# Should art be made illegal?



## Ricky (Apr 9, 2010)

This came up in another thread as a lot of you are probably aware.

It is a simple question: _should fictional art be made illegal?_

I believe laws should be created to uphold a moral code and I think something should be a crime if some immoral act took place.  But is drawing a picture or writing a story actually immoral?  We have movies for example that show murder and rape but this all legit.  Laws are starting to get created however that ban us from creating purely fictional works and I think this sets a very dangerous precedent.  Such material involved sex but sex is also a real-life situation and I don't believe it should be precluded from art as much as anything else, regardless of however extreme or disturbing the art is.

For example, is this movie art or pornography? (Warning: NSFW)

*It is obvious satire and as such, it is a work of art.*

Should this video be banned?

Should any type of art be banned, assuming it a purely fictional work?


----------



## south syde dobe (Apr 9, 2010)

I don't think any art should be made completely illegal and I understand where your coming from with the movies and stuff but I've yet to see a main movie that showed 5 years getting raped either :\

This thing with certain art being illegal is more about the child/cub deal than anything else huh x3


----------



## EdieFantabulous (Apr 9, 2010)

People are people, I do not think if two people genuinely love each other, and one is underage; they have sex, I fail to see that as a crime.
Laws are stupid, and make crime, keep making laws, and the crime rate is going to go way up each time.


----------



## Vaelarsa (Apr 9, 2010)

Shit for certain sick fucks to get off to, which in turn is telling them it's "okay" to think humping little 10-year-old Billy up the ass is hawt as long as it's purely fictional?
Yes. I think that should be very illegal.
Call me the thought police. I don't care. I think these people need mandatory psychological help.

But as far as references to the act in question (ie: some child crying and confiding to a peer that their stepfather is sexually abusing them) without being graphic and made to jack off to, I think should be allowed.


----------



## south syde dobe (Apr 9, 2010)

Vaelarsa said:


> Shit for certain sick fucks to get off to, which in turn is telling them it's "okay" to think humping little 10-year-old Billy up the ass is hawt as long as it's purely fictional?
> Yes. I think that should be very illegal.
> Call me the thought police. I don't care. I think these people need mandatory psychological help.
> 
> But as far as references to the act in question (ie: some child crying and confiding to a peer that their stepfather is sexually abusing them) without being graphic and made to jack off to, I think should be allowed.


 
I kinda agree with Vael here ^^


----------



## Smelge (Apr 9, 2010)

EdieFantabulous said:


> People are people, I do not think if two people genuinely love each other, and one is underage; they have sex, I fail to see that as a crime.




But then other things come into play. If one is an older man, the other is a 12 year old  girl. Your average teen is pretty fucked up already, and it doesn't exactly take a persuasive person to win them over. All of a sudden, she thinks it's OMGTROOLOVE and they run away together.

But as long as she still thinks it's love, it's fine. You could even start to go into forms of Stockholm Syndrome from there.


But yes, maybe the art isn't something that should be made illegal, but ask yourself this: What normal, right thinking person goes "I shall, over the course of 5 years draw 300 pictures of immature anthropomorphic animals getting raped.".

Sure, some people like it. Maybe someone requests you draw something cub. But to make your entire gallery cub stuff just shows a form of wish fulfillment. Worse when the one doing the majority of the fucking is the artists avatar.

The way I see it, yeah, it's not a bad thing to draw pictures of a child, anthro or not. Where it hits muddy waters is when it's in a sexualised fashion. And that seems to happen a lot. 

The logical retort from a cub supporter is "Well if it's illegal in your country, just don't look at it." Which would work, if they didn't keep popping up on the mainpage. 

"Turn on the mature filter then". Except half the time, people don't bother maturing adult art. Even then, that means people who want to actually look at stuff don't see the majority of the site because they have to hide from stuff that is extremely morally dubious and banned in their country.

"As long as you don't click on the submission, you're fine". Yes. Wonderful. That works great when artists put a thumbnail that says "CUB". Not so well when it's a tiny thumbnail that looks acceptable, but is actually cub. With the bloody thumbs, half the time you can make out the female form in a nice pose, but the hard throbbing penis attached to it's groin is completely invisible until you click that link. The thumbs are misleading. I've managed to end up looking at that stuff dozens of times just because it looked like a decent picture, not child porn.

Which leads me on to my next point. Artists WANT people to view their stuff. They want favourites and comments and fame and fortune, so they're damn well going to trick people into viewing. This looks attractive, the tooltip shows the submission info says nothing about cub, click, oh, it's cub twin incest with spiked dildos. Nice. I am now a felon.


----------



## Vaelarsa (Apr 9, 2010)

Voidrunners said:


> But then other things come into play. If one is an older man, the other is a 12 year old  girl. Your average teen is pretty fucked up already, and it doesn't exactly take a persuasive person to win them over. All of a sudden, she thinks it's OMGTROOLOVE and they run away together.


A friend of mine had this happen to her.
Does she regret it now, even though they were in "TRU WUBZ"?
Fuck. Yes.
She wants him to rot for the sick shit he did. A young teen's mind isn't the most rational of places. And anyone over the age of 17 will tell you that.



> just don't look at it." Which would work, if they didn't keep popping up on the mainpage.
> 
> "Turn on the mature filter then". Except half the time, people don't bother maturing adult art.


This is a big issue, too.
"Don't like it, don't look" isn't really applicable when attentionwhoring sick fucks desperately want pageviews, or are just too ignorant of the system to properly mark their shit.


----------



## BasementRaptor42 (Apr 9, 2010)

One thing which might help is to make thumbnail censoring mandatory.


----------



## Smelge (Apr 9, 2010)

BasementRaptor42 said:


> One thing which might help is to make thumbnail censoring mandatory.



Yes. So instead of having a misleading thumbnail, you have no idea at all what you're clicking.

And while I'm ranting:

You watch an artist. He does some nice work, talked to him a few times, decent enough bloke. Submissions are up and down. Mostly poor efforts, but occasionally does something absolutely fantastic. Then suddenly, he decides to start doing a cub porn piece here and there.

"Don't like it, don't look at it".

So what you are saying, is that for the sake of say two pieces in a gallery of 500, I should unwatch him. For the sake of those two pieces of dubious material, I should ignore his work and so on because just watching him could count as incriminating evidence? You have to ask yourself if it's right for a site to cheerfully allow the hosting of stuff that can result in a jailterm for it's users.

"Oh yes, but 4chan has Child Porn and they don't get arrested". Because whenever it pops up, the admin do their best to kill it again. Most of the CP seems to come from trolls trying to deliberately make the site illegal for various reasons. 4chan don't enthusiastically permit the images to stay on their servers. And Moot doesn't then go and get commissions done from the people who posted it.

The end result is that depictions and images of people fictional or real engaging in sexual relations or of a sexual nature are now illegal in one of the major countries for the fandom. It doesn't matter how much you stick your fingers in your ears and go "LALALALALALA", it's not going to change a thing. Saying "It's a US site, fuck everyone not in the US" is a typical and self-centered viewpoint. This shit isn't going away.

Final thought:

It might be a picture of a undeveloped animal hybrid thing having sex. But it's still a child, you sick fuck.


----------



## EdieFantabulous (Apr 9, 2010)

Voidrunners said:


> But then other things come into play. If one is an older man, the other is a 12 year old  girl. Your average teen is pretty fucked up already, and it doesn't exactly take a persuasive person to win them over. All of a sudden, she thinks it's OMGTROOLOVE and they run away together.
> 
> But as long as she still thinks it's love, it's fine. You could even start to go into forms of Stockholm Syndrome from there.


Yeah, I am not all that easily wooed, so I should not say anything.
I am also apparently a slut/whore/hooker, so I guess having sex with older men is not a big deal to me.


----------



## Smelge (Apr 9, 2010)

EdieFantabulous said:


> Yeah, I am not all that easily wooed, so I should not say anything.
> I am also apparently a slut/whore/hooker, so I guess having sex with older men is not a big deal to me.



Nice job at twisting words there. Do you work for any newspapers?

No, having a relationship with an older person isn't entirely wrong. It is if the younger is under the age of consent and the older is waaaay over it. The age of consent is there to protect people who at that point in their lives are too fucking retarded to make sensible life decisions.

Both people over consent, fine.
One over and one under, not so bad as long as it's only a gap of a few years.
One 12, one 35. Problem.

The correct forumla for this is:

(Age/2)+7

So, if you are 20 years old, it's not creepy if the other half is over 17.


----------



## Azure (Apr 9, 2010)

There is just as much bad logic in this thread as the previous one.


----------



## EdieFantabulous (Apr 9, 2010)

Voidrunners said:


> Nice job at twisting words there. Do you work for any newspapers?
> 
> No, having a relationship with an older person isn't entirely wrong. It is if the younger is under the age of consent and the older is waaaay over it. The age of consent is there to protect people who at that point in their lives are too fucking retarded to make sensible life decisions.
> 
> ...


No, I am not observant enough for that, and my memory is ca-put.
I had sex with somebody over twice my age. Is that a bad thing O_O


----------



## Smelge (Apr 9, 2010)

AzurePhoenix said:


> There is just as much bad logic in this thread as the previous one.



There's bad logic and you're here. I sense correlation.


----------



## Bambi (Apr 9, 2010)

*@Thread*:

Should art be illegal? No.
*
@Art, Controversial Expression*: Should certain illustrated depictions be illegal on the grounds they encourage anti-social behavior? No, as banning controversial, illustrated depictions of non-existent characters and situations will have a more profound impact on expression then we realize, and could risk promoting legislation that curbed all forms of expression.

*@Cub, Art, and the Logic of Banning*: However, if we're going to start making certain things _illegal_, then we need to start making everything that has been accused of encouraging and glorifying "crimes" illegal as well. *Yes, that's right, let's start banning "vore".* _Let's start banning "guro", aswell. Let's start banning images which depict incest, rape, and murder; because aren't those all crimes as well?_ Why stop at art which supposedly depicts paedophilia? Why not just hit the switch and get rid of works of art that depict vehicular manslaughter? Why not get rid of graphic novels and comics which depict theft, or castration?

Why not? On exactly the same grounds you'd get rid of cub, you could rid of so much else; and it's my opinion that people are intentionally picking and choosing the themes they get rid of, and haphazardly, don't actually care about other forms of "expression" which could be argued as just as dangerous. Indeed. 

Strange however that when these circles begin to form, we don't hear about the inherent hypocrisy of cafeteria artists and legislatures that like to pick and choose what constitutes a threat to our overall welfare in the world of depicted or illustrated fiction_. Strange that we'd see a ban on cub art because it's argumentatively borderline paedophilia, but that we wouldn't hear a conversation on how to implement a ban against westernized guro, an art form which appears to glorify rape, incest, torture, and murder._

Is this patriarchal society of super-masculinism that blind to see the inherent double-think here when there's evidence that both cub art and material like vore promote anti-social behavior, and make heroic the same type of sociopath? What of the instances such extreme depictions have had no blamable affect? Are we now going to ignore what's dually plausible? I'd argue for the effect of keeping art a neutral spectrum; I'd argue against making expression illegal, but I'd also argue in favor of removing all of our most destructive traits should one come under fire.

*@Slippery Slopes*: Although the darker question is: What if we grow complacent in letting international law decide how art can be expressed? What if we start allowing them to target political "art", and target the communicated expression of dissent inherent in any graphic or depicted works of fiction? What if they come right after communicated expression? What happens then?

What about those beheading videos online which capture prisoners of war being executed in Chechnya? What happens to these recorded videos and audio files which purportedly capture crimes against humanity when the government of some Shar'iat controlled muslim nation comes after them with an international "cease-and-desist" order on the basis that such depictions (which qualify as video documented evidence of a crime) harm the image of Islam? 
_
What happens when international law broadens to include a regulation on multiple forms of expression, so much so that when such depictions are brought before an international tribunal or hearing on war crimes, they're possession is considered criminal and obscene; what happens when the defense of using such materials in the prosecution of international criminals is rendered criminal because expression no longer encompasses other avenues, such as artistic expression? _ 

Well, if we allow such an order on the basis our national laws recognize such motions, we will forcefully be kept in the dark as to the actions of any party that might be involved in committing atrocities. One side will have an argumentative monopoly on the cries of supposed human rights violations against another world power, and the truth that's supposedly somewhere in the middle ...? Y_eah, that will be buried in a trench, headless, outside some distant battlefield_ (no doubt forgotten because we thought that hiding from responsibility was a much better avenue than taking it on directly.)

All of those photos and videos contain violence, contain something someone would consider obscene, and sure, the wrong people will use them as the necessary masturbatory material; but is consciously removing and redacting real elements of our world going to protect us from people abusing the purpose of pictures, drawings, or data related to documenting illegal actions? If anything, art is what inspires us, and art, at root, is what arms us with a stronger perspective, hopes, and dreams. _Art has in fact been used as a tool to discourage crime. *Art can quickly become anything, so long as you're willing to make it.*_

Sorry gais.

Only we're in charge of ourselves, so only we, on that basis alone, can protect ourselves from making the wrong decisions. Why? Because the wrong decisions are still our choice. Of course, I'm sure many of you are going, "But Bambi, those arguments about videos and photos being removed; well, videos and photos don't qualify as works of art!" Wrong. Someone made it, they "created" it, so by all technicalities, it can be ruled as a work of art, and it can be ruled as obscene under that same basis; it is my opinion that limiting the means with which we express ourselves is dangerous, and could perhaps the dilute the importance of why we maintain such rigid and strict differences in prosecutable content; whether that content be a drawing, or a harmful photograph which exploits a victim of a crime.

*Personal Aside*: I agree with the idea that we should moderate our world much more closely, but is getting rid of certain forms of expression the best way to protect ourselves from immorality and crime? No. 

Sure, let's try and change our culture for the better, but let's go about it in a way where the debate is mutual and everyone can have a voice. Laws like these are just duct tape over a split skull. At the end of the day, this war against "controversial art" has nothing to do with "cubs", or "vore fetishist"; no, there's a bigger plan out there in a world far broader then the spectrum furry dogma can encompass. We've got competing nation states that are all battling for international markets; one way to regulate or put restrictions on potential competition is to enforce cultural reforms on an international scale.

It's very simple methodology; if you can control the art, you can control the design. Josef Goebbels, Hitlers minister of propaganda, correctly asserted that art and good propaganda could make or break the identity of a nation. From his perspective, as long as the NSDAP was in control of Germanys centers of art and communication, no one could ever communicate or ridicule the NAZI regime, or counter it's vision of national destiny. So, would you rather live in a world where there's a monopoly on ideas, dreams, hopes, and yes, even obscene things, or live in a world where the definition is left to a series of free courts that have the right to decide ONLY by the means the people which to have them decided?

My point in that Godwin is: Haven't you thought about the possibility people might tyrannically use laws against art to wage a war against expression, with consequences that far outreach our normal awareness? Using war, an economic crisis, and geo-political corruption as a crux to wage a war against copyright infringements, I'm warning you, that if you surrender one freedom now over to the power of several tyrants who can't even be bothered to draw good looking stick figures, and you'll risk losing that freedom forever. 

However, why would you turn over expression to a higher authority then yourself? Is it fear? Why? What's the statistical probability you'll be raped in this country? What's the statistic that your son or daughter will be raped? What's the probability I'll be hit by a vehicle, with the driver of that motor vehicle intending to murder me? Art isn't influencing the direction of these statistics, but if you're going to argue that it's plausible, then let's deal with all of it. However, there's something interesting you should know about such distinctions before making your preconceived judgments.

You recall all of those feminists like Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon who said way back in the 1980's-1990's that _pornography was the theory, *and rape was the practice?*_ You remember all of those feminist shit kickers which accused pornography of desensitizing people and making them more violent, or making them more likely to rape women? Guess what?

They've just been proven wrong.

So, _what's my point?_ *What if we're wrong?* Once you give up your liberties, there's little to no doubt you risk losing more of them because once they've been surrendered to power (give a mouse a cookie), power will simply come after more if it's convenient (they'll ask for a glass of milk.)

You might be saying, "But Bambi, all of this rant, over cub art?" In the context of the fandom, I personally don't several of the themes and fetishes in it, but I know if they all start disappearing because real legislation comes after it, the entirety of expression will soon be next, starting with little niggly cases that build into something greater. Okay, slippery slope? Two words: Patriot Act.

I don't care if you draw a monkey fucking a sedan with a rubber banana, someone will find that depiction offensive; so here's my question: Should offense be enough to ban, or get rid of something? I don't think so. Should fear? I don't think so.

