fchan

Opening note:
"At the discretion of our moderators" means that they will ask the other moderators in IRC when they have any doubts to reach a concensus.
"Base boards" means /f, /m, /s, and /h.
These changes will not take effect immediately, but will be made in a few days in case grave oversights are spotted.

1. Cub art

Due to its host having increasing concerns about such art and additionally due to several federal states of the USA having passed as-of-yet unappealed legislations that forbid such art, Fchan sees itself forced to act to protect both users and the site itself by banning cub art.

As of today, all clear and definite depictions of childs or child-like characters outside of /c are forbidden. Unclear specimen will be treated at the discretion of our moderators, with a trend towards deletion, with the exception of /ah and /toon where the trend will lean towards keeping.

To make this a bit more clear, some examples:
Images like the one depicting a young bear girl sucking a rather huge penis (done in a hardiman style), would be deleted on sight, even on /ah or /toon.
However images any depiction of Tails the Fox, would be perfectly fine in /toon. Unless of course he is wearing a pacifier.

2. "Anatomic correctness"

Furries on fchan in the base boards are expected to conform to the basic humanoid form factor in overall anatomy. Deviations from it are judged based on how likely they are to gross someone out and how much of a furry staple they are, with the decision being at the discretion of our moderators.

This means in general that multi-anything will stay in /a, while furry "staples" like taurs or knots would be allowed to stay in the base boards.

3. Light bondage

In order to even out distribution a bit and to avoid some unnecessary deletions, light bondage will now be allowed in the base boards. Decision on what constitutes light bondage will be made case-by-case at the discretion of our moderators.

4. Changes in /h

Due to the herm board being less of an actual gender, but more a fetish board, we have decided to be less stringent there, which should also serve to reinvigorate it a bit. That means that specific fetishes like bondage, hyper, feet, etc. will generally be allowed more often, unless they get too gross. Decisions will be made case-by-case and at discretion of our moderators here as well.

An additional note though: Due to the contentious nature of some of the content in /h, we have decided to be more stringent on thread coherence. This means that if someone wishes to make a "normal only" thread or a "hyper only" thread, off-topic posts will be deleted. If you do not like these materials, keep in mind that you can always hide threads. To this end i have now activated the thread collapsing feature by default.

5. Images with mixed gender combinations

Images that contain more than only females, only males or one female plus one male will now be allowed in /s and will no longer need to be posted in /a. This is due to the fact that "Straight" was not meant to be strictly church-defined straight, but was meant to denote that in here combinations of both penis and vagina can be found.

We will monitor /s for a while and may, if things don't work out nicely, treat thread coherence similarly as in /h.

6. Internet Explorer & Viruses/Trojans

Some of you may as of late have noticed an increased influx of complaints regarding trojans or viruses in advertisements or specific boards/threads in general.

The staff of Fchan wants to assure every user that there are no actual trojans or viruses present anywhere on the boards. We use the website daily and quite intensely while monitoring it and resolving issues. As such we would not want to subject ourselves to any danger, which is why we regularly check Fchan for its safety.

However, due to its very nature, regarding insecurity and buggy interpretation of web standards, we refuse to test/use/support Internet Explorer. As such, any users of it are completely on their own peril on this site and will be completely disregarded until they have started using an alternative browser. An incomplete list of such is: Opera, Firefox, Safari, K-Meleon, Konqueror, Flock, Netscape, Lolifox and lynx.

Additionally we have discovered that many of the so-called viruses that some of the antivirus packages of our users complain about are not simply viruses, but merely catch-all identifiers for encrypted javascripts, which are used by more than a few advertising companies. In short: These are false alarms by sub-par antivirus solutions. Recommended packages are AVG or Avast.

From this follows the next decision: Any complaint about a trojan or virus that is not accompanied by a screenshot showing the exact page it happened on and the message of the antivirus package on where it discovered the virus and what type the virus is will from now on be deleted. Repeat posters will be banned.

7. Interstitial advertisements

Some advertisements on Fchan use the technique of so-called interstitials. These are fullscreen advertisements that should pop up once or twice a day, given that the browser has cookies enabled and that the networking software on the machine does not delete cookies. These advertisements all are accompanied by a button that either says "skip this ad" or "continue to site" or similar. Click these.

Any complaints about interstitial ads that are not accompanied by a screenshot of the offending ad will be deleted and repeat posters banned.

>>1
Good call on the  cub-art.  I like some (highly idealized) cub art, and have been known to draw it occasionally, but I firmly believe banning it from the more popular areas of the fandom can only do good. 

Furries really need to learn to keep their dirtier little secrets a bit more secret, and far less in-your-face-bitch than they seem to do lately, and if they can't handle that, then the folks in control should do it for them.

I certainly don't envy the amount of flak you're likely to catch over it tho'. 

But does #5 mean I'll have to go to /s/ to get my bisexual porn fix? 

>>3
This has nothing to do with keeping secrets, and everything to do with law.

Note Rule 1:
Post only furry art and do not post illegal content.
...
If you post anything illegal under US or UK law, you will be banned, and your details will be forwarded to the relevant authorities.

Hence it is not even a debatable issue. It's illegal, it's not allowed here, period.

And yes, it means /s is now for generic bisexual imagery as well. (which imo is more logical)

Also, may want to update the board description for /ah, and put a notice on all boards affected. So that people do not create new cub threads to replace deleted ones, and etc.

>>8
Cub art banned. What constitutes as cub art is less strict in /ah and toon.

I support these new rules, it also shows that the administration finally begin to draw clear lines. I guess it'll be better for the  admin, the site, the users and everyone linked with fchan as well. Good job! :)

> backbone
FA has serious financial backing and can take a few frivolous lawsuits and additionally it has no actual badwill amongst those most likely to use, i.e. artists. Oranges and apples. ;)

> But does #5 mean I'll have to go to /s/ to get my bisexual porn fix?
Yes, any mix of male and female characters will belong there.

> Well, so much for my attendence.
I am aware that we will lose at least a part of the userbase. I am however certain that you too will find places where you can find what you're looking for.

> Another case of "my fetish is not as bad as your fetish" bias.
I have always had the opinion that i don't like underage porn on fchan. In the past i even contemplated relegating them to renchan, but that sadly died. Until now i however strongly opposed forbidding it.
Additionally, as soon as the US government repeals the relevant laws, i will reinstate it, even though i doubt that will ever come to pass.
In the end it's a "I am not willing to risk my ass for your boner." bias.

> Also, may want to update the board description for /ah, and put a notice on all boards affected.
Will happen once this takes full effect. One of our mods jumped the gun a bit due to my mistake. I didn't have the "not immediately in effect" line in the original draft and forgot to tell the mods that i added it.

> Cub art banned. What constitutes as cub art is less strict in /ah and toon.
Exactly that. Rule-relevant is only that cub porn is banned. The rest is merely a clarification on how the mods will handle fringe cases so you know what to expect in the future.

>>12
Please don't feed the trolls.

I really don't understand why it's only selected cub art that is banned. Tails is okay?? Isn't he 8 years old? It really should be all or none. If you want to say it's legal reasoning I doubt a court of law would consider Tails A-OK just because it's Sonic.

>>16
iirc imagery depicting child porn is illegal, imagery depicting rape, etc isn't. If you've questions, ask state legislation, not us.

> Tails is okay?? Isn't he 8 years old?
For the record: I hate sonic porn more than anything else.
To explain: The law states that depictions of minors are forbidden. Important is in this case ONLY the visual appearance and in no way whatsoever any additional fiction surrounding the character. Luckily for those who like it, most sonic characters are drawn in a rather ambiguous way and thus deny any attempt to clearly characterize them as minors. Such art is allowed and the use of Tails was only a convenient example.

>>16
The distribution of depictions of such is not forbidden.

>>19
Identifiable minors. If there's a link to a real child than said image is illegal. But this is your site, you can pick and choose what you want and don't. I just get annoyed with double standards , the ol' bandwagon, and 'legal' issues. If you want to follow all the laws perfectly, /m/ will have to go. Sodomy is still illegal in many states. I'm not trying to argue, like I said, the double standard threw me a bit.

>>21
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1466A.html
Look it up for yourself, the "identifiable" part is no longer in there. Also, sodomy is not addressed in any federal law.

>>23
While I wish you'd give me a real link to the law, not a law school's site with no statement about where it's located or where the law would apply. I'd like to point out that is says any art that  "(1-B) Is obscene" That would be all art here excluding /c/. "(2-B) Lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" That would be all porn. And no, sodomy is not addressed federally, it's state by state and in many states it is illegal. Furthermore, the literature pertains to human depictions, not animal depictions if you want to get technical.

>>25
I agree with the remark about human vs animal. The university page cited above indicates that depictions of minors (whether they exist or not) doing naughty things is a federal offense. But a minor isn't an animal. My cat is not a minor.

Furries are animals. Humanoid, but certainly not human. They are exempt from this law. Perhaps if they could be mistaken for human (like a boy with ears and a tail and no other furry traits) could APPEAR to be a minor, which falls under this law. But not most furry art.

Furthermore there are lots of babyfur pics that are not sexually explicit or obscene, and these do not fall under the law in any way, because the law forbids obscene or sexually explicit images. If babyfur pics were a federal offense, the FBI would be sending teachers to jail and taking down those little alphabet posters from classroom walls because "W" had a baby walrus on it.

>>25 I live in a state where bestiality is legal, but those who are caught tend to go to prison for statutory rape.

