# An Open Letter To The Administrators



## Paul_Lucas (Nov 6, 2006)

This is ultimately a bad decision.

You show cub art to anyone on the street, and at least nine times out of ten they would label it child porn.  That's all the definition of it I need.  In fact, that's all the definition a court of law would need as well, the "community standard" definition of obscenity.  Everything else is just semantics.  Child porn by way of an anthropomorphic metaphor is still child porn.

*I also suggest you look up the JOHN WALSH CHILD PROTECTION ACT OF 2006, or whatever its more proper name is, passed just this past August.  A clause in there allows a judge to define ANY depiction of underage characters in sexual situations as potentially illegal.  It doesn't matter if an actual child is involved or not.  You would not be immune from legal ramifications under that act, it wouldn't matter if the underage characters depicted in cub porn were technically human or not.*

This whole episode is akin to a restaurant banning smoking or not.  A restaurant bans smoking, there's some grumbling, but ultimately the customers would still eat there and just smoke elsewhere.  If you had banned cub porn,  people would complain, but ultimately would still use FA and those who wanted cub porn would just go elsewhere.

Instead, you went the completely opposite direction.  You invite the smokers in, allow them to light up all they want.  Smoking is bad for the smokers and everyone around them, and the restaurant eventually fills with smoke.  It doesn't matter if they have "smoking/non-smoking sections ("filters") or not.  Ultimately, the non-smokers leave and don't come back.

The stigma of child pornography is much harder to get rid of and avoid than cigarette smoke, and it affects everyone by association, not just the artist who drew it.  People who are leaving, myself included, will not come back.  You not only destroyed the sense of community this site had, but FA has become an official child porn site.

And let's look at this situation: a site that allows, and even encourages now, the graphic depictions of the sexual exploitation of children, AND its also one that still allows underage minors to register and use it.  Well, that can't possibly attract the wrong element, could it?  I hope at the very least you put up proper warning pages and change the minimum age of registration to 18.

Editorial control is not an assault on the freedom of expression.  Every private publication and website on Earth exercises it.  Enforcing teh ban on cub art in the first place would not have violated anyone's rights or principlse.  So those of you who were crying non-stop about being "oppressed" or having your freedom suppressed, please stop climbing up onto your crosses and martyring yourselves because other people didn't want cub porn here.

I am going to wait a week or so before I pull out completely, in the probably vain hope that you will come to your senses.  But I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 6, 2006)

You know what. Why don't you do the RIGHT thing, and just start reporting them if you feel what they're doing is illegal. I mean everyone is making appeals. It's obvious the decision has been made.


----------



## TwoTails (Nov 6, 2006)

So lets ban violent movies off the planet because they make everyone kill people.

The missed points are dangerous people are dangerous to begin with, thats why people are supposed to be personally cautious, also banning everything wont make you safer, all that does is give absolute power to those who think they are godlike-then we are at their mercy.

By they way, most of the cub art isn't violent , if you actually seen its done out of sarcasm or telling their own lives with their characters, granted some is horrible i wish i never seen, but this site was never meant to be a 'pure' place.


----------



## Star Ringer (Nov 6, 2006)

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_public_laws&docid=fubl248.109


Please, if you will, point out to me where it redefines child pornography as anything other than that which has an actual child. I've searched extensively and have yet to find it.


----------



## yak (Nov 6, 2006)

*sigh* 
First of all, please don't mind if i correct you on one key flaw in your example. My additions will be in bold.


> This whole episode is akin to a restaurant banning smoking or not.  A restaurant bans smoking, there's some grumbling, but ultimately the customers would still eat there and just smoke elsewhere.
> *Given the fact that FA, in it's incarnation, is kind'a unique on the web, you do have a point. They have no other place to go, and will suffer the shortcomings, whichever they will turn out to be. However..
> It will be only true to say that if that restaurant didn't ban smokers, all the people would do exactly the same, hence grumble a bit and still eat there, by using that very same logic that made the first option valid.
> And given the fact that people, and yourself /are/ leaving over that ban not being applied, this renders your argument invalid. It simply works either way, you just took a look at it from one side of the coin.*
> ...


So instead of coming to a compromise of having a restaurant built right at the side of the pub, thus allowing people to switch the environment /and/ the audience, you want to single handedly burn to the ground the very last remaining pub in the city.
Need i to say what will those 'immoral' people do, once they are left in the streets? Will they not invade your restaurants and try to turn them into a pub, /at least one/ ob them?

----

Logics aside, all that i want to say is the following, being completely unbiased and cold headed.
FA doesn't want to force anyone out. That is the main factor. 
FA doesn't want to cater for specific aspect of the fandom, and rather be a free-for-all service. If we ban something, that meas we *do* cater for some parts of the fandom, while outright banning the other. In that case, how would you like it if /your/ art was in question? 
FA doesn't want to practice censorship, since we clearly realize that censorship /will/ be subjective and limited to the combined personal preferences of every admin. Hence if 50%+1 will hate inflation, by the rules you are trying to impose, inflation will be banned by the executive decigion of the administration.

