)

> According to Rakuen's logic, we're not allowed to believe or have an opinion unless we have hard facts to back it up. We can't simply say that french fries taste good or bad, we have to take a survey of 100 people and see if the majority like them or not in order to back up our claim. Oh wait, those people aren't allowed to have an opinion either, so I guess we have to look up how the french fries stimulate our taste buds and measure the pleasure by brain activity and see if it's pleasurable.



That is not at all what I'm saying. You can have whatever preferences you like but you can't impose them on other people without a good reason. If you don't like French fries then don't eat them, you can't tell everyone else to stop eating them though.
I'm also curious what kind of world you think we'd have if you didn't have to motivate things. Do you really think people should just believe anything regardless of how likely it is?



> You better watch what you say. A large majority of the people in this world, including most of our laws we have today, are rooted in faith and religion.



And the world is pretty messed up. Luckily secularism has managed to get rid of a lot of the stupidity left over from theocracies.



> Y'know, I'll give Scientologists at least one proper due. Their scheme/scam relies on faith, so they _call it what is is, *a religion*_.



The only difference between Scientology and any other religion is most people know where Scientology comes from and that it's not true.



> Beastiality is *illegal*, end of story.



Not everywhere, not on topic and has nothing to do with any argument about it.


----------



## Ricky (Jul 31, 2009)

HarleyParanoia said:


> no, because it keeps crazies from having sex with animals and children.



You can have morals and ethics without religion.


----------



## Jashwa (Jul 31, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> That is not at all what I'm saying. You can have whatever preferences you like but you can't impose them on other people without a good reason. If you don't like French fries then don't eat them, you can't tell everyone else to stop eating them though.
> I'm also curious what kind of world you think we'd have if you didn't have to motivate things. Do you really think people should just believe anything regardless of how likely it is?


 So PETA is doing illegal things by trying to get people to stop eating tuna?  They should be censored and shut up?  

What you're proposing is a direct violation of the 1st Ammendment (right to free speech, among other things).  You're proposing censorship in a thread where you denounce censorship.  You're the biggest hypocrite I've ever seen.


----------



## Armaetus (Aug 4, 2009)

Here's another example: http://wdbo.com/localnews/2009/07/orange-county-man-accused-of-r.html


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Aug 4, 2009)

While I remember, anime is often censored when being imported into America.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editing_of_anime_in_American_distribution

This is from stupid things such as changing what words are displayed, e.g. HELL to HFIL in Dragonball Z and DEATH to FINAL in Yu-Gi-Oh, to huge changes such as cutting out entire episodes. Almost 15 episodes of Dragonball GT were cut from the English release.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Aug 14, 2009)

So in Venezuela it seems that this topic is slightly more relevant. New laws are aimed at the media and are limiting what it can say. In addition a lot of licenses have been revoked and radio stations are probably going to be taken and given to new owners, almost certainly whoever is going to say the nicest things about the government. People will now face up to 4 years in jail for material deemed to harm state stability. That's pretty vague and could almost certainly be used, and I bet that's its intended purpose, to silence criticism of the government. People can also be arrested for content that harms the public morals. Obviously you're not allowed to choose your own morals these days. Too bad if you say you can sleep with someone outside of marriage, perhaps that could become a crime with jail time.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8177862.stm
http://globalvoicesonline.org/2009/08/03/venezuela-the-proposed-media-crimes-law/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/10/venezuela-media-chavez


----------



## Jashwa (Aug 14, 2009)

Why did you revive this, Rakuen, why?


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Aug 14, 2009)

> Why did you revive this, Rakuen, why? :sad:



I don't know, I must have this weird idea that freedom of speech is important. It's so terrible that we can discuss this without going to jail. Someone should phone the president and warn them that people on FAF sometimes criticize them so that they can stamp us all out. How dare we form an opinion and share it.


----------



## LizardKing (Aug 14, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> Venezuela



[/care]


----------



## Jashwa (Aug 14, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> I don't know, I must have this weird idea that freedom of speech is important. It's so terrible that we can discuss this without going to jail. Someone should phone the president and warn them that people on FAF sometimes criticize them so that they can stamp us all out. How dare we form an opinion and share it.


 You sadden me. 


If you thought freedom of speech was so important, you wouldn't be advocating limiting other peoples freedom of speech with your previous posts in this thread.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Aug 14, 2009)

> If you thought freedom of speech was so important, you wouldn't be advocating limiting other peoples freedom of speech with your previous posts in this thread.



Oh yes. Your idea that treating freedom of speech with some responsibility is the opposite of having it in the first place. Things that aren't true and are said as if they are true are harmful to other people and an abuse of your right to free speech. It's irresponsible and would lead to a completely unstable society if everyone did it.


----------



## LizardKing (Aug 14, 2009)

Round and round we go

Wheeeee


----------



## DeeBeeGrand (Dec 12, 2016)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> I don't know, I must have this weird idea that freedom of speech is important. It's so terrible that we can discuss this without going to jail. Someone should phone the president and warn them that people on FAF sometimes criticize them so that they can stamp us all out. How dare we form an opinion and share it.


Here we are seven years later, and I guess you don't believe the poppycock you spewed back then? No sir, instead you've become a dictator of the worst kind.
Have a look here, to see how things played out when this banned member got power of admin over a forum:

forum.zafur.co.za: Censorship - ZA Furries


----------



## quoting_mungo (Dec 12, 2016)

Closing thread, as it was well and truly dead and should have been allowed to stay buried. 

(In other words, HOLY NECROPOSTING BATMAN!)


----------