Just an FYI for you.

>>29
what if it's an old dog at 18 years?

>>32
It was a joke.

>>33
I knew that, but I had sex with it anyway. 

>>25
I'd like to link to a *.gov site too, but apparently the american government hasn't arrived in the 21st century yet.

Anyhow, to address your points: �1466A(a)(1)(A) and �1466A(a)(1)(B) are linked by an "AND", that means both have to be given, thus not all art on this site is covered.

>>27
The law does only state "minor", nothing else at all, and makes no definition on the meaning of that. That means whether a depicted creature falls under this law is up to the decision of a judge, who would go by "average observer". Given the largely human appearance of most creatures here, due to the inherent anthropoidness; an average observer would indeed judge them to be a minor, when applicable, and not as an animal. Anyhow, not gonna risk this. (Also, i think there was an earlier version of this law that specified human, which was then redacted.)

>>30
Definition:
Babyfur: Adult creature in baby attire.
Cub: Obviously underaged creature.

- Clean cub art can be in /c, unless it concentrates on shitting diapers and/or has sexual undertones. (Moderator discretion.)
- Babyfur art is still allowed if it is made sufficiently clear that it is an adult. (Moderator discretion.) It is in /ah by default due to the inherent scatological factor, but permissible in /a too, if kept clean(er).

>>37
xeno, have you actually read and understood this legal text ? no, you did\'nt.

anyways; i\'m trying to get your logic, for a furry admin; you seem to be really payingattention about the laws and all that, dont you ?

IF someday, some law is voted by the senate; banning all form of violence and sexual acts involving fictional characters, what would you do ?

close fchan or keep it up in the name of freedom of expression/speech ? (even if you could still host the site in Europe, but let\'s say for the moment your fchan is stuck in Jesusland...)

Gotta love this argument.

It's a failure on Dragoneer's part that allows cub porn to exist on FA.

It's a failure on Xeno's part for taking it off of Fchan.

Wow. GG guys.

>>38
Over the past three years fchan has faced 2 lawsuits that were only narrowly avoided. I'm not taking any chances, period.

Additionally: Fchan has ZERO financial backing, not a single cent would be spent by anyone if it were to ever come under any legal scrutiny.

FA has a reasonably wealthy owner and quite a few willing donators. I won't do your homework on this one, feel free to sniff around on your own.

>>39
> xeno, have you actually read and understood this legal text ? no, you did\'nt.
Excuse me, but i seem to have a higher grasp on the english language than you do, and i actually do have a measure of formal education in reading legal texts, even if IANAL.
As for your question: There is no free speech on fchan and never was, period. What is here is the freedom the server owner and the administration grants you, the users. Nothing else.
Your precious first amendment ONLY forbids your government from passing laws that restrict speech, but we all know how well they follow that, don't we?
If the american government would pass such a law, i'd ask the server owner if he was willing to spend the cash to host fchan on more expensive offshore servers and if he says no, it would go down.
I'm here to provide a service for your convenience, i'm not here to fight your wars. In the end your boners don't mean shit to mine and the server owner's ass.

>>41
I've been secretly amused about that as well. :3

>>42
I direct you to read point 3 on this page: http://www.4chan.org/rules.php
As for the other two boards you listed, one of them is not in the USA and the other is too small to register on those that would seek legal retribution.

As for growing balls, i repeat the same to you that i said to >>39 :
I'm here to provide a service for your convenience, i'm not here to fight your wars. In the end your boners don't mean shit to mine and the server owner's ass.

I'd also note that fchan, despite being based on a website advocating free speech (aka 2ch), has never been completely free. Free speech does exist on the internet though (to an extent). You are always welcome to host your own server (so long as it does not infringe on the ToS of your service provider).

>>46
Except that said lawsuit is NOT hypothetical and improbable. Hence he/she can't prove you wrong. And I don't know about you, but 2ch is the only board with complete freedom of speech AFAIK. Go ahead and prove me wrong on this: name me a single other board which doesn't ban people or delete posts for any reason whatsoever, inclusive of hacking, spamming, posting stuff out of bounds, etc.

>>40
Personally, I wouldn't say anything if they just said "I don't like it, I own the site, so it goes away" Rather that say it's a legal issue.

The reason there is no .gov link to the 'law' is because it does not really exist as this page quoted. A Student might of just mistyped this law or maybe they want to try and rally to pass it as it's written, I don't know. Saying that under aged cartoon/game character that are popular are allowed but not somefur's creations says right there it's not a legal issue at all.

>>50
Agree on points, but your example at the end doesn't really make sense. The last line should probably be replaced with "Especially if they were with a very cute girl."

Okay, so this brings the question...again. Why is an eight year old cartoon two tailed fox and his fifteen year old hedgehog friend okay to go at but somefurs characters of the same age not? This is where the confusion lies the most. Isn't cub cub? Or is it only cub if it's not wildly popular? Is there a provision in this law to allow popular cartoon children? This is really not a legal issue, I'm sure. I'm just wishing there would be a better definition of cub. Like age rather than how popular it is. If it were illegal, the judge would not give it an okay because it's from a cartoon.

Also, why this law? Why not copyright laws upheld? I know WWOEC Has gotten letters from companies lawyers about their characters before (I have scans of one such letter). It just doesn't make sense to call it a legal issue when there's a double standard and other laws not payed any attention to. I know this is just racking my head against a brick wall since a majority of the staff are cub haters. I think it just causes a bigger outcry and argument calling it a legal issue rather than a "My server not yours" issue. If Fchan really wanted to follow the law there would be no /toon/, there would be real ID checks, and other things put in place to protect itself. 

>>54
I'm not saying I'll post it to annoy you or make a statement, I'm not even wanting to argue. Heck, I maybe have three cub pics (including Tails) and I'm DNP even if I had more. It's not a loss to me, no, I just really don't like people making remarks to make something worse than it is. It would be no loss to say it's just something you don't like rather than say it's a legal issue to not look bad. There's more legal fodder on this site that a couple of fuzzy midgets dressed in osh-gosh overalls and going at it.
You don't have to be so hostile in responses and assume I'm out to be a martyr or a rabble-rouser. If we didn't question things that seemed wrong to us, where would we be?

I've given it some good hard thought, and i've decided to delete fchan from my favorites, like anyone cares anyway. xP  Seeya bitches.

>>40
Meh, 99% of my art that was posted here was uploaded by third parties. I really don't care much whether fchan allows cub art or not. It's not a mainstream site anyways. To be honest, I actually didn't know about this measure until someone brought it to my attention, and decided to give my two cents (thus, the two day delay)

That's pretty much it :3

>>43
When you start an argument with "I don't want to take any chances", then it *is* a backbone issue. No matter how much you want to deny it.

Now I'm not saying that all of the sudden you should allow cub art. It's your site, do what you want with it. But at least be honest with yourself and admit it you did it out of fear.

>>55
It is as she said, we've explained this to death over the past three years so many times that it's gone far beyond being unfunny. It IS highly annoying when people manage to even ignore the explanations posted here in this very thread.

I'll, again, try and explain in small words and short sentences why Tails is less of an issue:
- Only the image is relevant, nothing else at all matters in the least, period.
- All images of sonic porn are unclear on the age due to style.

>>49
Can you please point me to the .gov site that carries all american laws?

>>59
Personally i think it takes more backbone to face the kind of criticism and possible trolling this decision brought upon us. Also, it is not a matter of fear, there are precedents on the dangers that fchan is under and the consequences of any legal proceedings against fchan are more than crystal clear. It is a matter of pure rational conclusion.

Actually, good point. :x

>>62
Unnecessary: dictionary definition: Fchan doesn't need to take on such risk. Fchan can decide to take on said risk by allowing such works, or drop said risk by banning them.

Risk: In this case, lawsuits from outside sources pertaining to questionable works. Risk is proven by similar situations happening in the past. (though it may be helpful to quote exactly what happened, so people stop assuming that said lawsuits don't exist.)

Benifit: In this case, increased variety of illustrations, more viewership, higher ad revenue to offset site costs (against higher site cost from higher downloads), and more social interaction (from more posts and viewership).

To those claiming a lack of backbone on the mods part, I'll tell ye what. Download as much Cub, Loli and Guro as you can, put it all in easy to access folders on your desktop, and then hand it in at a Police Station. Let us know how it goes, and there you have it hmm?

>>67
He/she speaks truth.

>>61

I'd say that Tails is quite clearly underaged by his appearance in nearly every art piece I've seen of him.

>>72
Additional ficton is irrelevant, image content is important!

Otherwise evasion would be as simple as slapping on a line of "Age: 300".

>>66
Wait, I'm confused. I thought the whole point of this was because Fchan was worried about laws being placed that made Fchan worried about legal proceedings?

>>72
Thank you.

This thread makes me think of an episode of SVU where a company was digitally making children out of adult models. While Olivia said it should be illegal, it wasn't. I still believe there's more (but slim) chance of a lawsuit from the toons rather that digital kitten diddling if it was actually illegal.

And Xeno, no need to be rude because I bring up a very valid point that you don't like. I'm not being rude to you at all. Tails is smaller than the other characters and looks younger. Beside another style he would look ambiguous, next to Sonic, he looks younger. Would a character like Kit Cloudkicker or Gosalyn Mallard fall under the Tails clause or the cub clause?