Nobody forces people to look at what they do not like. That was prior this incident. But given the new circumstances...
When the new filters will go live, you will be able to filter this content, if you are so delicate about what you want to see - or we *will* force you not to look at what you don't approve, but don't have the power to ignore.

How did you like my previuos sentece? Sounded like dictatorship to you, didn't it? Sounded like going overboard? Well, here was a good example of what you are proposing. the next thing will be quality control, and then the subject/specie control.

But you are so self-confident that you don't even bother to look at the other side of the medal. 

---

Furthermore, FA is not a property of Dragoneer, or Jheryn, or all and all of us together. So don't try to persuade any of the admins by pestering them with notes and emails. I a perfect administration, it is futile.
None of us have that 'final' word in any decigion, and the final decigion was given much thinking behind the scenes. I dare you not to think that this had something to do with personal preferences of any of the admins. I have seen people go as low as accusing admins to be pedos themselves or that the site is funded by pedos via those donations, hence the unwilingness to ban that sort of art.

---

Re-reading what i wrote, i do find it slightly ad-hominem, and appologize to the original poster. I wasn't targeting you in specific, but rather showing the 'alternative' interpretation of the situation to you all.


----------



## Lt_Havoc (Nov 6, 2006)

Wehn the filters work, thats the main pojnt. Seeing what other problems the site has, like no porper search, for example, I can not see a working filter here. Its a lot of work and I hope you have the right guys for the job, otherwise it will go all wrong and people will still complain about wrong tagged images and whatnot.


----------



## greyfur (Nov 6, 2006)

Paul_Lucas said:
			
		

> This is ultimately a bad decision.
> 
> You show cub art to anyone on the street, and at least nine times out of ten they would label it child porn.  That's all the definition of it I need.  In fact, that's all the definition a court of law would need as well, the "community standard" definition of obscenity.  Everything else is just semantics.  Child porn by way of an anthropomorphic metaphor is still child porn.
> 
> ...



I can sign under this. Will ad just one thing :

Furries consider themselves or see themselves as anthro animals. In this light is seeing porn art where is depicted a cub, pedophile pornography, being it banned by the law or not.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 6, 2006)

greyfur said:
			
		

> Furries consider themselves or see themselves as anthro animals. In this light is seeing porn art where is depicted a cub, pedophile pornography, being it banned by the law or not.



Don't speak for everyone ok?


----------



## uncia2000 (Nov 6, 2006)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> greyfur said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It happens, y'know...

=


			
				Paul_Lucas said:
			
		

> *JOHN WALSH CHILD PROTECTION ACT OF 2006*



Adam Walsh, actually...



			
				Paul_Lucas said:
			
		

> *A clause in there allows a judge to define ANY depiction of underage characters in sexual situations as potentially illegal.  It doesn't matter if an actual child is involved or not.  You would not be immune from legal ramifications under that act, it wouldn't matter if the underage characters depicted in cub porn were technically human or not.*



Could you please point me at the "clause" you're referring to, Paul?

In the relevant section of the bill text, copied below, in addition to any definitions of "child pornography" given elsewhere, it is explicitly stated (highlighted in red) that "Every instance of viewing images of child pornography represents a renewed violation of the privacy of the victims and a repetition of their abuse".
i.e. Clearly referring to real children, not even pseudo-photographs or artistic depictions of human children in that context, and certainly not referring to images or artistic depictions of non-humans or imaginary characters as far as I can see.

Thanks,
David/u2k

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-4472


> <clip>
> TITLE V--CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
> PREVENTION
> SEC. 501. FINDINGS.
> ...


----------



## greyfur (Nov 6, 2006)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> greyfur said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



CAN you say that this doesn't happen at all ?


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 6, 2006)

greyfur said:
			
		

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



Your argument is still invalid.


----------



## InvaderPichu (Nov 6, 2006)

greyfur said:
			
		

> Furries consider themselves or see themselves as anthro animals.



I don't see myself as an anthro animal. I'm a human. And I see myself as a human. I use a fursona on the internet just for fun. You failed.


----------



## BijouxDeFoxxe (Nov 6, 2006)

greyfur said:
			
		

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



CAN you say that this happens all the time?

Zoomg, logic strikes again!  

Like InvaderPichu said.  I call myself the baxen.  But do I believe I am one?  NO, I dont.  CUS I KNOW THEY AINT REAL!  I know this cus i made them up.


----------



## Selunca (Nov 6, 2006)

Do the administrators not have e-mails anymore or somthing? Jeeze.


----------



## uncia2000 (Nov 6, 2006)

Yes; I even have a spam-free email account, too... 

=
Personally I'd rather see this cleared up in public re. that particular piece of legislation as to what the actual scope is, so that people can be pointed at this thread, as required, at a later date rather than just working on "what they might have heard from someone, somewhere".


