fchan

discussion

Several changes and clarifications in policy

Pages:1 41 81 121 161 201 241 281 321
161Report
rockythefox at 10 Mar 2008: 05:02

>>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

162Report
LLz at 10 Mar 2008: 05:06

Ok, maybe it's because I'm the only one doing research into this, but I just noticed that the legislation I posted about is NOT the legislation being talked about here, since it's also old (Apr. 30, 2003). Which kind of makes it hard for further discussion, since none of us seem to have the updated legislations. I propose that until we find said legislation, we bother the mods to also provide links to said rulings.

Could we have links?

163Report
rockythefox at 10 Mar 2008: 05:15

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.

164Report
LLz at 10 Mar 2008: 05:19

>>163
That's a different legislation though. I was previously refering to Title 18, 1466A, and this is Title 18, 2260. Still looking for the legislative changes referred to in >>1.

165Report (sage)
LLz at 10 Mar 2008: 05:19

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

166Report
at 10 Mar 2008: 06:34

It's their site, not yours. If Fchan doesn't want cub art any more you have to accept that. You don't have any rights around here, it's a admin/mod's dictatorship, since it's a private site. And a declaration of legal issues led to the banning of cub art protects the site's staff for any legal issues that COULD occour, since every court will identify cub art as child porn, you can't tell you don't think so. Just because there's some fur added to the image doesn't change the idea.

So please, for whomever's sake, stop crying...

167Report
at 10 Mar 2008: 06:48

>>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?

168Report (sage)
LLz at 10 Mar 2008: 07:13

>>167
Again, just report it. Tails can be drawn in any number of styles, and in any number of age catagories. We can't shut down ALL tails images just because someone decide to draw him young looking. Or perhaps you chould be arguing instead that the Sonicverse style of art should be banned, which is a little more logical.

169Report
at 10 Mar 2008: 07:14

>>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)

170Report
at 10 Mar 2008: 07:56

>>169 *glomps intelligent person*

FINALLY someone here gets what I'm trying to say!
If Fchan really -IS- doing all this because of a
fear of Legal Trouble stemming from "underaged"
depictions of fur characters, WHY would they
spare two characters who's look is so cubby?

(except the rare image of teen Tails w/ 6pack)

Most of the Tails / Klonoa doujins I've seen have
them depicted in the small cutesy style, smaller
in relation to the other participants. (Tails is
shorter than Sonic, and why? Cuz he's younger.)
And the law doesn't care about artists styles,
chibiness, or cannonical ages. It's "based on
visual perception." And any court is going to
"percieve" the image to be of an -18 character.

171Report (sage)
LLz at 10 Mar 2008: 08:45

>>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.

172Report
at 10 Mar 2008: 10:23

>>170
I raised this point almost 2 pages ago and the moderators themselves poo-poo'd what I'd said. So, it seems to me the whole "we're doing this to cover our asses legally speaking" is just a front.

Not that I care really, I don't mind seeing cub porn striken from the board, I just care when the moderators make stuff up as they go along. ("We're banning cub to prevent our asses being sued... but we don't mind you posting this this and this even though it udnermines what i just said")

173Report
at 10 Mar 2008: 10:40

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

174Report
jono at 10 Mar 2008: 14:19

Sonic's canon age is 15; Tails' is 8. 'Nuff said. The admins are hypocritical and don't practice what they preach. But hey, what's new there?

My advice: someone make friends with a lawyer and ask them to properly interpret the law for you to see if it pertains to cub art.

To me, the law is very clear and consistent in its use of the word "children" which has an undeniably human connotation and one that does not readily apply to fictional non-human characters. While, yes, we are humans and those rules apply to us as humans, they don't apply to the fictional characters we create. The government has no right to limit the output of someone's "intellectual property." It's pretty much identical to determining what kinds of music can be written, or what clothes can be sold. It's another classic case of "the government doesn't belong in the bedroom." Well, the government doesn't belong in your yiff folder, either.

Essentially, this is just yet another occurrence of people being told what they can and cannot do, and the people getting the short end of the stick being quite upset about it.

175Report
at 10 Mar 2008: 17:05

>>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.

176Report
at 10 Mar 2008: 18:49

Dunno if this is on topic, but does this have anything to do with "April's Law". Because this is what it sounds like.

http://aprilslaw.com/indexb.html

177Report
at 10 Mar 2008: 19:16

>>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.

178Report
jono at 10 Mar 2008: 19:26

I don't know if it has anything to do with it, but it's about a sensationalist as the one we're talking about here. It's blowing something totally out of proportion and vilifying a group of people simply because people love to hate each other. So why not pressure the government into justifying their hatred with legislation?