> (though it is still in my opinion that images from sites which sars "do not distribute" and/or have a watermark saying such should be banned as well.)

they are. http://fchan.me/read.php/faq/1177385376/l40

To clarify the first part of my post (because a few lines got cut off):

The prohibition is worded ambiguously: "Babyfurs that are not clearly adult and Cub art will not be tolerated"

Could be easily read as: "Babyfurs that are not clearly adult and not Cub art will not be tolerated"

The negative can apply to both articles of the list.

>>82
Couldn't you make the same argument with the Miller test to Scat and some of the other fetishes here as obscene artwork, which would technically put Fchan in the same kind of hot water as cub art would?

>>83
Except that the other fetishes aren't targetted by laws (in terms or artwork) far as I know. Which is the whole issue here.

Also, note this in the law previously cited:

"...and
(B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;"

The "and" implies that both it and the previous article be a condition fulfilled by the artwork in question for it to be considered illegal. What lacks value to one person may be rich with it to another.

Also, by the "Definitions" section, softcore cub pics (ie. where  the "pubic area" is not visible as described in said section) are allowed by the law and, thus, should be allowed on fchan.

That's what's called a "loophole" and laws are full of them.

This makes no sense to me... it's a fantasy-based fetish. They're not actually raping children or even having sex with them. They're viewing pornographic artwork (not photos, as that requires one to put a child in a sexually comprimising situation) of fictional children. literally speaking, no children were harmed in the making of these pics, mentally, physically, or emotionally. Other than the questionable morality that comes with looking at ANY porn, there really doesn't seem to be a problem here, even if it's against the law. If it is, there's gotta be loopholes somewhere to properly affect this discussion, and if not, then it should be fought for. This is no worse (and no better, mind you) than necrophiliac, bestial, rape, and scat pornography. it's all fantasy; none of it is action, and therefore no action should be done in response. Only when there IS action should one respond with it. in other words, if someone rapes a child, corpse, or any other thing for that matter, THEN legal action should be taken. No one's getting hurt by porn, so there should be no worries.

I feel I need to mention that no, I do not generally enjoy cub porn, but I hate seeing things like fetishes and fantasies being treated unequally when they're all on the same level. People should be able to masturbate to whatever they want as long as what they're masturbating to did not harm someone in the process of making it. So all that shit they have on those other porn sites about animal sex and what not is what should be targeted, not harmless drawn pictures of fictional characters.

>>89
Exactly.
From my point of view, you're all furries, no matter what is your fetish, furry IS a fetish and it includes anything that could be drawn, from the softest to the weirdest things known to the man.

If you consider an underaged furry character to be like a kid, you're pulling the anthropomorphism too far.

Please come back to reality.

Those ares drawings. Those are NOT real.

What a bunch of bullshit.  Drawn child pornography is not illegal.

>>116544

But apparently it would seem the mod's don't care about what goes in Toon, just AltHard. It's rather hypocritical if they only police one  area. The "governmental law" they're trying to comply with says that -any- depiction of below age characters breaks the obscenity code.

Tails, Klonoa, Shippou, Arthur, Tiny Toons etc would all fall under this unless they were drawn over the age of 18. Fchan would also need to see the ID of every 'model' before accepting images.

>>92
IIRC the law already exists. hence your point about "law won't be voted" is not applicable to this case in the slightest. Unless you're talking about whether said laws will be appealed. We'll be waiting here for you.

>>98
The point is, given 100% no lore of a character, would you be able to differenciate between (a) an adult and a child, and (b) a morphic/human-like or a non-anthropomorph creature? Chibi is mostly safe because it's a defined style which does appear to render adults in a smallish manner. Shippo is not because as mentioned, he looks 6. Unless he is rendered in a style which makes his age questionable. Toonish characters I'd say it's questionable, because adult and child characters are recognisable, the factor protecting them is the 2nd part: can you tell if it's having human characteristics, or a non-morphic creature?

And as mentioned, cub IS banned in /toon. It's just that the checks are less stringent.

>>100
Because no one reported them, maybe?

It's not as if I'm visiting /toon to report threads. Also, it's already notes that the Klonoa and Sonic style of drawing makes the age of characters questionable. The bugs bunny thread should probably be reported. The arthur thread, in my opinion, should probably be reported. the digimon thread should be reported, period.

Guess it fell off the face of Fchan, but there is a Sonic Males thread with Chris getting goned by Sonic, and another of him getting spanked by Sonic whilest nude.

>>107428
>>107424

fchan was designed as the place to post all furry art, there is sections for different styles so that if something is a tab bit more controversial people know not to look in those threads. yet cubs have been removed due to some people finding it immoral. In that case scat threads should be banned because i dont like them


=/  /end rant

in that case the whole website is illegal. Furry yiff could be considered bestiality which is illegal in a majority of US states. But we are allowed to post them because they are fictional pictures containing no real situations. Same goes for a majority of the threads on the /ah/ board. I bet over half the threads in there are contain situations that are illegal.

So why cubs? why all of the sudden ban them when they are just the same as all the other art as being fictional situations and characters.

Im not even a big cub fan, although I do enjoy it from time to time. Its just I see a domino effect happening soon. Cubs arnt ok well in that case we have to remove such and such so people will stop complaining about those....and now we have to remove this and that

"False, fchan was designed as the place to post all LEGAL furry art. Art containing underaged in sexual situations (inclusive of cub art in most instances) is made illegal in some states. Hence banned. I'd ask you to at LEAST read the first post in this thread."

Com'on, give me a break, "LEGAL furry art" there is lots of copyrighted characters all over fchan! be realistic. and If that was the case, you are breaking your own initial vision!

"(a)  In General.— Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that—
(1)
(A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
(B) is obscene; or
(2)
(A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and
(B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;... "

Com'on, they are talking about humans!!

One thing is if I create a human cartoon or drawing of childreng having sex or what ever and a total different thing is a furry drawing cartoon.

Think of it!

<<106
Furry Guro has as much chance of inspiring the viewer to torture real animals as Furry Cub has of inspiring a viewer to molest real children. So let's get rid of them both.

>>114
Yeah, but they are not humans, not even near!

>>114
Besides, tails its a fox right! so, how long a fox can life in RL!? so, what we consider as an adult, as a kid or as what ever, doesn't apply to animals/furries on on this case!

the law says its illegal unless it contains artistic value. so someone go figure out what that exactly means and fix it =3

>>120

Okay, I concede the point. Cub art is illegal to create, distribute, or own in the United States.  Considering the link in >>120 is suffering from a serious case of tl;dr, here is the relevant part:

-----------------------------------------------------------

-EXPCITE-
    TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
    PART I - CRIMES
    CHAPTER 71 - OBSCENITY

-HEAD-
    Sec. 1466A. Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children

-STATUTE-

(a) In General. - Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that -

  (1)(A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
     (B) is obscene; or
  (2)(A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and
     (B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;

or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 2252A(b)(1), including the penalties provided for cases involving a prior conviction.

-----------------------------------------------------------

So there you go. Even though cub art hasn't been put before the court, if you go by the letter of the law it is illegal. While I may disagree with the law, it is still the law (until challenged and beaten or simply changed).  You can bitch all you want about it, but there it is.

>>120

You forgot to mention this...

"-HEAD-
    Sec. 1466A. Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children"

Key word on that sentence. CHILDREN!!!

If you don't know what "children" means here is the definition.

"A child is a human being between birth and puberty.[1] The term may also define a relationship with a parent or authority figure, or signify group membership in a clan, tribe, or religion; or it can signify being strongly affected by a specific time, place, or circumstance, as in "a child of nature" or "a child of the Sixties."

Here, a link to wikipedia definition!...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children

>>123
a) I'm not a lawyer.
b) According to the general provisions: http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C1.txt
"(2) Minor. - The term "minor" means a person who has not reached 18 years of age."
c) Quoting again for emphasis, from the law discussed here:
"(A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and
(B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;"
Highlighting the part you should be focused on:
"depicts an image that is, or appears to be"
Quoting the exact phrase of note: "or appears to be"

>>126
Sorry, you're inserting lore again. They do NOT appear to be underage. Maybe your presumptions of what looks underage is different from mine, but to many people, they do not appear as such. Expecially when you put them side-by-side with Mario (like in Mario vs Sonic at the Olympic Games).

Not to mention that most people don't draw exactly in Sonic/Klona style eitherways, and tend to make said characters look more mature. But if you think said image really looks underaged, it should be obvious enough for mods to agree with you, and you do have the benifit that mods are biased against cub art in general to begin with. Just report them.

>>127
Be realistic, everyone that knows sonic characters knows that sonic its a teen and tails a kid, just hear their voices! besides,  anyone with half brain can look for this info, or ask something or even look at the manual of a game where tails appears, there is the age.

Now with Klonoa, at the first game you can see he is a very young kid, and on the second he is a teen, well, almost.

Now, "Appears to be underage". how old is Tails in Real Life!?

Do you know?, you don't know!? go ask his mother, oh wait, you can't. Tails does not have a mother in real life, and guess what he is not real either! and other thing, his species and anatomy doesn't exist too.

What about all the copyright characters that are here!? what do u say about that!? including sonic and tails, klonoa too!

I'm sure there are pedofurs who -do- fap to Tails and Klonoa because of how they look. And if Fchan allows exceptions to the "law," what sort of message does that send to the pedofurs? That cub porn is okay so long as it involves a popular cartoon or game character that everyone likes? You can't act morally superior to others while defending something that's pretty close to what you say you're fighting against.

I got an idea, let's just use Dog Years, lol.

