# INB4 I get jailed for being on FA



## Takun (Feb 13, 2010)

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/02/obscene-us-manga-collector-jailed-6-months/

Wooooooooo.


----------



## Scotty1700 (Feb 13, 2010)

LOL!!! Back on down to that Tenticle orgy topic....


----------



## foxmusk (Feb 13, 2010)

this has me seriously worried. :V


----------



## FluffMouse (Feb 13, 2010)

There goes the neighborhood.


----------



## foxmusk (Feb 13, 2010)

so, pardon me for being dumb, but does that mean you could go to jail for having beast or cub art?


----------



## Ravefox_twi (Feb 13, 2010)

Pardon me, but WTF happened to "Freedom of the Press" and/or "FREEDOM OF SPEECH" damn it! 
On another note... what a sick fuck he deserves what ever he gets.


----------



## FluffMouse (Feb 13, 2010)

HarleyParanoia said:


> so, pardon me for being dumb, but does that mean you could go to jail for having beast or cub art?


I don't see why not. It's pretty much under the cartoon category.


----------



## Supersonic Bears (Feb 13, 2010)

Why would they list the books at the bottom of the article if it's illegal to see them?


----------



## Ravefox_twi (Feb 13, 2010)

Silver Burrito said:


> Why would they list the books at the bottom of the article if it's illegal to see them?


Cuz the government is run by horny monkeys


----------



## foxmusk (Feb 13, 2010)

Ravefox_twi said:


> Pardon me, but WTF happened to "Freedom of the Press" and/or "FREEDOM OF SPEECH" damn it!
> On another note... what a sick fuck he deserves what ever he gets.



it's ART. christ.



SugarMental said:


> I don't see why not. It's pretty much under the cartoon category.



that's a sudden uncomfortable feeling.


----------



## Disasterfox (Feb 13, 2010)

Damn it Japan!?!
Hey my hobbies include baseball, coin collecting, frizbee, whacking off to child porn and beastiality manga, working out etcetc...


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Feb 13, 2010)




----------



## Zrcalo (Feb 13, 2010)

The 40-year-old was charged under the 2003 Protect Act, which outlaws cartoons, drawings, sculptures or paintings depicting minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct, and which lack â€œserious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.â€ 


uhhh....
furries have... artistic value.

yeah.


----------



## Gavrill (Feb 13, 2010)

guro doesn't count right




right


----------



## Takun (Feb 13, 2010)

Zrcalo said:


> The 40-year-old was charged under the 2003 Protect Act, which outlaws cartoons, drawings, sculptures or paintings depicting minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct, and which lack â€œserious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.â€
> 
> 
> uhhh....
> ...




We're fucked.  EVERYBODY PANIC


----------



## Zrcalo (Feb 13, 2010)

Takumi_L said:


> We're fucked.  EVERYBODY PANIC



AHHHHH!!!!

seriously though.. I would fight that claim to high heaven.
what if you bought a manga and didnt /know/ it had child porn art in it?
and god. what about american websites?


----------



## Disasterfox (Feb 13, 2010)

Doesn't furry art consist of about, oh.. 100% animal sex?
Meh I'm sure the rapidly becoming socialist government wont mind. One good thing e_e


----------



## Zrcalo (Feb 13, 2010)

I own this:






the pic in the corner and the insert could be considered CP under teh new lawlz?

this is the insert:
http://www.b-sides.it/foto_dischi/1338.JPG


----------



## Takun (Feb 13, 2010)

Zrcalo said:


> AHHHHH!!!!
> 
> seriously though.. I would fight that claim to high heaven.
> what if you bought a manga and didnt /know/ it had child porn art in it?
> and god. what about american websites?



THEN YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO TURN IT IN TO THE POLICE RIGHT AWAY.

It's a fucking dumb law.  Same thing you are supposed to do if you accidentally download CP from a p2p network.


----------



## Vaelarsa (Feb 13, 2010)

And hopefully this gets somewhere.

And fuck the "art" excuse.
If you're buying porn, you're buying it to perv over. Not to appreciate the artistic quality.

Fuck pedophiles and fuck their sick fantasies.


----------



## Zrcalo (Feb 13, 2010)

Vaelarsa said:


> And hopefully this gets somewhere.
> 
> And fuck the "art" excuse.
> If you're buying porn, you're buying it to perv over. Not to appreciate the artistic quality.
> ...



excuse me? I've seen good explicative art.

fuck you.


----------



## Takun (Feb 13, 2010)

Vaelarsa said:


> And hopefully this gets somewhere.
> 
> And fuck the "art" excuse.
> If you're buying porn, you're buying it to perv over. Not to appreciate the artistic quality.
> ...




teehee >^_^<


----------



## Zrcalo (Feb 13, 2010)

Takumi_L said:


> teehee >^_^<



you child dog fucker you..


----------



## Vaelarsa (Feb 13, 2010)

Zrcalo said:


> excuse me? I've seen good explicative art.
> 
> fuck you.


IM GOING TO THA PORN STORE FOR MY ARTS.

You know, instead of much better sources.
Like art books, or hell, even better-drawn and better-written comic publications.


----------



## Zrcalo (Feb 13, 2010)

Vaelarsa said:


> IM GOING TO THA PORN STORE FOR MY ARTS.
> 
> You know, instead of much better sources.
> Like art books, or hell, even better-drawn and better-written comic publications.



someone's evidently never been to a pornshop.


----------



## Ravefox_twi (Feb 13, 2010)

Vaelarsa said:


> And hopefully this gets somewhere.
> 
> And fuck the "art" excuse.
> If you're buying porn, you're buying it to perv over. Not to appreciate the artistic quality.
> ...


What if your buying something with tasteful nudity (yes there is such a thing) like one of those Van Goth pictures? should we still be arrested for that Huh!?


----------



## Zrcalo (Feb 13, 2010)

Ravefox_twi said:


> What if your buying something with tasteful nudity (yes there is such a thing) like one of those Van Goth pictures? should we still be arrested for that Huh!?



somebody doesnt understand this thread.

lol @ "van goth"


----------



## Takun (Feb 13, 2010)

http://www.awesome-art.biz/awesome/...oman Contemplating Two Embracing Children.jpg


FUCK.  BRB V&


----------



## Mentova (Feb 13, 2010)

I lol'd. I hope this becomes more common.


----------



## Takun (Feb 13, 2010)

http://physics.weber.edu/carroll/honors_images/delightd.jpg

nsfw

O no.  It's so obscene.  Save my eyes.  ;A;


----------



## TDK (Feb 13, 2010)

Finally the court system does something right. Bravo.
*clap*
*clap*
*clap*


----------



## Tycho (Feb 13, 2010)

Vaelarsa said:


> And hopefully this gets somewhere.
> 
> And fuck the "art" excuse.
> If you're buying porn, you're buying it to perv over. Not to appreciate the artistic quality.
> ...



Yeah, fuck those sick bastards.  Nobody's gonna shed a tear for the pedos.  Just like nobody's gonna shed a tear when they decide to crank up the Puritanicalizer and stomp all over stuff YOU find fun.  Except you, of course.

Getting rid of pedos is one thing.  Rooting out "sexual perversion" is another.  Take a look at Alabama, where it's now illegal to sell (or possess IIRC) a sex toy for anything but "educational" purposes.  Or Virginia, where if you participate in anything but M-F missionary sex, you're breaking the law.  GOOOOOOO PURITANS.  I hope you've got a plan for stopping the government before they make the stuff I like against the law, because I don't.


----------



## Zrcalo (Feb 13, 2010)

Tycho said:


> Yeah, fuck those sick bastards.  Nobody's gonna shed a tear for the pedos.  Just like nobody's gonna shed a tear when they decide to crank up the Puritanicalizer and stomp all over stuff YOU find fun.  Except you, of course.
> 
> Getting rid of pedos is one thing.  Rooting out "sexual perversion" is another.  Take a look at Alabama, where it's now illegal to sell (or possess IIRC) a sex toy for anything but "educational" purposes.  Or Virginia, where if you participate in anything but M-F missionary sex, you're breaking the law.  GOOOOOOO PURITANS.  I hope you've got a plan for stopping the government before they make the stuff I like against the law, because I don't.



yeah. it's called "move to california"


----------



## Zrcalo (Feb 13, 2010)

OH GOD GAIZE MY THROBBING GRISTLE ALBUM HAEZ CP!?!!?!111

http://www.b-sides.it/foto_dischi/1338.JPG


----------



## Gavrill (Feb 13, 2010)

Zrcalo said:


> OH GOD GAIZE MY THROBBING GRISTLE ALBUM HAEZ CP!?!!?!111
> 
> http://www.b-sides.it/foto_dischi/1338.JPG


INB4 BAN


----------



## CannonFodder (Feb 13, 2010)

HarleyParanoia said:


> so, pardon me for being dumb, but does that mean you could go to jail for having beast or cub art?


It has happened several times before, it's just there's a blanket ban against talking about it on F.A.F.
Hell I wouldn't be surprised if this thread gets locked cause of how much that rule has us by the balls.


----------



## Zrcalo (Feb 13, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> It has happened several times before, it's just there's a blanket ban against talking about it on F.A.F.



how about talking about /not/ having it?


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Feb 13, 2010)

Zrcalo said:


> OH GOD GAIZE MY THROBBING GRISTLE ALBUM HAEZ CP!?!!?!111
> 
> http://www.b-sides.it/foto_dischi/1338.JPG


 
Why would you post such a link?


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Feb 13, 2010)

This is absolutely disgusting. They're basically going to make a few people a sacrificial lamb while the truly dangerous perverts are charming their way into the trust of communities, completely unnoticed until it's already way too late. Some basement dwelling social retard isn't posing a threat to anyone's children.

Before anyone calls me a hypocrite for having a hatred of cub and the whole "it's just art" defense, that's true. But it's pretty obvious to me where the line is between the natural tendency and God-given right for communities (virtual or otherwise) to ostracize people who make them look bad and spending tax payer dollars and civil resources to do a job we're perfectly capable of doing ourselves. From the looks of things, the guy wasn't parading it around and disrupting the balance of _his_ community.

Truth: this is part of the government's attempt to placate a public that is growing extremely angry at a lot of things. But if it wants to be a nanny-state and succeed at being a giant bureaucratic pacifier, eventually people are going to ask why they go after easy, harmless targets like a few guys buying illicit weed, cigarettes and fucking _art_ and not the _sociopaths_ who charm their way into schools, churches and the government _itself_ to turn _our_ communities into something for _their_ sick pleasure that poses a threat to children and adults alike.

I lived with a person who collected crap like this. Yes, I thought she was a sick fuck for it. But it wasn't until she posed a threat to my mental, physical and financial security that I would've felt it was the law's place to intervene. And even then, she wasn't really capable of harming me or anyone else who'd know her for the all of a few days it'd take to be on to her, which is the reason she was dwelling in her own personal hell, alone by the time I ostracized her along with everyone else.