----------



## Hyenaworks (Nov 6, 2006)

I think the decision was wrong on moral grounds.  Hell, judges now say it's cool to engage in sexual content with children just so long as you don't send a picture... lol  So, there is no legal grounds and the admins of this site only care about legality.  Why should they care otherwise?

What pissed me off was this bullshit idea of a democratic decision.  That was just stupid on the administration's part.


----------



## Master_Oki_Akai (Nov 6, 2006)

Ya know what, there was a lot of legalese babal in that excerpt Uncia posted (not knocking you on it, I'd actually like to thank you for posting that).  So I took it on to a new document and seperated the elements to make it easier to read, and ya know what, no, i'm not seeing it either.  So point it out if you HONESTLY think it's there


----------



## Paul_Lucas (Nov 6, 2006)

I was asked by the admins in a private message to specify the parts of the Act in question that I was referring to.Â Â I did, and then was asked to post the reply publicly for general consumption.Â Â Here it is in its entirety:

- - -



			
				uncia2000 said:
			
		

> Greetings, Paul,
> 
> Per http://www.furaffinityforums.net/showthread.php?tid=4283&pid=62488&#pid62488 , would appreciate your assistance in identifying the clause you're referring to.
> 
> ...



Sorry, 'clause' was probably not the right technical term.

You can find the full text of the act at:Â Â http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-4472

I've reproduced the relevant sections below and highlighted the parts I was referring to:

Â Â TITLE V--CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â PREVENTION
SEC. 501. FINDINGS.
Â Â Â Â Congress makes the following findings:
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  (1) The effect of the intrastate production, transportation,
Â Â Â Â distribution, receipt, advertising, and possession of child
Â Â Â Â pornography on the interstate market in child pornography:
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â (A) The illegal production, transportation, distribution,
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  receipt, advertising and possession of child pornography,
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  as defined in section 2256(8) of title 18, United States
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  Code, as well as the transfer of custody of children for
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  the production of child pornography, is harmful to the
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  physiological, emotional, and mental health of the children
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  depicted in child pornography and has a substantial and
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  detrimental effect on society as a whole.
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â (B) A substantial interstate market in child pornog-
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  raphy exists, including not only a multimillion dollar
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  industry, but also a nationwide network of individuals
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  openly advertising their desire to exploit children and to
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  traffic in child pornography. Many of these individuals
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  distribute child pornography with the expectation of
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  receiving other child pornography in return.
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â (C) The interstate market in child pornography is car-
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  ried on to a substantial extent through the mails and
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  other instrumentalities of interstate and foreign commerce,
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  such as the Internet. The advent of the Internet has greatly
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  increased the ease of transporting, distributing, receiving,
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  and advertising child pornography in interstate commerce.
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  The advent of digital cameras and digital video cameras,
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  as well as videotape cameras, has greatly increased the
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  ease of producing child pornography. The advent of
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  inexpensive computer equipment with the capacity to store
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  large numbers of digital images of child pornography has
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  greatly increased the ease of possessing child pornography.
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  Taken together, these technological advances have had the
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  unfortunate result of greatly increasing the interstate
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  market in child pornography.
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â (D) Intrastate incidents of production, transportation,
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  distribution, receipt, advertising, and possession of child
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  pornography, as well as the transfer of custody of children
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  for the production of child pornography, have a substantial
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  and direct effect upon interstate commerce because:
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  (i) Some persons engaged in the production,
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â transportation, distribution, receipt, advertising, and
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â possession of child pornography conduct such activities
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â entirely within the boundaries of one state. These per-
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â sons are unlikely to be content with the amount of
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â child pornography they produce, transport, distribute,
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  H. R. 4472--38