>>129
I'm quite sure Sonic Rush never mentioned the age of characters at all. Not to mention that there's so many different voices of Sonic, and that there's so many different versions of Sonic (seriously, do you think the Archie version of Sonic is teen?). Not to mention you can hear voices through paper.

The thing about Klonoa is that all the adults in the game looks to be the same age as Klonoa, which leads to a discreptancy. Hence it's likely the appearance of age is lore and situation-based.

And I've already mentioned that practically all pornographic art here of copyright falls under parody. There's sufficient difference (namely, that they're all sexual) to differenciate from the real thing.

Again, if you think said image really looks underaged, it should be obvious enough for mods to agree with you, and you do have the benifit that mods are biased against cub art in general to begin with. Just report them.

>>135
If you want to search the info where there is none, is ok for u! but u know the info its available someplace else.

You don't have the games right!? (klonoa) sure u don't! otherwise you have never say that!

Let me see if I understand, if I register my character in order to be copyrighted so anyone can place porn art with him! its that right!? cuz u are saying this!...

"And I've already mentioned that practically all pornographic art here of copyright falls under parody. There's sufficient difference (namely, that they're all sexual) to differenciate from the real thing."

If thats right, LETS REGISTER ALL OUR CHARACTERS, that way we can create PARODIES about them !! YAY.

>>137
Even if info exist, it doesn't change the fact that people can draw characters older than they usually are. On a side note, Archie comics have done a "future" version of Tails, so that breaks the "info" point anyhow.

I have the game. Though only the GBA one. Is it my fault that sprites make everything look small?

You don't have to register. Your character is automatically copyrighted. People can still make porn out of it unless you prove it to be infringing on commercial rights and/or slander and such.

Know your laws.

>>138
Unfortunately, they also include the term "appears to be" in the same legislation. A cop-out, but it means that cub art can be targetted because of it.

>>141
As I said before, that word its not valid on any court. I know about that!

>>142
Still missing the point: it's not the age that matters, it's the perceived age, based on visual alone.

There's no reason why I should do so. I've played the game, I've made conclusions based on it. Maybe you should ask the lawyers to play the game as well?

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/17C4.txt tells me that in the USA, works are automatically copyrighted. Many countries follow the US system of copyright. It may be possible that you're confusing with trademark, which registration is required, and better at protecting characters eitherway, in that more restrictions of use are granted.

Meybe you should ask your dad to comment here then. He should know more about this topic and can give better opinions, since several of yours have been proven flawed.

a) You automatically assume that a law isn't valid even though I posted a link to an law school, and that it's been repeatedly mentioned in this thread. It took me 1 minute to simply check google.
b) You know nothing about parody and copyright laws. Either that or you're confused with trademark laws.
c) You know nothing about legal definitions.
d) Canonical age: You keep harping about whether canonical age is a point, when it's obviously out of point. If you're trying to prove it's out of point, you obviously missed the many times I've mentioned that it's the perceived age that matters.

>>143
So you're saying that http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C71.txt is somehow not legal, despite being written into legislation? Again, send complaints to the legislation/government offices, I didn't write that piece. I do not need to post where in that link it is, since the term is easily searchable.

>>146
I find that unlikely. Source please.

>>145
"It's not the age that matters, it's the
-perceived- age, based on visual alone."

And I ''percieve'' Tails, Klonoa, Arthur, etc.
to be underage based on visual characteristics
and I'm sure any law officer would agree if
you were to let him browse through your 'art'

If Fchan is going to push these rules,
they should do it to the FULL extent.
Not allow exceptions just because it's
a popular character within the fandom.
It's hypocritical to rally against cubs
then turn around and allow other stuff
that is pretty much the same damn thing.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2256.html

and heres a clarification according to law school text books.

a minor is a person under the age of 18.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person

and person is defined as a human being according to the dictionary and thus anything other than a human is not subject to this us law

>>150

Exactly, and this is why we're so lulzworthy.
And that "Cartoon ID" system is hilarious,
Perhaps furs need a legal drinking age too.

>>154
And I've noted, the key word which brings contention is "appears to be". Until they reword that part, cub art is targettable.

>>150
Considering the number of silly lawsuits I've seen, being paranoid is probably a better option.

>>153
Time Travel makes for messy bookkeepping. Not to critize, but a "Cartoon ID" system would fail horribly.

>>155

your still missing the point of the words minor and person.

minor is any person under the age of 18.

person is any individual human.

Cowards.
I normally try to stay above such bullshit, but really,
what I see here is the same reason this site is often despised..
And this used to be my favorite next to FA.

Though I wonder if this is just an excuse to force your wills on everyone, some typical power abuse?

However, I'm growing out of cub stuff, sure its loads of fun in the later teens to draw and collect,
the thrill of doing what we aren't supposed to.
But now I agree that I've seen some cub stuff thats disturbing to say the least(cub/adult,rape,coughsp3cough,etc >_<),
I barely can bring myself to even draw cute but nonviolent chibi yiff these days.
However, I don't go on some prickish drama trip and do everything I can to ruin peoples hobbies because I don't agree with them.

News flash, obeying laws or even social pressure that take away free speech and rights just leads to more lost rights, then eventually no freedom at all.
(so as long as such rights don't DIRECTLY lead to harm people against their will)
And so people surrender to tyrants, things fall, fun dies, and so on.

But you'll say, "if we don't, fchan will be ruined ", yea well, it'll probably happen either way, so whats the point?
Also, a few legal tricks, improve disclaimers, get gov ip blockers, or maybe some proxy tricks if its not beyond you.

This wasn't meant to insult anyone personally, I'm just so sick of everyone surrendering to the thought police.

But whatever, if one keeps giving up or don't ever want to try, then good riddance.

>>160 the answer to the sl thing hasnt been posted as of yet since th chang was only just finalized within th past 2 weeks. but if you were to talk to any of the admins they are forced to keep up with the changes in us law because the us tries to police the world and thus the net to keep its citizens safe

because of how long the cases in supreme court take the most recent change is probably the one made in 2006 where the got rid of the words appears to be http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002260----000-.html back in jan of 2006.

>>164
ack, meant title 17, 1466A.

>>166

Then Tails and Klonoa and all other furry porn which -looks- underaged (and also images with underage-looking humans) should be removed. Because its not up to the FANS interpretation, its up to the COURTS. It visually looks childlike, and the law says ANY depiction. It doesn't specify human or anthro, or say "Tails is okay because that's just the Sonicverse style of art." If they're going to put this rule into effect, they should do it all the way, no exceptions or leniencies. I mean afterall, what if a cop sees that depiction and reports Fchan to the FBI?

>>167
Somewhat ahead of me!
Second the point completely.

I mean... I either missed something, or this is the truth, but reading over the thread I keep seeing the mention how apparently Tails and Klonoa art of all forms is allowed... in light to the ruling change here.

You got to be pretty unwilling to see Tails or Klonoa as an adult on their canon shape... I mean, I take a glance at any of them, I see a kid. You get other characters of the respective universes to compare with, even furthermore.
So, to think that you got some fire cover there for not seeming underage, you're just tricking yourself.

Loving the cute looks of these two fellas, one could think I'd fight the other way around, but, if in the end Fchan is fighting  to avoid legal issues, then I have no idea why they're sparing some particular characters off the rule change. If someone wanted and could throw down a brick about the whole "pedo issue", the site would get nailed just as hard as with all the remaining cub art.

This would now lead to the interpretation of the said law that is supposedly forbidding the anthropomorphic cub art, but, the site administrators already took their stance on the matter and seemingly won't give up on it for the proclaimed rear-end safety. (which depending on the Klonoa/Tails stance it's all hypocrisy or not)

>>170
Hm. I guess I'm biased then, since the majority of Sonic images I've seen tend to draw characters somewhat more maturely than canon would suggest. I'd say: Classic Sonic: out. SatAM/Archie Sonic: questionable. Sonic Zero/Current: questionable.

Klonoa has the advantage of actually having distinctively more mature characters in the same style, somewhat (though it's been too long for me to remember exactly. When was the last time a Klonoa game was released anyway?).

But in the end, I'd still say that if it has a child proportion, it's out. If it's distinctively out of a (in this case, take proportions/shapes for BOTH human and known creatures) child's proportion even if it's small (like chibi), it's questionable, unless placed with other images for size comparison: if the proportion ratio of adult and child IRL fits with the proportion ratio of 2 images of the same style, out. If it has the proportion and shape dissimilar to human or known creature, it's in, unless if again the proportion ratio of adult and child IRL fits with the proportion ratio of 2 images of the same style, and/or appears in a child situation. Essentially meaning that ageplay for some non-morphs are questionable/out.

Also, >>168 since I don't want to repeat.

>>172
Conspiracy or good point, either way, I couldnt care less.

>>174

Been there, and after a brief conversation ('cause time for a lawyer is money, so I prefer not to be a constant nuisance or else my pocket would burn) I got a quite reassuring answer.

The laws are made with a given target to protect (so to say in this case) and they are only applicable against those that somehow affect the said target that's being protected.
In this law's case, the target being protected are Human children (because these are the laws aimed towards Humans, as you have other specific laws that are made to protect animals to an extent), which prohibits the depiction of human children in sexual situations, yadda yadda, on any possible format due to the possibility of being references (even if tangent) about real children.

Now, how do you take the idea of a human children when you make a drawing/write a story/whatever where you depict a young aged creature covered with fur/scales from head to feet.. paws and tail(s). You simply cannot associate that with any human child by the longest shot, thus, it is not a threat in consideration with the law that is to protect the children's rights on that end.

