# Underage-looking furry things still legal



## Lando (May 19, 2008)

Justice Antonin Scalia, in his opinion for the court, said there is no "possibility that virtual child pornography or sex between youthful-looking adult actors might be covered by the term 'simulated sexual intercourse.'" Scalia said.

Justice John Paul Stevens, who filed a concurring opinion, said he was convinced that material with "serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value" would still be protected. That is because of the law's requirement that the "defendant actually believed, or intended to induce another to believe, that the material in question depicted real children" involved in sexual conduct.

Just putting that out there for any trigger-happy admins that might have been itching after the latest decision.


----------



## Monak (May 19, 2008)

I think people stop realizing very key things , though furries may be anthromorphic they are still animalistic in most cases , as such most animals in the animal kingdom reach sexual maturity at an early age.  Also if a person can't tell the difference between some cub art and a real life child then they should question themselves not the artists that create it.  It kinda has to be a root in the fandom I think do to the fact that animals mate the strongest and healthiest they can which in alot of cases are young and thats all I have to say about the war in Vietnam


----------



## Hybrid Project Alpha (May 19, 2008)

How about nobody gives a shit because they're cartoons


----------



## Magica (May 19, 2008)

Does the debate really need to be brought on again?


----------



## lobosabio (May 19, 2008)

&?


----------



## Stratelier (May 19, 2008)

What debate?

(Don't answer that, I'd rather keep it this way.)


----------



## RaverFox (May 19, 2008)

First off...even if cub art is somehow made illegal, what in hell is going to prevent artists from making it?

Second, why does the government care if cartoon cubs are having sex?

I personally am not into raunchy cub art, but I would love to see congress meet at the white house to discuss Cub Pr0nz. It would most likely be one of the greatest things to watch ever.


----------



## Ilayas (May 19, 2008)

Actually yes this is a big deal.  The ruling today was that claiming to have kiddie porn was enough to arrest some one and is not protected under free speach.  What happened with the case was this.  Man claimed to be willing to trade sexually explicit pictures of his young child in exchange for some one doing the same to their toddler. He did not actually create any porn or commit any sex acts with this child.  But he was arrested and put in prison for it. 

Here is the exsact wording:

â€œProsecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today (PROTECT) Act section prohibiting offers to provide and requests to obtain child pornography does not require actual existence of child pornography and rather than targeting underlying material bans collateral speech that introduces such material into child-pornography distribution network; thus, Internet user who solicits child pornography from undercover agent violates statute even if officer possesses no child pornography, and likewise person who advertises virtual child pornography as depicting actual children also falls within its reachâ€

â€œProsecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today (PROTECT) Act pandering provision is not impermissibly vague under Due Process Clause; statute requires that defendant hold, and make statement that reflects belief that material is child pornography, or that he communicate in manner intended to cause another so to believe, which are clear questions of fact.â€


Ok before some one says Hun? Or to long didn't read let me lay it out for you in plan English and not legal speak.  

For example: 

Say I have a picture of a desk lamp.   Say I put a link to that picture of said desk lamp only I advertise that link leads to some hot sexy 8 year old action.  I have right there committed a felony under the new ruling and can be sent to prison for a minimum of 5 years. Because all you have to do is say you have child porn or claim you want child porn and that is enough to arrest you. 

How does this effect the furry community?  Well cub art is not illegal as it is not human. But in any way mentioning that this is sex with and under age person is illegal. So the picture it's self is not illegal but the title or any comments could be depending on how you word them. 

According to the ruling this effects any one who â€œadvertises, promotes, presents, distributes, or solicits" this material.â€ The distribute is the important part.  This could  mean that they could prosecute FA. 

For the time being I would suggest that any one who does have cub art go through their gallery and carefully rename their pieces to get around this.


----------



## ExTo (May 19, 2008)

I have a better solution, Ilayas.

Don't draw cub porn.

Honestly I refuse to take a further stand on the issue, but whatever the opinion I could be wording right now, I think everyone can understand it simply is wiser to avoid it.


----------



## Ilayas (May 19, 2008)

I'm not a terribly big fan of it my self but what I am trying to do here is give people information so they can make informed choices. If FA decides to allow cub art I would like them to take measures to protect themselves from legal action.  And if an artist for whatever reason wishes to create cub art they should know how to protect themselves against arrest.


----------



## Wovstah (May 20, 2008)

Cub porn is not illegal because SoftPaw Magazine is legally printed and published... Otherwise, they and all their clients would be in big trouble.  Long story short, they must have had to go through a lot of legal action in order to put it on the market safely.  When SoftPaw goes down, then we know cub is illegal.