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  receive, advertise, or possess. These persons are there-
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  fore likely to enter the interstate market in child
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  pornography in search of additional child pornography,
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  thereby stimulating demand in the interstate market
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  in child pornography.
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â (ii) When the persons described in subparagraph
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  (D)(i) enter the interstate market in search of addi-
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  tional child pornography, they are likely to distribute
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  the child pornography they already produce, transport,
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  distribute, receive, advertise, or possess to persons who
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  will distribute additional child pornography to them,
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  thereby stimulating supply in the interstate market
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  in child pornography.
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â (iii) Much of the child pornography that supplies
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  the interstate market in child pornography is produced
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  entirely within the boundaries of one state, is not
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  traceable, and enters the interstate market surrep-
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  titiously. This child pornography supports demand in
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  the interstate market in child pornography and is
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  essential to its existence.
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  (E) Prohibiting the intrastate production, transpor-
Â Â Â Â tation, distribution, receipt, advertising, and possession of
Â Â Â Â child pornography, as well as the intrastate transfer of
Â Â Â Â custody of children for the production of child pornography,
Â Â Â Â will cause some persons engaged in such intrastate activi-
Â Â Â Â ties to cease all such activities, thereby reducing both
Â Â Â Â supply and demand in the interstate market for child
Â Â Â Â pornography.
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  (F) Federal control of the intrastate incidents of the
Â Â Â Â production, transportation, distribution, receipt, adver-
Â Â Â Â tising, and possession of child pornography, as well as
Â Â Â Â the intrastate transfer of children for the production of
Â Â Â Â child pornography, is essential to the effective control of
Â Â Â Â the interstate market in child pornography.
Â Â Â Â (2) The importance of protecting children from repeat
exploitation in child pornography:
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  (A) The vast majority of child pornography prosecutions
Â Â Â Â today involve images contained on computer hard drives,
Â Â Â Â computer disks, and related media.
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â * (B) Child pornography is not entitled to protection
Â Â Â Â under the First Amendment and thus may be prohibited*.
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  (C) The government has a compelling State interest
Â Â Â Â in protecting children from those who sexually exploit them,
Â Â Â Â and this interest extends to stamping out the vice of child
Â Â Â Â pornography at all levels in the distribution chain.
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  (D) Every instance of viewing images of child pornog-
Â Â Â Â raphy represents a renewed violation of the privacy of
Â Â Â Â the victims and a repetition of their abuse.
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  (E) Child pornography constitutes prima facie contra-
Â Â Â Â band, and as such should not be distributed to, or copied
Â Â Â Â by, child pornography defendants or their attorneys.
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  (F) It is imperative to prohibit the reproduction of
Â Â Â Â child pornography in criminal cases so as to avoid repeated
Â Â Â Â violation and abuse of victims, so long as the government
Â Â Â Â makes reasonable accommodations for the inspection,
Â Â Â Â viewing, and examination of such material for the purposes
Â Â Â Â of mounting a criminal defense.
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  H. R. 4472--39
SEC. 502. OTHER RECORD KEEPING REQUIREMENTS.
Â Â Â Â (a) IN GENERAL.--Section 2257 of title 18, United States Code,
is amended--
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â (1) in subsection (a), by inserting after ``videotape,'' the
Â Â Â Â following: ``digital image, digitally- or computer-manipulated
Â Â Â Â image of an actual human being, picture,'';
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â (2) in subsection (e)(1), by adding at the end the following:
Â Â Â Â ``In this paragraph, the term `copy' includes every page of
Â Â Â Â a website on which matter described in subsection (a) appears.'';
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â (3) in subsection (f), by--
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â colon;(A) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'' after the semi-
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â (B) in paragraph (4), by striking the period and
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â inserting ``; and''; and
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â (C) by adding at the end the following:
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â ``(5) for any person to whom subsection (a) applies to refuse
Â Â Â Â to permit the Attorney General or his or her designee to conduct
Â Â Â Â an inspection under subsection (c).''; and
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â (4) by striking subsection (h) and inserting the following:
Â Â Â Â ``(h) In this section--
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â ``(1) the term `actual sexually explicit conduct' means actual
Â Â Â Â but not simulated conduct as defined in clauses (i) through
Â Â Â Â (v) of section 2256(2)(A) of this title;
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â ``(2) the term `produces'--
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â ``(A) means--
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â ``(i) actually filming, videotaping, photographing,
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â creating a picture, digital image, or digitally- or com-
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â puter-manipulated image of an actual human being;
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â *Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â ``(ii) digitizing an image, of a visual depiction of
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â sexually explicit conduct; or, assembling, manufac-
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â turing, publishing, duplicating, reproducing, or
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â reissuing a book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape,
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â digital image, or picture, or other matter intended
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â for commercial distribution, that contains a visual
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â depiction of sexually explicit conduct; or*
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â ``(iii) inserting on a computer site or service a
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â digital image of, or otherwise managing the sexually
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â explicit content, of a computer site or service that
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â contains a visual depiction of, sexually explicit conduct;
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â and
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â ``(B) does not include activities that are limited to--
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â ``(i) photo or film processing, including digitization
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â of previously existing visual depictions, as part of a
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â commercial enterprise, with no other commercial
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â interest in the sexually explicit material, printing, and
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â video duplication;
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â ``(ii) distribution;
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â ``(iii) any activity, other than those activities identi-
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â fied in subparagraph (A), that does not involve the
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â arranging for the participation of the depicted per-
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â formers;
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â ``(iv) the provision of a telecommunications service,
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â or of an Internet access service or Internet information
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â location tool (as those terms are defined in section
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 231 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C.
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 231)); or
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  


- - -

Basically, the first highlighted section formally removes First Amendment protections against any form of child pornography.Â Â if a judge rules something child pornography, any arguments that it has artistic value or is a form of freedom of expression goes out the window.Â Â This isn't really anything new as far as material judged to be obscene, but let's face it, cub porn really can't be classified as anything else legally.

Under a broad interpretation, and it was written vaguely with the intention to allow that, the second highlighted section can proclaim any graphic depiction of underage sexual activity, including nudity or clothed but sexually suggestive poses, as child porn.Â Â Please note the lack of mention of "an actual human being" in that section, which means a real child need not be depicted for the image to be declared child pornography.