For people to truly harm children, the easy(er) part is having the children complicit through their own ignorance. The part that makes a predator truly dangerous though is having all the adults in their life in the palm of their hand so that they too are willfully ignorant to what they're really like when you're not seeing them in their assumed role as a babysitter, teacher, coach, priest, etc. It's pretty fucking obvious from where I'm sitting that they only made up this law when they did, in 2003, because people had started to get smart to what a sociopath is and how they're able to do all the sick and destructive things they do; very disturbed at some of the wake-up calls the media gave the public, that no normal person is beyond being duped with deadly consequences to them and their loved ones. And the law and the law_makers_ know, simply, they aren't willing and/or able to protect their own people from them. Hence, sacrificial lambs.

Is anyone going to buy this fucking bullshit? They want to prevent people from taking the law into their own hands? They're going to give people the excuse they've been looking for since _before_ 2003!


----------



## CannonFodder (Feb 13, 2010)

Zrcalo said:


> how about talking about /not/ having it?


Nope still can't, I'm dancing with the rules even referring to the rule, it's stupid cause the rule isn't written down anywhere and we're all expected to know it.
All I can do right now is refer to it cause any direct talk about it is a insta-pemaban that's how bad they've got us by it, any direct talk and they slice your balls off(metaphorically of course).


----------



## foxmusk (Feb 13, 2010)

Vaelarsa said:


> And hopefully this gets somewhere.
> 
> And fuck the "art" excuse.
> If you're buying porn, you're buying it to perv over. Not to appreciate the artistic quality.
> ...



yea, fuck them hard! fuck mental illness too, those motherfuckers shouldn't be born that way! sons of bitches.


----------



## Merinotetrapoda (Feb 13, 2010)

this...this is interesting...


----------



## Zrcalo (Feb 13, 2010)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> Why would you post such a link?



its /art/ 
I bought it at borders.
also it's googleable.


----------



## Ricky (Feb 13, 2010)

meh...

It *is* JUST art.  It's not hurting anyone and I'd rather these people jerking off to Manga shit than trying to get real kids.

I don't care if you think they are sickos.  If you think someone has mental problems they need _help_ and not jail time.  So what if they jack off to sick shit? People seem to care a lot about what people jack off to despite that it's not affecting them.  I highly doubt they have the pervy's best interests in their mind.

Besides, I don't see any real harm with this stuff unless it becomes an obsession.  It sounded more like the guy collected comics and a few of them had naughty stuff in it.  I highly doubt every one was bestiality or CP, but of course we immediately assume he's some kind of sick perverted creep because "child porn" was mentioned and it throws everyone into an emotional frenzy.

*The obscenity laws are bullshit*.  The legislation is written in a way that's so vague it could include almost EVERYTHING.  The reason they were able to get put into legislation is because ignorant people, like some of the people in this thread, act on emotion first and use rational thought later (or never).  They are able to use some trigger word like "child porn" and every dumb fuck in this country will believe anything that follows.


----------



## Zrcalo (Feb 13, 2010)

exactly. it's art.


----------



## Takun (Feb 13, 2010)

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d130/mywow/NirvanaNevermind.jpg


SHIIIIIIIT


----------



## Ariosto (Feb 13, 2010)

It's a good thing they're finally tacking on the subject.

Finally child porn is getting the treatment it deserves.

Or so it seems...

This won't last much right? *Sad kit face"


----------



## Ricky (Feb 13, 2010)

Martino Zorrilla said:


> It's a good thing they're finally tacking on the subject.
> 
> Finally child porn is getting the treatment it deserves.
> 
> ...



Case in point.


----------



## foxmusk (Feb 13, 2010)

Martino Zorrilla said:


> It's a good thing they're finally tacking on the subject.
> 
> Finally child porn is getting the treatment it deserves.
> 
> ...



give it time, your furry art will be next.


----------



## Zrcalo (Feb 13, 2010)

Martino Zorrilla said:


> It's a good thing they're finally tacking on the subject.
> 
> Finally child porn is getting the treatment it deserves.
> 
> ...



I disgree that cartoon animal baby's having sex is CP.


----------



## Attaman (Feb 13, 2010)

I'm pretty sure this was posted a bunch of months ago, and it had a _lot_ of Cub-fans on FAF up in arms over the possible repercussions it'd have on their fetish.


----------



## Takun (Feb 13, 2010)

Attaman said:


> I'm pretty sure this was posted a bunch of months ago, and it had a _lot_ of Cub-fans on FAF up in arms over the possible repercussions it'd have on their fetish.



This is an update on it.  The verdict.  He is now serving 6 months for it.  He got lucky.  It was supposed to be 15 years.


----------



## Gavrill (Feb 13, 2010)

And he'll probably forever be labeled a sex offender. 


Fuck the justice system.


----------



## FluffMouse (Feb 13, 2010)

I love how people are freaking out that it's_ art_ and posting pictures of said _art_..
when they're talking about sexual depictions of children.. not ART. Cartoon children
should count. Sure it's not REAL children, but it's still sexual depictions of children.

And it's not just "Oh look a nude baby." It's porn. (Or hentai, whatever)

Oh and the whole 'thought police' shit and people needing help, not jail time, and how
 it's going to grow into some anti-sexual anything shit..

Dude.. It's CHILD PORN.
It's not a crime against sex. It's showing that it's NOT okay to depict children in sexual ways or situations, _art_ or not. There's a line dammit.


----------



## MeadowTheDragon (Feb 14, 2010)

its better these people looking at cartoon children and not kidnaping real ones


----------



## FluffMouse (Feb 14, 2010)

Yeah it's better. But it's still not right. I'd rather them take care of everything.
At least when they make it all illegal it's not giving people the impression that it's okay.

It's also not making them better.


----------



## Lobar (Feb 14, 2010)

So why does FA continue to stick it's neck (and arguably ours, hello front-page surprise) out just to accommodate a handful of fucking pedos?  Why are we clinging to this Mark Merlino attitude of "it's awwwright" as the possibility of legal repercussions looms ever closer?


----------



## Takun (Feb 14, 2010)

Lobar said:


> So why does FA continue to stick it's neck (and arguably ours, hello front-page surprise) out just to accommodate a handful of fucking pedos?  Why are we clinging to this Mark Merlino attitude of "it's awwwright" as the possibility of legal repercussions looms ever closer?



I've been asking that question a long time; I have continued to post updates on this case because it affects me.  I live in Iowa.  The guy was busted in Iowa.  We ban people for going on Tyra Banks, but then turn around and give the big OK to cub artists.  I'm not saying it should be illegal, but it is for the time being.  I rather not put myself out there allowing the art for the people who enjoy it while it is illegal.


----------



## Ricky (Feb 14, 2010)

SugarMental said:


> I love how people are freaking out that it's_ art_ and posting pictures of said _art_..
> when they're talking about sexual depictions of children.. not ART. Cartoon children
> should count. Sure it's not REAL children, but it's still sexual depictions of children.
> 
> ...



You don't really make an argument there, except:



> Dude.. It's CHILD PORN.


"Child porn" in my opinion is porn with children (not a doodle).

Again, it's a trigger word.  There's no real substance to any argument here because there was never any crime against anyone. Also, maybe just a few of those comics were CP to begin with.

There is a larger issue here.

The following video explains it best:

[yt]L2rloQL6QLA[/yt]


----------



## Tycho (Feb 14, 2010)

Lobar said:


> So why does FA continue to stick it's neck (and arguably ours, hello front-page surprise) out just to accommodate a handful of fucking pedos?  Why are we clinging to this Mark Merlino attitude of "it's awwwright" as the possibility of legal repercussions looms ever closer?



Pushing out the pedos is all well and good (and difficult - did ANYONE around here know that a certain Frank was into sadomasochistic CP before he got busted?) but I'm worried they (the authorities) won't STOP at pedo/cub (or rather, BEFORE the the stuff I like).


----------



## Kirbizard (Feb 14, 2010)

Takumi_L said:


> http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/02/obscene-us-manga-collector-jailed-6-months/
> 
> Wooooooooo.



The guy should've just downloaded it to his hard drive like everyone else. :V


----------



## FluffMouse (Feb 14, 2010)

Ricky said:


> You don't really make an argument there, except:
> 
> "Child porn" in my opinion is porn with children (not a doodle).
> 
> ...



It's not just a trigger word. 
And I stand by what I said about saying it's thought police, or crimes against 'censorship' is crap. It shouldn't matter that it's drawn. What matters is that it's *sexual depictions of children*. And it SHOULD be illegal. This isn't a case of censorship where 'they will be back next year to jail someone for something you're into'. It's not thought police. No one's saying you can't think fucked up things. They're just saying not to draw children in sexual situations, or have material of children in sexual situations. And I'm sorry.. but no matter how people argue it.. they're well in their rights to be concerned about that crap and ban it. 'Normal' people, people with children and families of their own, aren't going to think "Oh well it's JUST a drawing, at least they aren't out doing it." Just like a school teacher is well within her rights to be concerned about little billy drawing women getting raped and murdered in art class. Likely they'd get him some help in that situation.. not pat him on the back and say it's okay because he's not actually doing those things.


----------



## CannonFodder (Feb 14, 2010)

pedophilia(noun): 1: the sexual attraction towards a child either in reality or fictional.
2: a mental illness.


----------



## MKULTRA (Feb 14, 2010)

Wait whoa

Link scares me


----------



## Lobar (Feb 14, 2010)

Tycho said:


> Pushing out the pedos is all well and good (and difficult - did ANYONE around here know that a certain Frank was into sadomasochistic CP before he got busted?) but I'm worried they (the authorities) won't STOP at pedo/cub (or rather, BEFORE the the stuff I like).



I'm not making an argument for what the law should be (I still have a strong anti-censorship streak to me left over from my brief dabble in lolbertarianism), but rather how FA should react to what the law is while it is what it is.  FA hasn't seriously reviewed the matter in years, and the law has become more stringent in the meantime.  It's time to have another discussion about this, before it's too late.


----------



## Jashwa (Feb 14, 2010)

Lobar said:


> I'm not making an argument for what the law should be (I still have a strong anti-censorship streak to me left over from my brief dabble in lolbertarianism), but rather how FA should react to what the law is while it is what it is.  FA hasn't seriously reviewed the matter in years, and the law has become more stringent in the meantime.  It's time to have another discussion about this, before it's too late.


I'm sure they're talking about it amongst themselves now that the guy got found guilty. I mean, they'd have to be retarded not to be.


----------



## Charrio (Feb 14, 2010)

Jashwa said:


> I'm sure they're talking about it amongst themselves now that the guy got found guilty. I mean, they'd have to be retarded not to be.



They may be talking about it, but i don't think they will change their stance on it until they have to. The admins seem to have a want to have cub porn, which is their choice but makes them seem like defenders of pedo fans


----------



## lilEmber (Feb 14, 2010)

SugarMental said:


> I love how people are freaking out that it's_ art_ and posting pictures of said _art_..
> when they're talking about sexual depictions of children.. not ART. Cartoon children
> should count. Sure it's not REAL children, but it's still sexual depictions of children.
> 
> ...



