# Important Information



## Undying Song (Dec 11, 2008)

I felt that this was important information, so I thought I would share the URL here: http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/550573/ (Linked with permission)

This seemed like the most appropriate section to post this in, since it does concern the site.


----------



## Dragoneer (Dec 12, 2008)

It's interesting to watch, but frankly, I'm not too concerned about it. I imagine it will be overruled. Frankly, it all comes down to the idea that you can police imagination and creativity. Fictional characters do not exist, and thus have no true age. There's a morality issue, I won't deny that, but...

Yeah.

I don't think it will last. It comes to the same argument that saying rape art promotes rape, images depicting violence inspire murder and images of Jack Thompson make people feel happy and calm. It's all bullshit.


----------



## stokerbramwell (Dec 12, 2008)

Dragoneer said:


> It's interesting to watch, but frankly, I'm not too concerned about it. I imagine it will be overruled. Frankly, it all comes down to the idea that you can police imagination and creativity. Fictional characters do not exist, and thus have no true age. There's a morality issue, I won't deny that, but...
> 
> Yeah.
> 
> I don't think it will last. It comes to the same argument that saying rape art promotes rape, images depicting violence inspire murder and images of Jack Thompson make people feel happy and calm. It's all bullshit.



I have a LOT of thoughts on what was just said, even though I said I'd never post in these forums, but I'm waiting for some official confirmation from an Aussie fur who's getting me some information from some government officials.  Once I get it, I will have an extremely thorough post clarifying the entire situation, as I'm seeing some massive misunderstanding already.


----------



## TwilightV (Dec 12, 2008)

I agree with Boss 'Neer. The actions of people are caused by the people themselves, not by what they see.

EDIT: I am not defending pron. I'm defending your right to view it.


----------



## Enigmaticat (Dec 12, 2008)

A person is smart, people are stupid. 

Because you see something doesnt mean you will do it. If that bs article is true why not ban every movie/book/comic/idea that comes out? You cant. You cannot limit someone's creativity or thoughts no matter how close minded you are.


----------



## Rossyfox (Dec 12, 2008)

stokerbramwell said:


> I have a LOT of thoughts on what was just said, even though I said I'd never post in these forums, but I'm waiting for some official confirmation from an Aussie fur who's getting me some information from some government officials.  Once I get it, I will have an extremely thorough post clarifying the entire situation, as I'm seeing some massive misunderstanding already.



Dragoneer/Preyfar is not a neutral party in this issue. See: http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1656319/


----------



## Pi (Dec 12, 2008)

Silibus said:


> A person is smart, people are stupid.
> 
> Because you see something doesnt mean you will do it. If that bs article is true why not ban every movie/book/comic/idea that comes out? You cant. You cannot limit someone's creativity or thoughts no matter how close minded you are.



I find it extremely ironic that you follow up a quote from an aliens-on-earth-conspiracy movie with what you just said.


----------



## yak (Dec 12, 2008)

Actually, the origin of that quote dates far back to the time of Confucius and beyond. 
Don't ever give any aliens-on-earth-conspiracy movies and credits for originality, you should know that.


----------



## TakeWalker (Dec 12, 2008)

I do find amusing how the journal writer speaks as though the FA admins made their decision _knowing full well_ that years later, this action would occur.

Enjoy your fascism, Australia. We always thought the UK would get there first.


----------



## Pi (Dec 12, 2008)

yak said:


> Actually, the origin of that quote dates far back to the time of Confucius and beyond.
> Don't ever give any aliens-on-earth-conspiracy movies and credits for originality, you should know that.



I don't trust the average FA readership to know Confucius.


----------



## Enigmaticat (Dec 12, 2008)

Pi said:


> I find it extremely ironic that you follow up a quote from an aliens-on-earth-conspiracy movie with what you just said.


Ive never heard of that movie, and I only know a little about Confucius, I will not lie.


Pi said:


> I don't trust the average FA readership to know Confucius.


Dont underestimate people or belittle them.


----------



## Dragoneer (Dec 12, 2008)

Rossyfox said:


> Dragoneer/Preyfar is not a neutral party in this issue. See: http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1656319/


Well, thanks for that. Do you want that I start voicing my personal opinions with noted disclaimers? Do you in fact realize just how few neutral parties there actually *ARE* in this issue? Finding somebody who absolutely zero bias or persuasion given this art is going to be pretty damn hard to find. If you wanted to be factually accurate, you could say anybody posting in this thread may not be a neutral party.

But I digress.

