# Since no one has actually seriouslly brought his up...



## Trpdwarf (May 19, 2009)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28319199/


> Judge Paul V. Niemeyer noted in the majority opinion that the statute under which Whorley was convicted, the PROTECT Act of 2003, clearly states that "it is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exists."


Virginia state law has now created a gray area when it comes to child pornography. For evidence see the above. The same sort of gray area led to Further Confusion and Eurofurence to ban things like Soft-Paw because of the legality issue that cub porn could present should the issue be pressed by the law.

The ban in FC is linked to a California law.
The ban in EU is linked a German law.
See links below dealing with the banning.

http://furry.wikia.com/wiki/News:Further_Confusion_2008_Bans_SoftPaw
http://furry.wikia.com/wiki/News:Eurofurence_13_bans_Softpaw

 Virginia has that same gray area, and FA servers are hosted in Virginia. So I ask, of the mods, why have you not followed suit and decide to ban cub porn from FA? Do you not perceive it to be a possible legality issue in the future? I am not telling you how to view it, or how to respond, I am just curious as to what your standing is.

I would also like to see the opinions of members on this. I know Whitenoise made a thread on this but due to the presentation it was locked. I thought I would make a more structured version dealing with the core issue.


----------



## Dragoneer (May 19, 2009)

Any and all legal suits that have used said material due so as evidence in conjunction with actual proof of said acts, not merely on the premise of "hey, they had this weird art".

Law does not dictate on the limitations of imagination, but can, instead, use imagination as assisted evidence when they have real proof. In the Virginia case, the dude /was/ a pedophile, had photos and videos, and the courts used the hentai, loli and other as additional evidence.

It'd be no different if "Bob" kills a person, and the court not only finds evidence that he killed the person, but tons of art on his computer of people being murdered, dying, videos of snuff, BDSM, etc.  If people are committing acts of pedophilia they get, and deserve, what is coming to them. The courts use the "evidence" in such cases to go "Oh yeah? Well, we have all this proof, and he had all these comics and mags and shit, too!". However, imagination is merely that; imagination. Macros aren't killing people, wrecking cities, inflationists are "popping" themselves, vores are eating other people, etc.

Imagination is a dangerous and violent place that defies logic, physics and rationality. Imagination is whatever it wants to be, and hides just out of sight under our beds. It can be friendly beast or a horrific monstrosity, but it's not dangerous until imagination becomes the physical. But once it becomes physical, like a bee stinging in defense... it dies, and becomes something else.

And that's when you have a problem.


----------



## Trpdwarf (May 19, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> Any and all legal suits that have used said material due so as evidence in conjunction with actual convictions for pedophilia, not merely on the premise of there being art.
> 
> Law does not dictate on the limitations of imagination, but can, instead, use imagination as assisted evidence when they have real proof. In the Virginia case, the dude /was/ a pedophile, had photos and videos, and the courts used the hentai, loli and other as additional evidence.
> 
> ...



That the only time the imaginary CP is used as evidence is when it is found with a convicted pedophile does not mean that the governments might not seek out to cut the source period, and that means cracking down on cases in which imaginary cp is based, the source, in a place where there are laws against it.

Does it not cross your mind this could be a problem in the future? Forget getting into the whole "Justifying cub porn" because that is not what the thread is about. It's not about wether or not it is right or wrong or hurting anyone.

If the governments that create these gray areas were to decide to start hunting down and cutting out distributors of imaginary cp by slapping down the charge of being a distributor, would you suddenly ban cub porn on FA?


----------



## Dragoneer (May 19, 2009)

Trpdwarf said:


> If the governments that create these gray areas were to decide to start hunting down and cutting out distributors of imaginary cp by slapping down the charge of being a distributor, would you suddenly ban cub porn on FA?


Yes, I would, and I wouldn't think twice about doing it.

FA operates within the standards of the law and, if that law changes, we'll comply to fit within the boundaries of law.


----------



## Trpdwarf (May 19, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> Yes, I would, and I wouldn't think twice about doing it.
> 
> FA operates within the standards of the law and, if that law changes, we'll comply to fit within the boundaries of law.



That is what I wanted to know. Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.


----------



## Bokracroc (May 20, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> Any and all legal suits that have used said material due so as evidence in conjunction with actual proof of said acts, not merely on the premise of "hey, they had this weird art".
> 
> Law does not dictate on the limitations of imagination, but can, instead, use imagination as assisted evidence when they have real proof. In the Virginia case, the dude /was/ a pedophile, had photos and videos, and the courts used the hentai, loli and other as additional evidence.
> 
> ...



I like how this doesn't actually answer the question at all :3


----------



## AshleyAshes (May 20, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> If people are committing acts of pedophilia they get, and deserve, what is coming to them. The courts use the "evidence" in such cases to go "Oh yeah? Well, we have all this proof, and he had all these comics and mags and shit, too!".


 
The "Evidence" which you have placed in quotations is usually the evidence for charges of *posession* of child pornography.  So I don't see why you've put it in quotations as if the child pornography is facetious in reguards to charges of posession of child pornography.

But the guy above me had a really good point, you said a lot of words while saying very little.

Allow me to attempt to interpret what you actually meant to say 'Neer.

