201 Report
at 11 Mar 2008: 04:26
>>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.
202 Report
at 11 Mar 2008: 04:43
I googled that Ashcroft vs. Free Speach Coalition thingie...http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2002dltr0019.html I think >>195 is right. "Virual CP" as in a Digital Representation of an underage _HUMAN_ person (like if some guy were to make a Photoshop or a CGI porn image with a _REAL_ kid's face as reference) which could then be visually associated with a _REAL LIFE_ living breathing person existing in THIS world. And since Tails, Klonoa, and any OTHER cub type _FURRY_ chars can't possibly be visually linked to people in REAL LIFE, I don't see how any of this affects us at all. HUMAN CHILDREN need protection from being sexually exploited, FURRIES do not.
203 Report
at 11 Mar 2008: 05:28
OH NOES, I left out the T in "Vir[t]ual" Me sowwies, me amz irritilates.
204 Report
at 11 Mar 2008: 06:05
>>202 I suppose that was the point that was passed on to me (see >>175 for details), and given how the interpretation came from someone with nothing less than over a dozen of years on the legal practice, it made quite some sense to me. All the much now given that document. I think the maintaining point that could be pressed against "cubs" were them human looking characters with just some animal ears/tails. If it could potentially be the abuse of the rights of a human child, then it could be striked down. ;3 In short, the ruling change should state that, for law-safety sake, no Nekomimi/Usagimimi/Etc is allowed should it portray a character of underage aspect, rather than cub anthropomorphic animal art. (Ind the end while all this is a lovely, even if a bit drama filled debate, I wonder how much effect this will have on Fchan itself )
205 Report
LLz at 11 Mar 2008: 08:12
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?
206 Report
miw at 11 Mar 2008: 11:06
>>205 they have none because the said legioslation is a lie. thay want cub porn out, nothing more. to avoid being flamed by the community, they claim there's a law that bans cub porn.
207 Report
at 11 Mar 2008: 11:48
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.
208 Report
at 11 Mar 2008: 12:06
>>207 Thank you for invoking Goodwin's Law and completely shooting any points you might have had full of holes.
209 Report
at 11 Mar 2008: 12:35
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
210 Report
jono at 11 Mar 2008: 13:49
Wait wait, it just occurs to me... You're worried about fchan getting into trouble for cub porn? Have you people even heard of SoftPaw magazine? It's a cub porn mag that you have to PAY for. If that's legal (and it is), then how is free cub porn not? C'mon, mods. Step up and explain yourselves now. If you want to expunge cub porn because you don't like it, then just step up and say it. At least we can accept a truthful statement like that. If the only problem really is the server, then I'll e-mail the Softpaws myself and ask them about the legalities of the situation. I'm sure this can be cleared up pretty easily if everyone drops the furry drama and just wants to work together to everyone's mutual gain.
211 Report
at 11 Mar 2008: 15:57
>>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.
212 Report
jono at 11 Mar 2008: 16:02
>>211 Right, except that's not the reason they've cited as to why it's banned. So until the come out and say that, we're functioning under the assumption that the server provider has a problem with questionable content. We're in the process of determining whether or not it is legal, and when that determination happens, the admins will have one of two choices: #1. accept that cub art is perfectly legal and re-allow it to be posted, or #2. accept that cub art is perfectly legal but continue to disallow its posting. Your pointless antagonism isn't helpful or informative and just serves to rile up already over-dramatic people.
213 Report (sage)
Александр Nevsky at 11 Mar 2008: 16:03
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
214 Report
at 11 Mar 2008: 16:08
Sad to see it go. Not the biggest fan of cub art, but that's like banning vore art from fchan I think - it's what this site is.
215 Report
at 11 Mar 2008: 16:10
>>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?).