Let's question our culture -- let's question the extent we surrender our free will to celebrity and iconic media outlets; however, let's also question the extent that during our time doing so previously, how much we've lost of our own common sense and dignity. Let's also question the demand that we give up expression or even parts of it; unless there's a basis such things might affect the quality of life (proven, factual, not anecdotal), let's refuse that route until absolutely necessary.

Art is a language, whether you knew it or not -- and the ban of art is a restrictive ban on one form of communication that's unique in it's ability to communicate direct, indirect, or abstract meaning regardless of language barriers. Universally, you might call "art" the hypothetical speech of the Babylonians, the civilization the bible accused of building a tower so big that, according to myth, could reach God's heaven. So, let's not get rid of it yet, or if we're going to get rid of somethings, let's get rid of ... hm, everything everyones offended by.

Sounds fair, doesn't it?


----------



## TreacleFox (Apr 9, 2010)

Nothing that anyone has got a pencil and drawn should be illegal.


----------



## Lobar (Apr 9, 2010)

Topic title is a pretty loaded question.

My feelings are mixed.  I oppose censorship by the government, but if sexual depictions of minors can be demonstrated to encourage child molestation in any way, then it would be a reasonable restriction on free speech, even more so than shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, which is illegal.

Outside the legal system, I would like to see as much intolerance of child porn (which is what we're discussing, regardless of if the child depicted truly exists or not) as possible.  I would hope there would be widespread refusal to publish or host such images.  People need to understand that the right to free speech does not include an obligation of others to listen or to provide a platform for dissemination.  There's nothing anti-speech about wanting cub art banned on FA.


----------



## Bambi (Apr 9, 2010)

Lobar said:


> People need to understand that the right to free speech does not include an obligation of others to listen or to provide a platform for dissemination.  There's nothing anti-speech about wanting cub art banned on FA.


@Lobar: OP was talking about art as a whole, not just cub art specifically.

@Lobar: People need to also understand that the right to free speech does not include limitations on speech due to social offense; it does not include any such restriction at all on the content or inherent offensive nature of such speech, and therefore does not provide any such provisions that such worded or expressed material should be an arrestable offense.

However, if it can be shown as having an affect as exactly promoting certain anti-social behavior, then the debate of removing it entirely should continue. As it stands, the fact that mainstream pornography has recently been debunked of tacitly encouraging violent misogyny in light of the views that adult films made men more likely to rape women (rape actually was down 7.4% in correlation with the mass distribution of pornography), tells me that motivating bans out of knee jerk reactions and some supposed wisdom of repugnance **is** or might be a misappropriate response.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Apr 9, 2010)

All things should be legal, or all things should be illegal.

But seeing that most things are legal, I would take the following stance: FUCK YOU, IMMA DO WHAT I WANT. FUCK POLITICAL CORRECTNESS AND PUBLIC DECENCY.


----------



## Redregon (Apr 9, 2010)

Lobar said:


> Topic title is a pretty loaded question.
> 
> My feelings are mixed.  I oppose censorship by the government, but if sexual depictions of minors can be demonstrated to encourage child molestation in any way, then it would be a reasonable restriction on free speech, even more so than shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, which is illegal..



well, that's going to be difficult to prove either way because though one could find links between cub-porn and practicing pedophiles, it's way to easy to throw in the "chicken vs. egg" argument. but still, that may not help matters because if there IS a link (and there are out there) then it should at the least be considered. (i.e. Allan the Panda comes to mind.)

my stance is and always will be to ban the shit. i don't really care if people think this is illogical, it's how i feel on the matter. i would dance and sing with joy if it were to actually be banned.


----------



## Jelly (Apr 9, 2010)

I think the most dangerous fact about this is that it is under the judgment of legal institutions whether or not subversive or non-status quo art is deemed art or filth.
That's taking us back into the stone age of civil liberties on sexually themed art. I don't want to be dramatic, because this analogy is really incomplete - but, I remember that when Kinsey was doing his research because of his relatively unknown status in the government as a sexual researcher, a lot of the irreplaceable artifacts of culture he had acquired were confiscated and destroyed by the government.
Sexually-themed art, whether pornographic or used to make a culturally subversive point is a piece of human history and to annihilate the "disreputable" parts of art and culture to make our society seem more enlightened or safer is something of a fucking joke. 

Unless there is more information about whether fictional pornography actually causes increases in countercultural behavior, there is no reason to ban it. Even then, its questionable, because it makes me wonder why any art or entertainment that glorifies violence, destruction, and/or sexual deviancy would be permitted in a society - reasonably speaking, I think if one form of fiction could alter someone's mindset, why couldn't any other?

It's a slippery slope of what's "good" and "bad."

Rulings against fictional pornography based on the direct real-life harm or damage done on another individual that can't consent is a clear-cut issue where the prosecuting power is acceptable (although, questionable, considering how out-fucking-dated the law, judges, and the system is considering the way in which some people are prosecuted - that guy whose computer went to like 200 websites a minute), however, for possessing "disturbing" art that has no real life analog or reference is asking people to repress their imaginations "in case something bad might some day happen" is not only a bureaucratic mess, it verges on being a cultural nightmare. But I guess I don't think values should be heavily enforced by the law, unless there is a clear relation between enjoying/collecting something and harming someone.

but i doubt there's ever going to be good evidence one way or the other


----------



## TreacleFox (Apr 9, 2010)

I cant delete post -.-


----------



## Bambi (Apr 9, 2010)

Jelly said:


> Sexually-themed art, whether pornographic or used to make a culturally subversive point is a piece of human history and to annihilate the "disreputable" parts of art and culture to make our society seem more enlightened or safer is something of a fucking joke.


This to an extent.


Jelly said:


> Unless there is more information about whether fictional pornography actually causes increases in countercultural behavior, there is no reason to ban it. Even then, its questionable, because it makes me wonder why any art or entertainment that glorifies violence, destruction, and/or sexual deviancy would be permitted in a society - reasonably speaking, I think if one form of fiction could alter someone's mindset, why couldn't any other?


You can argue it a lot of ways.

I dunno', but don't you see it as hypocritical that people would come after one form of expression for encouraging counter-cultural behavior, and than ignore others? Isn't that some kind of silent acknowledgment and projection that they're trying to have their cake and eat it too?





Jelly said:


> but i doubt there's ever going to be good evidence one way or the other


There has been.

http://www.law.stanford.edu/display/images/dynamic/events_media/Kendall%20cover%20+%20paper.pdf, Todd D. Kendall, Clemson University, The John E. Walker Department of Economics, September, 2006, _"Pornography, Rape, and the Internet."_


----------



## Redregon (Apr 9, 2010)

Jelly said:


> I think the most dangerous fact about this is that it is under the judgment of legal institutions whether or not subversive or non-status quo art is deemed art or filth.



i understand your point, but afaik in the states it's not so black/white since there's the miller test. basically, the material in question is brought forth to a jury and it's decided wether it's obscene or not by them. i don't think that the laws would be so cut and dry since there is a lot of grey area and at the least it seems like that grey area is addressed with said test.

i may be wrong on that one though, so if anyone has any better information other than wikipedia, please link it.


----------



## Duality Jack (Apr 9, 2010)

No.

Stop being buthurt about cub shit being banned.


----------



## Bambi (Apr 9, 2010)

Redregon said:


> i understand your point, but afaik in the states it's not so black/white since there's the miller test. basically, the material in question is brought forth to a jury and it's decided wether it's obscene or not by them. i don't think that the laws would be so cut and dry since there is a lot of grey area and at the least it seems like that grey area is addressed with said test.
> 
> i may be wrong on that one though, so if anyone has any better information other than wikipedia, please link it.


The millers test?

It's only considered obscene if it passes all of the three test/questions(s). If it does not, it cannot be ruled obscene.

@Topic: We've deviated from the actual discussion using examples that while pertinent to our fandom, lack a real way to explore the issue of should art (meaning all art) be made illegal. I'm going to chip in: Should art like this be illegal? I mean, Jesus Christ you might fall in -- or worse, _GET WET!_


----------



## Duality Jack (Apr 9, 2010)

As I said before : he is buthurt cub porn is banned and is making an absurd assertion to try to push a point.


----------



## Bambi (Apr 9, 2010)

The Drunken Ace said:


> something



Whoop whoop, my bad @post below.


----------



## Duality Jack (Apr 9, 2010)

I was talking about OP not you,


----------



## Bambi (Apr 9, 2010)

The Drunken Ace said:


> I was talking about OP not you,


Oh shi -- ... (my bad)


----------



## Jelly (Apr 9, 2010)

Bambi said:


> I dunno', but don't you see it as hypocritical that people would come after one form of expression for encouraging counter-cultural behavior, and than ignore others? Isn't that some kind of silent acknowledgment and projection that they're trying to have their cake and eat it too?



Yeah. That's what I was trying to say with no less than a hundred run-on sentences.



Bambi said:


> http://www.law.stanford.edu/display/images/dynamic/events_media/Kendall%20cover%20+%20paper.pdf, Todd D. Kendall, Clemson University, The John E. Walker Department of Economics, September, 2006, _"Pornography, Rape, and the Internet."_



What I mean to say is "irrefutably accurate" information. And being that the paper uses arrest data, as opposed to "guilty verdict" data with increased specificity, I don't think this is that hard to pee all over (but it should raise questions). Nonetheless, without fully accurate data to the contrary, we shouldn't just throw out liberties without understanding what kind of damage, if at all, they actually do.


----------



## Bambi (Apr 9, 2010)

Jelly said:


> Yeah. That's what I was trying to say with no less than a hundred run-on sentences.


You've done well.


Jelly said:


> What I mean to say is "irrefutably accurate" information. And being that the paper uses arrest data, as opposed to "guilty verdict" data with increased specificity, I don't think this is that hard to pee all over (but it should raise questions). Nonetheless, without fully accurate data to the contrary, we shouldn't just throw out liberties without understanding what kind of damage, if at all, they actually do.


Touche'.

There was a paper written by an Anthony D'Amato, at least I think he wrote it (where it detailed incidents of rape have declined by 85% in the past twenty years.) Unless I can pull that, I'll just use that data as some kind of relate able study to what's being discussed.


----------



## Duality Jack (Apr 9, 2010)

Bambi said:


> Oh shi -- ... (my bad)


 My apologizes for any misunderstanding.


----------



## Bambi (Apr 9, 2010)

The Drunken Ace said:


> My apologizes for any misunderstanding.


NP dood.


----------



## Redregon (Apr 9, 2010)

Bambi said:


> The millers test?
> 
> It's only considered obscene if it passes all of the three test/questions(s). If it does not, it cannot be ruled obscene.
> 
> @Topic: We've deviated from the actual discussion using examples that while pertinent to our fandom, lack a real way to explore the issue of should art (meaning all art) be made illegal. I'm going to chip in: Should art like this be illegal? I mean, Jesus Christ you might fall in -- or worse, _GET WET!_



the problem with making All art illegal is that it ignores that there is a varying degree to which art has value. 

for example, the Mona Lisa. i'd say that that has signifigant value in artistic ability and historical context.

another example, shoddily drawn pornography. it doesn't typically have any value in any artistic or historical context and it's sole purpose is to arouse. 

i think there would be a need for some sort of scale if there were to be steps taken to make art illegal. there's always the democratic process... though imperfect (tyranny of the majority) it does give an accurate reflection of the community standards to which something could be considered obscene or not and thusly wether steps should be taken to make it illegal.


----------



## Bambi (Apr 9, 2010)

Redregon said:


> the problem with making All art illegal is that it ignores that there is a varying degree to which art has value.
> 
> for example, the Mona Lisa. i'd say that that has signifigant value in artistic ability and historical context.
> 
> another example, shoddily drawn pornography. it doesn't typically have any value in any artistic or historical context and it's sole purpose is to arouse.


Art doesn't necessarily have to have artistic value (although you can argue that since it is drawn, the value of it inherently being drawn gives it artistic quality and creation, therefore _value_.) Which leads me to believe that "obscenity" is used in it's most incorrect context; repulsion or repugnance. I ultimately believe that the millers test should strictly be kept for those cases in which photographs documenting sexual, criminal activity are being prosecuted.





Redregon said:


> i think there would be a need for some sort of scale if there were to be steps taken to make art illegal. there's always the democratic process... though imperfect (tyranny of the majority) it does give an accurate reflection of the community standards to which something could be considered obscene or not.


Odd that we'd work to oppress obscenity, when obscenity is allowed on different scales.


----------



## ArielMT (Apr 9, 2010)

What is the purpose of the law?  Is it to promote peace and order by protecting people from each other or by enforcing conformity to a specific moral code?

Legality and morality should not be so closely tied together.  In other words, just because something is immoral to some people doesn't mean it should automatically be illegal.

As for that video, it nearly made me retch, but so does Barney.


----------



## Bambi (Apr 9, 2010)

ArielMT said:


> What is the purpose of the law?  Is it to promote peace and order by protecting people from each other or by enforcing conformity to a specific moral code?
> 
> Legality and morality should not be so closely tied together.  In other words, just because something is immoral to some people doesn't mean it should automatically be illegal.


I disagree to a certain extent.

What appears to be lacking in many of these debates is a more uniform common sense of what harms directly. Depicted works of art might be controversial, but there should be no need to remove them (unless as Lobar argued) there's some sort of statistical proof that it does more harm than good. 

What's unfortunate for all of us though is that on that point alone, that discussion is not being allowed to occur. I 'unno, just my perspective.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 9, 2010)

Babmi - great points.

Did anyone except Ariel watch the movie?  Why do you think it is still allowed to be on YouTube?  Though I believe it is flagged as adult, at least one version has been up there for about 5 years now and I do not believe YouTube allows pornography.

I wanted to try to make the argument less granular and rather have a more general debate about laws and how they apply to art as a whole.  I'd rather not focus on cub porn if it is possible (I know it may be hard here) but rather why we have laws in a society and what should constitute a crime.

Some great points were made, however.



The Drunken Ace said:


> As I said before : he is buthurt cub porn is banned and is making an absurd assertion to try to push a point.



There are at least a few reasons this is an idiotic statement:

1.) I don't look at cub porn
2.) Cub porn wasn't banned from FA
3.) I don't even use FA so why would I care
4.) The thread isn't even about cub porn to begin with

Try to read better next time.


----------



## Redregon (Apr 9, 2010)

Ricky said:


> Babmi - great points.
> 
> Did anyone except Ariel watch the movie?  Why do you think it is still allowed to be on YouTube?  Though I believe it is flagged as adult, at least one version has been up there for about 5 years now and I do not believe YouTube allows pornography.
> 
> ...



i think at the very end of the day, all these arguments are predicated on one thing... that people have a solid grasp on reality enough that the subject isn't going to instill in them the desire to act out those fantasies.

but, we know that that's not the case. there ARE people out there that have a hard time distinguishing reality from fiction. granted, it's not fair to censor one thing because of a few bad apples, but to be clear, those bad apples are the ones that need help and if that means the sacrifice of something that doesn't bring any real value to the community as a whole, why should it be such a bad thing? 

i mean, if we're talking about this site, it's not like this site is a democracy, it's owned by one man... so, technically it's a dictatorship. if he wanted to ban pictures of foxes, he has every right to do so. if he wanted to turn this site into a gaming website, he has every right to.

this entire argument when applied to this site is entirely flawed to begin with because people think that they have rights here...

they do not. 

if you think you do, read the ToS and AUP. there are a lot of things you're not allowed to do... so, basically, human rights, what's "proper" and what's "good" are completely meaningless here. 

but if you're talking about governments, well, wether it's right or wrong, it's not like it's going to stop the legislators from doing as they please and when there is a democratic element tossed in (such as a vote) then that's not going to satisfy everyone... democracy is terribly flawed when it comes to civil liberties because it assumes that the common man has the intelligence to distinguish right from wrong. we already know that right and wrong are subjective to a point, so, any democratic event has, at it's core, that one major flaw. it's even been given a name. the tyranny of the majority.


----------



## Duality Jack (Apr 9, 2010)

http://www.furaffinity.net/user/RabidRick
Thats a whole lot of blurry lined cub shit there man: more then enough to make this situation look personal.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 9, 2010)

Redregon said:


> i think at the very end of the day, all these arguments are predicated on one thing... that people have a solid grasp on reality enough that the subject isn't going to instill in them the desire to act out those fantasies.
> 
> but, we know that that's not the case. there ARE people out there that have a hard time distinguishing reality from fiction. granted, it's not fair to censor one thing because of a few bad apples, but to be clear, those bad apples are the ones that need help and if that means the sacrifice of something that doesn't bring any real value to the community as a whole, why should it be such a bad thing?



In order for any of this to be relevant it would need to be shown that the fictional material will make people more likely to commit crimes.  You are basing your argument on the assumption that this is the case despite the evidence actually showing _the opposite_.  See the PDF from Standford that Bambi posted.  See the Penn and Teller video I posted in the other thread.