But the whole and sole reason child porn is illegal in the first place isn't because it's kids, but because kids are harmed in this (mentally, and even physically in some cases). To get CP you have to basically molest a child and who knows what else that person is doing to them. That's why it's banned, however art harms nobody.


----------



## FluffMouse (Feb 14, 2010)

Yeah but that's the thing. Where is the line. Just because it isn't hurting anyone, doesn't mean it's okay.
I agree that they shouldn't just jail everyone who reads manga with some loli in it.
But I also agree that if a law says not even cartoon depictions of children are allowed, then people better follow it.
There should be some charge though.. like maybe a week of psychiatric evaluation.


----------



## lilEmber (Feb 14, 2010)

SugarMental said:


> Yeah but that's the thing. Where is the line. Just because it isn't hurting anyone, doesn't mean it's okay.


Yes it does. Actually that's how all law works, how could you miss this one crucial part?


----------



## FluffMouse (Feb 14, 2010)

If that's how the law works then why ban cartoon depictions?


----------



## Tycho (Feb 14, 2010)

SugarMental said:


> If that's how the law works then why ban cartoon depictions?



Because it feeds their depravity.  They're still engaging in unhealthy behavior by buying and reading/looking at CP cartoons.  They're not doing themselves any favors.  This isn't like putting a cigarette addict on the patch to curb smoking urges in a manner that won't harm them and others as much.


----------



## lilEmber (Feb 14, 2010)

SugarMental said:


> If that's how the law works then why ban cartoon depictions?


The same reason a thousand other laws exists without any real know reason.
People are morons, especially those with power.


----------



## Ricky (Feb 14, 2010)

SugarMental said:


> What matters is that it's *sexual depictions of children*. And it SHOULD be illegal.



Why?



> They're just saying not to draw children in sexual situations, or have material of children in sexual situations.


They shouldn't tell you what to draw, period.

Same goes with what kinds of stories to write on a piece of paper.

It's fantasy, not reality and this is EXACTLY what freedom of expression is all about.

Also, I still think Boards of Canada said it best.


----------



## lilEmber (Feb 14, 2010)

Ricky said:


> Why?
> 
> They shouldn't tell you what to draw, period.
> 
> ...



In Canada even cub is technically illegal, but there's only once case where somebody was arrested for loli that I've seen.


----------



## Duality Jack (Feb 14, 2010)

I support... .this notion so long as grey lines are not common. if the art depicts obviously preadolecent individuals... yeah thats fucked.


----------



## Charrio (Feb 14, 2010)

Just wait, once they find a person with Child Porn, cartoon or otherwise they will make a device like the lie detector that attaches to the groin area and reads when you have a reaction to illegal materials containing child porn, you will react and the machine will buzz and then you get several months to years psychological therapy for your sexual reactions to the material.


----------



## Marietta (Feb 14, 2010)

Um... oh shit...

I should go and delete most of my computer history.
But hey, I'm a Lolicon, damn it - not a pedo!
Besides, she was asking for it!

But, it is the law.
Honestly though, maybe he's just into sick shit.
So long as no one was actually hurt or abused during this, I don't really see the problem.
But I suppose it could be considered a work-up to real child porn... I don't know.


----------



## mystery_penguin (Feb 14, 2010)

> A U.S. comic book collector is being sentenced to six months in prison after pleading guilty to importing and possessing Japanese manga books depicting illustrations of child sex and bestiality.
> Read More http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/02/obscene-us-manga-collector-jailed-6-months/#ixzz0fZFGEXO9
> ​


----------



## CannonFodder (Feb 14, 2010)

NewfDraggie said:


> In Canada even cub is technically illegal, but there's only once case where somebody was arrested for loli that I've seen.


It's happened alot here in the U.S. it's just nobody cares cause 1/100 people are in jail in the U.S.


----------



## Takun (Feb 14, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> It's happened alot here in the U.S. it's just nobody cares cause 1/100 people are in jail in the U.S.




Well, no one cares because all the other people who have been caught had ACTUAL child porn.  This is the first instance of a person who only collected loli getting busted.


----------



## Ricky (Feb 15, 2010)

The Drunken Ace said:


> I support... .this notion so long as grey lines are not common. if the art depicts obviously preadolecent individuals... yeah thats fucked.



"That's fucked" is not a rational argument to make something illegal.


----------



## Foxstar (Feb 15, 2010)

Well looks like FC was smart telling Softpaw "Fuck no" when they wanted to sell openly.

There's also a nice irony that some of the 'manga' he had was furry cub stuff. So if the state DA or Eric over at the DOJ ever decides to lift his head..well we will know when the US Marshals and FBI knock on Dragoneer's door, won't we?


----------



## Ben (Feb 15, 2010)

You know, I'm about one hundred percent certain that this man was jailed for owning real child pornography-- there just happened to be lolicon included with it. Of fucking course he was going to be sent to jail.

Unless there's another case where someone had the PROTECT act held against them.


----------



## Takun (Feb 15, 2010)

Ben said:


> You know, I'm about one hundred percent certain that this man was jailed for owning real child pornography-- there just happened to be lolicon included with it. Of fucking course he was going to be sent to jail.




Ben, I love you, but fucking read the article or some of the thread before posting.  :V


His case is important because it is the first where a guy was arrested for comics while having no actual child pornography.


----------



## Ben (Feb 15, 2010)

fhjdawdjafdj. The thing is, I heard about this case numerous times in the past, and people kept mentioning that he also had CP. I guess there's another guy with the PROTECT act being levied against him that has his case sitting around, because I could have sworn that was the case.


----------



## Delta (Feb 15, 2010)

What I don't understand is why we give a damn
about what the fuck this dude jacks off to in the sanctity of his own home meanwhile Farther Burton from Conservativeville, Mid West USA, fucks 12 year old Lindsay Who behind the alter after service.

This man was arrested for a god damn book. 
There is a difference between beating off to lolicon and raping fifth graders.
One is "gross and wrong" by majority preference, but otherwise not hazard to anyone.
The other is a real god damn problem that is looked over for the latter.

Jesus Christ the justice system needs to get their priorities straight. 

And six months for a piece of paper? The business end of the lawmakers' crack pipe must be hot to the fucking touch.


----------



## Aden (Feb 15, 2010)

SugarMental said:


> Yeah but that's the thing. Where is the line. Just because it isn't hurting anyone, doesn't mean it's okay.





SugarMental said:


> it isn't hurting anyone



That's actually exactly what makes it okay. Saying otherwise is idiotic thought policing.


----------



## Ricky (Feb 15, 2010)

Winds said:


> What I don't understand is why we give a damn
> about what the fuck this dude jacks off to in the sanctity of his own home meanwhile Farther Burton from Conservativeville, Mid West USA, fucks 12 year old Lindsay Who behind the alter after service.
> 
> This man was arrested for a god damn book.
> ...



Most people make decisions based on emotion rather than rational thought.

That's why it's so easy to pass legislation through when you use this to your advantage, even if it contradicts our fundamental constitutional rights.

I think pedo art is fucked up but I feel pretty strongly toward freedom of expression.

Meanwhile, the supreme court decides it's OK for companies to lobby because of COMPANIES' first amendment rights.

We are protecting the rights of companies while destroying the rights of the individuals.

It is fucked up; I'll give you that.


----------



## Foxstar (Feb 16, 2010)

Ben said:


> You know, I'm about one hundred percent certain that this man was jailed for owning real child pornography-- there just happened to be lolicon included with it. Of fucking course he was going to be sent to jail.
> 
> Unless there's another case where someone had the PROTECT act held against them.



Your thinking of Frank Gemback who had two DVD's of it and most people on his userpage for months still didn't know he was in D-block.


----------



## south syde dobe (Feb 16, 2010)

HarleyParanoia said:


> so, pardon me for being dumb, but does that mean you could go to jail for having beast or cub art?


 
this made me laugh, lol poor ein, he is missing all of this right here xD
I bet he'd be happy to hear about this stuff :3



Takun said:


> We're fucked. EVERYBODY PANIC


 
Panic? I'm enjoying you cub watching bastards panic :3

I wonder who from FA will be the first to go behind bars for this?


----------



## Ricky (Feb 16, 2010)

south syde fox said:


> this made me laugh, lol poor ein, he is missing all of this right here xD
> I bet he'd be happy to hear about this stuff :3



Was he even into cub?


----------



## Lobar (Feb 16, 2010)

Ricky said:


> Was he even into cub?



He wrote cub stories, with a cub character based on a little girl he babysits in real life.


----------



## Ricky (Feb 16, 2010)

Lobar said:


> He wrote cub stories, with a cub character based on a little girl he babysits in real life.



Oh, geeze...

I saw what he said about her that got him banned but that's just too much.


----------



## south syde dobe (Feb 16, 2010)

Ricky said:


> Oh, geeze...
> 
> I saw what he said about her that got him banned but that's just too much.


 
I hope someone knows about him baby sitting her and does something before its too late D:

Anyhow it would be hilarious if someone started tipping off the cops of people with cub porn on their profile :3


----------



## Lobar (Feb 16, 2010)

Ricky said:


> Oh, geeze...
> 
> I saw what he said about her that got him banned but that's just too much.



There was a reason we all hated him so goddamn much :v


----------



## Disasterfox (Feb 16, 2010)

...
anyone have cub porn I can look at and not report for my own profit?

Wait how does a horny pedofurry get to be a babysitter D:


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Feb 16, 2010)

lol, only furrys can get upset with not being able to see depictions of kids getting literally fucked.


----------



## south syde dobe (Feb 16, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> lol, only furrys can get upset with not being able to see depictions of kids getting literally fucked.


 
lol thats true but I find it fucking funny...run pedofurs run >:3


----------



## Kommodore (Feb 16, 2010)

I think we need more subjective interpretations of what is and is not obscene passed into legislation so we can jail even more people for possessing items with no impact on anyone or anything other than themselves. 

That would be hellacool.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Feb 16, 2010)

CommodoreKitty said:


> I think we need more subjective interpretations of what is and is not obscene passed into legislation so we can jail even more people for possessing items with no impact on anyone or anything other than themselves.
> 
> That would be hellacool.



Hey, people don't HAVE to live in the US.  People like the dude mentioned in the article could always move to Japan if seeing little kids getting fucked is that important to him.  :V

Fact of the matter is, the First Amendment doesn't protect the possession of depictions of children engaging in sex acts on the grounds of obscenity.  If you can't make it through your day without being able to deal with that, then I think you really need to reconsider your priorities.


----------



## Ricky (Feb 16, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Hey, people don't HAVE to live in the US.  People like the dude mentioned in the article could always move to Japan if seeing little kids getting fucked is that important to him.  :V
> 
> Fact of the matter is, the First Amendment doesn't protect the possession of depictions of children engaging in sex acts on the grounds of obscenity.  If you can't make it through your day without being able to deal with that, then I think you really need to reconsider your priorities.