Here's some FA history for you:
Back in the Long, Long Ago, in the Before Time, when the Great Cub Drama broke out I was dead set on banning it. I honestly could find little redeeming about it as an art form (you can ask Wolfblade and many other cub artists, they'll verify it). In fact, I was somewhat hostile towards cub artists for quite some time. 

When the entire drama broke out, and I was ready to enforce the policies that were in the FA Terms of Service (which at the time was grossly overdue for an update). The argument by those against cub porn was that it was illegal, plain and simple. No if, ands or buts. The two sides were clashing, fighting and causing epic drama the likes of which I have never seen before. Amidst the name calling, bawwwing and threats of exodus, each side was clamoring about legalities. The legal aspect was the entire focus of the debate.

So, I decided to end the debate once and for all, and went to research the issue. I dug through law, consulted lawyer friends and talked to more. Each and every time, the ruling passed down that it was in fact legal. In fact, the same issue had gone before the United States Congress several times, and Congress had defended it as an art form. The exact case in point focused in on Vladimir Nabokov's novel "Lolita", which included scenes of "child rape". It went before Congress as pedophilia, and was struck down as it involved imaginary, non-existent characters and fell solely into the realm of art.

Given that, and several other defense cases I found, I saw no reason to ban the artwork from FA. In fact, given all the arguments, given all the facts, I felt it was only right to reverse judgment and in fact allow it as an art form. We all know the story from that point on.

Over time, I learned to appreciate it (somewhat). When it comes to my own characters I'm generally cool with it, and the comic featuring Crome and myself are our own characters, little more. Not everything sits well with me, but... at most, it's a bit of role-play fantasy if you would.

When the shit spills over into real life and you can be damn sure that I will be one of the first on the phone to the cops.


----------



## Rossyfox (Dec 12, 2008)

Dragoneer said:


> Over time, I learned to appreciate it (somewhat).



I'm glad you added that "somewhat" qualifier. I was just about to post "DRAGONEER IS A HUGE PEDO AND HE ADMITS IT", but then I saw the "somewhat" and it dissuaded me from such thoughts.

I guess you just buy so many commissions, you eventually even get stuff you only _somewhat_ appreciate.


----------



## Sslaxx (Dec 12, 2008)

I think it's because sometimes people forget you're a human being, 'neer, and think you of an emotionless moderator 24-7.


----------



## Rossyfox (Dec 12, 2008)

Sslaxx said:


> sometimes people forget you're a human being, 'neer



Fuck you he's a dragon.


----------



## Quiet269 (Dec 12, 2008)

Rossyfox said:


> I'm glad you added that "somewhat" qualifier. I was just about to post "DRAGONEER IS A HUGE PEDO AND HE ADMITS IT", but then I saw the "somewhat" and it dissuaded me from such thoughts.
> 
> I guess you just buy so many commissions, you eventually even get stuff you only _somewhat_ appreciate.


 The comic was created for the SoftPaw Magazine... It was probably requested from someone else that wanted Dragoneer's character used, not him commissioning Shiuk to make the comic for him, then selling said comic to SoftPaw...

Wouldn't make much sense otherwise


----------



## Rossyfox (Dec 12, 2008)

Quiet269 said:


> The comic was created for the SoftPaw Magazine... It was probably requested from someone else that wanted Dragoneer's character used, not him commissioning Shiuk to make the comic for him, then selling said comic to SoftPaw...
> 
> Wouldn't make much sense otherwise



I know.

That isn't the only picture.


----------



## stokerbramwell (Dec 13, 2008)

TakeWalker said:


> I do find amusing how the journal writer speaks as though the FA admins made their decision _knowing full well_ that years later, this action would occur.



I confess that I'm beginning to become concerned about the reading comprehension abilities of our fellow site members.

What I said in my original post, two years ago, was that FA's decision would have long-lasting repercussions for nations which are stricter in their interpretation of what is child pornography than the United States, and predicted that Australia would be the first country lost to them.  I foresaw that _two years ago_ based on what I knew of similar cases in Australia; I do not think it is the least bit unreasonable to expect that they could have seen something similar to this coming, especially considering the legal trouble that well-known furry author Paul Kidd was going through around about the same time.  So, yeah...if I could figure this out in advance, anyone could have.  

I also said that they should have taken such things as differences in law overseas into account when making the decision in the first place, since the FA community has a lot of international members.  But hey, considering that the (admittedly slim) majority vote of the site members themselves wasn't taken into account in the decision, I'm not overly surprised that little details like foreign law were overlooked as well.