This argument is nothing new.  They did the same thing with video games a while back when Grand Theft Auto came out.  People tried to get it banned because they said it would lead to aggressive tendencies in the prople playing them but this was completely unfounded and it was even shown to have the opposite effect in some studies.

Having seen that video in the OP, are you going to go out and start mutilating and raping people?

I doubt it.

People who were going to commit heinous crimes are not going to do it because they are mimicking something they saw in a video game or art, IMO.  They are going to do it because they are bad people and do not have the moral decency to make the right life choices.



Redregon said:


> i mean, if we're talking about this site, it's not like this site is a democracy, it's owned by one man... so, technically it's a dictatorship. if he wanted to ban pictures of foxes, he has every right to do so. if he wanted to turn this site into a gaming website, he has every right to.
> 
> this entire argument when applied to this site is entirely flawed to begin with because people think that they have rights here...
> 
> ...



Nah, and I agree.  I don't even use FA like I was saying so I don't have any reason to care what they allow on their site.



Redregon said:


> but if you're talking about governments, well, wether it's right or wrong, it's not like it's going to stop the legislators from doing as they please and when there is a democratic element tossed in (such as a vote) then that's not going to satisfy everyone... democracy is terribly flawed when it comes to civil liberties because it assumes that the common man has the intelligence to distinguish right from wrong. we already know that right and wrong are subjective to a point, so, any democratic event has, at it's core, that one major flaw. it's even been given a name. the tyranny of the majority.



This is true about the majority however I don't know if I agree it always must be subjective.  I think that there are basic moral truths about right vs. wrong and these truths can be applied to certain situations.



The Drunken Ace said:


> http://www.furaffinity.net/user/RabidRick
> Thats a whole lot of blurry lined cub shit there man: more then enough to make this situation look personal.



Dude...  That account is bullshit.  Read the journal 

I don't use FA.

However some of that stuff is good art and is cute, I'll admit ^^

There's no porn there I don't think (unless I favorited something as a joke).


----------



## Duality Jack (Apr 9, 2010)

Strange angle to go about things.


----------



## 8-bit (Apr 9, 2010)

this is the first thread I actually payed attention to.

Unfortunately, I DON'T have some great wisdom to share.


I really don't care what you like. You wanna wank off to a little fox boy? fine. You want him defaecate and wear diapers? fine.

As soon as that spills over into reality, you will be thrown in jail.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Apr 9, 2010)

Art should not be illegal. 

There's a very simple way to make laws. If something infringes on someone else's rights and is causing harm to someone against their will then that action should be illegal. Perhaps certain actions which would make it impossible to have a functioning society even though they don't have a direct negative effect on others should also be illegal but other than that there is no reason to make something illegal.

Art neither harms anyone nor makes a functional society impossible, so there is no reason to make it illegal, even if the actions it depicts are illegal. Any law that doesn't follow the above principles is likely to just be asserting one person's view over another's where neither view can be better justified than the other and there is no reason that someone can't hold either view without conflicting with someone else.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Apr 9, 2010)

The problem isn't so much what people can or cannot do, but how those people that step out of line are dealt with.


----------



## Glitch (Apr 9, 2010)

The Drunken Ace said:


> No.
> 
> Stop being buthurt about cub shit being banned.



This.


----------



## Lomberdia (Apr 9, 2010)

If they (cub artist/lovers/whatever you call them) had nowhere to express themselves, then all that will just bottle up inside them and they will express it in another way which might lead to someone (child/animal/offender) getting hurt or killed. It's like depression. Talking and expressing your emotions through therapy and counseling is a lot safer and more desirable than keeping your emotions bottled up and trying to commit suicide or develop other health issues. Everything has to come out one way or another.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 9, 2010)

Lomberdia said:


> If they (cub artist/lovers/whatever you call them) had nowhere to express themselves, then all that will just bottle up inside them and they will express it in another way which might lead to someone (child/animal/offender) getting hurt or killed. It's like depression. Talking and expressing your emotions through therapy and counseling is a lot safer and more desirable than keeping your emotions bottled up and trying to commit suicide or develop other health issues. Everything has to come out one way or another.



Do you think it is beneficial to express themselves through art?  Just to reiterate, I'm trying to steer this away from a discussion about cub porn specifically but this would apply to any art that is created in order for people to express their thoughts that would be seen as "obscene".


----------



## Lomberdia (Apr 9, 2010)

Ricky said:


> Do you think it is beneficial to express themselves through art?  Just to reiterate, I'm trying to steer this away from a discussion about cub porn specifically but this would apply to any art that is created in order for people to express their thoughts that would be seen as "obscene".


There is something called "art therapy". Though when I sitting through a art session (I had a bad day and said a few bad things and now I am labeled as a clinically depressed person)I drew a house, happy yellow sun, and other happy harmless stuff. I does help get your feelings out in the open. If drawing if what keeps innocent people safe then yes. Let them have their way in private.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 9, 2010)

Lomberdia said:


> There is something called "art therapy". Though when I sitting through a art session (I had a bad day and said a few bad things and now I am labeled as a clinically depressed person)I drew a house, happy yellow sun, and other happy harmless stuff. I does help get your feelings out in the open. If drawing if what keeps innocent people safe then yes. Let them have their way in private.



Interesting...  I knew they did this through stream of consciousness writing but not with other types of art.

It makes sense, though.


----------



## Bambi (Apr 9, 2010)

Ricky said:


> Having seen that video in the OP, are you going to go out and start mutilating and raping people?
> 
> I doubt it.
> 
> People who were going to commit heinous crimes are not going to do it because they are mimicking something they saw in a video game or art, IMO.  They are going to do it because they are bad people and do not have the moral decency to make the right life choices.


Actually, there's something to say about this as well using one example.

Remember that scene from HEAT, the shoot out?

It's actually what these gunmen were trying to mimic. The problem here, and I've seen your video, is that I think violence like that and anything dealing with themes of rape, mutilation, and murder should be brought into closer questioning then say, something like cartoon foxes fapping.

I think there's a difference when real harm is encouraged and glorified, as opposed to when harm is relatively non-present.


----------



## Browder (Apr 9, 2010)

I don't know. My Idealism and Principles are telling me no, but I've learned that putting my trust in them usually gets other people into trouble. There are good arguments to be made,  and that have been made, for both sides.

I'm just glad that in this specific example it isn't my decision.


----------



## ArielMT (Apr 9, 2010)

Bambi said:


> I disagree to a certain extent.
> 
> What appears to be lacking in many of these debates is a more uniform common sense of what harms directly. Depicted works of art might be controversial, but there should be no need to remove them (unless as Lobar argued) there's some sort of statistical proof that it does more harm than good.
> 
> *What's unfortunate for all of us though is that on that point alone, that discussion is not being allowed to occur.* I 'unno, just my perspective.



I'm not sure in what ways you disagree with me, unless in my quest to be concise I wound up expressing something I didn't mean to.  I agree with your points, especially the part I bolded.


----------



## Redregon (Apr 9, 2010)

Lomberdia said:


> There is something called "art therapy". Though when I sitting through a art session (I had a bad day and said a few bad things and now I am labeled as a clinically depressed person)I drew a house, happy yellow sun, and other happy harmless stuff. I does help get your feelings out in the open. If drawing if what keeps innocent people safe then yes. Let them have their way in private.



ahh, but you see, this isn't about the obscene things being kept private. as soon as any image (obscene or not) is uploaded to a website (regardless of what protections they put it under) then it no longer becomes "private" and it is then "public." 

and yeah, art therapy only goes so far. the person has to want to be able to be "cured" and also has to be able to put to paper what they imagine. some people just don't have the imagination or skill to be able to make what they see in their head a real image on paper. 

but, back on point. if any image, regardless of it's state, is uploaded to the internet, it becomes public. if it is public, then it is available to whomever wants to view it. knowing that, maybe all those pictures are meant to be a release of emotion to "get it out" but to others it could be just the thing they need to find gratification, thus deepening their particular cycle of addiction. 

and to another poster above, there have been cases where people will reenact scenes from games and movies... sometimes it can even end in nastiness. you're right in assuming that they don't have a good grasp on reality, but, that's kinda the point of the arguments i've made before.


----------



## Zaraphayx (Apr 9, 2010)

I don't know, I think it's pretty hilarious that people get their tits in a twist about what other people draw/fap to. No one's getting hurt so I don't really get the nerdrage you faux-moralist faggots seem to generate over the subject.

I think it's probably just because it's 'in'.

_-is off to do all sorts of morally dubious and quasi-satanic masturbation just to specifically spite you__-_


----------



## Bambi (Apr 9, 2010)

ArielMT said:


> I'm not sure in what ways you disagree with me, unless in my quest to be concise I wound up expressing something I didn't mean to.  I agree with your points, especially the part I bolded.


I probably wasn't specific.

I don't particularly agree with all of the logic behind, "One thing be illegal for some, and for others not so much." 





> Legality and morality should not be so closely tied together. In other words, just because something is immoral to some people doesn't mean it should automatically be illegal.


IMHO, morality and legality do need to be tied together, but ultimately there needs to be a closer bond in that we can't just say, "X_religion says sodomy is bad, therefore, get rid of it." Not sure if I'm making sense here, but morality and legality need to make more sense.

Like the following doesn't make sense to me: Someone might screw up, therefore ban marijuana.


----------



## Zaraphayx (Apr 9, 2010)

Bambi said:


> I don't particularly agree with all of the logic behind, "One thing be illegal for some, and for others not so much." IMHO, morality and legality do need to be tied together, but ultimately there needs to be a closer bond in that we can't just say, "X_religion says sodomy is bad, therefore, get rid of it." Not sure if I'm making sense here, but morality and legality need to make more sense.
> 
> Like the following doesn't make sense to me: Someone might screw up, therefore ban marijuana.


 
Probably because most of civilized western society generally looks down upon fucking your kids/dog/sister regardless of religious beliefs or lack thereof, it's just universally considered a taboo and disgraceful act.


----------



## Bambi (Apr 9, 2010)

Zaraphayx said:


> Probably because most of civilized western society generally looks down upon fucking your kids/dog/sister regardless of religious beliefs or lack thereof, it's just universally considered a taboo and disgraceful act.


What are you talking about?


----------



## Zaraphayx (Apr 9, 2010)

Bambi said:


> What are you talking about?


 

I was speculating as to why you seem to be in the middle of morality conflicting with laws.

If we make laws based around one major religious group's belief system we've effectively marginalized everyone who isn't part of that group.

"Don't s3xx0r kids" is generally up there with 'don't kill people' and 'don't steal' with universal morals that most of western society upholds regardless of what your religious inclinations are.

Theres a difference between religious morality and social morality, I guess is what I'm getting at, but I worded that last post kinda haphazardly.


----------



## Bambi (Apr 9, 2010)

Zaraphayx said:


> I was speculating as to why you seem to be in the middle of morality conflicting with laws.


The thread is about all kinds of art being banned or made illegal; you really threw your speculation out there. 

Remember, we're talking about all sorts of fictional things just going, "POOF!" because some old crotchety senator goes, "GET OFF MY LAWN" and makes international law such that art, or expressive art becomes illegal. I was of the opinion that we shouldn't start crunching down on one thing or another, else we risk losing it all (see, my rant concerning videos and photography on the first page.)


----------



## Kaitin (Apr 9, 2010)

I think fiction is a great way to encourage creativity. 

 Morals and Law will always go hand in hand because the people governing such things have their own moral guidelines and more voices to agree with them.  The problem arises when the laws set in place conflict with the morals of someone else. 

For example... It's illegal to run naked through the city center because more people are offended by said nudity then not.  However, to the offender, nudity might be a completely natural and acceptable thing and he/she has no moral stance saying they should be wearing clothes in public.

 Face it, unless you remove the brain of every living creature on the planet we will never agree completely on anything.  My morals only matter if the law agrees with me or I offend their morals by breaking the law.


That probably made no sense and held no relevance to the OP so I'll just go ahead and get back in my box now.


----------



## Vaelarsa (Apr 9, 2010)

> Remember, we're talking about all sorts of fictional things just going, "POOF!" because some old crotchety senator goes, "GET OFF MY LAWN" and makes international law such that art, or expressive art becomes illegal. I was of the opinion that we shouldn't start crunching down on one thing or another, else we risk losing it all (see, my rant concerning videos and photography on the first page.)


This isn't about one crotchety senator.
This is about the majority of society, excluding childfuckers themselves.

Laws are made because most of society finds certain acts morally reprehensible. Not just one person, but the majority.
Murder.
Stealing.
Rape.
The list goes on...

And there are already laws in place limiting "freedoms of speech."
A child can't go into a porn movie theater.
You can't threaten to kill someone.
You don't show tits on a children's cartoon.
You don't show smoking advertisements using cartoons on TV.

And have we lost everything from losing those things?
Hell no.
Would we lose everything from losing fictional child porn?
Again, no.


----------



## Bambi (Apr 9, 2010)

Vaelarsa said:


> WERE TALKING ABOUT CHILDFUCKERS DAMNIT


We've already bombed this example out of existence.

Did you watch the OP's video?

We're talking about every broad thing related to art.


----------



## 8-bit (Apr 9, 2010)

Vaelarsa said:


> This isn't about one crotchety senator.
> This is about the majority of society, excluding childfuckers themselves.
> 
> Laws are made because most of society finds certain acts morally reprehensible. Not just one person, but the majority.
> ...




You bring up good points, but I doubt most people care. Theyre gonna throw there opinions around like graduation hats.


< personally (I'll say it again) doesn't care what other people do


----------



## Ratte (Apr 9, 2010)

Zaraphayx said:


> Probably because most of civilized western society generally looks down upon fucking your kids/dog/sister regardless of religious beliefs or lack thereof, it's just universally considered a taboo and disgraceful act.



Suddenly, the Bible.


----------



## Bambi (Apr 9, 2010)

Kaitin said:


> That probably made no sense and held no relevance to the OP so I'll just go ahead and get back in my box now.


Nah, don't back into your box Kaitin. At this point we've kind of hopped off-topic with concern to morality and ethics, but you had a good point about it. Also: OP's video is a little bit more clever then I realized, as it's pertinent to every artistic fetish in the fandom if you give it some thought.

@OP: I suck for not getting that (if it was intended anthropomorphic middle finger.)


----------



## Zaraphayx (Apr 9, 2010)

Bambi said:
			
		

> The thread is about all kinds of art being banned or made illegal; you really threw your speculation out there.


I suppose, but it's still relevant.



			
				Vaelarsa said:
			
		

> And have we lost everything from losing those things?
> Hell no.
> Would we lose everything from losing fictional child porn?
> Again, no.


 
And what do you stand to gain from fictional child porn being illegalized? What does depriving someone of an expressional freedom give you? 

Satisfaction that others are conforming to your moral code?

Some sort of fantasy-esque hope that this is the magic medicine to the furry 'subculture' being accepted by the mainstream? (Hint: No chance in hell)

Or is it because you really believe the old rhetoric that people like Jack Thompson have been spewing for years fruitlessly, that seeing immoral actions commited in fiction will condition people to behave that way?

Something tells me you're the kind to look for things to be angry about, though.



			
				Ratte said:
			
		

> Suddenly, the Bible.


 
You don't need to be religious to believe that sex with something that cannot intelligently consent is morally unsound.


----------



## Mayfurr (Apr 9, 2010)

There's also the issue of bans on art portraying certain acts having unintended consequences - primarily around if you're trying to create educational material that is _against_ the act in question. 

An example of this centres around the (admittedly non-binding) Comics Code Authority and an anti-drug abuse comic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comics_Code_Authority#Updating_the_Code


> In 1971, Marvel Comics editor-in-chief Stan Lee  was approached by the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare to do a comic book tale of drug abuse.  Lee agreed and wrote a three-part Spider-Man  story portraying drug use as dangerous and unglamorous. The CCA, in the person of Archie Comics publisher John L. Goldwater, refused to approve the story because of the presence of narcotics, deeming the context of the story irrelevant (code administrator Leonard Darvin "was ill" at the time, allowing Goldwater's decision to stand).



So even though the context of the material in question _wasn't_ promoting these acts - in fact, it was _condemning _them - the blunt hand of censorship would have prevented this positive outcome. I say "would have", because in the end Stan Lee said _"... 'Screw it' and just took the Code seal off for those three issues. Then we went back to the Code again. I never thought about the Code when I was writing a story, because basically I never wanted to do anything that was to my mind too violent or too sexy."_

Given that the Comics Code Authority was a voluntary industry-based form of censorship Stan Lee was able to do that, but it would be potentially a very different matter if it was _government_ censorship.