Great argument!  "Just move out!"

Although I wouldn't mind all the pedos moving out you seem to be missing the larger issue, here.  The First Amendment says nothing about obscenity at all.  It has been a topic of debate for over a hundred years and there's a huge question whether pornographic works are covered under it.

I think Kitty's point was that we have two choices.  We can either decide that any work of art is covered under freedom of expression or we can keep doing what we're doing now and deal with them on a case-by-case basis and anything that people think is gross can eventually be made illegal.

You might think cub porn is bad but also realize the vast majority of porn on FA could qualify as "obscene".  Most of it involves depictions of animals, for example.

Personally, I could live without furry porn but our freedom of expression is at stake.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Feb 16, 2010)

Ricky said:


> Personally, I could live without furry porn but our freedom of expression is at stake.



And what exactly are you expressing?  What is the point of seeing a girl anthro cub being double teamed by two older anthros?  What point is it trying to make?  What is the artistic merit?  Or is it made simply for the purpose of being jacked off to?

A key theme people are missing here is "context" and "intent".  Previous posts outlined nudity in the Divine comedy.  It's clear those paintings weren't made for the purpose of people jacking off to them.  I'd have a hard time saying the same thing for half the stuff posted on FA.

If porn in general was the thing being threatened here, then I'd have an issue.  But we're talking about an EXTREME minority which enjoys seeing minors engaging in sexual activity.  That will never be missed.


----------



## Ricky (Feb 16, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> And what exactly are you expressing?  What is the point of seeing a girl anthro cub being double teamed by two older anthros?  What point is it trying to make?  What is the artistic merit?  Or is it made simply for the purpose of being jacked off to?
> 
> A key theme people are missing here is "context" and "intent".  Previous posts outlined nudity in the Divine comedy.  It's clear those paintings weren't made for the purpose of people jacking off to them.  I'd have a hard time saying the same thing for half the stuff posted on FA.
> 
> If porn in general was the thing being threatened here, then I'd have an issue.  But we're talking about an EXTREME minority which enjoys seeing minors engaging in sexual activity.  That will never be missed.



Oh, come on.  Almost all "porn in general" is made for the sole purpose of jacking off 

Right now, the Miller Test excludes anything with "real artistic value" but the question remains: "What is true artistic merit?"  I don't think we can really take these on a case by case basis and only claim it exempt if the painting is any good.  We would need to come up with some metric to determine the value of the art along with a way to determine what is gross (right now it is the Miller Test, I believe).  It becomes so arbitrary at that point that it is stupid.

Art needs to be protected and artists should not be arbitrarily thrown in prison for their work depending on how many people think it is gross.


----------



## duckling (Feb 16, 2010)

All individuals here with some rare exception only saw in this case a possibility to rid of cubs on FA. Really rage makes some blind specially frequenters of LULZ and other pseudo-furs with law IQ. 
  A U.S. comic book collector is being sentenced to six months in prison after pleading guilty to importing and possessing Japanese manga books depicting illustrations of child sex and BESTIALITY.
  The same way cubbers try to prove that cubs are not kids other furs will have to prove that furs are not animals. Thus honest and moral lovers of pure mature yiff are now in the same boat with nasty pedos.
  Dragoneer is a very clever guy and he understands well  that there is no use to divide good and bad fetishes since all the community is but one fetish for strangers. And the law is against all the community.
  If this particular law scares you I advice you formatting your drives and forget of FA forever. I assure you no one regrets. 
  Iâ€™ve never heart of Blotch or Zen complaining about cubs on FA, but freaks who canâ€™t draw or write a single story always do.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Feb 16, 2010)

Ricky said:


> Oh, come on.  Almost all "porn in general" is made for the sole purpose of jacking off



At the same time, that porn is usually of two consenting adults.  We're talking about depictions of minors.  :V

Obscenity as it stands right now is based on the pack-morals of society right now.  And as it stands, society and by extension the judicial sector determines depictions of children engaging in sexual activity as "repulsive by crass disregard of moral/ethical principles."*  We protect a lot of speech and expression in this country, but it's mostly political speech that's protected with the utmost care, not speech which, as I mentioned before, shows a kid being essentially raped by two older men.

My point in mentioning the Divine Comedy pics is that you can't compare them to hentai or the stuff I've mentioned that is shown on FA.  They're two COMPLETELY different things.



> All individuals here with some rare exception only saw in this case a possibility to rid of cubs on FA. Really rage makes some blind specially frequenters of LULZ and other pseudo-furs with law IQ.
> A U.S. comic book collector is being sentenced to six months in prison after pleading guilty to importing and possessing Japanese manga books depicting illustrations of child sex and BESTIALITY.
> The same way cubbers try to prove that cubs are not kids other furs will have to prove that furs are not animals. Thus honest and moral lovers of pure mature yiff are now in the same boat with nasty pedos.



Not going to make suggestions on what FA should do since Dragoneer has made it clear what his stance is.  Since I don't consider myself a furry and don't possess any depictions of furry porn, none of this really affects me either way.  I was a little more concerned with previous posts of pieces of art that are clearly not being made as porn being used as an excuse for pieces of art that clearly are made as porn which depict children.


----------



## Kommodore (Feb 16, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Fact of the matter is, the First Amendment doesn't protect the possession of depictions of children engaging in sex acts on the grounds of obscenity.  If you can't make it through your day without being able to deal with that, then I think you really need to reconsider your priorities.



That really is not important, this is not a First Amendment issue. The fact that you don't dig cub or loli porn and think people who do have bad priorities is wholly irrelevant, your opinion should have no bearing on their lives. Child pornography laws are designed to protect children, and banning drawn depictions of such things does nothing to further that goal. The fact of the matter is that drawn porn, up to and including loli and cub porn, have no negative impact on children or indeed anyone. 

What, then, is the basis for banning it? It isn't like actual child porn where you can prove that its production harms children, you can't even prove a corrilation between viewing it and increased aggressiveness toward children. So, if no one gets hurt, and no one is in danger of getting hurt, why ban it? 

Because someone thinks it is "obscene." This is wrong on... so many, many levels. I should not have to explain why acting in this way should be anathema to every free thinking citizen of any country. No matter who you are, you have no right to decide what is and is not acceptable to look at on taste alone. If you can't prove any level of harm by an activity you have no reason to even think of banning it. 

To me, this type of thinking is as revolting as the most deprived and obscene porn imaginable.


----------



## Takun (Feb 16, 2010)

duckling said:


> All individuals here with some rare exception only saw in this case a possibility to rid of cubs on FA. Really rage makes some blind specially frequenters of LULZ and other pseudo-furs with law IQ.
> A U.S. comic book collector is being sentenced to six months in prison after pleading guilty to importing and possessing Japanese manga books depicting illustrations of child sex and BESTIALITY.
> The same way cubbers try to prove that cubs are not kids other furs will have to prove that furs are not animals. Thus honest and moral lovers of pure mature yiff are now in the same boat with nasty pedos.
> Dragoneer is a very clever guy and he understands well  that there is no use to divide good and bad fetishes since all the community is but one fetish for strangers. And the law is against all the community.
> ...



The case can be made much more easily for anthros being not bestiality than can for cubs not being underage porn.  Cub porn is underage regardless of how you want to spin it.


----------



## Foxstar (Feb 16, 2010)

duckling said:


> Iâ€™ve never heart of Blotch or Zen complaining about cubs on FA, but freaks who canâ€™t draw or write a single story always do.



lol.


----------



## Aden (Feb 16, 2010)

Takun said:


> Cub porn is underage regardless of how you want to spin it.



We have to protect those poor, victimized underage lines and colors


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Feb 16, 2010)

CommodoreKitty said:


> That really is not important, this is not a First Amendment issue.



When you argue, as Ricky did, that it's expression, then it does become a First Amendment issue.  It's the very meaning of the First Amendment.

And whether or not you like to believe it, media in almost all cases, regardless of whether it's a print, picture, or video, is a form of speech.  A person expressing something when they draw, post, or possess depictions of children engaging in sexual activity is engaging in speech.  It isn't just a stagnant piece of paper or pixels on the screen.

As such this would constitute as a First Amendment issue if law enforcement found out, legally, that you possessed it or had intent to distribute it.  In a court of law, do you think anyone here could put up a convincing argument that would convince their peers that they had a legal right to possess, produce, or distribute this content that wouldn't include the First Amendment?


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Feb 16, 2010)

Aden said:


> We have to protect those poor, victimized underage lines and colors



This. And I'm saying this as someone who was almost completely 180 on this as recently as last year. Certain experiences in life, witnessing and being on the receiving end of some of the really dangerous shit out there and seeing how little the authorities are doing about _that_ makes a person extremely fucking pissed off when it turns out they didn't care about your neighborhood because they were too busy trying to police _the fucking internet and imported erotica!_ What I'm saying is, you people fucking need to get out more.


----------



## Kommodore (Feb 16, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> When you argue, as Ricky did, that it's expression, then it does become a First Amendment issue.  It's the very meaning of the First Amendment.



Except that's not what I am arguing. What I am arguing is that "this activity does not hurt anyone in any way and so it is not anyone's business to involve themselves in it in the first place." Expression may or may not come into play, but the main point still essentially boils down to "nobody is harmed in any way by activity 'x' => there is no objective reason to ban or otherwise restrict activity 'x' "



> In a court of law, do you think anyone here could put up a convincing argument that would convince their peers that they had a legal right to possess, produce, or distribute this content that wouldn't include the First Amendment?



Absolutely. See above.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Feb 17, 2010)

CommodoreKitty said:


> Except that's not what I am arguing. What I am arguing is that "this activity does not hurt anyone in any way and so it is not anyone's business to involve themselves in it in the first place." Expression may or may not come into play, but the main point still essentially boils down to "nobody is harmed in any way by activity 'x' => there is no objective reason to ban or otherwise restrict activity 'x' "



Well I can also argue that there's no objective reason why you have the right to possess porn to begin with, but then we'd be spiraling into a black hole.

Objectivity doesn't dictate law.  People dictate law.  The fact that the public doesn't want this kind of content in their country because they find it revolting labels it as obscene.  Though nobody is physically harmed, people mentally don't want to deal with it, or have it around.  It's why the FCC will fine stations $250,000 if someone complains to them that a radio station played a song with curses in it.  We've decided it's not acceptable content to be broadcast or made easily available.

It's also pretty arbitrary to say to someone who possesses child porn with real kids "Sorry pal, if only you had a thing for baby cartoon animals, we'd let this one slide."  There's a lot of exceptions in law, but saying one form of child porn is more acceptable than another doesn't seem like one of them to me.



> Absolutely. See above.



"I didn't hurt anybody" didn't seem to work for the guy in OP's link, so I don't think that's a compelling legal argument that will win over the hearts and minds of a jury of average people who aren't furrys or otaku.