Long story short: Americans, as usual, assumed that the entire world works like America does, and, as usual, it's turned out badly.  



> Enjoy your fascism, Australia. We always thought the UK would get there first.



I...wow.  You know, there is no way even to address a comment like that.  I'm not even touching it.

Still waiting on the last piece of confirmation, incidentally.  Unfortunately, as it's the weekend and their government offices are closed, it will probably be a few more days yet.  If I don't have it by Tuesday, I'll proceed with the information I have already.  I realize looking at the comments that most of you apparently don't care, and won't care, I'd wager, until that firewall goes up and all your Aussie members are gone.  But I feel a need to at least _attempt_ to convey reality to you.  

Just for the record, guys: I'm not trying to pick a fight here.  I mean, it's not like _I_ made the ruling.  ;p  What you do with the info I'm giving you is your decision, and I really couldn't care less.  I'm just here to disseminate accurate information and make sure that you know exactly what's coming, which...so far has been surprisingly difficult.


----------



## Dragoneer (Dec 13, 2008)

stokerbramwell said:


> Long story short: Americans, as usual, assumed that the entire world works like America does, and, as usual, it's turned out badly.


And, as usual, people assume that we never considered such aspects and just make blind assumptions. I've lived in Germany, lived in Kyrgyzstan, been to Hungaria, been to Turkey, been just about everywhere there is to go in Europe from Prague to London to Barcelona to Pisa. And I wasn't there as a tourist.

The FA servers are hosted in the United States, and as such we play by the rules outlined in the hosting nation. Should FA fall into compliance with Iran, China and other countries? In some of those countries some of the day to day content posted to FA could be be considered crimes punishable by imprisonment or event death. And no, I'm not kidding either. At what point do we pick and choose which rules to enforce and which rules to selectively ignore? At what point do we play moral police and select what we feel the fandom should see or should not? At what point am I supposed to worry about how local laws and customs on Fur Affinity may effect web browsers in Papua New Guinea? 

Seriously.





stokerbramwell said:


> Long story short: Americans, as usual, assumed that the entire world works like America does, and, as usual, it's turned out badly.


Fur Affinity: World Police. Fuuuck yeah.


----------



## Rossyfox (Dec 13, 2008)

Dragoneer said:


> The FA servers are hosted in the United States, and as such we play by the rules outlined in the hosting nation.



In all seriousness, this is a good point. However, there are quite a few more furries in Australia than in Iran.

Let's be realistic here for a second guys. FA is big, yes, relative to other furry fandom websites. But is it well known enough outside of the fandom that it's likely to end up on a national firewall (especially of the non-restrictive type Australia is likely to implement) any time soon? I have a feeling nobody's going to go bawwing to the Australian Government about FA.


----------



## Dragoneer (Dec 13, 2008)

Rossyfox said:


> Let's be realistic here for a second guys. FA is big, yes, relative to other furry fandom websites. But is it well known enough outside of the fandom that it's likely to end up on a national firewall (especially of the non-restrictive type Australia is likely to implement) any time soon? I have a feeling nobody's going to go bawwing to the Australian Government about FA.


True, but there are ways around everything.  You can get to FA from out behind China's firewall...

The Aussies will find a way. Even if they have to send their data packets out into the world mounted on an armored kangaroo's* back.

* An armored kangaroo with frickin' laserbeams on its head.


----------



## WarMocK (Dec 13, 2008)

Dragoneer said:


> True, but there are ways around everything.  You can get to FA from out behind China's firewall...
> 
> The Aussies will find a way. Even if they have to send their data packets out into the world mounted on an armored kangaroo's* back.
> 
> * An armored kangaroo with frickin' laserbeams on its head.



Full ack!
A stronger shield will inevitably lead to a stronger sword. ;-)


----------



## uncia (Dec 13, 2008)

Old news, but...


Dragoneer said:


> It's interesting to watch, but frankly, I'm not too concerned about it. I imagine it will be overruled.


Well, that was an appeal to the NSW Supreme Court. You know the route-map, the CBLDF doesn't operate in Oz and already have their hands full in the US, anyhow, so who do you suggest is paying to take that further?



Dragoneer said:


> Frankly, it all comes down to the idea that you can police imagination and creativity. Fictional characters do not exist, and thus have no true age. There's a morality issue, I won't deny that, but...
> 
> Yeah.
> 
> I don't think it will last. It comes to the same argument that saying rape art promotes rape, images depicting violence inspire murder and images of Jack Thompson make people feel happy and calm. It's all bullshit.