(On the other hand, the mere fact that something is porn and is simply outside mainstream sensibilities might not be a problem for government censors - in 1991 the New Zealand Indecent Publications Tribunal ruled that since the "Omaha The Cat Dancer" series of comics depicted sexuality in the context of ongoing emotional relationships between the characters in a mature and realistic way, it was *not * actually indecent!)


----------



## Bambi (Apr 9, 2010)

Zaraphayx said:


> I suppose, but it's still relevant.


Concerning me at this point?

Eh. I could go back to the ethics issue, but I've already laid down some mofuggin' Bambi on the first page (when the thread had set sail for OMFG beaten dead horse.)

As a matter of fact:



Bambi said:


> *@Thread*:
> 
> Should art be illegal? No.
> *
> ...


----------



## Ratte (Apr 9, 2010)

Zaraphayx said:


> You don't need to be religious to believe that sex with something that cannot intelligently consent is morally unsound.



Well that's a derp and a half.  I was referring to some of the weird shit actually in that thing.


----------



## Zaraphayx (Apr 9, 2010)

@bambi: I think you're mistaking my stance on this.



			
				Ratte said:
			
		

> Well that's a derp and a half. I was referring to some of the weird shit actually in that thing.


 
Oh, I misunderstood you, :V

I thought you were implying I pulled that out of the bible or something.

And yeah, the bible is a great book if you're stoned.


----------



## Bambi (Apr 9, 2010)

Zaraphayx said:


> @bambi: I think you're mistaking my stance on this.


At this point, you've got me confuzzeled dearest. 

I thought your stance on this was:





Zaraphayx said:


> Probably because most of civilized western society generally looks down upon *fucking your kids/dog/sister regardless of religious beliefs* or lack thereof, it's just universally considered a taboo and disgraceful act.


 To -->: 





Zaraphayx said:


> I was speculating as to why you seem to be in the middle of morality conflicting with laws.
> 
> If we make laws based around one major religious group's belief system we've effectively marginalized everyone who isn't part of that group.
> 
> ...


Notice a pattern here?





Zaraphayx said:


> I suppose, but it's still relevant.


Which I never got an answer about; what's still relevant? 

I have no idea what you're insinuating or addressing to this point. So ... what's valid, what's relevant; esplain' it to me Lucy, again.


----------



## Zaraphayx (Apr 9, 2010)

That laws should be made based on social morality, just not religious morality? I said that already :V.

You were the one who brought up tieing lawmaking into morals.


----------



## Bambi (Apr 9, 2010)

Zaraphayx said:


> That laws should be made based on social morality, just not religious morality? I said that already :V.
> 
> You were the one who brought up tieing lawmaking into morals.


... because me and Ariel were having a discussion. :3

My opinion on that was effectively, "Laws need to have their principles founded on things other then spiritual quackery." aka, "There needs to be something concrete behind them -- outside of the spiritual debate, laws, such as the ones which prohibit Marijuana for example, need something real to reinforce their prohibition. Reasons like, "Just because", aren't good enough anymore."

Now, what does that have to do with art from my perspective and censorship? Simple.

IMHO, we shouldn't just get rid of or censor art altogether (like the OP proposed having a discussion on), or remove select pieces or genres simply because we find it detestable (wisdom of repugnance.)


----------



## ArielMT (Apr 9, 2010)

Bambi said:


> I probably wasn't specific.
> 
> I don't particularly agree with all of the logic behind, "One thing be illegal for some, and for others not so much." IMHO, morality and legality do need to be tied together, but ultimately there needs to be a closer bond in that we can't just say, "X_religion says sodomy is bad, therefore, get rid of it." Not sure if I'm making sense here, but morality and legality need to make more sense.
> 
> Like the following doesn't make sense to me: Someone might screw up, therefore ban marijuana.



Indeed.

The reason I believe they shouldn't be so bound is that I don't believe any government can express a moral code as law, even if its citizens universally support that code, without becoming mad with power.  Theocracies tend to like having morality defined by a legal code, but such a state (pardon the pun) is not necessarily restricted to theocratic governments.

One realistic example of such a non-theocratic state, even if fictional, is the San Angeles state of "Demolition Man."  The character Lenina Huxley (an homage to author Aldous Huxley and one of his protagonists, _Brave New World_'s Lenina Crowne) explains the law simply as being "deemed that anything not good for you is bad, hence illegal," the ultimate summary of legal code and a specific moral code being bound together.

And during my reply, I see I was essentially ninja'd by Mayfurr, who provided a real example as opposed to simply realistic.

The legality of any particular item or vice should be based on the extent of its effects on innocent bystanders, I believe, though I know there's a world of debate within something so simple.  In the context of art, I believe that exposure of art widely considered immoral should be limited to those who consent to see or hear it, but it should be otherwise unrestricted and thus legal.

I hope that sheds some more light on what I think.


----------



## Bambi (Apr 9, 2010)

ArielMT said:


> *The legality of any particular item or vice should be based on the extent of its effects on innocent bystanders*, I believe, though I know there's a world of debate within something so simple.*  In the context of art, I believe that exposure of art widely considered immoral should be limited to those who consent to see or hear it*, but it should be otherwise unrestricted and thus legal.
> 
> I hope that sheds some more light on what I think.


It does, and to be quite honest, I'm thinking along the lines of where I've bolded ... now.

EDIT: I think we're pretty much thinking along the same lines -- you've just found a better way to express it.


----------



## Zaraphayx (Apr 9, 2010)

Bambi said:


> ... because me and Ariel were having a discussion. :3
> 
> My opinion on that was effectively, "Laws need to have their principles founded on things other then spiritual quackery." aka, "There needs to be something concrete behind them -- outside of the spiritual debate, laws, such as the ones which prohibit Marijuana for example, need something real to reinforce their prohibition. Reasons like, "Just because", aren't good enough anymore."
> 
> ...



This is a public forum, people can and will interject whenever they want into a 'conversation' between two people, if that's a problem I'd like to direct you to your PM button.

I don't think you're even grasping what I'm saying, and if you are you keep going back in circles. I'm not for banning artwork for it's content, I was explaining why in the real world banning something like sodomy is a lot different than banning pedophilia.

It crosses over into artwork because people see art (and by this I mean all expressive mediums) as a way to socialize or influence people, and are afraid that allowing child pornography (even entirely fictional) to be portrayed would influence people to become acceptant of it or worse, act upon desires for it.

The faulty reasoning I see with the above is that murder and violence (something that definately isn't an entirely religious moral taboo) is widely portrayed and celebrated.

In short I agree with you regarding the censorship of art, although I think you're dancing on the edge of fallacious slippery-slope arguments.


----------



## 8-bit (Apr 9, 2010)

Why is this thread still alive?


----------



## Ilayas (Apr 9, 2010)

8-bit said:


> Why is this thread still alive?



It's about cub porn and it's on the FAF.


----------



## Ratte (Apr 9, 2010)

Zaraphayx said:


> \Oh, I misunderstood you, :V
> 
> I thought you were implying I pulled that out of the bible or something.
> 
> And yeah, the bible is a great book if you're stoned.



Nop.  Man there is just some really weird shit in there.

YOU CAN FUCK YOUR MAID AND 1000 WOMEN, BUT NOT ANOTHER MAN.  LOLMARRIAGE.

And I will keep that in mind.  :V


----------



## 8-bit (Apr 9, 2010)

Ilayas said:


> It's about cub porn and it's on the FAF.



Oh yeah, that's right. Fucking furries.


----------



## Bambi (Apr 9, 2010)

Zaraphayx said:


> This is a public forum, people can and will interject whenever they want into a 'conversation' between two people, if that's a problem I'd like to direct you to your PM button.
> 
> I don't think you're even grasping what I'm saying, and if you are you keep going back in circles. I'm not for banning artwork for it's content, I was explaining why in the real world banning something like sodomy is a lot different than banning pedophilia.
> 
> ...


Uhm, okay.

/pats you on the head.


----------



## Zaraphayx (Apr 9, 2010)

Bambi said:
			
		

> Uhm, okay.
> 
> /pats you on the head.


 
You're special huh.



Ratte said:


> Nop. Man there is just some really weird shit in there.
> 
> YOU CAN FUCK YOUR MAID AND 1000 WOMEN, BUT NOT ANOTHER MAN. LOLMARRIAGE.
> 
> And I will keep that in mind. :V


 
"Dear crazy village people, don't rape these angels, rape my daughters instead!"


----------



## 8-bit (Apr 9, 2010)

Zaraphayx said:


> "Dear crazy village people, don't rape these angels, rape my daughters instead!"



Derp 3:54


----------



## Bambi (Apr 9, 2010)

Zaraphayx said:


> You're special huh.


Indeed.

Your post? Totally happened like this.

On-Topic: Zaraphayx, you've got an interesting perspective regarding this snippet: 





> The faulty reasoning I see with the above is that murder and violence (something that definately isn't an entirely religious moral taboo) is widely portrayed and celebrated.
> 
> In short I agree with you regarding the censorship of art


@The violence and murder bit?

I talked a little bit about that on the first page, but we seem to be pretty much of the same opinion with regards to that issue (excluding how I introduced my position, since everyone flocked right to the issues which sounded pertinent to the fandom.)


----------



## TrinityWolfess (Apr 9, 2010)

Art is a form of expression. I disagree that art should be illegal. At certain points yes it should be censored for younger eyes but not illegal. Art has been around before any of us has been around. Same goes for music.


----------



## Azure (Apr 10, 2010)

Lots of good shit ITT. Honestly, I think the fact that the government can even begin to deem something "obscene" is bullshit. Laws in society should be dictated by logic, and not morality. Leave morality to religion, and they can go rape their little boys and beat their wives, etc, etc.


----------



## Willow (Apr 10, 2010)

Almost everything is immoral...there are very few ways to actually be clean and moral and whatnot..

For some art is how they express their emotions so by taking it away...we'll only create more problems from the existing problem...


----------



## Kommodore (Apr 10, 2010)

Ricky said:


> I believe laws should be created to uphold a moral code and I think something should be a crime if some immoral act took place.



Who's morals, yours? Some collective agreement on what is "moral?" That's horrible. Art does _nothing_ to hurt you, either physically or mentally. There is not reason to ban anything of that nature for subjective moral opinions. There are also the free speech issues but those are icing on the the issue: you have no prerogative to ban art, at all. 

This is the tl:dr of it. There are plenty of more articulate posts in this thread dealing with why this is a bad idea.


----------



## Taren Fox (Apr 10, 2010)

Cub art should be banned. Anything representing kiddy pronz or created to get pedos off should be banned. Fucking sickos.


----------



## Willow (Apr 10, 2010)

Taren Fox said:


> Cub art should be banned. Anything representing kiddy pronz or created to get pedos off should be banned. Fucking sickos.


Agreed...
certain types of art should be banned...or at least be banned from being able to be viewed by the "general" public I guess you could say...

Anything involving little kids...just..no...


----------



## Zaraphayx (Apr 10, 2010)

Taren Fox said:


> Cub art should be banned. Anything representing kiddy pronz or created to get pedos off should be banned. Fucking sickos.



"Pedophiles are sick fucks and they should try to control their unholy urges, we should ban their only harmless outlet of doing that and they'll get better"

Do you use your brain to think is that your ass's job now?


----------



## BasementRaptor42 (Apr 10, 2010)

Zaraphayx said:


> "Pedophiles are sick fucks and they should try to control their unholy urges, we should ban their only harmless outlet of doing that and they'll get better"
> 
> Do you use your brain to think is that your ass's job now?



Epic win. Also, banning any type of art is opening the door to banning a whole bunch of other stuff. Banning cub porn isn't worth the risks.


----------



## Redregon (Apr 10, 2010)

wow... so, it's turned into yet another cub-lovers vs mob argument?

i understand that the main crux of it is very likely based on the UK and it's new laws, but this is turning into a "Dead horse" thread real quick.

still, whatever it is, everyone's going to have opinions and will defend them with their life especially concerning the subject. problem is that everyone has a bias one way or another be it they feel it's a threat to their liberties (which implies that they feel that they should have the freedom to indulge in whatever they want... forgetting that you can't actually indulge in whatever you want without consequences) or it goes against their sensibilities (which, usually have past experiences at the base of them.)

i like how this WAS fairly calm and intelligent in the start... it tackled a lot of heavy issues... but, i hate to say it, this thread and what it's implying seems to be revealing that it seems more like a thinly veiled excuse to talk about cub porn again. 

... i have no problem with that myself as i love to poke holes in arguments that go against my personal sense of morality and sensibilities, but really... can we at the least get back to the main topic before this is threadlocked like all the others where cub porn is the central focus? i don't want to lose out on the chance to laugh at the radical-left ACLU wingnuts whom seem to crop up or those with a willingness to cherry-pick arguments... but for the sake of this thread's longevity, how bout we get back to the topic at hand.


----------



## Taren Fox (Apr 10, 2010)

Zaraphayx said:


> "Pedophiles are sick fucks and they should try to control their unholy urges, we should ban their only harmless outlet of doing that and they'll get better"
> 
> Do you use your brain to think is that your ass's job now?


"Rather than try to get these people help, we should continue to promote their child molestation urges by creating 'art' that depicts children getting raped"



BasementRaptor42 said:


> Epic win.


How come the furry fandom is the only fandom that I know of that defends child pornography?


----------



## Zaraphayx (Apr 10, 2010)

Redregon said:


> wow... so, it's turned into yet another cub-lovers vs mob argument?
> 
> i understand that the main crux of it is very likely based on the UK and it's new laws, but this is turning into a "Dead horse" thread real quick.
> 
> ...



Not gonna lie, I don't really give two shits what they do about cub porn, I'm just here to drive the stake into this dead horse's heart and see how many people I can get in a tizzy in the process.

I also think it's really funny how far people will go to condemn pedophiles who haven't even touched a kid just because they 'could'. They really have no grasp on what ANYONE 'could' do for any sort of reason, most people will never do those things because of the consequences.

The 9 o' clock news tells you all these things (minorities, pedophiles, swine flu, terrorists) are going to fuck with you at a moments notice and everyone is suddenly scared shitless by ghosts.

It's like the boogeyman for adults. It's kinda cute.



Taren Fox said:


> "Rather than try to get these people help, we  should continue to promote their child molestation urges by creating  'art' that depicts children getting raped"



Yeah because you can just cure pedophilia like a disease, I guess I  wasn't too far off with my earlier comment.



			
				Taren Fox said:
			
		

> How come the furry fandom is the only fandom that I  know of that defends child pornography?



Because you're pig ignorant and have never seen lolicon apparently.


----------



## Taren Fox (Apr 10, 2010)

Zaraphayx said:


> Not gonna lie, I don't really give two shits what they do about cub porn, I'm just here to drive the stake into this dead horse's heart and see how many people I can get in a tizzy in the process.
> 
> I also think it's really funny how far people will go to condemn pedophiles who haven't even touched a kid just because they 'could'. They really have no grasp on what ANYONE 'could' do for any sort of reason, most people will never do those things because of the consequences.
> 
> ...


http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Alan_The_Panda


----------



## Kommodore (Apr 10, 2010)

Taren Fox said:


> "Rather than try to get these people help, we should continue to promote their child molestation urges by creating 'art' that depicts children getting raped"



"Baseless claims leading to kneejerk moral judgment." 

Right on bro


----------



## Zaraphayx (Apr 10, 2010)

Taren Fox said:


> http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Alan_The_Panda



One babyfurfaggot typefucks a kid, all pedophiles must do this.

OJ Simpson killed his wife, all black people do this.

So, did it like, hurt the first time you learned how to talk out of your ass?


----------



## Taren Fox (Apr 10, 2010)

Taren Fox said:


> How come the furry fandom is the only fandom that I know of that defends child pornography?


Please enlighten me.


----------



## Zaraphayx (Apr 10, 2010)

Your pseudo-moralfag rage is making your computer-fu clumsy I think, you just quoted yourself :V


----------



## Taren Fox (Apr 10, 2010)

Zaraphayx said:


> Your pseudo-moralfag rage is making your computer-fu clumsy I think, you just quoted yourself :V


And you managed to evade my question. (; Well played.


----------



## Kommodore (Apr 10, 2010)

Taren Fox said:


> And you managed to evade my question. (; Well played.



You didn't ask a question. Or, more accurately, it was a terrible question.


----------



## Zaraphayx (Apr 10, 2010)

Taren Fox said:


> And you managed to evade my question. (; Well played.



I told you last page, it isn't.

You managed to evade my answer, well played.


----------



## Taren Fox (Apr 10, 2010)

CommodoreKitty said:


> You didn't ask a question.


Read my post plz.


----------



## Kommodore (Apr 10, 2010)

Taren Fox said:


> Read my post plz.