----------



## Takun (Feb 17, 2010)

Aden said:


> We have to protect those poor, victimized underage lines and colors




Yeah.  I agree with you.  I'm not saying it should be illegal, just that it currently is.  You know this Aden.  :V

I'm saying that besides hiding it as A SIZE DIFFERENCE, you can't really say cub porn isn't underage.   That's pretty much the definition of it.


----------



## Aden (Feb 17, 2010)

Takun said:


> Yeah.  I agree with you.  I'm not saying it should be illegal, just that it currently is.  You know this Aden.  :V



I actually didn't read the thread at all :V


----------



## Kommodore (Feb 17, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Well I can also argue that there's no objective reason why you have the right to possess porn to begin with, but then we'd be spiraling into a black hole.
> 
> Objectivity doesn't dictate law.  People dictate law.  The fact that the public doesn't want this kind of content in their country because they find it revolting labels it as obscene.  Though nobody is physically harmed, people mentally don't want to deal with it, or have it around.  It's why the FCC will fine stations $250,000 if someone complains to them that a radio station played a song with curses in it.  We've decided it's not acceptable content to be broadcast or made easily available.
> 
> ...




You know, you're right. I for one am pleased those faggots can't marry, I find it morally objectionable. I mean I know it doesn't bother anyone or nuthin' but it sure bugs my head. Any of this sounding familiar? Objectivity _is_ the basis for law. Murder is illegal because it kills people. Pirating is illegal because it deprives companies of profits. Having an age limit for driving is a law because you would have 10-year-old retards crashing half-ton pickups into a house every other day. 

All laws do or should have a practical, objective basis as a foundation for their implementation. Those that do not are a problem in and of themselves but are a separate issue. As it matters here, what you are asking is for your opinion of taste to be codified in law. 

That. Is. _Insane. 

_What happens if I decide I don't like westerns and move to ban them? Classic rock? What if I and a group of like-minded people get together and decide you will be thrown in jail for possession of any and all things Elvis? How can you not see how asinine this type of thinking is? The hypothetical situations I am positing are the same in every appreciable way to the issue of loli or cub porn. It is a matter of taste and nothing more. When you cannot _objectively_ find a reason to oppress people, you probably should not do it. I encourage you to look into something called the "tyranny of the majority" and why such a thing as a direct democracy does not exist in the world today. Just because you don't like the way I dress, and most other people don't like the way I dress, doesn't give you the right to throw me in prison for it. 

The argument "what right do you have to own it?" makes no sense either. I can use the same line of reasoning to question your so called "right" to live or "right" to own property. It's a silly line of reasoning and you know it.

Also: Child porn is illegal because the _production of it directly results in the harm of children._ You can't make child porn without hurting kids. Funfact. 

The same can't be said for drawn child porn, no one gets hurt in that. The distinction between the two is far from arbitrary.


----------



## south syde dobe (Feb 17, 2010)

Ricky said:


> Great argument! "Just move out!"
> 
> Although I wouldn't mind all the pedos moving out you seem to be missing the larger issue, here. The First Amendment says nothing about obscenity at all. It has been a topic of debate for over a hundred years and there's a huge question whether pornographic works are covered under it.
> 
> ...


 
pfft if looking at anthros is wrong then I can live with that though the rest of you faggots would probably die to keep the smut you fav rofl


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Feb 17, 2010)

CommodoreKitty said:


> You know, you're right. I for one am pleased those faggots can't marry, I find it morally objectionable. I mean I know it doesn't bother anyone or nuthin' but it sure bugs my head. Any of this sounding familiar? Objectivity _is_ the basis for law. Murder is illegal because it kills people. Pirating is illegal because it deprives companies of profits. Having an age limit for driving is a law because you would have 10-year-old retards crashing half-ton pickups into a house every other day.



So are you trying to say that child porn is objectively fine?  I'm a religious guy and all, and I'd like to believe in an objective entity in the universe, but I have enough sense that laws are subjectively made by what supposedly benefits society at what time.

Murder is illegal only as long as you're not in a military fighting another armed group, or are killing a criminal in some states.  Pirating is an iffy issue because if I share a CD with a group of my friends, does that mean I'm a criminal?  Age limits aren't universal everywhere for driving, drinking, smoking, etc., so how could they possibly be objective?



> What happens if I decide I don't like westerns and move to ban them? Classic rock? What if I and a group of like-minded people get together and decide you will be thrown in jail for possession of any and all things Elvis? How can you not see how asinine this type of thinking is? The hypothetical situations I am positing are the same in every appreciable way to the issue of loli or cub porn. It is a matter of taste and nothing more. When you cannot objectively find a reason to oppress people, you probably should not do it. I encourage you to look into something called the "tyranny of the majority" and why such a thing as a direct democracy does not exist in the world today. Just because you don't like the way I dress, and most other people don't like the way I dress, you don't get to throw me in prison for it.



Well that would be great and all if you tried to ban westerns.  Course you'd need a significant portion of the population to vote on it, if it came to that, and I doubt you'd find it.  But if you did, and someone tried making a western, it'd go to the Supreme Court, because more often than not, that'd become a First Amendment issue once again with their right to create, possess, and distribute said western.  Apply the same principle to your other examples, rinse, repeat.

As much as everyone on here jokes "think of the children," that also comes into play when you're talking about the specific example of loli/cub porn.  Even fictional children weigh on people's minds and they don't like to see something which they consider innocent depicted in such crude ways without even a semi-legit claim of artistic expression to back it up.

And no, if I don't like the way you dress I don't have the right to throw you in prison.  But I do reserve the right to shun you, not offer you a job, allow you to come into an establishment I own, so on and so forth.  And so does everyone else if they knew you had, in your possession, art depicting children engaging in sex acts.  Essentially a social prison.



> The argument "what right do you have to own it?" makes no sense either. I can use the same line of reasoning to question your so called "right" to live or "right" to own property. It's a silly line of reasoning and you know it.



Which is exactly my point.  When it comes down to it, "rights" are subjective.  They only exist so long as a government decides they are allowable in their society.  Which is why arguing objectivity in law is a silly thing to do.



> Also: Child porn is illegal because the production of it directly results in the harm of children. You can't make child porn without hurting kids. Funfact.
> 
> The same can't be said for drawn child porn, no one gets hurt in that. The distinction between the two is far from arbitrary.



According to the Patriot Act and the precedent set by this case, you can.  Therefore it would be arbitrary to say one is lawfully different from the other, don't you think?  Of course this is only one case following this law and it would require several more to become accepted common law, but if a similar case were to be brought up I wouldn't doubt seeing this case being referenced.


----------



## Ricky (Feb 17, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> At the same time, that porn is usually of two consenting adults.  We're talking about depictions of minors.  :V



What about rape porn?  I guess you'd have to make that illegal too by your standard.

I'm sure there's more.



> Obscenity as it stands right now is based on the pack-morals of society right now.



...and you have no problem using that as a basis to make *art* illegal?



> My point in mentioning the Divine Comedy pics is that you can't compare them to hentai or the stuff I've mentioned that is shown on FA.  They're two COMPLETELY different things.



Well, it has to do with "artistic merit" as stated in the Miller Scale.

Does any stuff on FA have "artistic merit"?  If so, which ones?

Also, I'm not discussing what FA should do, either.  The policies of one website are trivial to me but I think the larger issue is an important one.



Takun said:


> The case can be made much more easily for anthros being not bestiality than can for cubs not being underage porn. Cub porn is underage regardless of how you want to spin it.



Well, no.  It's the same analogy.

Human : Animal
Child : Baby animal

Also, thanks Duckling -- you said it well, even without paragraphs.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Feb 17, 2010)

Ricky said:


> What about rape porn?  I guess you'd have to make that illegal too by your standard.



Are we talking film or drawings here?

Filmed rape is usually staged.  If it wasn't and was brought to authorities, it'd be investigated.  Hell, we've had movies produced with rape scenes in them that aren't porn, so I think it's safe to say this wouldn't be brought before a judge and jury.

Drawings is a similar issue.  "Staged" one could say since these aren't real characters, but it's depicting adults.  Though "shocking" and possibly "distasteful", the lack of children, I think, is what doesn't make this cross the line as completely objectionable, mostly because people are used to "rape porn" because what's consumed is almost always staged.  Child porn that isn't drawn isn't staged, so that's the only comparison people have to go by, and it doesn't help the cause of "no one's actually getting hurt here".



> ...and you have no problem using that as a basis to make *art* illegal?



Part of it.  I also personally don't like cub porn, or depictions of children engaging in sex acts.  I'll admit my bias.  At the same time I try to present how law works in an unbiased manner, and just because we as a society might have issues with something, law usually has the final say until another case is thrust into the spotlight.



> Well, it has to do with "artistic merit" as stated in the Miller Scale.
> 
> Does any stuff on FA have "artistic merit"? If so, which ones?



While I find cub porn deplorable, I don't have an issue with porn in general.  Porn can exist as a healthy means of expression of sexuality, up to a point.  For me, that point includes when it involves children, in which case merits of porn cease to be an excuse.  Now other people in today's society may have different ideas on porn, but most, I'd think, would generally accept the idea that sexual depictions of children have no merit, artistic, pornographic, or otherwise.


----------



## MeadowTheDragon (Feb 17, 2010)

lets ban all comics where someone gets killed too


----------



## Kommodore (Feb 17, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> So are you trying to say that child porn is objectively fine?  I'm a religious guy and all, and I'd like to believe in an objective entity in the universe, but I have enough sense that laws are subjectively made by what supposedly benefits society at what time.
> 
> Murder is illegal only as long as you're not in a military fighting another armed group, or are killing a criminal in some states.  Pirating is an iffy issue because if I share a CD with a group of my friends, does that mean I'm a criminal?  Age limits aren't universal everywhere for driving, drinking, smoking, etc., so how could they possibly be objective?



You know damn well what I mean when I say "objective." I am not talking about the fundamental moral objective/subjectivity of philosophy, I am talking about the relatively restricted sense of law and the application thereof. Can you prove causation? Yes? Objective. No? Not objective. I am not going to do these pedantic hula-hoops and I don't know why you are trying to have me do so. 

In fact I am using objective in such a restricted sense I might as well use a different word to avoid confusion. "Practical." Substitute the word "practical" every time you saw "objective." There is no practical reason to ban something that does not affect anyone else. 

I also noticed you ignored the gay thing. Hmm. 



> Well that would be great and all if you tried to ban westerns. Course you'd need a significant portion of the population to vote on it, if it came to that, and I doubt you'd find it. But if you did, and someone tried making a western, it'd go to the Supreme Court, because more often than not, that'd become a First Amendment issue once again with their right to create, possess, and distribute said western. Apply the same principle to your other examples, rinse, repeat.


As I said the legality of "expression" may or may not come into play. You are asking the wrong questions here. What you should be asking is "why the hell do you think you can ban westerns _simply because you don't like them_ in the first place?" Or "why should you be _allowed_ to do something like that?" Issues of speech and expression are related but ultimately beside the point. The heart of the issue is that you have no objective practical reason to impose such a ban in the first place. Get your head out of "the legalities" for a second and look at the concepts that are going on here. 