My two cents on it.


----------



## Ilayas (May 20, 2008)

Wovstah said:


> Cub porn is not illegal because SoftPaw Magazine is legally printed and published... Otherwise, they and all their clients would be in big trouble.  Long story short, they must have had to go through a lot of legal action in order to put it on the market safely.  When SoftPaw goes down, then we know cub is illegal.
> 
> My two cents on it.



Ummm this ruling was made Monday May 19th 2008 the one I am referring to that relates to the case above it was finally resolved today.


----------



## Wovstah (May 20, 2008)

Ilayas said:


> Ummm this ruling was made Monday May 19th 2008


And I'm sure the staff at SoftPaw is looking into it.

Whatever comes to be comes to be, and I'm sure reasonable people will be responsible people - that's all I'm saying.


----------



## DuncanFox (May 20, 2008)

Lando said:


> Just putting that out there for any trigger-happy admins that might have been itching after the latest decision.



I love it.  A law is passed, and your first reaction is, "oh shit!  I better make sure the FA admins don't cut off my supply of virtual child pornography!"

Here's an idea: FurAffinity is a privately owned website which can ban whatever it wants, regardless of the law.  Consider yourself lucky they haven't banned cub art.  If it were my site, I would -- then I'd never have to question whether I was in a legal grey area.


----------



## Wovstah (May 20, 2008)

DuncanFox said:


> I love it.  A law is passed, and your first reaction is, "oh shit!  I better make sure the FA admins don't cut off my supply of virtual child pornography!"
> 
> Here's an idea: FurAffinity is a privately owned website which can ban whatever it wants, regardless of the law.  Consider yourself lucky they haven't banned cub art.  If it were my site, I would -- then I'd never have to question whether I was in a legal grey area.


Good point with the first comment; it does kind of seem that way, but I think they wanted to point out legal comfort too.  It's good to not be nervous over new laws and know what's going down.

And good for you for having your morals and boundaries.  Grey is nice sometimes, but it's good to have some black and white.  (Note:  I am not being sarcastic, I truly mean this! <3 )

But I think the topic should stay on the *legality of cub*, not whether or not somebody has the taste for it. We already know some hate it, some love it, and some are 'meh'.

Not trying to stir trouble, just trying to be neutral. ^__^''


----------



## DuncanFox (May 20, 2008)

Wovstah said:


> And good for you for having your morals and boundaries.  Grey is nice sometimes, but it's good to have some black and white.  (Note:  I am not being sarcastic, I truly mean this! <3 )



I wouldn't ban it out of any sort of moralistic standpoint.  Just out of a "too close to illegal for comfort" standpoint.  Don't forget, if you're sued, it costs money to defend yourself in court _even if you're right_.

Though I do, on some level, admire FA taking the "if it's legal, we'll allow it" approach.


----------



## Wovstah (May 20, 2008)

DuncanFox said:


> I wouldn't ban it out of any sort of moralistic standpoint.  Just out of a "too close to illegal for comfort" standpoint.  Don't forget, if you're sued, it costs money to defend yourself in court _even if you're right_.
> 
> Though I do, on some level, admire FA taking the "if it's legal, we'll allow it" approach.



Oh! I misunderstood, but still - do as needed for your comfort, you know?

I wouldn't want to post anything that would make me uncomfortable either!


----------



## Eevee (May 20, 2008)

DuncanFox said:


> Here's an idea: FurAffinity is a privately owned website which can ban whatever it wants, regardless of the law.


except that they generally need to ban something if it becomes illegal


----------



## Alex Cross (May 21, 2008)

Despite FA being a privately owned site, anything illegal that's posted must be removed. US-based web sites are not exempt from US law. As far as underage-looking furry material, well, cub pictures is not child porn. It's legal (to many people's dismay).


----------



## Aurali (May 21, 2008)

*pokes alex* following me again?

but yeah. you gotta follow two sets of laws if you own a website.. Your countries laws. and your server's countries laws :3


----------



## Aryeonos (May 21, 2008)

Monak said:


> I think people stop realizing very key things , though furries may be anthromorphic they are still animalistic in most cases , as such most animals in the animal kingdom reach sexual maturity at an early age.  Also if a person can't tell the difference between some cub art and a real life child then they should question themselves not the artists that create it.  It kinda has to be a root in the fandom I think do to the fact that animals mate the strongest and healthiest they can which in alot of cases are young and thats all I have to say about the war in Vietnam


 The average human reaches sexual maturity and is in prime reproduction stages at the age of 14-19, a mouse reaches sexual maturity at 5 weeks. I'm not going to justify child pornography but if someone has no ability do differentiate between, they should probably not be there in the first place. I forget what Iwas talking about now. time to read the cereal box!