Read my edit plz. Your anecdotal experiences with internet fandoms don't mean much.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 10, 2010)

AzurePhoenix said:


> Lots of good shit ITT. Honestly, I think the fact that the government can even begin to deem something "obscene" is bullshit. Laws in society should be dictated by logic, and not morality. Leave morality to religion, and they can go rape their little boys and beat their wives, etc, etc.



I don't think logic and morality have to be separate.  Sam Harris makes some good points about this if you are interested in youtubing him.  I agree completely with what you are saying, though.  The problem is logic doesn't always answer the questions we need when it comes to this stuff.

We need some sort of a logical way to make moral choices.


----------



## Kommodore (Apr 10, 2010)

Ricky said:


> The problem is logic doesn't always answer the questions we need when it comes to this stuff.
> 
> We need some sort of a logical way to make moral choices.


What problems exist that cannot be logically analyzed? I don't think you understand the full meaning of "logical thinking" as it applies to problem solving. In any event, why do we "need" these moral questions solved? What we need to do is make the "best" choices, which may or may not adhere to a particular persons view of what us moral.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 10, 2010)

CommodoreKitty said:


> What problems exist that cannot be logically analyzed? I don't think you understand the full meaning of "logical thinking" as it applies to problem solving. In any event, why do we "need" these moral questions solved? What we need to do is make the "best" choices, which may or may not adhere to a particular persons view of what us moral.



For example, murder is wrong.  Correct?

How do we justify capital punishment?  War?

What if the war will kill some people in order to better a country and everyone's life in it?

EDIT:  Actually, a much better example and more ironic to use here would be _*age of consent*_

I'd mention fucking dogs but just...  no


----------



## Zaraphayx (Apr 10, 2010)

That's not really a question of morality, its a question of utility.

Well it is a question of morality as well, but let me make my point :V

If the murderer is proven to be a hazard to society and he serves no utilitarian purpose and the community is better off with him gone. (ALL semantics aside about capital punishment and 'innocents' 'eye for an eye' etc, that's an entirely different argument)

War (in theory) can be seen as a way of sacrificing the lives of few to better the lives of many (relatively :V), if the war serves no real utilitarian purpose (bettering the lives of the people or protecting the society/lifestyle of a community) then it doesn't have a purpose and is an unnecessary waste of human resources.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 10, 2010)

Zaraphayx said:


> That's not really a question of morality, its a question of utility.
> 
> Well it is a question of morality as well, but let me make my point :V
> 
> If the murderer is proven to be a hazard to society and he serves no utilitarian purpose and the community is better off with him gone. (ALL semantics aside about capital punishment and 'innocents' 'eye for an eye' etc, that's an entirely different argument)



Well, that doesn't explain why we need to kill him.  Is it to right a wrong?  That seems like revenge.  Is it to save money?  Or do we really need to be that much more sure he is gone forever?



Zaraphayx said:


> War (in theory) can be seen as a way of sacrificing the lives of few to better the lives of many (relatively :V), if the war serves no real utilitarian purpose (bettering the lives of the people or protecting the society/lifestyle of a community) then it doesn't have a purpose and is an unnecessary waste of human resources.



How many lives would need to be made better (and made better to what extent) in order to justify killing 10,000 people in a war?  100,000?

I edited my post though, as well.

A better example is age of consent.  There is no objective way to quantify the magic number "18" so how the fuck do we answer that one?  What if it is a 17 and an 18 year old?  How do we objectively come up with a non-arbitrary system to determine if it is wrong?

My point is that there are simply a fuckload of questions we can't answer with objective logic right now.


----------



## Bambi (Apr 10, 2010)

Zaraphayx said:


> War (in theory) can be seen as a way of sacrificing the lives of few to better the lives of many (relatively :V), if the war serves no real utilitarian purpose (bettering the lives of the people or protecting the society/lifestyle of a community) then it doesn't have a purpose and is an unnecessary waste of human resources.


Kind of like Hitler and the Sudetendland, arguments like these can be wholly transparent. Logic is a dangerous thread to tread, especially if the "logic" is the whole-sale annihilation or control of a people.

Morality and logic do need to be bound, but logic should never be given to the intellectual discretion of those who are using limited or false casus belli; for example, it might be the logic of an abortion bomber to destroy places that facilitate abortion services, but is it ethical? Is it "right?" "Fair?" "Moral?" "Just?" Logic is such a transparent word; morality IMHO gives it some good character (so that it cannot be used my monsters.)





Ricky said:


> My point is that there are simply a fuckload of questions we can't answer with objective logic right now.


Logic sometimes becomes, unfortunately, the word of simple thugs to argue their moral righteousness.


----------



## KashakuTatsu (Apr 10, 2010)

This is something I did a very long dissertation on in college several years ago. The government has NO right to dictate what others can say, think, or create... it's a direct violation of our first amendment rights to freedom of speech. What gets banned or allowed is dictated by whoever has the most lobby money and claims the "moral police" title. If a non-christian (or a liberal one) were to take that we'd have less Gestapo-esk laws about what needs to be censored how far. For Christian moralists to claim to know what is best for the rest of the nation is saying "we are not capable of taking care of ourselves." 

My niece got ahold of my adult commission folder while over here, she didn't understand what she saw (luckily it was a nude pin-up nothing vulgar) and was not phased. She just went "that's a good drawing" and I gave her some craft stuff to work with. Even her mother wasn't overly concerned, just sat and laughed. 

This issue does not belong in the government's hands, the responsibility needs to lie with the parents. Growing up we had a fraction of the censorship that exists now-a-days and my grandparents were able to filter what I watched/read/etc quite effectively. In a sense I was very sheltered from what's out there, including the internet... course that was in the 80s so... lol If they don't want the kids to get ahold of it then pay attention and raise them against it... So they possibly could one day see it, but it happens now with restrictions, does that make it any safer? really? It's going to get to the point the old masters won't be shown to kids anymore cause they're nude or depict some form of social sexual deviancy of the time (like the classical pieces of orgies). 

(just about off work and bed time woot)


----------



## Redregon (Apr 10, 2010)

KashakuTatsu said:


> This is something I did a very long dissertation on in college several years ago. The government has NO right to dictate what others can say, think, or create... it's a direct violation of our first amendment rights to freedom of speech. What gets banned or allowed is dictated by whoever has the most lobby money and claims the "moral police" title. If a non-christian (or a liberal one) were to take that we'd have less Gestapo-esk laws about what needs to be censored how far. For Christian moralists to claim to know what is best for the rest of the nation is saying "we are not capable of taking care of ourselves."
> 
> My niece got ahold of my adult commission folder while over here, she didn't understand what she saw (luckily it was a nude pin-up nothing vulgar) and was not phased. She just went "that's a good drawing" and I gave her some craft stuff to work with. Even her mother wasn't overly concerned, just sat and laughed.
> 
> ...



that does highlight a good point. since currently in the US and Canada, a child is still considered a child and thusly recognized to not have the insight to make an intelligent decision about their life because they don't have enough experience. that's where the parent's job comes in (maybe responsibility is a better word?)

but, on one hand you have to recognize that there are going to be times when the parent just doesn't have the ability to constantly watch over their children. in times like these it's either that they're placed in the hands of someone that they trust or they choose to let their child do something on their own. as a child grows older, it is assumed that they will have enough information to make basic decisions such as being able to trust that they'll cross the street safely, not talk to strangers and be home at a certain time. 

but, in these cases, if you're talking about pedophiles, these are people that will go out of their way to insert themselves into the lives of the children and will do what they can to somehow entice them for their own rather disgusting gains. in a lot of cases, it works for them since children are selfish at the very root... they like candy, games, stuff that brings them either joy or satisfaction. it's like a sort of monkey wrench. and depending on how dedicated the pedo is, they may resort to violence if the child is showing signs that they're not going to relent to the temptation.

now, is this suggesting that the material that they fap to is somehow helping keep them off the streets or will make them more inclined to go out and do the deed? nobody can answer that fully since nobody (save for maybe pedophiles, but i dount they'd be willing to come forward and admit to being one... :edit: and even then, they would be terribly biased on the matter so their arguments could just as easily be thrown out) knows for certain what any of this does. 

we can throw "examples" (which are only theories or anecdotes at their core) around but that in itself is flawed... so, basically, all this is is a bunch of people expressing arguments that are based entirely on their personal beliefs/moral code... which, as has been addressed before are entirely based on personal bias. 

so, if you really want to keep this argument going, at the least understand that it is completely pointless. as much as i would thrill to see cub-porn banned (since that seems to be what this argument has become... again) i understand that all that it is is a decision based on morality and ethics. not based at all on facts or evidence (well, there is some little snipped of evidence presented, but that's either conveniently ignored or dismissed because of it being "anecdotal")

can any of us actually Prove our points? no. we can't prove any of this beyond a shadow of a doubt, all it will ever be will be an appeal to "ethical" reason (which in itself is pointless since ethics can be subjective on a person to person basis.) ethics on the greater whole, however, as in based on the society that the people live in is another matter... and if anything is to be done, it should be done based on the ethics of the society that's present (the western world.) not personal ideals.


----------



## Aleu (Apr 10, 2010)

Taren Fox said:


> Please enlighten me.



I don't think it's the fandom that really defends it. Just because a few people do doesn't mean that what they represent actually does the same.

I find it incredibly stupid to ban cub porn because someone thinks "OH! TINK UV TEH CHILRENS! TEY WIL B RAEP!"

Not exactly. In case you didn't know, pedophilia is a fetish. Why should cub porn be banned but not others? I'm pretty sure cannibalism is highly frowned upon so should vore be banned? What about necrophilia? If someone draws/looks/reads necro porn then would they be inclined to drive to the nearest graveyard, dig up a dead body, fuck it, then be on their way?

I say let art be kept legal, ALL forms of art even if you find it icky.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 10, 2010)

Redregon said:


> can any of us actually Prove our points? no. we can't prove any of this beyond a shadow of a doubt, all it will ever be will be an appeal to "ethical" reason (which in itself is pointless since ethics can be subjective on a person to person basis.) ethics on the greater whole, however, as in based on the society that the people live in is another matter... and if anything is to be done, it should be done based on the ethics of the society that's present (the western world.) not personal ideals.



There *was* evidence presented that ponography does not lead to devious acts.

It is reasonable enough to say that throws out the bulk of any argument why it should be illegal, unless someone can think of a better reason than "pedos are gross and they use it to masturbate".



AleutheWolf said:


> I don't think it's the fandom that really defends it. Just because a few people do doesn't mean that what they represent actually does the same.
> 
> I find it incredibly stupid to ban cub porn because someone thinks "OH! TINK UV TEH CHILRENS! TEY WIL B RAEP!"
> 
> ...



Pretty much, though I would understand if FA wanted to ban it because of the legal uncertainty and obvious PR problems.  It would just make sense.


----------



## Willow (Apr 10, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> I don't think it's the fandom that really defends it. Just because a few people do doesn't mean that what they represent actually does the same.
> 
> I find it incredibly stupid to ban cub porn because someone thinks "OH! TINK UV TEH CHILRENS! TEY WIL B RAEP!"
> 
> ...


It's because people liken cub porn to child pornography...


----------



## Aleu (Apr 10, 2010)

Ricky said:


> There *was* evidence presented that ponography does not lead to devious acts.
> 
> It is reasonable enough to say that throws out the bulk of any argument why it should be illegal, unless someone can think of a better reason than "pedos are gross and they use it to masturbate".
> 
> ...



That does make sense. I'm just against possession/seeing it a heinous crime, especially if it's drawn.



WillowWulf said:


> It's because people liken cub porn to child pornography...



And they'd be partially right. It's not real but it still has that child + adult or child + child theme or whatever it has.


----------



## Redregon (Apr 10, 2010)

Ricky said:


> There *was* evidence presented that ponography does not lead to devious acts.
> 
> It is reasonable enough to say that throws out the bulk of any argument why it should be illegal, unless someone can think of a better reason than "pedos are gross and they use it to masturbate"..



fair enough, but on the flip side, there was also evidence providing a link betwen pedophile art and committing the deed... so, i guess we're at an impasse.


----------



## Aleu (Apr 10, 2010)

Redregon said:


> fair enough, but on the flip side, there was also evidence providing a link betwen pedophile art and committing the deed... so, i guess we're at an impasse.



you mean the one from ED?


----------



## Ricky (Apr 10, 2010)

WillowWulf said:


> It's because people liken cub porn to child pornography...



"Child pornography" is such a trigger word these days that yeah -- people will use this as an emotional red herring to win an argument.

You see, actual _child pronography_ is photographs or movies with actual kids doing sexual things.  There is a huge difference in this scenario that people seem to forget sometimes, and that is _an immoral act took place_.

With art, someone is simply drawing shit on a piece of paper.  No matter what the content is, it can not be seen as an immoral act.



Redregon said:


> fair enough, but on the flip side, there was also evidence providing a link betwen pedophile art and committing the deed... so, i guess we're at an impasse.



Not that I saw.  Link?


----------



## Willow (Apr 10, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> That does make sense. I'm just against possession/seeing it a heinous crime, especially if it's drawn.
> 
> 
> 
> And they'd be partially right. It's not real but it still has that child + adult or child + child theme or whatever it has.


Moralfags will always freak out over the smallest things...

To be perfectly honest, I don't necessarily agree with cub porn (and thank goodness I've never actually seen it)..but, if you look at it, or you have it saved or whatever on your computer, have it in a desk stored somewhere, whatever, I don't fucking care...

As long as it's not hurting you, why the fuss?


----------



## Taren Fox (Apr 10, 2010)

WillowWulf said:


> To be perfectly honest, I don't necessarily agree with cub porn (and thank goodness I've never actually seen it


You must not have an account on FA.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Apr 10, 2010)

People must learn to set emotions aside when making decisions. A lot of the time if someone suggests an idea that's new, people get all upset and don't bother to actually think about the suggestion. Emotions are not good decision makers.


----------



## Aleu (Apr 10, 2010)

Taren Fox said:


> You must not have an account on FA.



I do and I haven't seen it.


----------



## Willow (Apr 10, 2010)

Taren Fox said:


> You must not have an account on FA.


I have an FA account..but I have the restrictions enabled...


----------



## Redregon (Apr 10, 2010)

Ricky said:


> "Child pornography" is such a trigger word these days that yeah -- people will use this as an emotional red herring to win an argument.
> 
> You see, actual _child pronography_ is photographs or movies with actual kids doing sexual things.  There is a huge difference in this scenario that people seem to forget sometimes, and that is _an immoral act took place_.



well, i think the issue when it comes to furry-ized CP is that it is basically the equivalent of actual CP. yeah, it's not actually real CP in the photographic sense, but it technically is CP of the furry variety. fictional or not, that's a different matter. the issue is that it has become known as the furry equivalent of child pornography. i'm sure if you ask random strangers, the general consensus would be that it is just as filthy.



Ricky said:


> Not that I saw.  Link?





AleutheWolf said:


> you mean the one from ED?



to both of the above, i was mentioning Allan the Panda. he was a full on babyfur, into cub porn and was caught trying to solicit sex from a minor. it was posted on ED because despite how lulzy the article there depicted it, it was based on true events. i posted the links to illustrate how there are links between cub-porn and actual pedophilia. no, i'm not saying it's an absolute and true fact in all circumstances, just to highlight that there *is *a link between the two in some cases. 

http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/19604318/detail.html
http://wonkette.com/tag/alan-david-berlin
http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/breaking-news/index.ssf/2009/05/pennsylvania_man_suggested_dre.html


----------



## Ricky (Apr 10, 2010)

Redregon said:


> to both of the above, i was mentioning Allan the Panda. he was a full on babyfur, into cub porn and was caught trying to solicit sex from a minor. it was posted on ED because despite how lulzy the article there depicted it, it was based on true events. i posted the links to illustrate how there are links between cub-porn and actual pedophilia. no, i'm not saying it's an absolute and true fact in all circumstances, just to highlight that there *is *a link between the two in some cases.
> 
> http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/19604318/detail.html
> http://wonkette.com/tag/alan-david-berlin
> http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/breaking-news/index.ssf/2009/05/pennsylvania_man_suggested_dre.html



How does that show looking at cub porn causes people to commit pedophilic acts?

Oh wait, that's right.  It doesn't :roll:


----------



## Aleu (Apr 10, 2010)

Redregon said:


> well, i think the issue when it comes to furry-ized CP is that it is basically the equivalent of actual CP. yeah, it's not actually real CP in the photographic sense, but it technically is CP of the furry variety. fictional or not, that's a different matter. the issue is that it has become known as the furry equivalent of child pornography. i'm sure if you ask random strangers, the general consensus would be that it is just as filthy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



ok so pedophiles watch child porn, but are all pedophiles child molesters? That's the question.