This was an amendment added to the act by a conservative GOP senator who wanted to abolish all forms of child pornography.Â Â It may or may not hold up to a challenge in court, but to the best of my knowledge that hadn't happened yet, and until it is overturned, its federal law.Â Â 

There was a lot of grumbling in civil rights circles when this was passed, but like a lot of what the GOP congress has done, it pretty much passed under the radar of public perception.Â Â However, a number of message boards did mention that a lot of sites that specialized in lolicon and shota shut down immediately the day after the act passed for fear of being prosecuted under the act.Â Â Not4chan and PAL comix are the ones I remember being mentioned.Â Â 4chan, which I do frequent occasionally myself, came down very hard on any kinds of CP, loli, jailbait and so on that could possibly get them in trouble with the Act.Â Â Some of the shut down sites have come back since, but its my understanding that they've switched their servers and sites to overseas providers outside of US jurisdiction.

Hope that helps.Â Â 

- - -

The argument that "cub" art is not relevant here because it does not depict human children is spurious at best.Â Â If you're taken to court for this kind of thing, would that really be the defense that you would use?Â Â It would not hold up in court.Â Â Slapping ears and a tail on a child character would not make it less of a child, anymore than putting a costume on a real child makes it a kitty.

- - -

I'd also like to add that I am not leaving because of moral outrage.Â Â If it was just that, I'd be flaming on the forums until I was banned.Â Â But I cannot have my work associated with child porn or a site that promotes it.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 6, 2006)

Hyenaworks said:
			
		

> I think the decision was wrong on moral grounds.  Hell, judges now say it's cool to engage in sexual content with children just so long as you don't send a picture... lol  So, there is no legal grounds and the admins of this site only care about legality.  Why should they care otherwise?
> 
> What pissed me off was this bullshit idea of a democratic decision.  That was just stupid on the administration's part.



Why just sexual contact, have you ever noticed that there was nothing about physical abuse of a "sexually underdeveloped" character either?

Not all heinous acts against children involve sex. Beating a child till their bruised and bloody is rather disgusting. It's just as damaging. The effects are just as long lasting. They torment you for a long time.

I also like to know where people get off that the victims of rape as adults deserve no sensitivity simply because illustrations of fictional children take precedence. I want to know why you think that when someone becomes an adult they're no longer innocent against an attack against them? It's not traumatic?

Maybe the reason why is that this country, mainly the US and Westernized/European places (but I'm sure there are other countries in this that are different), seem to have such an issue with this.

You have a place like Japan with a very low crime rate, who produce massive amounts of this kind of art as well. However, even though I'm aware there is some under reporting of their sex crimes, this is a non issue. There isn't as much as a correlation and their society actually has a negative birth rate and not rampant amounts of sex.

Sometimes I  wonder, and even though the stuff isn't my cup of tea, and I used to have knee jerk reactions to seeing it. I thought about it. I had come to grips with realizing art is not reality. I turn off the computer I still have a life. Some of the stuff I enjoyed like anime was easily called "pedophilia" I remember being an "early fan" or "otaku" I guess. You couldn't argue otherwise with people in the states that Anime wasn't Cartoon Porn/Pedophilic porn. Anime got a bit more acceptance as other shows were in the mainstream. 

Times change, things still make me uncomfortable and ill. I have personal issues with child porn and rape, but I have to sit down and realize art isn't my reality. Reality is a horror I deal with everyday. I can turn off the stuff I don't want to see when it comes to art. I can visit other websites.

Even though I love the freedoms we have in the US and I don't really want to be in another country, sometimes I wish we had the sensibilities Japan does and can get our act together.


----------



## StalkerAT (Nov 6, 2006)

The JOHN WALSH CHILD PROTECTION ACT OF 2006 has almost nothing to do with that case here. It could be that I'm wrong, because I can't read the legal english too well.

The bigger troubles here are a lil older (UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1998 with an Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights): Child pornography means any representation, by whatever means, of a child engaged in real or simulated explicit sexual activities or any representation of the sexual parts of a child for primarily sexual purposes.

The Convention wasn't signed by the US and Somalia, but the US starts to do pretty much the same thing. 192 different nations of various beliefs, morals and religions decided to act against child pornography, child molestation, capital punishment for children. This is nothing to underestimate and "cub porn" is like to skate on thin ice.


----------



## Master_Oki_Akai (Nov 6, 2006)

Uh Paul bub, that second section is referring to the production, transfer and distribution of taken images such as photos or video.
That's got nothing to do with the art here because it is AGAIN and it even SAYS several times here.  PHOTOS or FILM of real children.  because the crux of it is (if you remember) about the abuse and that repeated production and distribution multiplies the abuse of that child.
MEANING a real child had to have been involved.  Simba ain't gonna give a shit but Bobby up the street will.


----------



## Summercat (Nov 6, 2006)

Master_Oki_Akai said:
			
		

> Uh Paul bub, that second section is referring to the production, transfer and distribution of taken images such as photos or video.
> That's got nothing to do with the art here because it is AGAIN and it even SAYS several times here.  PHOTOS or FILM of real children.  because the crux of it is (if you remember) about the abuse and that repeated production and distribution multiplies the abuse of that child.
> MEANING a real child had to have been involved.  Simba ain't gonna give a shit but Bobby up the street will.