_"Currently there is no legal precident that suggests that pornographic drawings of anthropomorphic characters could be legally considdered childpornography.  However should such a precident come into play, you will likely see FurAffinity shit bricks and start deleting things and users in a panic.  Then all the cub artists on the site will announce how they are being treated just like the Jews and an ED page will likely arise to document the entire event."_


----------



## creaturecorp (May 20, 2009)

AshleyAshes said:


> _"Currently there is no legal precident that suggests that pornographic drawings of anthropomorphic characters could be legally considdered childpornography.  However should such a precident come into play, you will likely see FurAffinity shit bricks and start deleting things and users in a panic.  Then all the cub artists on the site will announce how they are being treated just like the Jews and an ED page will likely arise to document the entire event."_



I lol'd.


----------



## Dragoneer (May 20, 2009)

AshleyAshes said:


> The "Evidence" which you have placed in quotations is usually the evidence for charges of *posession* of child pornography.


"Evidence" is quoted as such because, when drawn, it is not the same as actually being child pornography (at all) in the same way that drawing somebody being backstabbed is not being evidence of murder (Gentlemen).


----------



## MattyK (May 20, 2009)

Well the first five posts justify my thoughts on the subject. Cheers.


----------



## AshleyAshes (May 20, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> "Evidence" is quoted as such because, when drawn, it is not the same as actually being child pornography (at all) in the same way that drawing somebody being backstabbed is not being evidence of murder (Gentlemen).


 
Uttering death threats however is illegal and depending on context and content, drawing someone being stabbed in the back could be considdered this.


----------



## Surgat (May 20, 2009)

AshleyAshes said:


> Uttering death threats however is illegal and depending on context and content, drawing someone being stabbed in the back could be considdered this.



Unless it's drawn or rendered CP of a real person, this isn't a very good analogy. Drawing a ficticious character being stabbed in the back can't be considered a threat.


----------



## Zeikcied (May 23, 2009)

Artwork and written stories are protected by the First Amendment.

I don't have it on hand, but a Supreme Court ruling last year specified that drawings and stories aren't covered by the PROTECT Act.  In fact, several past attempts to make blanket laws covering art and literature involving fictional minors in sexual acts have been overturned by the Supreme Court for being unconstitutional.

The First Amendment rights of freedom of speech includes art and writing.  Of course, if something you say, draw, or write contains a threat of violence against someone, and they report it, you can still get in trouble.

As has been said, the only reason drawn stuff has come up in cases has been because the person was caught with the real thing.

After all, if drawings or stories of minors in sexual acts were illegal, we wouldn't have Romeo & Juliet or countless other classic pieces of art or literature.

EDIT: On a side note, would someone having a huge stash of guro art be charged as a serial killer?  Or someone with a stash of rape porn be charged as a rapist?  I mean, sure, such art stashes would most definitely be used against them if they were charged with actually killing or raping someone, but possession of the art itself is not a crime.  Just like someone who has loli/shota/cub porn isn't a child molester.

If someone has a rape fetish, and tons of artwork of rapes, they aren't necessarily going to go out and rape someone in the real world.  There's a separation of reality and fantasy, people.  Most people know better.  Just like most people who look at loli/shota/cub porn aren't going to go out and molest a child.  They simply know better.  I'd rather someone get off at home to a drawing than go out and do it in the real world.


----------



## Beastcub (May 23, 2009)

Zeikcied said:


> Artwork and written stories are protected by the First Amendment.
> 
> I don't have it on hand, but a Supreme Court ruling last year specified that drawings and stories aren't covered by the PROTECT Act.  In fact, several past attempts to make blanket laws covering art and literature involving fictional minors in sexual acts have been overturned by the Supreme Court for being unconstitutional..



wait, if that is true then why did i have to suffer through reading a book called "lolita" in college in which the main plot was a guy in a sexual realtionship with a 12 year old and even got really twisted when he pondered having a child with her when she became an adult because the child could become her "replacement" (eww)


----------



## Dragoneer (May 23, 2009)

Beastcub said:


> wait, if that is true then why did i have to suffer through reading a book called "lolita" in college in which the main plot was a guy in a sexual realtionship with a 12 year old and even got really twisted when he pondered having a child with her when she became an adult because the child could become her "replacement" (eww)


The novel "Lolita" has been upheld by the Supreme Court as a piece of art, not child pornography. In fact, there's a lot of laws that protect Lolita. When the great Cub Porn debate was going on way back when in the long, long ago, I was ready to ban Cub Porn. However, both sides were clashing over the legality of it all, and after I researched it, Lolita was specifically the one thing that made me go "Well, it's not illegal... and the Supreme Court defended this type of material..."


----------



## Gavrill (May 23, 2009)

No matter what I can only read this with a high pitched whiny voice.


----------



## velina (May 23, 2009)

Zeikcied said:


> Artwork and written stories are protected by the First Amendment.
> 
> I don't have it on hand, but a Supreme Court ruling last year specified that drawings and stories aren't covered by the PROTECT Act.  In fact, several past attempts to make blanket laws covering art and literature involving fictional minors in sexual acts have been overturned by the Supreme Court for being unconstitutional.



Tell that to LJ.  They caused such a moronic uproar when they removed, forcibly, several communities based on art, stories, or RP based on under age characters.  It was just stupid, and a few people didn't even get their accounts back.  The ones that did either didn't bother bringing their art back, or just left the site altogether.


----------



## Mogu (May 24, 2009)

I AM GETTING SO TIRED OF THESE THREADS
There's one every fucking week at the least


----------



## Armaetus (May 24, 2009)

Mogu said:


> I AM GETTING SO TIRED OF THESE THREADS
> There's one every fucking week at the least



Might you happen to be a cub art lover by the tone of your post? :|


----------



## Revy (May 24, 2009)

I find nothing wrong with cub porn, but then again my opinion doesnt mean shit


----------