----------



## Taren Fox (Apr 10, 2010)

Redregon said:


> well, i think the issue when it comes to furry-ized CP is that it is basically the equivalent of actual CP. yeah, it's not actually real CP in the photographic sense, but it technically is CP of the furry variety. fictional or not, that's a different matter. the issue is that it has become known as the furry equivalent of child pornography. i'm sure if you ask random strangers, the general consensus would be that it is just as filthy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That fucker lived a couple minutes away from me. Fucking scary shit.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 10, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> ok so pedophiles watch child porn



It doesn't matter.  We are mixing up cause and effect, here.

Unless it can be shown that pornography leads to illegal and devious acts there is no valid argument to say it is inherently wrong for that reason.

Maybe pedophiles eat ice cream, too.  It is just as irrelevant.


----------



## Redregon (Apr 10, 2010)

Ricky said:


> How does that show looking at cub porn causes people to commit pedophilic acts?
> 
> Oh wait, that's right.  It doesn't :roll:



i never claimed that it was THE cause... hell, maybe he did the cub-porn thing to seem more of a babyfur or maybe he geniuinely found sexual gratification out of it. i don't know so i won't presume to know. i only posted it to highlight that in some cases, there are links between the two. dismissing that since it's not a universal rule is a rather weak debate tactic.


----------



## lowkey (Apr 10, 2010)

stop making laws. every law thats made is another freedom taken away.


----------



## Taren Fox (Apr 10, 2010)

lowkey said:


> stop making laws. every law thats made is another freedom taken away.


YAAH ANARCHY!


----------



## lowkey (Apr 10, 2010)

Taren Fox said:


> YAAH ANARCHY!




not quite, I never said remove the library of laws already created. we already have plenty of laws. most new laws are redundant, or pointless, or just benefit politicians ability to pillage us further.


----------



## TrinityWolfess (Apr 10, 2010)

Taren Fox said:


> Cub art should be banned. Anything representing kiddy pronz or created to get pedos off should be banned. Fucking sickos.


  I do agree with this ^^^


----------



## Taren Fox (Apr 10, 2010)

TrinityWolfess said:


> I do agree with this ^^^


I love your signature pic, btw.


----------



## Aleu (Apr 10, 2010)

Redregon said:


> i never claimed that it was THE cause... hell, maybe he did the cub-porn thing to seem more of a babyfur or maybe he geniuinely found sexual gratification out of it. i don't know so i won't presume to know. i only posted it to highlight that in some cases, there are links between the two. dismissing that since it's not a universal rule is a rather weak debate tactic.



correlation does not equate causation.

Saying that cub porn be banned because someone who happens to like cub porn molested children is pretty stupid.


----------



## Redregon (Apr 10, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> correlation does not equate causation.
> 
> Saying that cub porn be banned because someone who happens to like cub porn molested children is pretty stupid.



not in every case but sometimes there is a link. 

if you read my comments, i'm not talking in total absolutes here. lrn2read+comprehend kthxbai.


----------



## Aleu (Apr 10, 2010)

Redregon said:


> not in every case but sometimes there is a link.
> 
> if you read my comments, i'm not talking in total absolutes here. lrn2read+comprehend kthxbai.



sometimes does not justify a ban. Hell, it doesn't mean anything. That's the same as video games causing kids to shoot up schools or whatever they're saying now.


----------



## lowkey (Apr 10, 2010)

yes.


----------



## Redregon (Apr 10, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> sometimes does not justify a ban. Hell, it doesn't mean anything. That's the same as video games causing kids to shoot up schools or whatever they're saying now.



and ignoring it is just as silly as a total ban for those few special cases.


----------



## Aleu (Apr 10, 2010)

Redregon said:


> and ignoring it is just as silly as a total ban for those few special cases.



how?


----------



## Kommodore (Apr 10, 2010)

Ricky said:


> For example, murder is wrong.  Correct?
> How do we justify capital punishment?  War?
> What if the war will kill some people in order to better a country and everyone's life in it?
> EDIT:  Actually, a much better example and more ironic to use here would be _*age of consent*_
> I'd mention fucking dogs but just...  no



Again I am not sure you've got the right idea of what logic is. In fact a lot of people in this thread seem to be having the same problem. Logic is, as defined by the Oxford dictionary: "reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of  validity." In other words, it is a systematic way of analyzing things. Morality and logic are not mutually exclusive, they are not even related. Morality is a set of beliefs, logic a system of reasoning, you are pitting the two against each other when there is no reason to do so. 

It is entirely possible to integrate logic and morality to solve the same problem. All you need to do is consider the restrictions a particular set of morals imposes when logically figuring out a problem. You can use logic to come to a conclusion about _any_ problem you encounter. Age of consent, murder, war etc. can all be analyzed logically and conclusions made from it. The only disconnect happens when a logical conclusion taking into account one set of morals conflicts with a logical conclusion based on another set of morals. 

For example, if you think that the government has a moral responsibility to take care of its citizens from "cradle to grave," it is logical to conclude it will need to control entire sectors of society to do so. This is a logically correct conclusion _based on the moral assumption_ on the role of government. I could very easily make another logical conclusion based on my own set of morals. 

In other words--yes, logic can in fact answer any question you want it to. Whether you choose to care or accept the morals the conclusion was based on is something else entirely. 

And on the subject of morals, again I don't see this dire "need" you keep talking about. The problem with what you are suggesting is that it _necessitates a fixed moral standard_ for society. You have to have some standard to base your conclusion on what is wholesome art and what isn't, and that requires one "correct" set of morals. It should be painfully clear why that is a _very bad thing._ No one has the authority to declare what is moral and what isn't, and banning art for moral reasons requires someone to do so.



Redregon said:


> i posted the links to illustrate how there are  links between cub-porn and actual pedophilia. no, i'm not saying it's an  absolute and true fact in all circumstances, just to highlight that  there *is *a link between the two in some cases.



Do you have a study to back that statement up? I have never come across anything saying that. In fact, if you read the "Introduction" and "Data" segments on Bambi's PDF, you will see that the opposite appears to be true.


----------



## Emil (Apr 10, 2010)

CommodoreKitty said:


> What problems exist that cannot be logically analyzed?



Paradoxes.


----------



## Kommodore (Apr 10, 2010)

Emil said:


> Paradoxes.



Fine. "Real" problems the; paradoxes exist entirely in the realm of theoretical thinking and I think it is fair to make a distinction between practical problems and fake ones. Even so, paradoxes _can_ be logically analyzed, the conclusion just won't be consistent with the system of logic used to analyze it. All that says is that our logical systems are not completely correct, which should be obvious. That is true of everything humans do.


----------



## Emil (Apr 10, 2010)

CommodoreKitty said:


> Fine. "Real" problems the; paradoxes exist entirely in the realm of theoretical thinking and I think it is fair to make a distinction between practical problems and fake ones. Even so, paradoxes _can_ be logically analyzed, the conclusion just won't be consistent with the system of logic used to analyze it. All that says is that our logical systems are not completely correct, which should be obvious. That is true of everything humans do.



How wonderful, a pragmatist. Putnam or Rorty?


----------



## Gnome (Apr 10, 2010)

no art should be illegal

dont like it, dont look at it


----------



## Kommodore (Apr 10, 2010)

Emil said:


> How wonderful, a pragmatist. Putnam or Rorty?



I am far from not really a pragmatist, but I do think there are _actual_ problems; things that come from and affect the real world. And I think there are imagined problems, ones that exist only in people's heads and don't really matter in the real world. Is my distinction unreasonable?


----------



## Redregon (Apr 10, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> how?



because if you ignore factors that you don't like, you won't be able to learn anything from them.


----------



## Emil (Apr 10, 2010)

CommodoreKitty said:


> I am far from not really a pragmatist, but I do think there are _actual_ problems; things that come from and affect the real world. And I think there are imagined problems, ones that exist only in people's heads and don't really matter in the real world. Is my distinction unreasonable?



Yes, because you fail to realize that such things that "exist only in peoples heads" are still action guiding.


----------



## Kommodore (Apr 10, 2010)

Emil said:


> Yes, because you fail to realize that such things that "exist only in peoples heads" are still action guiding.



Uh huh.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 10, 2010)

CommodoreKitty said:


> In other words--yes, logic can in fact answer any question you want it to. Whether you choose to care or accept the morals the conclusion was based on is something else entirely...
> 
> And on the subject of morals, again I don't see this dire "need" you keep talking about. The problem with what you are suggesting is that it _necessitates a fixed moral standard_ for society. You have to have some standard to base your conclusion on what is wholesome art and what isn't, and that requires one "correct" set of morals. It should be painfully clear why that is a _very bad thing._ No one has the authority to declare what is moral and what isn't, and banning art for moral reasons requires someone to do so.



The statement I was making is logic alone isn't enough to answer these questions.  It seemed like you were arguing with this but now you make it pretty clear that some moral base is also needed as well.

Now that I know we are on the same page, let me back up to my statement that spawned all of this:



Ricky said:


> The problem is logic doesn't always answer the questions we need when it comes to this stuff.
> 
> We need some sort of a logical way to make moral choices.



So yeah, I'm suggesting we have some fixed way to make moral choices so it isn't based on subjective views.  Whether or not that is possible I don't know.

Again, if you are interested in the subject I would look up Sam Harris.


----------



## Emil (Apr 10, 2010)

CommodoreKitty said:


> Uh huh.



Your powerful retort has left me shaken to my core. Bravo.


----------



## Kommodore (Apr 10, 2010)

Ricky said:


> Again, if you are interested in the subject I would look up Sam Harris.



The man has quite a bit of literature to his name--if you have a suggestion for a particular work that is online I generally have the patience to read 10 pages of the stuff, if what he has to say is really that profound. Skimming the wiki article on him, it seems he focuses more on religious morals in relation to secular morals. 

As far as logic and morality is concerned, the reason you integrate morals into logic is because it takes into account your bias on the world. You need a foundation to stand on (practically speaking) in order to analyze the world. Like I said, you start with a moral assumption and build a logical conclusion around it. The logic is simply the _process_ of analyzing the problem. That stays the same no matter what your morals are. But when you start with different morals, you get different conclusions. This has nothing to do with "logic" but the inherent bias of humans. To be honest though,  am not sure I have a point beyond "logic and morals are not related." :\



Emil said:


> Your powerful retort has left me shaken to my core.  Bravo.



It's a talent.


----------



## Emil (Apr 10, 2010)

CommodoreKitty said:


> As far as logic and morality is concerned, the reason you integrate morals into logic is because it takes into account your bias on the world. You need a foundation to stand on (practically speaking) in order to analyze the world. Like I said, you start with a moral assumption and build a logical conclusion around it. The logic is simply the process  of analyzing the problem. That stays the same no matter what your morals are. But when you start with different morals, you get different conclusions. This has nothing to do with "logic" but the inherent bias of humans. To be honest though, am not sure I have a point beyond "logic and morals are not related." :\



So are you saying logic is not normative?


----------



## Spawtsie Paws (Apr 10, 2010)

YES. I SHALL TELL YOU HOW AND WHAT TO THINK.


----------



## Kommodore (Apr 10, 2010)

Emil said:


> So are you saying logic is not normative?


Yeah.


----------



## Emil (Apr 10, 2010)

CommodoreKitty said:


> Yeah.



Yeeeeeeeeeah... gonna have to go over some notes to properly reply to that...


----------



## Kommodore (Apr 10, 2010)

Emil said:


> Yeeeeeeeeeah... gonna have to go over some notes to properly reply to that...



Cool, then maybe you can actually, like, make a point instead of doing this piecewise stuff you've been up to. I just hope it doesn't consist of name droppin' and argument from authority. Not saying it will, but that has been my experience in the past.


----------



## Emil (Apr 10, 2010)

CommodoreKitty said:


> Cool, then maybe you can actually, like, make a point instead of doing this piecewise stuff you've been up to. I just hope it doesn't consist of name droppin' and argument from authority. Not saying it will, but that has been my experience in the past.



Oh, a point... I think I left that in my other pants. Shit, brb. *door slam, peels out of driveway*


----------



## foxmusk (Apr 10, 2010)

i think that any adult art of cubs or feral animals should be banned, or anything that puts them in a situation that looks like it could be adult. bestiality and pedophilia are disgusting.


----------



## Ilayas (Apr 10, 2010)

HarleyParanoia said:


> i think that any adult art of cubs or feral animals should be banned, or anything that puts them in a situation that looks like it could be adult. bestiality and pedophilia are disgusting.



While I don't like either of them and I would love to see them gone from this fandom, and banned from this site, that's not what we are talking about.

Are  you stating that you think anything having a situation involving animals (as you denoted feral animals) or underage characters in sexual situations should be made illegal?  Even if no actual animals or children were even involved in the creation of the material.


----------



## foxmusk (Apr 10, 2010)

Ilayas said:


> Are  you stating that you think anything having a situation involving animals (as you denoted feral animals) or underage characters in sexual situations should be made illegal?  Even if no actual animals or children were even involved in the creation of the material.



yes, absolutely. it's all disgusting...even remotely setting up such a situation. how could you sink so low?


----------



## Kommodore (Apr 10, 2010)

HarleyParanoia said:


> yes, absolutely. it's all disgusting...even remotely setting up such a situation. how could you sink so low?



Wait weren't you the guy who wanted to screw animal corpses or something?


----------



## foxmusk (Apr 10, 2010)

CommodoreKitty said:


> Wait weren't you the guy who wanted to screw animal corpses or something?



i would NEVER do something so disgusting!


----------



## Kommodore (Apr 10, 2010)

HarleyParanoia said:


> i would NEVER do something so disgusting!



I believe your other posts. :|


----------



## foxmusk (Apr 10, 2010)

CommodoreKitty said:


> I believe your other posts. :|



i never made that thread.


----------



## Kommodore (Apr 10, 2010)

HarleyParanoia said:


> i never made that thread.


Oh sorry my bad then.


----------



## foxmusk (Apr 10, 2010)

CommodoreKitty said:


> Oh sorry my bad then.



i am very anti-zoo and anti-pedophilia.


----------



## Aleu (Apr 11, 2010)

Redregon said:


> because if you ignore factors that you don't like, you won't be able to learn anything from them.



but at least it'd be available.


----------



## Taren Fox (Apr 11, 2010)

HarleyParanoia said:


> i never made that thread.


hax


----------



## KashakuTatsu (Apr 11, 2010)

The gen x'ers and older grew up just fine without massive government regulation, don't need to really change that. Did I go behind my grandparents backs? sure... was I ever harmed? no lol I knew to keep myself from harmful situations... like you said parental responsibility



Redregon said:


> and if anything is to be done, it should be done based on the ethics of the society that's present (the western world.) not personal ideals.



This only really works on the contingent that all people in said society share the same ethical beliefs... and for the US we really don't (unless you're a WASP, which I am not). A lot of the "ethical decisions" actually end up offending many of different religions/cultures. 

This really doesn't affect those who do art for themselves or post online. But for those of us who want to do gallery showings and have pieces that are too gory, nude, or otherwise considered obscene for public viewing would be affected. Would need to stifle creativity and what is created to appease the ethics of a moral code that is not believed in (this is what I see when I get gov censoring art or deeming art illegal). 

It's not just art, my poem in high school created a need for censorship in the local paper cause it was too controversial (dealt with teens and self-injury). People are going to get a hair up their rear about anything, esp now-a-days... Still not a reason for gov control lol.