----------



## Kimmerset (May 21, 2008)

Aryeonos said:


> The average human reaches sexual maturity and is in prime reproduction stages at the age of 14-19, a mouse reaches sexual maturity at 5 weeks. I'm not going to justify child pornography but if someone has no ability do differentiate between, they should probably not be there in the first place. I forget what Iwas talking about now. time to read the cereal box!



I really don't believe comparing the sexual maturity of animals justifies anything, especially since they're much closer to being humans with furs than they are to being animals in most cases.  

I really don't care about cub porn. I enjoy it in most cases.  Just sayin' that there's no use in comparing them to the sexual maturity of animals and stick with the "they're just fictional" argument.


----------



## DuncanFox (May 21, 2008)

Alex Cross said:


> Despite FA being a privately owned site, anything illegal that's posted must be removed.



Yes, but that's kinda the opposite of my point.

1) Anything illegal must be removed, yes, however...
2) Everything legal does not need to be allowed


----------



## Icarus (May 22, 2008)

lol this is like a legal, IRL v& for pedophiles.


----------



## ExTo (May 22, 2008)

Aryeonos said:


> The average human reaches sexual maturity and is in prime reproduction stages at the age of 14-19, a mouse reaches sexual maturity at 5 weeks. I'm not going to justify child pornography but if someone has no ability do differentiate between, they should probably not be there in the first place. I forget what Iwas talking about now. time to read the cereal box!



That only implies furry mouses should look like adults at the age of 5 weeks.


----------



## Arshes Nei (May 22, 2008)

I don't think the argument being laid out here is about human sexuality, but rather a court ruling about comments could affect the site, so please stick on topic and stop making those comparisons, and stick to the outline

It has to be looked into whether or not FA is LIABLE for the comments about wanting child porn.

So stick to points about:

FA's liability about user comments
Whether or not those comments are about wanting to commit actual illegal acts on children are about actual children, or rather human children.


----------



## Wovstah (May 22, 2008)

Thank you for clarifying that.


----------



## CubbyNishka (Jun 6, 2008)

this is confusing I don't like aguements  so I guess I will say what ever happen happens But  how can  looking at a drawn cub  be illegal ?


----------



## Janglur (Jun 6, 2008)

It's not illegal.  What is illegal is the requesting of or condoning of, real pornography of real people, or artwork depicting real people, who are underage.


In other words, if someone says 'I want pedoporn' in a manner that would appear obvious, then they are comitting an act parralel to actually making, or having, underage pornography.

Basically:
Before:  You can want it and ask for it, you just can't have it.
After:  You can't ask for it or have it.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jun 11, 2008)

Time to stick my 2 cents in, personaly i see "cub art" as just that, not real, not aimed at trying to depict reality, but as fiction, hell ive seen Hentai with kids in it, and as far as i am aware, that is not illegal.

If people can't tell the difference between reality and fictional drawings then to me they have mental issues.


----------



## Bluewinkle (Jun 18, 2008)

So I wonder what's going to happen to this site?


----------



## Janglur (Jun 18, 2008)

Nothing, as long as cool heads prevail.


----------



## AlexInsane (Jun 24, 2008)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Time to stick my 2 cents in, personaly i see "cub art" as just that, not real, not aimed at trying to depict reality, but as fiction, hell ive seen Hentai with kids in it, and as far as i am aware, that is not illegal.
> 
> If people can't tell the difference between reality and fictional drawings then to me they have mental issues.



It is irrelevant if cub porn is "real" or not, because as it exists, it's already plenty real.

Child pornography, whether it's art or photographs, is illegal. Children should not be included in anything sexually related, anything at all. I see no difference between cub art and child porn, except the fact that cub art is just stapling an animal coat onto a child and calling it "furry". The intent is the same, the idea is the same, the perversion is the same.

And in any case, it would be by far better for FA to err on the side of caution and outlaw it. If the wellbeing of the site has to come at the price of pissing off a select group of people, then by all means do it and do it with haste.


----------



## Aurali (Jun 24, 2008)

I see this topic streaming this way. 

"I Don't like it. So I'm gonna say BAN IT! Just to be safe of course."
"I DO like it. So I'm gonna say Keep it! The law is to vague to get us."
"I don't care. I'm gonna go paw now."