If it looks like an animal, it's not under the cover of such a law (vague in portraying anything more than real children due to the law's nature), and since there is no animal protecting law that prohibits such kind of fictional work....
The only seeming exception is those characters which are in its most of human appearance and have cat/bunny/(etc) ears and are indeed under aged looking, since it could conflict with the child protecting law under the the pretext that some simple ears or tail were nothing but accessories attached to the depicted image of a real child.

>>174
You are so awesome. You don't hold your
tongue out of fear of being banninated.
I like that attribute in my furries.

Until they go -all the way- and delete
-EVERY- image that could be 'visually
percieved' as "underage" we have no
reason to believe that they're really
doing this to comply with some law.

A court would see Tails as being just
as illegal as anything in Softpaw Mag,
reguardless of lore, cannon, whatever.

So let me get this straight, the people who are in support of Cub Porn are now complaining because Tails/Klonoa and the like ARENT being taken off?
"D< if wi cant haff it no one can! RAWR!"
Geez guys, cutting off your nose to spite your face much?

>>172

The way I see it, even if it is a front (and I'm not discounting that possibility) two points remain:

1) Fchan is privately run and own. They can do what they want.
2) There is legitimate concern to be had over legal problems.

Do I agree with the choice? Not really, but it doesn't matter too much.

As to people going on about "how can you know how furries look!~", it is a matter of context.  If you see a cub next to an adult furry then it would be pretty clear.  If there is dialog it's even clearer.

Can a furry fall under the definition of "minor"?  Of course it can.  "Person"?  Maybe more of an argument, but the general idea is the same.  How much difference does there have to be before the word "person" no longer applies?  Ears? Ears and tail?  Ears, tail, paws? Hopefully the stupidity of the argument is a little more obvious.

>>179

You're missing the point.  What annoys people are special exceptions and hypocrisy.  If Tails looks as much like a cub as "normal" cub art (say, Inuki's style) then it should be banned just as much as anything else.  Canonical age doesn't matter because any artist should then be able to apply a magical "age" to their characters and bypass the rule.

>>181
Yeah, it might be privately owned and they don't answer to anyone with their decisions, surely they should be covering their ass, or not covering their ass, there's no "halfway".

Banning cub, but not banning cub is more of a morale self pat on the back. They feel better for appearing to make a stand, but really it's buisness as usual. From a legal point of view, nothing has changed. (They're still posting "minors")

Removing someone else's balls by force is illegal.  Rape is illegal.  Yet images of those are still allowed.  Yes, this is indeed a double standard.

>>58

If they banned vore art, you'd be pretty pissed off.

However, the law about Cub art has to do with Pedophilia, which in law covers "works of fiction".  Because Cub art is outlawed by a good portion of the US, allowing you people to continue posting would violate laws where the server is kept, thus getting the site in trouble.

FChan gets in trouble for Cub porn, then there is no FChan.  And that is something that Furry-kind cannot live without.

As for Rape, and Guro, those ACTS are illegal, not works of fiction, which is why they're allowed to stay.

Please, for the sake of FChan, follow the instructions of the Moderators, lest our Furry Porn Haven will die, and we'll all have to suffer.

>>189

There is multitudes of furry porn that APPEARS under age, but is not.  It doesn't matter if only the "actual" cub porn is banned, since perception of an underage character would hold up in court.

And besides, it doesn't matter if the whole site goes down or not.  Because not allowing cub porn prevents a certain group of people from accessing the site anyway.  The site that you claim is a godsend has already just been ruined for a surprisingly large group of people.

There are bigger furry sites with more traffic that have yet to be shut down for allowing cub porn.  Until something does happen, I say keep it.  It's not like fchan has been sent a "cease and desist" order.  So why prevent a group of people from accessing your site.  That's like owning a super market, and banning dairy products because the majority is lactose intolerant.  Doesn't mean that you should prevent those that enjoy cheese from shopping there.

>>192

Then could an artist draw a character (NOT associated with any popular TV show or Video Game) which only -looks- underage, SAY it's spritiually a thousand years old, post it to Fchan and it NOT be counted as cub pr0nz? If that loophole works for POPULAR characters from COPYRIGHTED shows/games, can't it also apply to a made up character created by a furry artist?

The most important thing to consider here, Fchan, is that in the Supream Court decsion Ashcroft V. Free Speech Coalition, laws against virtual (as in, not real) CP (which includes cub art) were overturned by the federal supream court. No state can pass a law superseeding the federal supream court's decision. No warrent can be signed for the arrest of someone on charges of being in posession of or producing virtual CP. No case can be made for the incarseration or seizure of property for such a person, either. It would be utterly illegal and it makes NO difference what state you're in because: it was a federal decision. I have no special affinity for cub art myself, but please do more research before you change policy next time.

If you're eager to protect CANADIAN citizens by banning cub art, do it for that reason and get your facts straight about US law please. Talk to a lawyer or something before you exclude something on the grounds that it may be illegal.

IF cub-art is banned, I say ban anything having to do with rape, any four-legged furry creature, abortions, homosexual intercourse, and drugs, as all these things are also against the law. This is only fair mods.

Don't pull the 'my fetish is better than your fetish' crap, fchan is one of the best places on the internet. If you're that worried about the law, then you'd remove all the above listed things. Then see where your people go.

I guarantee if you put the resources to it, you'd see /a and /ah are your top-visited boards. And you're goingt o lose alot of them.

>>198

Well, yeah. I'm amoral. I don't care if people draw or post cub porn, it makes no difference in whether or not I can eat, work, and be mentally and physically healthy. Even if I was offended by it somehow, what would make me so rightous as to cast the first stone? How people want to get their jollies from fchan is of no concern of mine. But folks can afford to do some research, right? Make sure they have accurate information before they make policy on what they think they know? It won't kill fchan to talk to a lawyer before they make a legal decision, will it?

>>199

Oh, I figured you didn't care.  Your words were very formal and neutral.  Just giving facts.  However, the facts DO point in the argument's favor.

OH NOES, I left out the T in "Vir[t]ual"
Me sowwies, me amz irritilates.

Again, it's hard to make a consistent argument unless we know exactly what new legislation is being referred to in >>1. I refuse to add any new points until more details are added in that regard, since it is already clear that cub porn was allowed in the past.

To the moderators, could we have links to said legislation?

I love this board for the mods and the readers in the first line, how come? Well Fchan generaly became unable to show any kind of quality in what it does. Xeno goes on all the time like he would do nothing but reading laws and law extension from BTK to momentaly suggested paragraphes, but hell for what?
I mean lols if this site would actually sponsor and show QUALITY with the pictures, carefuly choosed and "everyone would be happy to see this" kind of stuff then hell its only understandable that you have to take coverage for your readers and artists, but dear god all this crap for "art" like donald duck porn drawn with a stick by a 8 year old?
Also its awesome and epic how whenever Xenofur starts off anything about the rules it has more paradoxes within than religion could ever keep up with.

1.1
"Due to its host having increasing concerns about such art and additionally due to several federal states of the USA having passed as-of-yet unappealed legislations that forbid such art, Fchan sees itself forced to act to protect both users and the site itself by banning cub art."
- Starts off with the old story about anthro art, animal molestation is against the laws too and the so called as-of-yet legislations, its against the law to distribute and/or show pictures with animal sex, but hell you draw two breasts on it and make it slightly stand on two legs then its ok, congratulations, but this is not even the problem part, what i luaghed at was the
"Fchan sees itself forced to act to protect both users and the site"
lol Xeno, please dear god, PROTECT!? If you want to tell me you would like to protect the board thats one thing, BUT THE USERS? Are you suggesting that there are underage people on the board who need to be protected, or is it rather that those who (excuse me the choice of words) fap to animals having sex would be mentaly damaged after seeing such a picture. K LOL
1.2
All you said basicaly equals the hidden picture between 1.1
What the moderators dont like will be deleted. Notice please its all about the liking not the rules.
1.3
Exactly the same as 1.2
1.4
Another hail the paradox string, creating sub groups inside cathegorized porn. Watch Xeno kids, he will teach you how to make science out of a simple porn picture.
1.5
Same as 1.4
1.6
Congratulations, an actual addition to the site to protect the users unlike the lols in 1.1
1.7
Same as 1.2

SO all the fun rule stuff and epics of 7 points can be sumed up like this:
- What the moderators dont like will be deleted even if its not against the rules.
- If the moderators dont like you, you will be deleted even if its not against the rules
- If the moderators dont like something they will say its against the government and the not yet released laws.
- Its not porn, its science
- If you cant cathegorize exactly a 10 foot shemale godzilla being tied up by a cartoon character, your post will be deleted.
- If you dont know Fchan science you will be eventualy banned shortly.
- If you dont agree with the moderators or think they are mentaly handicaped, you will be eventualy banned shortly.
- If you dont agree with the majority you will be eventualy banned shortly.
- If you think some of the moderators have mental problems for making rocket science out of a bunch of "mating" disney characters you will be eventualy banned shortly.
- You will be eventualy banned shortly

Welcome to NaziChan, thank you for your care and work Xeno, we will surely find an another board where the mods are still sane.

Soz but it really has no point to argue or try to discuss something.