>People want to ban things because they don't like them. 

>If enough people don't like it, it gets banned. 

>Anything enough people don't like gets banned, for no other reason than they don't like it. 

That is what you are arguing and that is what is happening with the loli/cub issue. People don't like it, and for no other reason it is banned. You can bring it up to the supreme court and argue that they have a right to "express" their hots for kids or some shit like that, or you can look at the fundamental issue here and see it has no reason for being taken to the supreme court in the first place. 

A Tyranny of the Majority is a bad thing. Simple popular opinion is a bad thing. It is exactly that type of thinking that keeps gays from marrying, blacks from drinking in white water fountains, and any religion other than the One True Faith being allowed. You can say that "the constitution prevents that" to which I respond it did not always, and the constitution is not applied everywhere. If, however, you take the assumption that if something does not hurt someone, it should not be restricted or banned, _none of this would be an issue in the first place._



> And no, if I don't like the way you dress I don't have the right to throw you in prison. But I do reserve the right to shun you, not offer you a job, allow you to come into an establishment I own, so on and so forth. And so does everyone else if they knew you had, in your possession, art depicting children engaging in sex acts. Essentially a social prison.


Cool, and you're free to do so. Just don't lock me in prison because you don't like the color red. Social prison !!= actual prison, don't downplay the difference. 



> According to the Patriot Act and the precedent set by this case, you can. Therefore it would be arbitrary to say one is lawfully different from the other, don't you think? Of course this is only one case following this law and it would require several more to become accepted common law, but if a similar case were to be brought up I wouldn't doubt seeing this case being referenced.


No. Drawing things does not hurt kids. Forcing kids into sexual poses and taking pictures of said poses hurts kids. There is a real and fundamental difference between the two that can be used as a basis for separating them into different categories. There is nothing to discuss.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Feb 17, 2010)

CommodoreKitty said:


> You know damn well what I mean when I say "objective." I am not talking about the fundamental moral objective/subjectivity of philosophy, I am talking about the relatively restricted sense of law and the application thereof. Can you prove causation? Yes? Objective. No? Not objective. I am not going to do these pedantic hula-hoops and I don't know why you are trying to have me do so.
> 
> In fact I am using objective in such a restricted sense I might as well use a different word to avoid confusion. "Practical." Substitute the word "practical" every time you saw "objective." There is no practical reason to ban something that does not affect anyone else.
> 
> I also noticed you ignored the gay thing. Hmm.



We have plenty of laws that are based around people simply being offended or unhappy about certain actions.  Noise violations for instance exist solely because people get annoyed when excessively loud activities occur, usually at night.  Administrative laws passed down by the FCC exist simply because people don't like hearing people curse up a storm on AM/FM radio.  These laws aren't based on what you are arguing as "practicality".  But then again, just because you want to play loud music over the air shouting cusses on 101.5, and my neighbor decides to blast it at 1:30 AM, that doesn't mean I should just get over it.

I avoided the gay issue because you're attempting to bring in a high emotion issue into a debate over a less emotional issue, and attempt to tie the two together.  That to me is the sign of a desperate man.  No more desperate than the people who hold children in high regard anyway.



> As I said the legality of "expression" may or may not come into play. You are asking the wrong questions here. What you should be asking is "why the hell do you think you can ban westerns simply because you don't like them in the first place?" Or "why should you be allowed to do something like that?" Issues of speech and expression are related but ultimately beside the point. The heart of the issue is that you have no objective practical reason to impose such a ban in the first place. Get your head out of "the legalities" for a second and look at the concepts that are going on here.



I don't ask that question because ultimately, even if it were to pass, it'd be overturned by the Supreme Court if it even got that far.  That's essentially why we have a system of checks and balances, so laws created which we would see as unconstitutional can be reviewed by our court systems.  I bring up legalities because, at it's heart, whether or not you or I support or disapprove of that art, it all comes down to laws and their interpretations, as well as what we as a society want to accept today.



> That is what you are arguing and that is what is happening with the loli/cub issue. People don't like it, and for no other reason it is banned. You can bring it up to the supreme court and argue that they have a right to "express" their hots for kids or some shit like that, or you can look at the fundamental issue here and see it has no reason for being taken to the supreme court in the first place.
> 
> A Tyranny of the Majority is a bad thing. Simple popular opinion is a bad thing. It is exactly that type of thinking that keeps gays from marrying, blacks from drinking in white water fountains, and any religion other than the One True Faith being allowed. You can say that "the constitution prevents that" to which I respond it did not always, and the constitution is not applied everywhere. If, however, you take the assumption that if something does not hurt someone, it should not be restricted or banned, none of this would be an issue in the first place.



Ah, but the beauty of this country is that we change constantly.  Think of all the societal changes that happened in the 20th Century alone.  I'm not saying that popular opinion will always lead one way or another.  In fact I'd wager within my lifetime, gay marriage will be made legal in this country.  However, if a trend builds off of the case from OP, you're not going to be seeing legal loli/cub porn any time soon.  

Then again there's also a huge difference between loli/cub porn and gay marriage, leading into legal obligations; joint custody, medical insurance, etc.  There's a lot of REAL issues that go along with it.  PRACTICAL REASONS.  It's not simply just for the title of getting married.  Cub/loli art however, is pretty much as you see it.  There's really nothing about it that makes any average person say "Hey, this needs to be accepted.  We have a right to buy, read, and distribute this."  There's no PRACTICAL REASON for it to exist, other than to satisfy some dude's sick fetish, and whether they're real or not, suggesting that sexual arousal to minors as normal, healthy behavior, I think, will either get you laughed at, or physically assaulted.  People just can't handle it, right now.  Curse whatever deity you believe in for not being born in ancient Greece, but right now people will not accept it.



> No. Drawing things does not hurt kids. Forcing kids into sexual poses and taking pictures of said poses hurts kids. There is a real and fundamental difference between the two that can be used as a basis for separating them into different categories. There is nothing to discuss.



Again, this isn't about kids being hurt.  It's about people collectively saying "We don't want this here."  And with actual laws in place to prevent it from being consumed or possessed, in the eyes of the judicial system, you'll still be held responsible for possession of child pornography, should you be convicted.


----------



## Kommodore (Feb 17, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> I avoided the gay issue because you're attempting to bring in a high emotion issue into a debate over a less emotional issue, and attempt to tie the two together.  That to me is the sign of a desperate man.  No more desperate than the people who hold children in high regard anyway.



Oh that's right I forgot that no matter how relevant to a discussion it is, it automatically becomes a sign of desperation to bring up the gays. Or it could be that they two issues are in fact related and I showed that relationship in the example. Just to make myself a little clearer, being gay does not hurt people, but it is essentially banned for no other reason than because people don't like it. Does this sound right to you? The fact that it is a "high emotion" topic simply ensures to me that a) you have an opinion on the issue and b) any connection successfully drawn is all that much stronger. Sensitive issues have a place in discussion when relevant, and banning gay marriage simply because it weirds people out most definitely is relevant. 

On the issue of stupid laws, I admitted they existed. I implied that they are retarded and I want to see them burn with every other stupid law out there. But, we are not discussing the asinine and unwarranted FCC regulation of what words you are allowed to say on the radio, we are discussing why people who draw naked children should go to prison. Unless, of course, you think that law is right simply because it exists and regardless of what it says, in which case there is nothing to discuss. 


> I don't ask that question because ultimately, even if it were to pass, it'd be overturned by the Supreme Court if it even got that far. That's essentially why we have a system of checks and balances, so laws created which we would see as unconstitutional can be reviewed by our court systems. I bring up legalities because, at it's heart, whether or not you or I support or disapprove of that art, it all comes down to laws and their interpretations, as well as what we as a society want to accept today.


I am not asking you what the law says, I know what the laws says. I am asking you if you think it is right to put someone in prison because they ware the color red, to keep people from marrying because they like the same sex, to ban the possession of Elvis products, simply on the basis of taste. I don't care if FCC bans the word fuck in practice or if you can't go to school with a picture of a gun on your shirt. What I care about are the morals and ethics of the issues, two things from which all laws ultimately derive themselves from. 

Now I ask you again why you think it is right to impose your view of obscenity on everyone else. If you have 100 people in a room, and 51 of them say you should go to prison for wearing red, your interpretation of what is right is that the other 49 should be thrown in jail because "the majority" have issues with a color. 

None of this "the constitution of the group would forbid such a thing" nonsense. Do you think that the majority has the right to impose any opinion it desires on the minority, simply because it is the majority?

Think about that any why America is a republic and not a democracy.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Feb 17, 2010)

CommodoreKitty said:


> Oh that's right I forgot that no matter how relevant to a discussion it is, it automatically becomes a sign of desperation to bring up the gays. Or it could be that they two issues are in fact related and I showed that relationship in the example. Just to make myself a little clearer, being gay does not hurt people, but it is essentially banned for no other reason than because people don't like it. Does this sound right to you? The fact that it is a "high emotion" topic simply ensures to me that a) you have an opinion on the issue and b) any connection successfully drawn is all that much stronger. Sensitive issues have a place in discussion when relevant, and banning gay marriage simply because it weirds people out most definitely is relevant.



It isn't relevant because gay marriage is a loaded issue, as I discussed here:



> Then again there's also a huge difference between loli/cub porn and gay marriage, leading into legal obligations; joint custody, medical insurance, etc. There's a lot of REAL issues that go along with it. PRACTICAL REASONS. It's not simply just for the title of getting married. Cub/loli art however, is pretty much as you see it. There's really nothing about it that makes any average person say "Hey, this needs to be accepted. We have a right to buy, read, and distribute this." There's no PRACTICAL REASON for it to exist, other than to satisfy some dude's sick fetish, and whether they're real or not, suggesting that sexual arousal to minors as normal, healthy behavior, I think, will either get you laughed at, or physically assaulted. People just can't handle it, right now. Curse whatever deity you believe in for not being born in ancient Greece, but right now people will not accept it.



tl:dr, there's more to it than "We want to be called a married couple."  Cub/loli is a flat issue "I want to own to lolicon JUST BECAUSE."  It's no more ridiculous a reason than "I want to ban lolicon JUST BECAUSE."



> On the issue of stupid laws, I admitted they existed. I implied that they are retarded and I want to see them burn with every other stupid law out there. But, we are not discussing the asinine and unwarranted FCC regulation of what words you are allowed to say on the radio, we are discussing why people who draw naked children should go to prison. Unless, of course, you think that law is right simply because it exists and regardless of what it says, in which case there is nothing to discuss.



I never claimed these laws were stupid.  That's all you.  I like the idea of not being woken up at 1:30 AM on a Monday by some asshole making noise, and if I am, I can call the cops.

Oh and you can make comparisons to "related issues" but I can't?  Please, if you're going to tell me that you can bring in gay marriage to the debate, don't tell me I can't highlight FCC regulations to help illustrate my point.