----------



## Redregon (Apr 11, 2010)

KashakuTatsu said:


> This only really works on the contingent that all people in said society share the same ethical beliefs... and for the US we really don't (unless you're a WASP, which I am not). A lot of the "ethical decisions" actually end up offending many of different religions/cultures.
> 
> This really doesn't affect those who do art for themselves or post online. But for those of us who want to do gallery showings and have pieces that are too gory, nude, or otherwise considered obscene for public viewing would be affected. Would need to stifle creativity and what is created to appease the ethics of a moral code that is not believed in (this is what I see when I get gov censoring art or deeming art illegal).
> 
> It's not just art, my poem in high school created a need for censorship in the local paper cause it was too controversial (dealt with teens and self-injury). People are going to get a hair up their rear about anything, esp now-a-days... Still not a reason for gov control lol.



true, but understanding the political systems in place currently is something that's kinda needed. not suggesting that they're all pandering scum (though i'd bet some are) when talking about the UK ban, it's that this is somewhat reflective of the current stance that the majority takes on the matter. democracy is certainly not a perfect system. hell, look at Prop-8. that should give you a good indication of just how flawed democracy can be.

as for people being free? well, to be frank you're not free to do as you please, you still have the laws which will dictate what you can and cannot do and the consequences if you break them. there are some laws which i think are bullshit (such as the current prohibition of cannabis) as i cannot see any reasonable reason why it's still as it is... but, laws such as "no raping" or "no stealing" are pretty good since they're there to protect people. 

i think when you get down to it, it all depends on what freedoms are crucial to one's pursuit of life, liberty and all that jazz and what freedoms are non-essential and only relegated to the fringe of society. also, if there are people that will risk harming another for their pursuit of freedom, then there's something wrong and the issues surrounding it at the least deserve to be discussed. now, is this direct harm or indirect harm? who is being harmed? do the people being harmed have the capacity to defend themselves or do they lack the understanding of the situation to make an intelligent decision, weighing all the possible outcomes? (such as minors and those whom are developmentally retarded?)

still, this does go back to the whole issue where democracy is a flawed system to begin with (i doubt there's ANY political system out there that is flawless.)

in your case, if the poem you published dealt with actual self injury, i understand completely why it garnered such a response. it may seem like censorship but at the very end of the day it was something that could easily be interpreted as a desire to harm yourself (or entice someone else to do so) which when those in authority stepped in, it was a reasonable and understandable response. this also can be applied as parrellel towards issues such as cub-porn or any drawn pedophilia like drawings. it puts in the minds of those in power that there could be a reasonable concern that one might be willing to act on those impulses. this isn't to say i'm saying it's an absolute, but it is a valid concern.


----------



## foxmusk (Apr 11, 2010)

Taren Fox said:


> hax



cheat codes!

because i think bestiality and pedophilia, even in art, are disgusting and should be made illegal.


----------



## Taren Fox (Apr 11, 2010)

HarleyParanoia said:


> cheat codes!
> 
> because i think bestiality and pedophilia, even in art, are disgusting and should be made illegal.


I'd vote for you. :3


----------



## Ricky (Apr 11, 2010)

Redregon said:


> in your case, if the poem you published dealt with actual self injury, i understand completely why it garnered such a response. it may seem like censorship but at the very end of the day it was something that could easily be interpreted as a desire to harm yourself (or entice someone else to do so) which when those in authority stepped in, it was a reasonable and understandable response. this also can be applied as parrellel towards issues such as cub-porn or any drawn pedophilia like drawings. it puts in the minds of those in power that there could be a reasonable concern that one might be willing to act on those impulses. this isn't to say i'm saying it's an absolute, but it is a valid concern.



How do you know it was a "reasonable and understandable response" without even seeing the poem?

Anyway, I think there's a difference between a local newspaper deciding what they shouldn't print and making something a crime.  I wouldn't think a local paper would want to publish cub porn either, so whatever...

As for there "being a reasonable concern that one might be willing to act on those impulses" I would say it is more than reasonable.  It wouldn't be every one of these cases but it is fair to say someone who continuously draws pictures of murder, death or rape for example might not be right in the head.  That kinda falls into the "no shit" category.

Still, there is a very fine line here.  If you are prosecuting someone for what they "might be willing to do" you are trying to prosecute them for what they are thinking.  That is thought crime.  You can't prosecute someone because you think they might have an inclination to commit a certain crime.  You can only prosecute someone as a criminal if they actually committed a crime.

Is there a clear distinction, here?


----------



## Willow (Apr 11, 2010)

HarleyParanoia said:


> cheat codes!
> 
> because i think bestiality and pedophilia, even in art, are disgusting and should be made illegal.


Most certainly


----------



## Taren Fox (Apr 11, 2010)

Sonic porn should be banned. ):


----------



## BasementRaptor42 (Apr 11, 2010)

HarleyParanoia said:


> cheat codes!
> 
> because i think bestiality and pedophilia, even in art, are disgusting and should be made illegal.



You'd better be trolling. It's fictional, therefore no actual animals or children are harmed, so banning drawn or fictional bestiality and CP is artistic censorship, which is not acceptable. Consider this: many people probably think furry porn is disgusting and should be made illegal.


----------



## Zrcalo (Apr 12, 2010)

ART SHOULDNT BE BANNED

NO MATTER HOW OBSCENE IT IS


----------



## Taren Fox (Apr 12, 2010)

Zrcalo said:


> ART SHOULDNT BE BANNED
> 
> NO MATTER HOW OBSCENE IT IS


I can't make that out, could you use a bigger font?


----------



## CombatRaccoon (Apr 12, 2010)

I smells a troll


----------



## Zrcalo (Apr 12, 2010)

Taren Fox said:


> I can't make that out, could you use a bigger font?



LET ME DRAW YOU A BIG PENIS


----------



## Spawtsie Paws (Apr 12, 2010)

Taren Fox said:


> hax



ohai!


----------



## Bambi (Apr 12, 2010)

BasementRaptor42 said:


> You'd better be trolling. It's fictional, therefore no actual animals or children are harmed, so banning drawn or fictional bestiality and CP is artistic censorship, which is not acceptable. Consider this: many people probably think furry porn is disgusting and should be made illegal.


This.

It's no better then the douchebags who think watching Harry Potter is a greater participation in the war for a cult that follows Satan, which one day wishes to overthrow the church and God.

It's also no better then the douchebags who think and believe playing violent video games will also make you more violent; which is exactly the same argument being made with the different forms of art here with FA.


----------



## Thatch (Apr 12, 2010)

BasementRaptor42 said:


> You'd better be trolling. It's fictional, therefore no actual animals or children are harmed, so banning drawn or fictional bestiality and CP is artistic censorship, which is not acceptable. Consider this: many people probably think furry porn is disgusting and should be made illegal.



Some of it for sure, there are artists who make atrocities that should be punished by death. I could provide examples, but I'm sure you can think of a couple on your own.


----------



## Bambi (Apr 12, 2010)

szopaw said:


> Some of it for sure, there are artists who make atrocities that should be punished by death. I could provide examples, but I'm sure you can think of a couple on your own.


Atrocities?

:/

Atrocity.
Atrocity?
Not an atrocity.


----------



## lilEmber (Apr 12, 2010)

Bambi said:


> all this post


Yeah. Fuck you all that don't understand it.
Equilibrium society much?


----------



## Redregon (Apr 12, 2010)

Ricky said:


> How do you know it was a "reasonable and understandable response" without even seeing the poem?
> 
> As for there "being a reasonable concern that one might be willing to act on those impulses" I would say it is more than reasonable.  It wouldn't be every one of these cases but it is fair to say someone who continuously draws pictures of murder, death or rape for example might not be right in the head.  That kinda falls into the "no shit" category.
> 
> ...



i will agree, prosecuting someone for something they've not done is a bad idea, but if you apply this to the topic at hand with regards to cub porn (since it's the darling of this thread) it can be safe to suggest that there is at least cause for further research. i won't say that everyone that draws or faps to CP will actually go out and try to assault a child, but it does point to something being very very wrong in their head (the desire to find sexual gratification in images of children, furry or not.) 

personally, if they haven't actually done something, i would suggest that the person is in need of some psychological help. if they've acted on those impulses and assaulted a child, throw them in jail and lose the key. though, this isn't so much as suggesting the art should be illegal, more that the people whom fap to it should be the targets. 

maybe having the art available at the least will allow people to find them out and take actions accordingly? i'm not one to really condone mob justice in every case, but i will suggest that in some cases it's a justifiable and understandable response. i mean, they're predators with usually one thing on their mind. that sort of behavior does not benefeit society imo.

but hey, i'm sure there will be some pedo-furs that will pipe up and say that they're not fucked in the head... conveniently ignoring the fact that though it may have fur and a tail, it's still the equvalent of a child. (the "Duck" argument.)


----------



## BasementRaptor42 (Apr 12, 2010)

szopaw said:


> Some of it for sure, there are artists who make atrocities that should be punished by death. I could provide examples, but I'm sure you can think of a couple on your own.



As I said before, many people would put all furry art into the category of atrocities that should be punished by death.


----------



## Zrcalo (Apr 12, 2010)

szopaw said:


> Some of it for sure, there are artists who make atrocities that should be punished by death. I could provide examples, but I'm sure you can think of a couple on your own.



like the comic "ctrl alt del"


----------



## Thatch (Apr 12, 2010)

Bambi said:


> Atrocities?
> 
> :/
> 
> ...



You sometimes do come of as intelectually deficient, but I never would have assumed you can't understand a phrase "some are" as meaning that "there exist" instead of "it's all".
Crap like this (nsfw) should be included as torture in the geneva convention.



BasementRaptor42 said:


> As I said before, many people would put all furry art into the category of atrocities that should be punished by death.



No, there aren't many. You're just paranoid.
Unless you mean horrbile fat scat porn. It's exactly the shit i'm talking about.



Zrcalo said:


> like the comic "ctrl alt del"



No.


----------



## Taren Fox (Apr 12, 2010)

Taren Fox said:


> Sonic porn should be banned. ):


Quoting for emphasis.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 12, 2010)

Taren Fox said:


> Quoting for emphasis.



Quoting yourself "for emphasis" should be banned as well.


----------



## Teco (Apr 12, 2010)

Yes god damnmit. Why isn't this a poll so we can see just how much people want this.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 12, 2010)

Teco said:


> Yes god damnmit. Why isn't this a poll so we can see just how much people want this.



Because that's not the point of the thread.

Like, at all.

I was trying to encourage intelligent debate.  It worked a little bit.


----------



## Teco (Apr 12, 2010)

Ricky said:


> Because that's not the point of the thread.
> 
> Like, at all.
> 
> I was trying to encourage intelligent debate. It worked a little bit.


 Someone make a god damn poll already.


----------



## virus (Apr 12, 2010)

Artwork, regardless its intent or medium is expression. Even if its trivial its speaking without words.


If you ban fictional. That would be such a plain and boring world.  

Sorry I don't want to live in some shitty black and white world. I rather live in a world with strange hues colors and shapes. After all the unique trait that makes humans different is abstract thought.


----------



## Taren Fox (Apr 12, 2010)

virus said:


> Artwork, regardless its intent or medium is expression. Even if its trivial its speaking without words.
> 
> 
> If you ban fictional. That would be such a plain and boring world.
> ...


With cub rape.


----------



## Liam (Apr 12, 2010)

Ricky said:


> Because that's not the point of the thread.
> 
> Like, at all.
> 
> I was trying to encourage intelligent debate.  It worked a little bit.


Obvious troll is obviously trollin for intellectuals

To be honest, banning art sounds completely irrational and dangerously stupid and rash.


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 12, 2010)

It depends on what it is.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 12, 2010)

Taren Fox said:


> With cub rape.



yep


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Apr 12, 2010)

Throwing my two cents in this 9-page thread since it seems like something I should have done a while ago.

I think the thread title is a little misleading.  There isn't some sort of mass book burning going on right now on things considered to be CP.  OP believes there's no checks in the instance where things of parody, satire, or some other informative means of expressing one's opinions of CP to the point where those pieces of art will be banned.  This isn't true.

With how the language of the law is written now and what we've learned over the years through the Roth-Memoirs test and Miller test is that there are instances where we can't be overly strict or lenient on how we approach the obscene and that these cases have to be treated on a case-by-case basis, usually when they're brought to court.  The key however is that they are actually brought to court.

Context is important in determining obscenity and the courts have reflected that.  We as a society simply don't want to deal with obscenity for obscenity's sake.  That's just not how society functions.  Just because furrys on this board have an easier time dealing with images of cubs being raped doesn't mean the rest of the world does.  In the case of the United States, the images in question have to show some sort of relevance in the marketplace of ideas.  Pornography does have relevance in the marketplace, regardless of how *indecent* some people may see it.  

However, *obscene* images of CP, real or otherwise don't seem to add anything to our society, rather, it encourages a destructive behavior that contemporary society has deemed unacceptable.  As such, a piece, IMHO, that is deemed to be obscene, should be banned.  I feel that the means for which we deem those things to be obscene holds up well enough, despite its flaws.  If there's a better way to do it, I'm all for it.  But for the time being, I don't think just leaving obscene depictions alone to fester is the way things should be dealt.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 12, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> However, *obscene* images of CP, real or otherwise don't seem to add anything to our society, rather, it encourages a destructive behavior that contemporary society has deemed unacceptable.  As such, a piece, IMHO, that is deemed to be obscene, should be banned.  I feel that the means for which we deem those things to be obscene holds up well enough, despite its flaws.  If there's a better way to do it, I'm all for it.  But for the time being, I don't think just leaving obscene depictions alone to fester is the way things should be dealt.



So, you are saying we should criminalize art when it can be said to encourage destructive behavior?

So we can't have drugs or violence in movies, anymore?


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Apr 12, 2010)

Ricky said:


> So, you are saying we should criminalize art when it can be said to encourage destructive behavior?
> 
> So we can't have drugs or violence in movies, anymore?



I'm saying if it's meets the definition of obscene and is found to meet that definition in a court of law.  Obscenity deals with depictions of extreme sexual acts, which for the most part has been exclusive to CP and bestiality in the United States.

Drugs and violence don't fit under the context of obscenity, and are therefore irrelevant in a discussion on what we consider obscene.  They may be indecent images, but indecency has always been a protected part of the First Amendment.  If it wasn't, you'd see a lot more people being arrested for cussing in public.


----------



## Taren Fox (Apr 12, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Drugs and violence don't fit under the context of obscenity, and are therefore irrelevant in a discussion on what we consider obscene.


Not always. There are some films that have been banned (or almost) for violence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banned_films#United_States


----------



## Ricky (Apr 12, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> I'm saying if it's meets the definition of obscene and is found to meet that definition in a court of law.  Obscenity deals with depictions of extreme sexual acts, which for the most part has been exclusive to CP and bestiality in the United States.
> 
> Drugs and violence don't fit under the context of obscenity, and are therefore irrelevant in a discussion on what we consider obscene.  They may be indecent images, but indecency has always been a protected part of the First Amendment.  If it wasn't, you'd see a lot more people being arrested for cussing in public.



True, true.  I was sorta giving an analogy there but it was a bad one and you are correct.

Still, I don't think fictional material should be outlawed, even if it is considered "obscene". In the creation of a completely fictional work, no immoral act has been committed no matter how obscene the material is.


----------



## Redregon (Apr 12, 2010)

Taren Fox said:


> Not always. There are some films that have been banned (or almost) for violence.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banned_films#United_States



read the details on some of those films and the context in which they were banned please. doing so will kinda refute them as an argument.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 12, 2010)

He is right.  "Obscene" specifically deals with sexual content.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Apr 12, 2010)

Taren Fox said:


> Not always. There are some films that have been banned (or almost) for violence.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banned_films#United_States



I've only skimmed that list and most of those films on that list are subject of legal suits because someone's feelings were getting hurt more than anything else.  Also, you have to understand I'm talking about pieces of art that are taken to court.  There's no law saying states can't try to ban a film from being shown in that state, but if someone takes them to task on it, chances are the state would lose in the Supreme Court because the films, like Frankenstein for instance, don't portray obscene images.



			
				Ricky said:
			
		

> Still, I don't think fictional material should be outlawed, even if it is considered "obscene". In the creation of a completely fictional work, no immoral act has been committed no matter how obscene the material is.



That's fair.  It's as subjective as you can possibly get really.  We can both argue with each other until we're blue in the face but I don't see us changing each other's minds on the subject.  I just tend to side more with the idea that most people don't want things like cub porn and bestiality to be as readily available as normal porn, which some parents might find bad enough, but at least it'd be easier to try and explain to their child what's going on than someone trying to hump their dog.  And even beyond the obvious child excuse, most adults just don't want to see that kind of shit and don't want to deal with it.  Does it mean it should be banned?  That's the million dollar question.  That's what happens though when you have representative governments though.  Issues of the people are taken into consideration by our politicians.  Hell, it's one of the main reasons why Nixon won in 1968, since he promised a more conservative Supreme Court to deal with things like the Roth-Memoirs Test which made it virtually impossible to label anything as obscene.


----------



## Bambi (Apr 12, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Drugs and violence don't fit under the context of obscenity, and are therefore irrelevant in a discussion on what we consider obscene.


No, if we find those actions to be obscene, then they're not irrelevant.

Case in point, I disagree with the idea that art should be banned; if we're going to ban certain kinds of art (assuming we come to that place) I say get rid of the rest of it; vore, snuff, etc.





Term_the_Schmuck said:


> I've only skimmed that list and most of those films on that list are subject of legal suits because someone's feelings were getting hurt more than anything else.


Don't you think the status of cub art serves more to hurt other peoples feelings more so then presenting a legitimate threat?

It's no greater a threat than vore, snuff, or shitting in a diaper to this point.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 12, 2010)

But still...  Our laws should not revolve around what people think is gross.