Nobody has ever said how one can abuse a fictional character in any way shape or form except for fiction.

But that gets me on shakey moralistic grounds within my own head and philosophy, so I'm not going to really push that as an arguement.


----------



## Master_Oki_Akai (Nov 6, 2006)

Summercat said:
			
		

> Master_Oki_Akai said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And normally I'd be inclined to agree with you, child porn is child porn it doesn't matter if the kid is real or drawn both things are produced by the same type of people.  
However, that's not the point here, the point HERE is this misinterpretation of an article of law.


----------



## Summercat (Nov 6, 2006)

Master_Oki_Akai said:
			
		

> And normally I'd be inclined to agree with you, child porn is child porn it doesn't matter if the kid is real or drawn both things are produced by the same type of people.
> However, that's not the point here, the point HERE is this misinterpretation of an article of law.



Actually, not really. Real child porn (POrn that involves real children) involve abusing the child. People who make that have no problems doing so.

The majority of people that I've seen who make cubporn do so becuase they like ageplay - their characters are the cubs being yiffed, and I don't want to make assumptions, but some of the people I DO know into cubart would never actually touch a child.


----------



## Master_Oki_Akai (Nov 6, 2006)

Summercat said:
			
		

> Master_Oki_Akai said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Fine, I'll grant you that one.  I have no interest in any of it so i really can't say as I understand it either.  
And I know as an artist, the only people who care about artists rights and things like art theft and artistic liscense is artists themselves.
I was kinda asking for it but it was quite a wake up call when I asked my Education classmates how much they knew about art theft and everyone who wasn't also in art ed said "who cares?".

So yeah, maybe I don't understand anything about it cuz I certainly don't care about it (yet).


----------



## Summercat (Nov 6, 2006)

Master_Oki_Akai said:
			
		

> Fine, I'll grant you that one.  I have no interest in any of it so i really can't say as I understand it either.
> And I know as an artist, the only people who care about artists rights and things like art theft and artistic liscense is artists themselves.
> I was kinda asking for it but it was quite a wake up call when I asked my Education classmates how much they knew about art theft and everyone who wasn't also in art ed said "who cares?".
> 
> So yeah, maybe I don't understand anything about it cuz I certainly don't care about it (yet).



I'm not an artist. And I don't care if people steal my ideas - I've got proof they were mine first, and if they make money off of it, well... I'll drop 'em a line, and tell 'em - Hey. I don't want money. I want recognition. That's it.

But I care about other's stuff being stolen. Against their will. I aint an artist, but I care for 'em, and I hate art theft.

But I got sidetracked. Yes, when you are personally involved in something that others question, you tend to know more details of it than if you are not.


----------



## TwoTails (Nov 6, 2006)

You know, this is odd, in some parenting books are illustrations of such stuff of kids, but it takes into account around half of kids figure out this stuff by themselves or with friends and states how to prevent or control further problems..
Again this is hypocrisy and irony at its finest.


----------



## nobuyuki (Nov 6, 2006)

> ``(ii) digitizing an image, of a visual depiction of
> sexually explicit conduct; or, assembling, manufac-
> turing, publishing, duplicating, reproducing, or
> reissuing a book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape,
> ...



Kay.  You know how to use a computer?  Think you know a bit about the lingo?  From the dictionary:

_ Digitize:  To translate into a digital form. For example, optical scanners digitize images by translating them into bit maps. It is also possible to digitize sound, video, and any type of movement. In all these cases, digitization is performed by sampling at discrete intervals. To digitize sound, for example, a device measures a sound wave's amplitude many times per second. These numeric values can then be recorded digitally. _

the guys who posted before me beat me to it.  This applies to medium that is already clearly legally defined as CP.  This law you're quoting is highly irrelevant --  I hope you're not so ignorant that you can't see that it is, so stop trying to purposefully confuse people with smoke and mirrors.



> Under a broad interpretation, and it was written vaguely with the intention to allow that, the second highlighted section can proclaim any graphic depiction of underage sexual activity, including nudity or clothed but sexually suggestive poses, as child porn.  Please note the lack of mention of "an actual human being" in that section, which means a real child need not be depicted for the image to be declared child pornography.



That's where legal precedent is important.  The fact this law is over-vague again is unfortunate, but it seems that it's TOO vague to even address the precedent you claim it's trying to overturn.  I didn't read anything in those points you bolded where it redefines the scope of what's CP, just this overbearing quote of yours where you claim "let's face it, cub porn really can't be classified as anything else legally".  You based your entire argument on this presumption!  This is invalid reasoning which is commonly known as ARGUMENTUM AD POPULUM (or to dumb it down, the "everyone knows that!"  fallacy).  Please try again.