Perhaps so (and I agree personally), but it has happened and you've been implicitly asked for an official statement; hopefully somewhat better than "the law is BS".
As you're well aware - and it's a trivial example - legislation can police imagination and creativity. Try staging performance art by yelling "it's a bomb" whilst waving a package above your head. For extra marks, choose an airport as your venue. QED?



Dragoneer said:


> Well, thanks for that. Do you want that I start voicing my personal opinions with noted disclaimers? Do you in fact realize just how few neutral parties there actually *ARE* in this issue? Finding somebody who absolutely zero bias or persuasion given this art is going to be pretty damn hard to find. If you wanted to be factually accurate, you could say anybody posting in this thread may not be a neutral party.


Let's try...



Dragoneer said:


> So, I decided to end the debate once and for all...


Well, that's a condensed "history" and the Lolita case was well-known beforehand, but that's not particularly relevant here since we're not just talking about publication of works, but also possession of those here. Besides, groundrules _can_ change...

The "FA is OK" attitude can only go so far and neither is it particularly "helpful" to community members to hear you say "Dragoneer said it's OK" since that's not a legal defense if they find themselves up in court.
A responsible attitude would be, for example, to remind community members that legalities are their responsibility at the end of the day. Which is not what is stated at present.
Section 19 of the dA TOS does not state "Submissions... shall not violate the law of the United States of America" unlike the FA Submission Policy and I suspect if you ask dA staff they will not reply "no need to worry, we're hosted in the US and we'll cover your back _if_ you get hauled up before court in Australia".
*
"The laws which govern <site xxxx> are those of the United States of America" is not equivalent to "submissions to <site xxxx> shall be compliant with the laws of the United States of America".

Yes, old news all round, but I was still waiting for the TOS/AUP to be updated to deal with such "issues".

Regards; and with the usual 02c/afaik proviso,
David.


----------



## Dragoneer (Dec 13, 2008)

uncia said:


> The "FA is OK" attitude can only go so far and neither is it particularly "helpful" to community members to hear you say "Dragoneer said it's OK" since that's not a legal defense if they find themselves up in court.


And as of right now it is. I'm not going to make any decisions or actions until such point and time that we have true reason to. I am watching the issue to see what happens. In the end, it is the user's responsibility to be aware of their issues and we'll do what we can to assist and protect them within reasonable expectation.


uncia said:


> Yes, old news all round, but I was still waiting for the TOS/AUP to be updated to deal with such "issues".


A new TOS and AUP are coming next week.


----------



## uncia (Dec 13, 2008)

*nods* kk...


Dragoneer said:


> In the end, it is the user's responsibility to be aware of their issues...


Agreed.


----------



## Quiet269 (Dec 13, 2008)

Rossyfox said:


> I know.
> That isn't the only picture.


I know. My message was in regards to the whole comic with Dragoneer's character.


----------



## Emil (Dec 13, 2008)

Dragoneer said:


> True, but there are ways around everything.  You can get to FA from out behind China's firewall...
> 
> The Aussies will find a way. Even if they have to send their data packets out into the world mounted on an armored kangaroo's* back.



Isnt that illegal though? And couldnt your statement be seen as condoning illegal activities of others if thats the case? *headtilts* I suppose it doesnt matter, if theyre not in the US anyway.


----------



## Quiet269 (Dec 13, 2008)

There's nothing illegal about proxies...

Unless they added some "Anti-Proxy" thing to that Australia thingy


----------



## Emil (Dec 13, 2008)

Quiet269 said:


> There's nothing illegal about proxies...
> 
> Unless they added some "Anti-Proxy" thing to that Australia thingy



I imagine they *would* find it quite illegal to bypass the tax payer funded, nationally implemented firewall. Otherwise, why put it up in the first place?


----------



## Doug (Dec 13, 2008)

I find it sad that people in Australia are going to have to tunnel or proxy their Web traffic through China if they really do censor the Internet... You'd really think the Australian government would be embarressed...


----------



## Quiet269 (Dec 13, 2008)

Emil said:


> I imagine they *would* find it quite illegal to bypass the tax payer funded, nationally implemented firewall. Otherwise, why put it up in the first place?