In the history of Fchan it was allways what the mods want, never the users, hell in this board the user is just an animal, a trophy xeno can show off with how many ppl browse it.
What if i say point by point why i disagree with him, will that change anything? No, disagree = ban thats the only thing i learned around here, it doesnt matters at all how you present it, sarcastic, trolling, well pharsed, point by point, its just a disagree with the mods and you can check what that means in 1.2
"What we dont like gets deleted"

All this board EVER was about was the moderators

>>209

It's their site, not yours.
It's their site, not yours.
It's their site, not yours.
It's their site, not yours.
It's their site, not yours.
It's their site, not yours.
It's their site, not yours.
It's their site, not yours.
It's their site, not yours.
It's their site, not yours.
Start over. Then continue reading.

Again - this is a private site. The users are allowed to post stuff here, it's not their god-given right. If the staff wants a certain kind of imagery banned, it gets banned. AND YOU CAN DO NOTHING ABOUT IT. Why?

It's their site, not yours.
It's their site, not yours.
It's their site, not yours.
It's their site, not yours.
It's their site, not yours.
It's their site, not yours.
It's their site, not yours.
It's their site, not yours.
It's their site, not yours.
It's their site, not yours.

Да запретите porn новичка как свое чисто зло и только больные fuckers новичка хотят его. Свое время поднять Красня знамя и управить больные basters с Fchan

>>211

What jono said.

The administration provided as a problem some potential legal restrictions, which is what some people here were trying to discuss.

From multiple points came out certain conclusions, that the administration took no step about (either to welcome them, or provide more detail about the given problem).


So, if the administration indeed wished to prohibit something given on their own desire, they're quite free to say so. It would put everyone to a much more calm state (after all, how much more flak could they get?).

ITT double post but one more thing seriously
>>211
"The users are allowed to post stuff here, it's not their god-given right"
Looking at the fact that this board is only alive because the users post pictures on it, your claim is a prety thought. Actually shows the core of the problem just fine.
People look for stuff and request stuff, if they get it, the site is sucsessful if not they go and look for it elsewhere
Its this god damn simple

I should feel HONORED cause Fchan allows me to fill in their needs? No offense pal but if you find it statisfactory that you do the work for someone and then he kicks your ass for it then you are either a mazochist or the bigest constitution of a brown noser i have seen during my life.

Sorry to say, but in my world, if i help someone to get something and with that i bolster the site's visitor number, i get a "thanks" and not a million of rules and a group of ego moderators who think they shited the spain mello, and ban me for it in the end.

The sad reality is that Xeno should kiss the ass of everyone on this board who has completed a request of others even once. Cause thats the only reason he has a site he can make shitty rules on and play around like he would be god along with his team.

People here surely have intresting logic. For real.

>>217
It's not your site, if you don't like it then don't post anything. I hate having to read through the DNP so I just plain don't post any pictures unless i'm 100% certain they are non-DNP which is rare.

Users of site don't get to dictate rules, get over it.

>>220
....wow, so distrustful of the leadership. How many posts have been "silenced unfairly" then?
Whats that?
Theres still a 200+ post thread RIGHT HERE that is literally FULL of users out-right defying the mods' (completely correct, justified and long over-due in my eyes) decision?
WOW.
Guess fchan isnt as much of a Orwellian regime as you'd like to think, hmm?
(pssst, no-one gives teh fuck if Nadia likes loli vamps. She could like cub raep and it would have no bearing on the discussion at hand)

>>217
And since I hit "post" prematurely...

Why exactly should Xeno kiss everybody's ass again? The more people who come here, the more people posting content, the more people fulfilling requests and the more people arguing here on the /dis/ boards on this very subject, the MORE BANDWIDTH is being used that HE has to pay for. (Or whomever is paying for it, if Xeno doesn't.)

So let's recap.

You're not paying a dime for this site.
You're costing the site money by coming here and arguing.
And yet, you're getting free access to pictures, flash files, and a forum board.

I dunno, seems like a pretty damn sweet deal to me. Again, until you pay for this site, you have no right to tell the owners what to do.

>224 : Nonrequired Element of Offense — It is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exist.

Then I guess we're right back to the Tails / Klonoa loophole? They don't exist in real life. But they _ARE_ 'Visually Childlike cartoon images. It doesn't matter what their cannon ages are or what the ARTIST says their ages are, only how they LOOK to a judge. So therefore they and all other "Visually Childlike" furry characters should be removed in order to _FULLY COMPLY_ with this law. If the courts would make no exceptions / distinctions between Sonicverse style and Softpaw why should Fchan? Is it only okay because its a "parody" of a commercial character?

>>226

"The term "Indecent", as used in this section includes matter of a character tending to incite arson, murder, or assassination." - So then wouldn't the "Furries Being Shot" thread in Alt Hard, or even David Hopkins' "Jack" (in which an angsty teen fur goes Columbine on all his schoolmates) qualify as "indecent material" under these laws? What if an artist draws a pic of a dragon burning a village? "Inciting Arson!" lulz...

Uhm, LLz, for one, I didn't use his name in vain. I have logs from YIM. Also, that does not list 1466A as April 30 2003, it lists it as January 2nd 2006. Which is not outdated.

The specific law Xenofur is basing his ruling on, is from Title 18, part 1, Chapter 71, section 1466A.

Looking at the law, it seems pretty clear to me.  I also asked a lawyer for an interpretation of the law, and he sent me a brief that pretty much upholds the opinions posted by 1.

Let's not also ignore the fact that there are plenty of sites out there that can satisfy that urge.

>>222
>>223
Get with the program. We're not saying what the mods can and cannot do. We're calling them out on the REASON for doing it and the inconsistencies and double standards that are going on right now on the site (Sonic, etc.). If they're doing it because of a law which doesn't pertain to cub porn (hence the LEGAL production and distribution of the Softpaw magazine), then that's just stupid and cub porn should be allowed at once if it's just an inapplicable law that's the problem.

If, however, it's a moderator decision (as many of us suspect), then they should come out and be truthful about the reasons for their decision (ie. we don't like it; ergo, it may not be posted). That's all we're looking for here.

I'm not sure what's with all the fetishist enmity here. What's the point of everyone going at each others' throats for their sexual preferences? Why are all the scat/vore/guro people being all like "Ha ha, your fetish got kicked off fchan"? Talk about childish...

233 - Yups, and I don't see anyone being arrested
for having Softpaw Mags in their mailbox... yet.
(Let's mail some issues to Chris Hanson, lol)

>>232


keep in mind that if Fchan bans cubs based on the "visually childlike" rule, they're doing so not because the law requires them to as they claim but because they want to.

>>231


Please list them, then.

>>238
How, exactly, do most of the images in /toon/ look childlike? The thing about your typical "toony" style is that age is almost impossible to determine from the image alone, and that's the issue here.

If someone was unfamiliar with, to use an oft-cited example, the Sonic universe, they'd never just guess that Tails is 8 years old. And before anyone claims otherwise, I'd like to point out that you only think that because you KNOW the character's background. You've come to associate the two, such that it's now hard to separate one from the other. The question is whether or not someone UNFAMILIAR with the character would be able to tell the character is underage. I do not believe so, and apparently neither do the mods. They're doing you a favor by permitting images of some characters that, though underage, do not look it in the typical style. They could've just banned all images of underage images, but, I repeat, they did you a FAVOR and did not.

Of course, the issue of the reason for the banning of underage characters is still unresolved until a link to a current law is provided. If you want to complain about what you perceive to be deceit, be my guest. But let's stop whining about which characters are currently allowed, huh? Unless you're in the habit of examining your gift horses' dentition...

Stupid, simply stupid, Hey, look at most cubs, most of them (males anyways) Cum, hello, most the cubs weren't even 11, which is about the time one usealy starts to cum, second, its art, sometimes, very well done art, you ban cubs yet you let the beastality stay? WTF?!?! look at it, most stuff in AH should be banned by your stupid logic, really, murder? suicide? beastility? Rape? Drug usage? What about them, there illegal in most states! Thats for all you "Legal Issue people" Might as well get ride of everything on this site unles its of a male and a female in missionary.


So yeah.

I fricking <3 you >>243!

And I repeat "You can't be a half-arsed Moral Champion"
Everything in >>232 applies to both Cubs -AND- Gore.
So they're just picking and choosing with these laws.
Better ger rid of BOTH things! What if some retard goes
and shoots someone and then blames an image on Fchan?

http://fchan.me/toon/res/112132.html#117301 - lol.
"Some of the mods like Tails, so he's immune."

>>245
"Moral Champion"? I never tried to be one. At what point did what I say have anything to do with morals? Did I at any time say that any content on this site was morally wrong?

I find it interesting that, when presented with a point they are unable to refute, people tend to resort to ad hominem attacks instead of merely admitting they were wrong.

>>246
You'd pay to see someone get shot... because Fchan banned cub porn? Nice to know you have your priorities in order.

>>248

@ law reference.

Again, same law, same crap, same answer.
Law is aimed to defend existing minors, therefore of Human nature, which implies that no form of depiction, accurate or even barely tangent (ie: human child non-existant in reality, but, depiction still portrays a human child) of a human child is allowed under the said obscene circumstances.

2 people, speaking with lawyers, already mentioned how this exact law is bullcrap when it comes in the depiction of non-human looking creatures regardless of apparent age (potential exception to the Kemonomimi case, due to the still major human appearance).

It's a law aimed at Humans, to protect Human children, which is done via prohibiting the sexual depiction of human children.

Unless you have some law that prohibits artists clearly that they shall not produce any and whatsoever depiction of young aged completely fictitious characters (non-related to human children) in sexual circumstances, you cannot borrow other law to do the job it's not implied for.