----------



## Summercat (Nov 6, 2006)

TwoTails said:
			
		

> You know, this is odd, in some parenting books are illustrations of such stuff of kids, but it takes into account around half of kids figure out this stuff by themselves or with friends and states how to prevent or control further problems..
> Again this is hypocrisy and irony at its finest.



The best way to deal with this subject is early, honestly, truthfully, and candidly.

Yes, I repeated myself three times. Because three is the magic number, and I don't have a theasauris to keep going to emphasive that point.

Parents need to let their kids know the facts before the kids have to find out the not to dos the hard way.


----------



## Paul_Lucas (Nov 6, 2006)

nobuyuki said:
			
		

> > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â ``(ii) digitizing an image, of a visual depiction of
> > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â sexually explicit conduct; or, assembling, manufac-
> > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â turing, publishing, duplicating, reproducing, or
> > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â reissuing a book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape,
> ...




Its a lot more like the COMMUNITY STANDARD DEFINITION OF OBSCENITY that many judges go by.  That basically goes that if any reasonable person from the community were to look at an image, would they classify it as obscenity?  Take an average person off the street, show them oh, say, a graphic image of one five-year-old-looking catboy sodomizing another, and what do you think they're going to say?  Seriously, not a furry, not a cub porn offcienado, but just an average person on the streets of the real world?  if you're ever in a court of law pertaining to something like this, more than likely THAT is the standard they will use to determine if the material in question is obscene and/or CP.

Section (ii) does not state just the distribution of said material, which the admins would have to worry about regardless, but also the assembly and manufacture of said material, which affects the artist.  read it again, more carefully this time.

The Act and its language was worrisome enough to cause a number of people who had loli and shota material online to pull their sites or to move them overseas.  Now I'm not assuming, and neither should anyone here, that they were stupid people.  People here should not make the mistake of assuming that because their child characters have fur and a tail that somehow that will make them magically immune to this law.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 6, 2006)

Again, if you feel it is a legality issue, walk the walk and report them. Don't talk the talk.


----------



## Master_Oki_Akai (Nov 6, 2006)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> Again, if you feel it is a legality issue, walk the walk and report them. Don't talk to the talk.



Yeah really.  You're obviously reading it but you're still grasping at straws trying to further an interpretation we already see is wrong.  
SO instead of trying to speak on behalf of the legal system, why don't you give a call to somebody who actually KNOWS what they're talking about.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 6, 2006)

My problem is that everyone is saying "OMG LIABILITY" ok if you feel FA is so arrogant in their ruling push back. Go to a lawyer, go report them to some crime agency, fuck Contact Disney and show them the porn!

It may be "shit stirring" on my part but really, stop guessing the future stop playing e lawyer and see what really does come of this.

I'm calling the opponents bluff. That's all.


----------



## Master_Oki_Akai (Nov 6, 2006)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> My problem is that everyone is saying "OMG LIABILITY" ok if you feel FA is so arrogant in their ruling push back. Go to a lawyer, go report them to some crime agency, fuck Contact Disney and show them the porn!
> 
> It may be "shit stirring" on my part but really, stop guessing the future stop playing e lawyer and see what really does come of this.
> 
> I'm calling the opponents bluff. That's all.



yeah cuz i don't know, maybe somebodys stupid enough to do it.
Go get a lawyer, file a suit, judge ask "how did you know about this?"
Then it's OH SHIT!
Do i stick with my moral attitude and keep hold to the oath i just took to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Or do I lie in an attempt to save my already shriveled pride?

And tat's assuming they even have the money or the boredom to go that far.  Like that stupid bitch who sued McDonalds for having hot coffee.


----------



## InvaderPichu (Nov 6, 2006)

I think everyone who supposably cares for the welfare of children needs to stop posting on a furry website that hosts artwork that isn't harming anyone and actually do something to help exploited children. Child model sites like Pleasure Models exploit innocent kids, and they're completely legal. Isn't that messed up? And last I checked, in Russia child pornography is completely legal. Doesn't that make you sick to your stomach? Do something about that sick shit and stop worrying about a bunch of drawings.


----------



## uncia2000 (Nov 6, 2006)

k... Thanks again for the reply, Paul, and apologies for the slight delay getting back, here.

Yes, we're basically looking at the same text, but the text I highlighted still continues to place the scope clearly and firmly in the realms of RL humans.

         (D) Every instance of viewing images of child pornog-
    raphy represents a renewed violation of the privacy of
    the victims and a repetition of their abuse.

I cannot see anything that supports the initial "Child porn by way of an anthropomorphic metaphor is still child porn" assertion and your highlighted text from the legislation "Child pornography is not entitled to protection under the First Amendment and thus may be prohibited." says nothing about that scope of what "child porn" is.

As per my comment on the Canadian example on the other thread, if it were purely a matter of age, a photograph of a horse's rump would have to be deemed "child porn" if that horse were under 18 as a _first_ step to showing that a fantasy anthro character under the stated age of 18 could in any way be considered "child porn".