They're blocking the internet to try and put up a good face, I doubt they will know enough to look for people on proxy, or care even if they find them


----------



## Emil (Dec 13, 2008)

Quiet269 said:


> They're blocking the internet to try and put up a good face, I doubt they will know enough to look for people on proxy, or care even if they find them



If you say so >.>


----------



## Quiet269 (Dec 13, 2008)

I could of course be wrong... I mean I am not going to study up on their law


----------



## Firehazard (Dec 13, 2008)

Dragoneer said:


> A new TOS and AUP are coming next week.



Must there be?  Last time I checked, we weren't obligated to specifically forbid our users from breaking their countries' laws.  Unless you intend to do just the opposite and state that we accept no responsibility in the event that it does happen.  Not that we're really under any obligation to do that either, unless my understanding of INTERPOL is way off.


----------



## Dragoneer (Dec 14, 2008)

Firehazard said:


> Must there be?  Last time I checked, we weren't obligated to specifically forbid our users from breaking their countries' laws.  Unless you intend to do just the opposite and state that we accept no responsibility in the event that it does happen.  Not that we're really under any obligation to do that either, unless my understanding of INTERPOL is way off.


The new AUP/TOS has nothing to do with international laws, but a revision and improvements to site rules.


----------



## Quiet269 (Dec 14, 2008)

Dragoneer said:


> The new AUP/TOS has nothing to do with international laws, but a revision and improvements to site rules.


I hope you are taking my notes on Adult Suits into consideration for the new AUP/TOS :3


----------



## stokerbramwell (Dec 14, 2008)

Dragoneer said:


> Fur Affinity: World Police. Fuuuck yeah.



...I have to give you props for the _Team America_ reference, I can't deny that.  

Anyway, onto the meat of the matter.  I have finally gotten word back from my main Australian buddy.  This is the form letter he got back from his enquiry on the subject:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v318/stokerbramwell/scan0002.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v318/stokerbramwell/scan0003.jpg

Some members here have brought to attention some criticism of the filter plan...

http://www.crn.com.au/News/87985,support-fades-for-australian-net-censorship.aspx

...whereas my friend has strongly implied to me that the filter is actually part of an election _promise_ on the part of the Labour Party, which would indicate that people actually want it.  Which wouldn't surprise me, truth be told.  

Anyway, more relevant links:

http://www.dbcde.gov.au/communicati..._plan/internet_service_provider_isp_filtering

http://www.dbcde.gov.au/communicati...ovider_isp_filtering/isp_filtering_live_pilot

http://www.dbcde.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/89160/technical-testing-framework.pdf

That should cover all of the nitty-gritty details of how it's all going to work.  And from what I've been able to ascertain, the entire system should be up and running by the middle of 2009.  

To be honest, reporting on the entire situation has just about worn me out, and I'm ready to move on with my life.  I have just two more comments to make and I'm done.  I've told you everything that I can find out at this time.



Rossyfox said:


> In all seriousness, this is a good point. However, there are quite a few more furries in Australia than in Iran.



What he said.  There is no reason to have to abide by every single jot and tittle of the law of other lands, but when you find one _particular_ issue which tends to stir up pretty harsh reactions from a lot of countries in the world...I'm just sayin' you should probably give that some extra consideration.  And individuals as well...again, I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but, well, the way the membership voted back when it originally came up...  I mean, yeah, a lot of the artists came back, but I know some of them are still a bit uneasy about it, and are still investigating other options...

But everyone's probably heard all of those arguments to death, and I doubt anyone's opinions are going to change, so I don't know why I bother to bring them up.



> Let's be realistic here for a second guys. FA is big, yes, relative to other furry fandom websites. But is it well known enough outside of the fandom that it's likely to end up on a national firewall (especially of the non-restrictive type Australia is likely to implement) any time soon? I have a feeling nobody's going to go bawwing to the Australian Government about FA.



This kind of thinking is a dangerous place to get into in this fandom at this point.  We can't count on flying under the radar anymore.  Our anonymity is gone.  Even _American Dad_ is cracking jokes about furries now.  Do a Google image search for any species of animal you can think of and see how quickly a furry pops up.  Somebody is guaranteed to go to the Australian authorities about Furaffinity sooner or later, out of outrage, or disgust, or just for the lulz.  And now Australia has the ability and the authority to ban the site.  Sure, people might find ways around it, but...

...I'll be honest, at the end of the day, I really don't see why unbanning one particular, insanely controversial, tiny niche of pornographic content which was already in plentiful supply for its fans in other venues has been worth all of the drama, arguments, and now the need to circumvent government blockades.  

I dunno.  I'm done.  I've said my piece.  None of this affects me, but I thought that people might like to know how it might affect the rest of the site.


----------