----------



## Furthlingam (Jun 24, 2008)

AlexInsane said:


> It is irrelevant if cub porn is "real" or not, because as it exists, it's already plenty real.
> 
> ... I see no difference between cub art and child porn, except the fact that cub art is just stapling an animal coat onto a child and calling it "furry". The intent is the same, the idea is the same, the perversion is the same.
> 
> And in any case, it would be by far better for FA to err on the side of caution and outlaw it. If the wellbeing of the site has to come at the price of pissing off a select group of people, then by all means do it and do it with haste.


 
Yes. How I loathe people playing that word game. Children are: pre- and peri-pubescent persons. Cubs in cub art are, with crystal clarity, persons and pre- or peri-pubescent. Cub porn is child porn. The distinction in the law between depictions of fictional vs actual children, and the inaccurate adoption of the term "child porn" to refer exclusively to child porn that depicts actual children, hasn't anything to do with the whole absurd "they're animals!" flailing about.

Also agree about pissing off the minority, but that's up to FA, not me.



> Child pornography, whether it's art or photographs, is illegal. Children should not be included in anything sexually related, anything at all.


 
On this though, I'm not confident you're right about the current state of the law. Re: what *should* be the law, I agree. Rather than say "included," it's well to say "depicted," to avoid the idiot word game.


----------



## Furthlingam (Jun 24, 2008)

Eli said:


> I see this topic streaming this way.
> 
> "I Don't like it. So I'm gonna say BAN IT! Just to be safe of course."
> "I DO like it. So I'm gonna say Keep it! The law is to vague to get us."
> "I don't care. I'm gonna go paw now."


 

Allow me to broaden, then:

"Its distribution leads to sexual predation on children. Legal or not, ban it."


----------



## Aurali (Jun 24, 2008)

Furthlingam said:


> Allow me to broaden, then:
> 
> "Its distribution leads to sexual predation on children. Legal or not, ban it."



:3 my post. but without the legal recourse. 

It's an opinion. With vague points.


----------



## Furthlingam (Jun 24, 2008)

Eli said:


> :3 my post. but without the legal recourse.
> 
> It's an opinion. With vague points.


 
No. It's your post that reduces things to vague points, straw-manning real objections, both pragmatic/legal, and ethical, into mere matters of personal taste-- what one "likes." 

Every assertion, including whether the sun will come up tomorrow morning, is an opinion. But some opinions are more significant than a simple matter of personal taste.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jun 24, 2008)

Then does that make trolls correct when they call us zoopiles for liking anthro's?, after all we do like animals with human characteristics, IF we go by your theory that there is no difference between a child and a cub then some might aswell say there is no difference between anthros and animales except that one walks on two legs the other walks on four.

Like i said before, if people can not get the difference between what is clearly fictional, and to what is clearly a real photo and if they insist to then prey on RL children, then they have a fucked up head. I play many violent video games but i have never felt like going out and blowing someones head off their shoulders just cause ive seen it in a movie or a game ive played to me thats just bullshit.


----------



## shadowedskunk (Jun 24, 2008)

if you do not like it do not look at it. if you do like it and you are not harming anyone? jerkint it till your junk falls off for all i care. yall need to stop bitching about if its legal or not and stop and take time to really worry about REAL pedos who are fucking little boys and girls RIGHT NOW! instead of causeing a debate on weather a prepubesant FURRY is legal or not.

if someone wants to make a diffrance then you need to attack the real sex offenders not someone who saw a pic and safely wanked it by themselves to get it out of there system THIS IS HEALTHY. many many people have odd kinks and things they fantasize about. sometimes people worry and ask themselves why they fantasize about fucking a tree or a rock with tits maybe some cub porn? hell we got jello furs out there and other stuff just to SHOW how wide the range of kinks are.

as i said before just because its a kink someone has dose not make it wrong, it is only wrong if they take that extra step and start fucking children which is illegal.

you cannot stop a persons kinks or what they fantasize about in the safe haven of there own home and if you are trying to.. you need to realise your place on the net. your just like them your just like me and everyone else. we are here to do stuff we enjoy in our free time.. you cant slap legal shit on that unless they are harming someone.
and people who like cub porn are harming no one.

bitch about real pedos who drool over children not a picture someone drew.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jun 24, 2008)

Basicaly i do not believe that any sane person would see either something violent, be it on TV or in a game, or even along the lines of porn, and be inclined to go do it irl. people who see things like that then do such things to me have severe mental issues in the first place.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jun 24, 2008)

Nicely said Shadowed.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jun 24, 2008)

Closing topic due to the fact I specifically stated to stick to the way the LAW will affect FA, not bring in the cub debate again.

For a lot of typing, you guys could take some time to read instead of engaging in recycled arguments.


----------