> The argument that "cub" art is not relevant here because it does not depict human children is spurious at best.  If you're taken to court for this kind of thing, would that really be the defense that you would use?  It would not hold up in court.  Slapping ears and a tail on a child character would not make it less of a child, anymore than putting a costume on a real child makes it a kitty.



If it's a clear depiction of a human with ears and tail stuck on in an adult context, it's safe to say that will be removed.
If the situation is at all ambiguous in this context, the artist must confirm that the subject matter is /not/ intended to be human.

That, _I believe_, would be how things would work, anyhow.


----------



## Vekke (Nov 6, 2006)

Paul_Lucas said:
			
		

> This is ultimately a bad decision.
> 
> You show cub art to anyone on the street, and at least nine times out of ten they would label it child porn.  That's all the definition of it I need.  In fact, that's all the definition a court of law would need as well, the "community standard" definition of obscenity.  Everything else is just semantics.  Child porn by way of an anthropomorphic metaphor is still child porn.



that activity actually sounds like a lot of fun

i should go do that later this week

i'll even share the results

unless i get fined for being in posession of furry-child porn, in which case i won't have money to pay for the internets

if this happens i apologize in advance

(In all seriousness, though)


			
				Paul_Lucas said:
			
		

> This whole episode is akin to a restaurant banning smoking or not.  A restaurant bans smoking, there's some grumbling, but ultimately the customers would still eat there and just smoke elsewhere.  If you had banned cub porn,  people would complain, but ultimately would still use FA and those who wanted cub porn would just go elsewhere.
> 
> Instead, you went the completely opposite direction.  You invite the smokers in, allow them to light up all they want.  Smoking is bad for the smokers and everyone around them, and the restaurant eventually fills with smoke.  It doesn't matter if they have "smoking/non-smoking sections ("filters") or not.  Ultimately, the non-smokers leave and don't come back.
> 
> The stigma of child pornography is much harder to get rid of and avoid than cigarette smoke, and it affects everyone by association, not just the artist who drew it.  People who are leaving, myself included, will not come back.  You not only destroyed the sense of community this site had, but FA has become an official child porn site.



Bad analogy.

Smoking affects people other than the smoker. pictures on the internet really don't, unless you _let_ them affect you.

There's really only one way it affects other people: if it's bad for your business or reputation or you don't want to be yoked with "furry pedophiles", pull your art and go elsewhere, maybe state why you did so. The furry porn was enough that, while I have an account on the main site, I don't post it. It's that simple and shouldn't be as big a deal as people are making it out to be. This is not the only furry art site on the internets. If you like the community, stay in the community, just don't post your art.


----------



## PhoenixDragon (Nov 6, 2006)

Paul_Lucas said:
			
		

> Take an average person off the street, show them oh, say, a graphic image of one five-year-old-looking catboy sodomizing another, and what do you think they're going to say?



I imagine it would be about the same response as if they looked 25 years old, instead.


----------



## uncia2000 (Nov 6, 2006)

_(re. deleted posts: please keep on-topic and minimise the bashing. Thanks. d.)_


----------



## icywolfy (Nov 6, 2006)

> ``(ii) digitizing an image, of a visual depiction of
> sexually explicit conduct; or, assembling, manufac-
> turing, publishing, duplicating, reproducing, or
> reissuing a book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape,
> ...



Entirely irrelevant.   What's important is the *definition* of child pornography. (Comments in bold)

(8) â€œchild pornographyâ€ means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, whereâ€”
(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
*Ok.  A minor having sex*
(B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
*But wait! It's qualified such that it is indistinguishable from, that of a minor Most people can distinguish cubs from minors*
(C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.
(9) â€œidentifiable minorâ€â€”
(A) means a personâ€”
*A person*
(i)
(I) who was a minor at the time the visual depiction was created, adapted, or modified; or
(II) whose image as a minor was used in creating, adapting, or modifying the visual depiction; and
(ii) who is recognizable as an actual person by the personâ€™s face, likeness, or other distinguishing characteristic, such as a unique birthmark or other recognizable feature; and
*And I for one cannot identify who a cartoon drawing of a cub is, and associate is to a specific minor... in fact the cubs I do recognize associate to be to Adults who Roleplay as them.*
(B) shall not be construed to require proof of the actual identity of the identifiable minor.
(11) the term â€œindistinguishableâ€ used with respect to a depiction, means virtually indistinguishable, in that the depiction is such that an ordinary person viewing the depiction would conclude that the depiction is of an actual minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. This definition does not apply to depictions that are drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings depicting minors or adults.
*Remember, you can't stamp out creative artistic expression, as that is a blatent violation of rights*

There are various supreme court case laws striking the definition as unconstitutional, but they were referring to the version prior to the 2003 amendment, and I haven't the time to sift through the records to find more recent rulings on the matter (if any have tested the constitutionality of the current legislature)


----------



## Summercat (Nov 7, 2006)

uncia2000 said:
			
		

> _(re. deleted posts: please keep on-topic and minimise the bashing. Thanks. d.)_



Damnit, Uncia -

I exist to derail threads that devolve into flaming and bashing!


----------