@ "Not mod bias."

Surely you jest, or are blind, as the ruling states how Tails doesn't fall on the category of the banned art for .... some odd reason? It -looks- like a child when drawn in its canonical form! I don't need someone to tell me if it is a child, or has "official evidence" that it is. It -LOOKS- like a child.

... now... the possibility of drawing him (or any other character) on a 18+ aspect is not off the book, but, that's not what the ruling says. It's clearly authorizing Tails as is in his canonical form, therefore, breaching the own rule that tries to set him as an exception.

I, for one, am for the cub ban.
However, I feel I need to post

"2252A (the law linked that defines the punishment and so on)
(c) It shall be an affirmative defense to a charge of violating paragraph (1), (2), (3)(A), (4), or (5) of subsection (a) that—

(2) the alleged child pornography was not produced using any actual minor or minors"

tl;dr even if it is a cub/loli/whatever, and the "does not need to exist" clause would catch it, it doesnt matter unless it was posed.

>>251. I <3 you.

>>256
The problem is that we've not heard someone being taken up to court on this case and winning either. Hence it's still legally questionable.

>>257

Because:
"Thus, such a argument could be used as defense, which would make anyone wanting to bring up a case with such "evidence" as that of an animal anthropomorphic cub as a threat to children be already at a losing stance."

>>259
And you can't prove that. The only way to know that one would actually be on a winning or losing stance in this case is if we've the jury here to query. Or if we've a poll of the population to determine the approximate reactions of the public, and thus the jury.

Being such a sensitive issue, there's a non-negligible change that the jury may vote for the proposition. Remember it's also the majority of the population which voted for Bush.

>>262
Consequence is not equilivant to punishment. They're just using the same punishment for both cases, not the determination of crime.

>>263

"shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 2252A (b)(1)"

Beyond that...

Blind jury, nice...
Well, I don't think it is to harm any child (as always, human), if the defending party were to mention the fur coating on the said "child" in the minor containing pornographic art.

That point as far as I can tell is only trying to protect a (potentially) existing child by not revealing an "excess" of data pertaining minors. Thus such evidence are reserved from being admissible.

>>268

I had already mentioned how human looking art was still very prone to this, which included kemonomimi examples.

I never said absolutely anything against that (actually stated from the very start the opposite because that was how I was briefed about the case potential defense), because such kind of art can  still be closely under the resemblance to human children, etc etc etc, and therefore it's not tolerated due to the human minor potential reference.

Nothing, absolutely -NOTHING- that depicts a human child in sexual situations, and all that crap, in whatever format it is made (drawn, written) is illegal by default.
But a bloody underaged animal cannot be compared with a human child. No one probably makes those kind of charges in actual court because most likely they can be pushed back by the defense.

>>270
( A constant mis-recall of my end, and my crippled cookies aren't helping. )

Now, the >>253 point you made with the link at >>268.
On that article, it reads how someone in possession of Lolicon art was charged.

What I meant on my post concerning that was how I had already mentioned (through the brief information I had acquired from a lawyer) was how one could protest against an accusation of having/making child pornography if the evidence material were the said cubs. In court, as the accuser you could not claim (and pay proof) that such a sort of picture was a twisted (fail to find a more proper word) depiction of a human child, therefore, you were not in violation of children rights. That's where seemingly the defense party of an artist or holder of such art would take base on. There are no visual human traits on such a character, despite fact that it may be walking on 2 feet or whatever.

BUT, Lolicon and whatnot is another case. While one can claim that it is purely fictional (Even if it is), the fact remains that most of the time such characters retain a great human looking aspect, which already goes against the said law.
The law prohibits not only the real cases where children are involved on pornography, but also these realistic depictions of human children in any format... such pictures, with human children even if drawn out of someone's head, violate this law due to aspect and how it can affect the relation with an existing human child (or non-existent, as a point of the law marks it)

This was the way I perceived it, and makes quite the sense IMO.

The "appears to be", was the part where I was told how you take the base on whom the law aims to protect. It's a human oriented law, made to protect human children, that humans must abide for.. to not breach the child's rights (privacy, etc) which is done by not depicting a potentially existing child (even if right then it doesn't exist). An image where you see a fully furred creature can't be compared to any existing or imaginable non-existing child.
I think the "appears to be" part in actual context of the law is an added measure to try and prevent people to base off some model off existing children, and then altering them (aging slightly to barely legal or something) and passing them as something else. But this is already speculation of mine, of which I have no real idea.

>>272

I guess that'd be the part where evidence comes into play. I think that such a mechanism can't be called for without a proper base of proof, which most likely would've to come from someone offended by the art because it depicted some child it knew (own child, or whomever).
Perhaps more of specific cases than a general one in this situation.

But I'll give up to the matter by now and concede you on the point. (Going for a law course, BBL, lawl)

However, the (il)legal part put aside, Fchan as it stands, it has the "Tails policy" which you'll have to agree it's a bit of a shot in the foot given the administration's choice of stance about the said law.

>>274
Only if you draw him 10 years old. Tails is also male, but I'm quite sure I've seen 'him' female as well.

>>276

That's kind of the problem.
I mean like.. Admins put,quoting, "However images any depiction of Tails the Fox, would be perfectly fine in /toon. Unless of course he is wearing a pacifier."

They don't say "like" or "similar" or anything.
Tails is fine, as long as not wearing a pacifier.

Why? In its most traditional drawn forms it looks like a child however you may look at it, therefore, a cub. (I'm excluding art where he's obviously drawn with a much more adult figure)
It's not a simple pacifier that dictates that it is then a cub or not.

So why that exact wording? That's half the fuss right here on the whole "We're covering our butts from the law" issue. (The other half are the disgruntled people with the lack of cub art in general)
It's hard to believe that the mods/admins whims isn't here at play, when they create an exception to their own ruling.

Quite frankly, it's in their right to do as they please.
Their nuts, their teeth, chew as you please.
However they don't really need to spit the remains on other people with the excuse of law issues and then still break the law they claim to be covering their hides from.

>>235   233 - Yups, and I don't see anyone being arrested
for having Softpaw Mags in their mailbox... yet.

OTOH, it IS getting banned at some furry cons, and is likely to be banned at more.

>>280
Selective reading isn't helpful.

>>282
You can blame the PROTECT Act for the change. Whee slippery slope.

>>284
It really has no location...).

No.. it does have a location, namely the hard drive that the server is hosted on.  As for me listing the brief, it's a PDF, and frankly, I paid for it.  If you want one, you get your own :P 

"By locating the state in which the host's hardware is. Which is quite an easy process. Many ways to do it. You could do tracerts, you could do a whois on the domain name, etc..."

Ah, my deepest apologies, I'm not the technical specialist my mother is but I do regret that forgetfulness on the server location.

So, anyone know of an Fchan variant that is located in a state that hasn't passed this statute, or in another country since it appears the server falls within one of those states?

"Posting not allowed"

Interesting query.

If the mods came out and said "okay, we just don't want cub porn on our site, you got us,"

would you guys all stop whining? Just curious.

>>290  e621

Holy crap, I think I recognize this 2621 thing.
Its got the server in germany doesn't it, lol.
Nifty little search setup too, no frames.

>>296 - Your treading dangerous water, my friend! Calling the mods out on their own secrets = Ban. And isn't it technically "okay" if there's atleast one furry in the picture w/ the human? That seems to be the trend lately. Though I would still question threads like "[insert digimon/pokemon] x [insert trainer]", as usually those human participants are kids, and would qualify as being shota...

>>297
Unless the trainers are drawn as adults, as I would imagine has to be implied.

>>296 >>298
Did either of you actually read the thread in question? All is explained therein.

And by the way, what the mods say goes. By definition, they *are* dictators. So are the mods for pretty much every other board on the Internet. My question is, "So, what?" If you can think of a better system for moderating a board, please enlighten us.

>>302
Look closely. Only the original image is non-furry. The rest have some furry quality to them -- wings in most of them, and I saw one with cat ears. Those qualities are judged to be "furry enough" in most cases. Why are they suddenly not in that thread?

As for breaking the own rules, the original non-furry image was explained. Was there some other rule broken in the thread that I missed?

>>304
That is in fact handled like that. The mods also balance thread integrity vs. board integrity and if it's only single images, then thread integrity can win out.

>>306
in fact,they do'nt. there's no law against it. it's all lies.

Haven finally gotten around to this... THANK GOODNESS the cub stuf f is banned.  I so hated seeing that creepy babyfur and cub shit while I looked at my stomping, vore and macro \/iolence. 

>>310
link source.

>>296
>>297
>>298
>>299
Has allways been goig on like this.
Cub pron wont be affected by the laws if they post it, wanna bet?

ITT RENAME FROM FCHAN TO NAZI-CHAN

>>309

I found that stuff far more disturbing.  But nobody complained about YOUR interests. 

>>316
>Since the Miller Test is entirely subjective depending on who you ask, I don't think that's a reasonable evaluation of pornographic art.
See: Every critic of the test/ruling ever.

>So there goes the Miller Test's credibility
I fail to see how doing exactly what its supposed to undermines its credibility?

after all, killing/hurting people is leaps and bounds worse than pictures of fake young anthro animals in sexual situations

Another point would be that, so what if it's obscene? The Miller test does nothing to prove that it is harmful in any way whatsoever. Inherently, it's censorship based on public opinion of what constitutes as disgusting.