Of course I think the law is right.  I think I've made that point clear in previous posts.  But just because the law said so?  Nope.  I personally don't believe it has value.  I think it's disgusting and I don't want to browse a bookstore and be able to see "Schoolgirls Raped by Tentacle Monster Vol. 9" in the Graphic Novel section, or even the "Adult Reading" section.  I think the majority of the American public would agree with me on that one.



> I am not asking you what the law says, I know what the laws says. I am asking you if you think it is right to put someone in prison because they ware the color red, to keep people from marrying because they like the same sex, to ban the possession of Elvis products, simply on the basis of taste. I don't care if FCC bans the word fuck in practice or if you can't go to school with a picture of a gun on your shirt. What I care about are the morals and ethics of the issues, two things from which all laws ultimately derive themselves from.



Wait, I thought this was a debate on being able to imprison people for possession of child porn.  C'mon now, you're really going to start this game, trying to tell me that cub art is just like Elvis products?  I guess the concept of context is totally lost on you.  Or are you going to tell me that Elvis' music was so hated at one time that it can come close to comparing to the moral implications society sees in allowing drawn child porn?



> Now I ask you again why you think it is right to impose your view of obscenity on everyone else. If you have 100 people in a room, and 51 of them say you should go to prison for wearing red, your interpretation of what is right is that the other 49 should be thrown in jail because "the majority" have issues with a color.



This is a poor example.  You're essentially equating child porn to what flavor of ice cream someone likes.  I can never imagine a society where wearing red would be so deplorable that it would require imprisonment.  I'm sure even you at the very least can see how someone obsessing over loli/cub art, even to the point where the feel the need to have it shipped to them overseas so they can physically have it in their hands is even the slightest bit deplorable.  

In any case, I'd like to know what message you think you're sending out by allowing the open sale child porn in simulated format, (ie drawn, digitally rendered, etc.).  Explain to how it isn't hypocritical to allow simulated child porn but not allow someone to possess child porn?  _A child is actually hurt to produce it_.  Well, the person possessing it didn't, so what's the problem?  If it's already out, why stop it's circulation, right?  Hell, maybe get some guy like Rauken aboard who'll argue that the child isn't _always_ getting hurt and they found ways to sexually engage the child without physically hurting them.  LOOK!  There's a smile!  She's enjoying it and WANTS it!  If I'm not hurting the child, what's the problem?  :awesomeface:

Before you rage and tell me "THAT'S NOT WHAT I MEAN GRRRRRRR."  That's where the "I'm not hurting anyone" defense leads people to imagine in this case.  You're challenging a VERY strong beliefs in what's considered child abuse and how we view children.  Ethically, we don't like to view children as objects for our amusement.  Morally, we'd never want to see them used as such.  Cub/loli porn does both those things.



> None of this "the constitution of the group would forbid such a thing" nonsense. Do you think that the majority has the right to impose any opinion it desires on the minority, simply because it is the majority?



Yes, when it's a ridiculous minority attempting to legalize something even more ridiculous then them that holds absolutely no real value to anyone.  Gay marriage holds value to a VERY large amount of people, a shit load more than people who would actually show their faces at a rally for cub/loli porn.  If I was gay, I'd be extremely offended that you'd compare people fighting for their right to possess underage cartoon porn to gay marriage as an institution.  It belittles gay civil rights.


----------



## Foxstar (Feb 17, 2010)

Ricky said:


> What about rape porn?  I guess you'd have to make that illegal too by your standard.



That's one of the charges they got Max Hardcore on. So it depends on the DA. Of course in his case, the DOJ charged him.


----------



## Foxstar (Feb 17, 2010)

MeadowTheDragon said:


> lets ban all comics where someone gets killed too



Comics Code effectively did that and it wasn't even government funded, it was the publishers themselves.


----------



## MeadowTheDragon (Feb 17, 2010)

Foxstar said:


> Comics Code effectively did that and it wasn't even government funded, it was the publishers themselves.



ok whats next...
let ban all comics where someone is shoplifting


----------



## Ricky (Feb 17, 2010)

Foxstar said:


> That's one of the charges they got Max Hardcore on. So it depends on the DA. Of course in his case, the DOJ charged him.



I didn't know about that.

That's just sad, I mean really...

Term_the_Schmuck - I am not clear if you think rape drawings should be illegal, too.  What about maiming and mutilation?  Murder?

Art should never be illegal.  Writing a story should never be illegal.  It seems in your world however you'd want to make it illegal unless it fits into your definition of what's moral (even though it is fake).

I wouldn't wanna be in your world because all the books would be boring, about rainbows and lolipops or something,

But we gotta "send a message" to all the pedophiles, right?  (we just shot ourselves in the foot if we wanted to use satire though, since it is illegal now)

Pedophiles are already thrown in jail and then raped the moment they get caught diddling a kid.  I don't really know a better message we could send :roll:


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Feb 17, 2010)

Ricky said:


> Term_the_Schmuck - I am not clear if you think rape drawings should be illegal, too.  What about maiming and mutilation?  Murder?
> 
> Art should never be illegal.  Writing a story should never be illegal.  It seems in your world however you'd want to make it illegal unless it fits into your definition of what's moral (even though it is fake).
> 
> ...



Depends on what the purpose is of said rape porn.  I personally don't like it.  Should it be illegal?  I'd say no, because I've been exposed to it, seen it staged by humans.  It doesn't bother me, and as I've said, scenes of rape have also been used as plot devices in several movies.  Shocking, but it usually has either a point to prove or advances the plot.

Maiming and mutilation?  Murder?  Again, what purpose is it being drawn for?  Are you talking about guro?  Are you talking about torture as well, like this guy?  (hoax, but assuming it was real).  What about the girl who artificially inseminated herself and induced miscarriages, and called it art?

There's a lot of gray area that I acknowledge in the art world and accept.  I'm not about to start saying that art is black and white in terms of it's acceptability.  But at the same time the people I've mentioned claimed to be making political points with their art.  Does that then fall under the First Amendment?  What about child porn in the form of drawings?  Does it hold value as it is?  What's it's purpose?  You seem to be saying that absolutely everything should be acceptable as long as we throw an art tag on top of it.  What if I claimed I was being artistic if I came to your house, drew something on your lawn with a flammable substance, and lit it on fire?  I claim it's art, and you should be glad that I was expressing myself through it.  It's a controlled burn so no one was getting hurt, don't you dare call it arson.

Satire?  Hey, South Park was able to satirize NAMBLA without actually showing a kid having sex with an older man.  They suggested on a recent episode that men were masturbating to children in beauty pageants.  They may suggest certain things, but they'd never actually show a child engaged in sexual activity.  So I'm having a hard time seeing your point at how satire would be harmed by this, since comedians are clever enough to poke fun at something without blatantly saying "THIS IS CHILD PORN!  WHAT'S THE DEAL WITH THIS!?"

Your last sentence is confusing.  So they're in prison, the touched a kid in prison and get raped?  Yes, in prisons sexual abusers are mistreated by inmates, but they're also usually kept away from the normal prison population.  And if the threat of going to prison actually prevented crimes in this country, our prisons wouldn't be as overloaded as they are.  :V


----------



## Ricky (Feb 17, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> What about the girl who artificially inseminated herself and induced miscarriages, and called it art?.....
> 
> .....What if I claimed I was being artistic if I came to your house, drew something on your lawn with a flammable substance, and lit it on fire?  I claim it's art, and you should be glad that I was expressing myself through it.  It's a controlled burn so no one was getting hurt, don't you dare call it arson....



Alright, *those* are examples of _what are_ _not_ gray areas.

If you are destroying property or killing babies that is bad.

If you are drawing a picture or writing a story, that is not bad.

Is the distinction clear, here?



> Satire?  Hey, South Park was able to satirize NAMBLA without actually showing a kid having sex with an older man.  They suggested on a recent episode that men were masturbating to children in beauty pageants.  They may suggest certain things, but they'd never actually show a child engaged in sexual activity.  So I'm having a hard time seeing your point at how satire would be harmed by this, since comedians are clever enough to poke fun at something without blatantly saying "THIS IS CHILD PORN!  WHAT'S THE DEAL WITH THIS!?"


Well good for them.  Read _American Psycho_ or watch the movie _Sleepers_.  I'm sure there are a lot of other examples but according to your point of view these should be made illegal and burned.



> Your last sentence is confusing.  So they're in prison, the touched a kid in prison and get raped?  Yes, in prisons sexual abusers are mistreated by inmates, but they're also usually kept away from the normal prison population.  And if the threat of going to prison actually prevented crimes in this country, our prisons wouldn't be as overloaded as they are.  :V


You are never going to get rid of 100% of crime.

Sending even more people to prison for thought crimes is not helping anything.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Feb 17, 2010)

Ricky said:


> Alright, *those* are examples of _what are_ _not_ gray areas.
> 
> If you are destroying property or killing babies that is bad.
> 
> ...



In certain art circles, there's no distinction between the two.  They're both considered art.  Are you trying to say they're not?  THOUGHT POLICE!

Yale University says that the girl who induced the miscarriage didn't harm anyone involved, so therefore, according to the logic of what people on here are saying, it's a-okay.  And since her "art" had a political message, criticizing society and sparking debate, it was protected under the First Amendment.  Who are you to say she's wrong?

And hey, I may have destroyed your property, but I'll pay for the replacement.  No harm, no foul.  And its art, so you should appreciate it while your lawn goes up in smoke.  Just because you find it objectionable doesn't mean it's not art.  :V



> Well good for them. Read American Psycho or watch the movie Sleepers. I'm sure there are a lot of other examples but according to your point of view these should be made illegal and burned.



Oh hey, movies/books with the expressed purpose of satire!  You're proving my point, you know.  Those two IPs, in their context, express different commentaries on society.  American Psycho, most easily seen, acts as a satire of the 80s while more careful reading of the novel reveals commentary about consumerism and nihilism.  The novel isn't so much about the gore as it is these concepts.  The gore illustrates the points.  Looking at just the gore and basing your opinions off just that means you're doing it wrong.

Sleepers is a great example and I'm glad you brought it up.  Kevin Bacon's character actually rapes the kids in that movie.  But what purpose does it serve?  It advances the plot, further shows how horrible of a character Bacon is, and was also a commentary on New York's Youth Correctional Facilities.  Again, a case where the rape isn't the primary focus, it serves to advance the plot in a logical way while also making a political point.  If the movie was nothing but straight raping of kids for an hour and a half then I'd find it objectionable, but it also wouldn't be the same movie, or by extension book, would it?

Now explain to me, in it's context, what is the purpose and focus of this? (NSFW)  Why is this so important that it deserves to be protected as free speech or why I should accept it as totally okay?  Maybe I'm ignorant, but I'm not seeing what value, even as porn, this picture has.  I have a hard time believing, if you were brought to court for possession of pictures similar to it, that the jury wouldn't see you as some sort of degenerate and find you guilty, or at the very least wouldn't trust you to be around kids.