The law makes sense to me when it actually serves to protect people from something dangerous. When it prohibits something that isn't harmful the majority (ie. age of majority), there shouldn't a problem...

179Report (sage)
at 10 Mar 2008: 21:41

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?

180Report
jono at 10 Mar 2008: 21:58

>>179
Bushism much? It's "in spite of your face."

And yes, we are because it's a double standard. Unless they're drawn in an adult style, it's cub because their canon ages are under the age of majority. Unless that, for some reason, doesn't qualify as cub because it's copyrighted material...but anyway, those characters have canon ages as determined by their creators in citable sources. So either ALL cub art is allowed or all cub art is banned. You can't have some and not others if your only pretext for getting rid of cub art is because of a law.

181Report
at 10 Mar 2008: 21:59

>>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.

182Report
at 10 Mar 2008: 22:09

>>179 - The point is if they're going to create rules to comply with a law that says ANY depiction of an underage character breaks obscenity code, then they should follow it COMPLETELY and not make exceptions. Because if they were really doing it to cover their arses, they wouldn't allow ANY. And whether you want to admit it or not, ALOT of Klonoa / Tails pr0n etc looks childlike. And that's all that matters right, LOOKS?

"If we can't have it, no one can!"

Pretty much, I mean what diff is there
between a standard pic of Tails and a
pic of some random fan-created cub char
previously found in AltHard? It's still
a character who is commonly represented
in a style where it VISUALLY APPEARS to
be childlike. Is one morally superior to
another? I dunno let's ask the courts.

183Report
172 at 10 Mar 2008: 22:43

>>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")

184Report
at 10 Mar 2008: 22:44

>>179

The problem is that they're making arbitrary distinctions for certain characters when they claim to have done this for lawful reasons, but the law would not make such distinctions.

185Report
at 10 Mar 2008: 22:47

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.

186Report
at 10 Mar 2008: 23:03

>>58
Amen.

187Report
at 10 Mar 2008: 23:10

>>58

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

188Report
at 10 Mar 2008: 23:12

>>58, >>186 - Oh lawd. Gotta love furries exerting their moral stuperiority over one another...

189Report
GothPanda at 11 Mar 2008: 00:09

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.

190Report
at 11 Mar 2008: 00:33

>>190

But the answer we want is, if images of "Underaged Characters"
are illegal, then WHY do Tails, Klonoa etc get exhemption from
the rules? They could be seen as being just as 'obscene' as any
image in AltHard. It's a representation of an animal character
which "VISUALLY APEARS to be childlike." And the COURTS aren't
gunna buy the excuse that "Oh, that's just how Sonicverse art
is. They all look like that." If this law really is to protect
Fchan from lawsuits, they wouldn't allow -ANY- exceptions, no
matter how popular the character may be.

And I repeat, how is fapping to a pic of an 8yo
fox with two tails, different from fapping to a
picture of a cub -NOT- related to a show or game?
Is it only acceptable because Tails is a staple
of the fandom and because craploads of furs would
throw a fit if all Tails pics were removed???

191Report
at 11 Mar 2008: 00:39

>>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.

192Report
doomer. at 11 Mar 2008: 00:52

>>190
because those fictionnal characters could be 18+, 20+, 30, 50, 80,235+
they belong in fiction. they can be anything you want, they can be anything its creator says it is. male,female; herm, whatever. let's just claim for legal purpose your underae looking character is over 35yo and the case is closed. you cant prove it otherwise because it's not human, it's not real.

quit being retarded, dawgs.

yes im on fchan. why am i still trying to reason you all?


also, anatomic correctness in furry fandom is an oxymoron.

193Report
at 11 Mar 2008: 01:04

>>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?

194Report
doomer. at 11 Mar 2008: 01:52

>>193
yes. what defines the age of something that doesn't exist? nothing.

195Report
at 11 Mar 2008: 01:53

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.

196Report
at 11 Mar 2008: 02:04

>>194

What irks me to hell is that, they're doing this as
supposed "Champions of Morality" and "U.S. Law" yet
they're allowing exceptions. Which if the "law" was
really THAT important to them, they wouldn't do. =P

Why should the Exception/Loophole only work
for copyrighted commercialized characters?
What works for one should work for ALL.

197Report
Wahoots at 11 Mar 2008: 02:05

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.

198Report
at 11 Mar 2008: 02:15

>>195

This person validates all pro-cub arguments.

199Report
at 11 Mar 2008: 03:22

>>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?

200Report
at 11 Mar 2008: 03:28

Did somebody say Lawyer?
Fred Phelps can help!

346Add Reply
Name Sage? - captcha =
First Page - Last 40 - Entire Thread

Powered by: Shiichan Version 3956
The contents of this page are asserted to be in the public domain by the posters.
The administrators claim no responsibility for thread content.
Manage