Irregardless, until someone challenges the PROTECT Act, it'll still stand.

Fchan trolls new best friend: Godwin
Even tho they cant spell it and dont know who the fuk it was...

"2 times just on me
Rule 0: Behave politely and civil.
Calling mods nazis?"
Check the banlog a bit further, maybe you see the hidden truth.

In any case the rules are retarded and the moderation team skips all the time on its own rules. Thats all and nothing more. The sad part is that some deama fan sub trolls enjoy it to bolster the moderators with their explict stupidity.
They do something out of the picture? The answer comes right away, its their site and not yours, what the hell of an argument.

Once the baby trolls finished learning and start to gasp that there are countless other sites and boards, this one will slowly get fu*ked up. Whatever, have some harbl. Good night

>>324
That's the most useful thing anyone's said in this thread in the last 323 posts. =p

1. Cub art

Due to its host having increasing concerns about such art and additionally due to several federal states of the USA having passed as-of-yet unappealed legislations that forbid such art, Fchan sees itself forced to act to protect both users and the site itself by banning cub art.

** translation: we don't like cub art, and are scratching at reasons to say it's not our fault so we can remove it and ignore the users' complaints.

--- Are you the host? No? Then you don't get to make decisions. Especially since it's not through your work that the server is maintained. Furthermore, please read >>308, where I explained why the legislation is valid.

As of today, all clear and definite depictions of childs or child-like characters outside of /c are forbidden. Unclear

** cub art in /c has always been deleted with an excessively large banhammer. Thanks for clearing up your personal hangups.

--- That has nothing to do with this issue today.

specimen will be treated at the discretion of our moderators, with a trend towards deletion, with the exception of /ah and /toon where the trend will lean towards keeping.

** specify WHY you'd be keeping art you don't like, OK? You said "ALL CUB ART" and now you MIGHT keep it?

--- Cub Art is banned. Just the definition of what constitutes as Cub is not as strict.

To make this a bit more clear, some examples:
Images like the one depicting a young bear girl sucking a rather huge penis (done in a hardiman style), would be deleted on sight, even on /ah or /toon.

** so, no diapers in sight there...just a chibi-fied bear girl...I see.

--- How do you know it's a girl? Lore doesn't count since characters can be drawn older than canon.

However images any depiction of Tails the Fox, would be perfectly fine in /toon. Unless of course he is wearing a pacifier.

** ah, thanks for clearing that up. "pacifiers mean that the character wearing it are 'cubs'." ok, goodbye all you ravers, we know how much you like your pacifiers when raving.

--- Exaggaration for clearness. Every ban/deletion is still a case by case basis, as it has always been.

You like tails, and even though you know he's underage, you can handwave away your furious fapping because he's your favourite.

Grow some fucking balls, seriously. If you were to say "we don't like cub art, it's our board, we won't allow it, clean or not, diapers or not, pacifiers or not, come hell or high water" I'd still call you on being a hypocrit but I'd have an easier time respecting your shitty decisions.

So clear this up for the babyfurs - CLEAN pictures of 'cubs' (meaning "cubs not having sex", hurrhurr you scat lovers) are allowed in their respective places!

cubs are now allowed in /c and /toon if they're clean clean cubs, diapers or not.

'dirty' clean cubs are allowed in /ah.

If not, you're showing your bias and we're free to call you on being two-faced sackless hypocrits

--- Again, please read >>308. Unless you can argue how that legislation has no change of being able to target cub, the host has a perfectly legitimate reason to be cautious.

--- I'm calling you for biasness, until you actually read up about the PrOTECT Act and inform us why it can't target cub art.

--- In advance, because I know the whole thread is tl;dr, I'll repeat myself that just because it doesn't resemble a human minor doesn't mean it can't be targetted. Lolicon can be argued to not resemble a human minor, but there has been at lease 1 successful charge of someone owning lolicon. Again, details at >>308.

>>327
Just to be clear, because you're a tool, I'll use caps where necessary to highlight the obvious:

Unless ALL depictions of ALL 'underage' CREATURES* are illegal, pictures of 'underage' creatures of a NON SEXUAL NATURE** ARE PERFECTLY LEGAL.

*(if we extend 'person' to mean 'imaginary non-human anthropomorphic animals)
**(that means just plain 'cubs' in diapers, 'cubs' with pacifiers and 'cubs' just standing around looking cute)

Is tiny toons illegal?
Is muppet babies illegal?
Is rugrats illegal?
is the knuffel bunny illegal?

until or unless they are, THERE IS NO LEGAL BASIS WHATSOEVER for your kneejerk reaction in banning ALL 'cub art' except where (by your grasping-at-straws attempts) you make "children" also apply to said imaginary non-human creatures.

So yeah, I think that logical reason pretty much informs you about why you're wrong.

If you want to ban it anyway, grow some damned balls and say "not on my server because I say so", you two-faced sackless hypocrit. I'll call you on it, but I'll shut up.

Okie... My take on the cub thing is that those who REALLY want that pedo crap can make their own damn chan just for it.

I like macro stuff, but I wouldn't be butthurt if they canned extreme violence with the macro.  I would just go somewhere else for it and in fact have a few alternatives for macro already.

So why don't you guys just get together and make your own site just for various cubby stuff?  It can't be that hard and there certainly appears to be enough demand for it.  Then it's your site and your responsibility and those of us who are seriously creeped by it don't have to see it.

>>331
Ok, Az, grow a pair, say it outright for once in your life, say:

I DONT WANT ANY CUB-LIKE ART, CLEAN OR NOT, ON MY SERVER BECAUSE I DONT THINK YOUR FETISH IS AS GOOD AS MINE, YOU KEEP YOUR CUBS STANDING AROUND IN DIAPERS TO YOURSELF, AND LEAVE ME TO MY VORE, MACROPHILIA AND SNUFF KTHXPLZ

>>334
a) Host != mod. I don't know where you get that idea.
b) The point of stylization is that without external cues, we can't tell the age of characters. An example of an external cue would be diapers. IF the character isn't stylized there wouldn;t be a problem to begin with.
c) Where did you get the idea that babyfur is banned? Only that which is indistinguishable from cub porn is illegal.
d) The legislation targets porn. There's a clause stating that "lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;" is a requirement for said works to be targetted.

>>332
Neither loli and cub are real children. Cub just has more differences to differenciate from a child. There's no information just how much differenciation is required, due to vagueness of legislation.

"It's at this point that you start frothing at the mouth and declaring all non-human juvenile art (see tiny toons, muppet babies, rugrats, baby looney tunes etc) not only porn, but childporn, when it is clearly neither."
--- I don't understand your logic. Please explain why this would be the case. Even if we were banning cub porn just because, there's no relationship whatsoever. Unless the US Government also decides to make said works illegal, but that's not our fault (again).

>>329
No one ever said it's illegal if it's not porn. There's no arguement.

Even though the rule changes state cub art outside of /c/, if it is not porn, it's supposed to be in /c/ anyways, hence they'll still be deleted for being out of topic.

>>336
Fighting against legislation is not exactly a cheap, timeless, riskless, effortless process. Not to mention that the provider still gets the final say irregardless.

>>335
a) Host != mod. I don't know where you get that idea.

gee, maybe since most of the mods seem to be saying "we dont like it" far louder than the host, and without as good a reason as "it's my butt, not yours" which is totally understandable.

b) The point of stylization is that without external cues, we can't tell the age of characters.

sigh, so you've gone the guilty until proven innocent track - well, as long as it's not porn (lewd or lascivious pictures) it's not illegal. Thanks for clearing that up.

c) Where did you get the idea that babyfur is banned? Only that which is indistinguishable from cub porn is illegal.

ah, now we're getting somewhere. So, babyfur art of a non-sexual nature isn't banned. Great!

Where do we put it?

A "clean diapers" topic just got axed from /ah, so where should it go? /a ? if /c is "SFW" (as if furry art could ever be safe for work...) then maybe it *should* be in /a as an "alternative" lifesystle is what it's often called?

This thing keeps saying "Posting Not Allowed" every time I try to post, and I am doing the captcha right... I get the feeling that we may be being secretly silenced...

a) Well, it's the point glossed over by most of the people here, but yes,

b) It's called taking precaustions. Even though the law follows the innocent until proven guilty track, lawsuits tend to be messy and ugly. /c (SWF) images are not affected whatsoever.

c) Clean diaper (cub) is /c/. Are images of babies not clean? You might have some bias here, but if it's not sexual, it's not a kink. I'm not too sure about clean babybur diaper (adult), but I'd imagine it's /ah. The thread that was posted however, was clean diaper (cub).

>>342
Learn to count : >>19 >>37 >>43 >>50 >>54 >>61 >>63 >>66 are all responses. That is eight. Since you are also >>341, you are not being secretly silenced. There is a number next to your notice, if you come to IRC, you will be able to discuss with the one who set the flag on you.

We decided to give you a place to complain, moan, speculate, theorize, and discuss. During the last few days, all Mods have been directed to leave this thread alone and to monitor it for valid input.

I have personally read through this whole thing, and there are nearly zero points that are valid. Those which are have already been adressed.

ProTip : Lawyers are not going to change our decision. Only a judge has that power. Even then, this is a privately owned server. That means the owner, admins, and staff can dictate what to not allow.

tl;dr : Everything there is to be said has been said. I am now closing the thread, and anyone who wishes to discuss it further or still has questions is invited to come to irc and talk to one of us personally.