The problem with the Miller test is it is completely subjective (it is based on what the majority of society believes and history has shown society is not always correct).

Something should only be a criminal act if an immoral act has been committed (or to protect people from such acts).


----------



## Redregon (Apr 12, 2010)

Ricky said:


> (it is based on what the majority of society believes and history has shown society is not always correct)..



but it is what it is. unless you are planning a revolution, complaining about it is completely worthless.


----------



## Bambi (Apr 12, 2010)

Redregon said:


> but it is what it is. unless you are planning a revolution, complaining about it is completely worthless.


You wouldn't plan a revolution -- it would almost be counter-productive to any effort concerning freedom of speech and obscenity.

Since this thread seems to be chalk full of arguments overly pertinent to the fandom and it's ills, I'd just like to say that art should never be completely rendered illegal; unless the aspects of it are dedicated towards exploiting victims of crime.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Apr 12, 2010)

Bambi said:


> No, if we find those actions to be obscene, then they're not irrelevant.



I can only speak for US law, and in the United States, obscenity only deals with extreme depictions of sexual acts, like CP and bestiality.  How obscenity is defined in international legal systems is beyond the scope of my limited knowledge on the subject.  As I've said several times in similar threads, my opinions on the subject tend to follow what's currently hip in the legal community at the time.



> Don't you think the status of cub art serves more to hurt other peoples feelings more so then presenting a legitimate threat?
> 
> It's no greater a threat than vore, snuff, or shitting in a diaper to this point.



To be more specific about what I mean by hurting people's feelings, I mean films (pieces of art) designed to attack a certain person or group of people, such as "The Profit", a film which the Church of Scientology believes was made with the intent of delegitimizing the religion.

For the most part I'd say the average joe walking down the street today would look at you like you had three heads if you told them you were into vore, mostly because they have no idea what that is.  Those kinds of images, to my knowledge, have never been brought to court to be asked the question, "is this obscene?"  As such, I'd have to say that they aren't obscene since they haven't been defined as such by any legit authority figure.



> But still... Our laws should not revolve around what people think is gross.
> 
> The problem with the Miller test is it is completely subjective (it is based on what the majority of society believes and history has shown society is not always correct).
> 
> Something should only be a criminal act if an immoral act has been committed (or to protect people from such acts).



Our laws are almost always dealing with what the people think is hip at the time.  I'd wager the current banning of smoking in bars and restaurants has less to do with the actual health risks of second hand smoke and more to do with the fact that people don't like the smell of cigarette smoke as they're having a cocktail.

The Miller Test is subjective, but then again, almost every test that our legal system comes up with is going to have some level of subjectivity.  It's just the way it a system like that works.  At the same time it doesn't necessarily seem right, to me at least, that we should just allow bestiality or CP to be regularly sold in the "Adult" section at F.Y.E., regardless if it's a cartoon or an actual film.


----------



## Browder (Apr 12, 2010)

Ricky said:


> But still...  Our laws should not revolve around what people think is gross.
> 
> The problem with the Miller test is it is completely subjective (it is based on what the majority of society believes and history has shown society is not always correct).
> 
> Something should only be a criminal act if an immoral act has been committed (or to protect people from such acts).



Nothing subjective is ever objectively 'correct'. There's the problem right there.


----------



## Bambi (Apr 12, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> To be more specific about what I mean by hurting people's feelings, I mean films (pieces of art) designed to attack a certain person or group of people, such as "The Profit", a film which the Church of Scientology believes was made with the intent of delegitimizing the religion.
> 
> For the most part I'd say the average joe walking down the street today would look at you like you had three heads if you told them you were into vore, mostly because they have no idea what that is.  Those kinds of images, to my knowledge, have never been brought to court to be asked the question, "is this obscene?"  As such, I'd have to say that they aren't obscene since they haven't been defined as such by any legit authority figure.


Would you be in favor of such changes if possible?


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Apr 12, 2010)

Bambi said:


> Would you be in favor of such changes if possible?



In respect of vore being ruled as obscene?


----------



## Redregon (Apr 12, 2010)

Bambi said:


> You wouldn't plan a revolution -- it would almost be counter-productive to any effort concerning freedom of speech and obscenity.
> 
> Since this thread seems to be chalk full of arguments overly pertinent to the fandom and it's ills, I'd just like to say that art should never be completely rendered illegal; unless the aspects of it are dedicated towards exploiting victims of crime.



still, my point stands. unless you're willing to actually go out and make the change you want to see, complaining about what you feel is "wrong" is meaningless.


----------



## Bambi (Apr 12, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> In respect of vore being ruled as obscene?


Would you agree that such art, since it's thematic is just as sexual as cub, however including depictions of murder, torture, or mutilation, be rendered obscene, been seen as capable of obscenity, and would you perhaps be in favor of laws which might hypothetically target it for a breach of artistic value due to the nature of it's content?





Redregon said:


> still, my point stands. unless you're willing to actually go out and make the change you want to see, complaining about what you feel is "wrong" is meaningless.


You don't need revolution to create change.

Discussion can make that environment possible all on it's own.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Apr 12, 2010)

Bambi said:


> A depiction of violence which glorifies murder, torture, etc., perhaps vore being a terminology which, though unspecific to the nature of other categories of portrayed violence due to the nature of it's theme, used inappropriately, however serving as the inductive to the memory of such content, would you agree that such art, since it's thematic is just as sexual as cub, be rendered obscene, capable of obscenity, and would you perhaps be in favor of laws which target it for a breach of artistic value?You don't need revolution to create change.



Okay there's a couple of things going on with this question so I'm going to try and answer it the best I can.

For the subject of depictions of violence, murder, etc, no, I don't see these things as something worthy of receiving the banhammer IRL.  In most classic films I can think of, Goodfellas, for example which covers most of those issues of violence, use the violence to further a greater story when placed in context.  The violence isn't what the film is necessarily about, rather it's a tool to further a much larger and more important plot, specifically the "based on a true story" tale of Henry Hill  and his involvement in the American mafia over three decades.  It's actually one of the things taken from the Roth-Memoirs Test, as the defense for a movie like that would be that there is an actual point and historical importance to the film.

Vore as obscene material is tricky since there's really no precedent on the subject.  The main market for vore pornography, to me, seems to mostly center around furrys, again not that popular in the mainstream.  Now personally, I don't look at vore art.  I don't see the point in it and it's unappealing to me.  I, myself, wouldn't make a huge push for it being banned.  Would I have any feelings towards it being listed as obscene?  Probably not.  I can't imagine that it'd become that big of a fetish where it would warrant a court having to make that kind of decision or deal with a it as a subject matter that hits so close to home as someone taking advantage of an animal or child.  So a piece of vore art being banned would get a resounding "meh" from me.

Now please bear in mind, when I talk about something being taken to court and when I say case-by-case, I MEAN case-by-case.  In cases of obscenity, it deals with a single piece of art being ostracized.  If it's ruled obscene, that doesn't mean that all art similar to it is ruled obscene, only reproductions of that EXACT piece of art.  Just figure I should make that clear.


----------



## Bambi (Apr 12, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Now please bear in mind, when I talk about something being taken to court and when I say case-by-case, I MEAN case-by-case.  In cases of obscenity, it deals with a single piece of art being ostracized.  If it's ruled obscene, that doesn't mean that all art similar to it is ruled obscene, only reproductions of that EXACT piece of art.  Just figure I should make that clear.


And that does make it clear to me.

So, what you're essentially saying is that only reproductions of a certain piece would be considered obscene -if- the original work from which copies were duplicated, had been previously found to be obscene in the first place, correct? Would other pieces or works be considered 'obscene' if perhaps, a similar theme was reproduced as another work which had been deemed obscene? I might be answering my own question here, but would this judgment apply to all genres of works across similar spectrums?


----------



## Ricky (Apr 12, 2010)

Redregon said:


> but it is what it is. unless you are planning a revolution, complaining about it is completely worthless.



Right...

All discussion is absolutely worthless unless it causes a revolution :roll:

Term - you make good points and I see where you're coming from.  I still think something should only be considered criminal if some immoral act is committed but this is just my opinion and obviously not how our laws are structured today.

There's obviously need for preventative measures, too...  Laws such as receiving stolen property which are needed to prevent such immoral acts indirectly (which is why real CP should be illegal now and always).

Just my take.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Apr 12, 2010)

Bambi said:


> And that does make it clear to be.
> 
> So, what you're essentially saying is here, with this last part, that only reproductions of a certain piece would be obscene? Would it be considered 'obscene' if there was say, a piece of particular art that dealt with a similar theme, however wasn't a direct copy?



That piece of art would not be automatically considered obscene.  It would have to go through another legal process to see if the courts agree it's obscene.  And this can be appealed up until the Supreme Court, who, if they agree to take the case, are the final word on the subject.  

Most people don't have the time or money to go through that kind of legal process though.  By the time a specific piece of art reaches the higher courts, chances are a whole new group of Supreme Court justices would be appointed to term and their tendencies to rule something obscene or not obscene would be different than previous decisions.


----------



## Bambi (Apr 12, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> That piece of art would not be automatically considered obscene.  It would have to go through another legal process to see if the courts agree it's obscene.  And this can be appealed up until the Supreme Court, who, if they agree to take the case, are the final word on the subject.
> 
> Most people don't have the time or money to go through that kind of legal process though.  By the time a specific piece of art reaches the higher courts, chances are a whole new group of Supreme Court justices would be appointed to term and their tendencies to rule something obscene or not obscene would be different than previous decisions.


Ah, okay.

Kind of an interesting dynamic to think about -- so, there's already a system of checks of balances to a certain extent on how much art (expression) can and cannot be regulated?


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Apr 12, 2010)

Bambi said:


> Ah, okay.
> 
> Kind of an interesting dynamic to think about -- so, there's already a system of checks of balances to a certain extent on how much art (expression) can and cannot be regulated?



To an extent, yes.  Though legislation is constantly being put in place to try and ban CP and such, things like cub porn are still going to be subject to the legal process of the United States if you're charged with possession of obscene materials.  You're only legal argument would be that the cub art isn't obscene, and though a jury of your peers may find that not a compelling argument, the appeals process could find otherwise.  It's all about how far you're willing to drag out the legal process.


----------



## Redregon (Apr 12, 2010)

Ricky said:


> Right...
> 
> All discussion is absolutely worthless unless it causes a revolution :roll:



nice attempt at skewing the point. 

still, unless you're going to actually DO something about it, complaining is pointless. 



> (it is based on what the majority of society believes and history has shown society is not always correct)



so, if you don't agree with society, go out and change it. 

but hey, when you keep my comment in it's original context, it's less troll-worthy so, good on ya. 9_9


----------



## Bambi (Apr 12, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> To an extent, yes.  Though legislation is constantly being put in place to try and ban CP and such, things like cub porn are still going to be subject to the legal process of the United States if you're charged with possession of obscene materials.  You're only legal argument would be that the cub art isn't obscene, and though a jury of your peers may find that not a compelling argument, the appeals process could find otherwise.  It's all about how far you're willing to drag out the legal process.


Yeah, and I apologize if this is what you thought I was trying to defend.

What I was more or less trying to aim this part of the discussion at is the possibility of legislation being put into place that would attempt to regulate the inherently subjective nature of art (as suggested by the OP), or render "art" completely illegal on pretenses that wouldn't take into proper account the importance that art has on communication and culture.

If it appeared as though I argued on behalf of cub art, I did so only because the context of the discussion immediately framed itself towards such an exchange. It was my argument that if art was going to be made illegal, that process might begin using a sort of "artistic scapegoat" to possibly justify the removal of other things which may or may not be known for their artistic quality; such as photos from regions were genocide has occurred. 

(For all intents and purposes, it was a personal concern that if art was to be made completely illegal, or rendered illegal based upon certain qualities, such legislation might be brought to bear against websites like wiki-leak.)


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Apr 12, 2010)

Bambi said:


> *snip*



Nah, it's cool dude.  The thing I wanted to make clear is that we have a legal process in this country for these kinds of reasons, so that we don't just ban something and then never look at it again.

That's why I think OP's title is misleading, because it doesn't take into account the fact that the US Supreme Court still has the final say on whether or not a SPECIFIC PIECE OF ART is obscene or not, but that doesn't automatically place a ban on things.

The shit only really hits the fan when organizations, like FA, decide to cover their ass and ban cub porn from their site so they avoid having to go through that legal process.  They'd rather just get rid of it instead of putting up the money to pay legal fees to argue that the art they allow to be uploaded to the site isn't obscene/qualifies as child porn.

I never said anyone here is arguing in favor of cub porn.  I understand a lot of people are concerned of the "slippery slope" that if we ban cub porn, does that mean the government is going to make legislation against other types of porn.  The fact of the matter is, most pornography today is considered indecent, but as I said, indecency is still protected under the First Amendment and the federal government can't do shit about it and hasn't done anything directly.  It's only those extreme instances where children and animals are involved in the production or depicted as the subject of porn where questions of true obscenity becomes an issue, and the courts will always maintain that things ruled as "obscene" are not protected under the First Amendment.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 12, 2010)

Redregon said:


> nice attempt at skewing the point.
> 
> still, unless you're going to actually DO something about it, complaining is pointless.



I wasn't "skewing the point", if you'd even call it "a point" in the first place.

Instead of being constructive all you are saying is nothing can be done to change anything so why bother talking about it.

That's useless and not constructive.



Term_the_Schmuck said:


> That's why I think OP's title is misleading, because it doesn't take into account the fact that the US Supreme Court still has the final say on whether or not a SPECIFIC PIECE OF ART is obscene or not, but that doesn't automatically place a ban on things.



Of course it does.

The supreme court sets the precedent for future court cases to follow.

I wouldn't think this was such a big deal if I didn't think a very dangerous precedent was being set here.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Apr 12, 2010)

Ricky said:


> Of course it does.
> 
> The supreme court sets the precedent for future court cases to follow.
> 
> I wouldn't think this was such a big deal if I didn't think a very dangerous precedent was being set here.



At the same time it always changes.

The Roth case wasn't decided until 1957 and helped make it virtually impossible for art to be considered obscene by throwing out the precedents of hundreds of years of British common law.  In 1973, despite the Memoirs v. US case, the US Supreme Court ruled the Miller v. US case which set about the Miller Test which made it possible to ban more things for obscenity.  Precedents are being set and ignored all the time.  And since obscenity is such a touchy subject and has so much subjectivity attached to it, I don't think we'll ever have a real concrete definition on what obscenity is.  At least not one that we'll stick to for hundreds of years.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 12, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> At the same time it always changes.
> 
> The Roth case wasn't decided until 1957 and helped make it virtually impossible for art to be considered obscene by throwing out the precedents of hundreds of years of British common law.  In 1973, despite the Memoirs v. US case, the US Supreme Court ruled the Miller v. US case which set about the Miller Test which made it possible to ban more things for obscenity.  Precedents are being set and ignored all the time.  And since obscenity is such a touchy subject and has so much subjectivity attached to it, I don't think we'll ever have a real concrete definition on what obscenity is.  At least not one that we'll stick to for hundreds of years.



It can change; that's how our government was designed.

As you said though, it's not always easy to take something to Supreme Court.  If a precedent gets set it won't be judged on a case by case basis anymore but will rather follow the trends the Supreme Court set prior to that.

If a similar work of art is found that case will be cited and that is usually the deciding factor.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Apr 12, 2010)

Ricky said:


> It can change; that's how our government was designed.
> 
> As you said though, it's not always easy to take something to Supreme Court.  If a precedent gets set it won't be judged on a case by case basis anymore but will rather follow the trends the Supreme Court set prior to that.
> 
> If a similar work of art is found that case will be cited and that is usually the deciding factor.



In the lower courts, yes, precedents will be taken into account when deciding whether or not something is obscene, and I have admitted to such in previous threads.  But the appeals system is still there for someone to argue that their work is truly not obscene and they'll always have a case if that's their legal argument, unless they're arguing for a work that has already been deemed obscene by the Supreme Court.

At the same time if someone is willing to take something to the highest courts of appeals, and specifically to the Supreme Court, then there is possibility for change.  This is especially true now with the possibility of Obama moving to make the court more liberal.  If it moves in that direction then there is a possibility that the Miller Test will be amended or thrown out all together.


----------



## Axelfox (Apr 12, 2010)

edit


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Apr 12, 2010)

Axelfox said:


> Yeah,because when i was in France to visit some relatives of mine,when a thing about Abercrombie and Fitch came on the news,i could tell by the way they talked,that they thought,those silly americans.
> 
> Because it seems France and whatnot got rid of the Puritans and dumped the Puritans on us.



What the hell are you talking about?


----------



## Taren Fox (Apr 12, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> What the hell are you talking about?


SecondLife France.


----------