I'd also like to point out that being brought to court is all dependent on someone actually enforcing the law.  It's EXTREMELY difficult to enforce laws of obscenity on the internet as can be seen just going on to 4chan.  If you keep your shit on your computer and don't draw attention to yourself, the cops have no reason to stop you from doing what you're doing, and won't actively pursue you.  The guy in OP was stupid enough to try and get porn FedEx'd to him of kids being fucked.  Guess what, suspicious packages are going to be searched by customs agents, especially ambiguous porn ones.


----------



## Ricky (Feb 17, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> In certain art circles, there's no distinction between the two.  They're both considered art.  Are you trying to say they're not?  THOUGHT POLICE!
> 
> Yale University says that the girl who induced the miscarriage didn't harm anyone involved, so therefore, according to the logic of what people on here are saying, it's a-okay.  And since her "art" had a political message, criticizing society and sparking debate, it was protected under the First Amendment.  Who are you to say she's wrong?
> 
> And hey, I may have destroyed your property, but I'll pay for the replacement.  No harm, no foul.  And its art, so you should appreciate it while your lawn goes up in smoke.  Just because you find it objectionable doesn't mean it's not art.  :V



OK, now this is just getting silly.

I don't feel I need to retort; I think I've made my point.



> Oh hey, movies/books with the expressed purpose of satire!  You're proving my point, you know.  Those two IPs, in their context, express different commentaries on society.  American Psycho, most easily seen, acts as a satire of the 80s while more careful reading of the novel reveals commentary about consumerism and nihilism.  The novel isn't so much about the gore as it is these concepts.  The gore illustrates the points.  Looking at just the gore and basing your opinions off just that means you're doing it wrong.


You've still not told me how we judge this art.  Again, I'll ask: does *any* of the stuff that is on FA have "artistic merit" in your opinion?  I can't look at that example because I'm in work but I'm sure you could find examples to either extreme.  I still don't think there is any rational way to determine if something has artistic merit or not.

I could just imagine that.

"Wow, that's a great painting.  Despite the fact that there's incest rape it is a decent work of art so we will let this one slide."

"_Your_ art is shit!  You are going to prison!"

It doesn't work.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Feb 17, 2010)

Ricky said:


> OK, now this is just getting silly.
> 
> I don't feel I need to retort; I think I've made my point.



How is it silly?  What makes your opinion on what art is acceptable more right than say the example I gave with Yale University?  I'm guessing you claim it's not art, but I'm not getting any real reasoning here since the point of "someone's getting hurt" isn't valid in this case.  So what would make your beliefs any different than my beliefs that cub/loli porn is objectionable or wrong?



> You've still not told me how we judge this art. Again, I'll ask: does *any* of the stuff that is on FA have "artistic merit" in your opinion? I can't look at that example because I'm in work but I'm sure you could find examples to either extreme. I still don't think there is any rational way to determine if something has artistic merit or not.



Does any of the work on FA have artistic merit?  Yes, I've seen plenty of pieces that I think hold artistic merit.  In fact, I'd say there are a bunch of pieces on the main site which I'd consider having artistic merit, or at the very least I personally wouldn't have a problem with.

Even without artistic merit, one could still make an argument for healthy sexual expression on the site for some of those pics.  But a lot of issues with content and what that says about the person who draws, commissions, or favors extreme cub art like the pic I posted in my previous post.  Now, people seem to be misinterpreting what I'm talking about here.  I'm saying that artistic merit can be used to at the very least defend some of these pics, while others you could argue for what merits/expression/sexual health other pics provide.  However, I haven't heard any real defense for these pics other than "I'm not hurting anybody."  According to the case, that probably isn't an excuse.  The content isn't healthy or acceptable sexual expression, no more than if it were real kids we're talking about here.


----------



## Ricky (Feb 18, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> How is it silly?  What makes your opinion on what art is acceptable more right than say the example I gave with Yale University?  I'm guessing you claim it's not art, but I'm not getting any real reasoning here since the point of "someone's getting hurt" isn't valid in this case.  So what would make your beliefs any different than my beliefs that cub/loli porn is objectionable or wrong?



You were trying to make an argument that *everything is art* so _*absolutely everything*_ in the world should be allowed with it.  I think that's silly and it's a slippery slope argument anyway.

If you look in the other thread you'll see I've already commented on how the laws are vague and I don't think a word like "art" should ever be a part of them.  That's a completely separate debate, however -- ITT I am saying I don't think it should be illegal to make a painting or write a story regardless of the content.



> Does any of the work on FA have artistic merit?  Yes, I've seen plenty of pieces that I think hold artistic merit.  In fact, I'd say there are a bunch of pieces on the main site which I'd consider having artistic merit, or at the very least I personally wouldn't have a problem with.
> 
> Even without artistic merit, one could still make an argument for healthy sexual expression on the site for some of those pics.  But a lot of issues with content and what that says about the person who draws, commissions, or favors extreme cub art like the pic I posted in my previous post.  Now, people seem to be misinterpreting what I'm talking about here.  I'm saying that artistic merit can be used to at the very least defend some of these pics, while others you could argue for what merits/expression/sexual health other pics provide.


So by your standards you would decide painting by painting whether or not it has merit.  I'm not sure if you realize how ridiculous that is, but again that's just a result of vague legislation.  I'm not focusing on legislation here; I'm focusing on right vs. wrong.



> However, I haven't heard any real defense for these pics other than "I'm not hurting anybody." According to the case, that probably isn't an excuse. The content isn't healthy or acceptable sexual expression, no more than if it were real kids we're talking about here.


As far as I'm concerned, the onus is on you.

There's such a thing as "innocent until proven guilty."


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Feb 18, 2010)

Ricky said:


> You were trying to make an argument that *everything is art* so _*absolutely everything*_ in the world should be allowed with it.  I think that's silly and it's a slippery slope argument anyway.



Not exactly.  I'm bringing up, as you've probably already seen, the silliness of slapping an art tag on something and that instantly makes it okay, such as what I'm seeing from the majority of people in this thread.  These other examples I posted are other extreme cases where I'm applying this line of thinking and showing how ridiculous it is to do so.



> If you look in the other thread you'll see I've already commented on how the laws are vague and I don't think a word like "art" should ever be a part of them. That's a completely separate debate, however -- ITT I am saying I don't think it should be illegal to make a painting or write a story regardless of the content.



Content isn't what I'm arguing, it's context.  And motivation can be a large factor in deciding legal cases as well.  You brought up Sleepers, for example, which includes a scene where minors are raped by adults.  The content itself may be objectionable, but the context for why it's in there makes sense and is acceptable.  It's making or advancing a much larger point.  At the same time it's also not overstepping its boundaries of being obscene for obscenity's sake.



> So by your standards you would decide painting by painting whether or not it has merit. I'm not sure if you realize how ridiculous that is, but again that's just a result of vague legislation. I'm not focusing on legislation here; I'm focusing on right vs. wrong.



If it's brought to someone in authority's attention, then yes, it would be taken painting-by-painting, just as no court of law has the right to say "Everyone accused of murder is guilty."  Mods on this very site don't just lock threads just because someone reports it, at least I'd like to believe.  Consideration is taken in their decisions.  Right vs wrong is just as subjective as any law.  You and I can go on for days about what we consider right or wrong, but if we're going to look at paintings at a case by case basis, the opinion of the authority is ultimately the one that matters, whether we think it's the right judgment or not.



> As far as I'm concerned, the onus is on you.
> 
> There's such a thing as "innocent until proven guilty."



At the same time, if the prosecution can prove that the pictures were in the man's possession and that just having them is against the law, then "why" he has them becomes an issue for the defense.  A reporter could be charged with possession of child porn and all evidence points to he fact that he did.  But he could be let off it he can convince the jury that the reason why he broke the law was because he was serving a greater good by exposing a child porn ring for example.  Motivation and alibi can defend you when you break certain laws.  It just depends on whether you convince the jury.


----------



## Ricky (Feb 18, 2010)

I still don't understand how a picture that is drawn on a piece of paper can ever inherently be considered "wrong."

Real CP needs to be illegal to protect the children who would otherwise be involved in it, but drawings and stories and stuff do not involve actual children because they are not real.


----------



## Duality Jack (Feb 18, 2010)

Sure is wallpost in here.


----------



## Ricky (Feb 18, 2010)

The Drunken Ace said:


> Sure is wallpost in here.



*shrugs*

I'm getting paid right now B)


----------



## Tycho (Feb 18, 2010)

The Drunken Ace said:


> Sure is wallpost in here.



Sure is person who needs to suck it up and read if they want to be able to follow the argument effectively in here.


----------



## Bambi (Feb 18, 2010)

I was going to interject on some of the more serious points in this thread, but I can't be obligated to do so at this point.

However, just to be on topic:

The First Amendment vs. Art vs. Obscene and Controversial Art appears to have become a very rough debate between some of the users here. I'd like to argue personally that the nature of what *is* and *isn't* art should be dealt with very carefully. For example, remember this? That's Andres Serranos, _"Piss Christ"_, a piece that was considered so controversial back when it was first released in 1987 that US Senators Al D'Amato and Jesse Helms wanted it black listed and removed from the National Endowment of the Arts because they argued it violated a supposed separation of church and state.

However, given the context of this threads original point, it is my opinion that introducing a new debate on behalf of my own interests and concerns would be a move that would risk distracting the direction of this discussion to something else of less general interest.

Personal Aside: Allow me to state that it is unfortunate that this conversation, though it has gone through its former cycles, has not been properly analyzed alongside developing community concerns (something I believe we have an opportunity to do here.) IMHO: A case like this is perhaps a good enough indicator to warrant starting that conversation again sooner rather than later.

On the issue of controversial pieces of illustrative fiction, I don't like a few of them and have a hard time relating to the over presence of gratuitous fetishism. I have a dislike of certain works, and see some of the more controversial pieces as cheap tries to exploit a soft medium of expression to promote, encourage, or depict inappropriate and unlawful conduct. While these would be my personal feelings concerning the dangerous intertwining of sex, a very personal act that requires the trust of the participating individuals with destructive and illegal paraphilias, disguised under the veil of artistic expression, _they're still my personal feelings and ultimately opinions on the matter, however strong they might be._


----------



## Aleu (Feb 22, 2010)

Ricky said:


> I still don't understand how a picture that is drawn on a piece of paper can ever inherently be considered "wrong."
> 
> Real CP needs to be illegal to protect the children who would otherwise be involved in it, but drawings and stories and stuff do not involve actual children because they are not real.



completely this. I don't support child molesters by any means but I'd rather a pedophile have his porn than have an actual child.


----------



## 8-bit (Feb 22, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> I don't support child molesters by any means but I'd rather a pedophile have his porn than have an actual child.


 
this


----------



## south syde dobe (Feb 23, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> this? (NSFW)


 O_O

omg my eyes x.x


----------