216 Report
at 11 Mar 2008: 17:07
>>211 Missed the point of your post little troll... go back to your starting zone and level up... Beyond that you are right, its their SITE, the menu, site design and the ftp storage space is the only things on this board that ever belonged to the mods. The pictures drawn by other artists they dont even know surely not, so get it straight when you say protecting the site and the users cause even if you make rocket science out of sorting porn pictures, this is just a board amongst the many that never did anything on its own. Nothing, no originals, no featured artists it can call its own, no pictures that truly belong to the site, not even information on culture or anything at all. The rules on the other hand are so well made that even a fukken lawyer could become emo from its beautyes. Its a golden locker case for nothing. Other than the fact that i dont know how a person can get on sexaulity so high that he actually starts to sort out bondage pictures by "low, mid, high" sure, i can only say things would be easyer if they would say the truth directly. Take just cub porn for instance. Sorry to say but there are no laws against it, just as there are no laws against anthro pornography and/or art, thus it directly means that Cub porn is not dised and deleted cause they have to do it, its cause they choosed to do this, and this is the point and how the site works since its beginning. Beyond all the fuss there was never anything just the same old "the mods like it or not". Face it or run away i dont care, but the fact is that this board would fit the NaziChan title just perfectly. A group of people who feed on other artists pictures and their users hoarded together galeryes do like they would lead the worlds bigest company of anthro art or the hell knows what. Imo (and you can take that as a suggestion) you could replace the whole rules section with 1 word: EGO The mods choose about everything anyway, there are no written rules that couldnt be done otherwise by them. Thus even if you havent done anything against the rules, moderators can kick you the hell out just on their personal likes/dislikes. Congratulations Why all the rules then?
217 Report
at 11 Mar 2008: 17:18
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.
218 Report
at 11 Mar 2008: 18:01
>>217 Ooh, good point. (I only come fchan these days for the hilarious arguments on /dis/, DNPless boards ftw)
219 Report
at 11 Mar 2008: 18:43
>>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 Report
at 11 Mar 2008: 18:45
I'm loving all of this dissent and critism. But you know we're ALL gunna get banned now. People who take the mod's side stay, people who argue against it and provide valid points for their arguments get silenced unfairly. Let's just hope they don't see us here talking smack about them, lol. (pssst, Nadia likes teh loli vamps)
221 Report (sage)
at 11 Mar 2008: 21:04
>>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)
222 Report
Sen at 11 Mar 2008: 21:33
>>217 Until you start paying for this site, maybe you should stop complaining like you are. You're getting MORE than what you pay for here, you realize.
223 Report
Sen at 11 Mar 2008: 21:37
>>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 Report
at 11 Mar 2008: 21:45
I talked with Xenofur a little bit tonight. He stated, the legislature spoken of in 1.1 can be found here :http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1466A.html
225 Report
at 11 Mar 2008: 22:07
>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 Report
LLz at 11 Mar 2008: 22:21
>>224 I highly doubt so, since: a) it's already been posted, b) I've posted a seperate link, to an actual government website ( http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C71.txt ), and c) It's outdated. I'll quote: "-SOURCE- (Added Pub. L. 108-21, title V, Sec. 504(a), Apr. 30, 2003, 117 Stat. 680.)" Please don't use Xenofur's name in vain.
227 Report
at 11 Mar 2008: 22:38
>>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...
228 Report (sage)
LLz at 11 Mar 2008: 22:41
>>227 It doesn't matter. No matter how much we argue based on info provided by that link, since it's outdated, our discussions will only be valid for past issues, not current, which current legislations would take precidence. As I've noted, until the moderators post an actual link to the new legislations being discussed here, no further points can be raised.
229 Report
Wahoots at 11 Mar 2008: 22:43
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.
230 Report
LLz at 11 Mar 2008: 22:50
>>229 You do realize that the Jan 2nd 2006 is just a simple "check, make sure it's still there, continue". The date I've provided is when that legislation was added, and far as I know, there has been no changes to it. There has been court cases after Apr. 30, 2003 which would protect such imagery from being persecuted upon. If you really think this is the legislation being noted here, I'll search them up for you. Otherwise, I'll wait until an actual moderator posts here stating such. For all you know, someone was spoofing as Xenofur when you got that log.
231 Report
Friendly at 11 Mar 2008: 22:51
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.
232 Report
at 11 Mar 2008: 23:24
If Fchan bans cubs based on the "Visually Childlike" rule, then they should also ban Tails and other characters who visually appear childlike (Arthur, Kit Cloudkicker etc.) [And yeah, sometimes they're drawn adult or teen, but I mean the standard common depictions of them.]http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1466A.html (It is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exist.) _________________________________________________ The site LLz referenced also talks about "Images of a charcter inciting Arson, Murder or Assasination" could this not be applied to Guro pics in [AH]?http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C71.txt (The term "indecent", as used in this section includes matter of a character tending to incite arson, murder, or assassination.) Again, is this about Law or is it about personal tastes? And are the mods themselves even reading this? I get the feeling /Dis/ is just a junkyard for our criticism.
233 Report
jono at 11 Mar 2008: 23:33
>>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...
234 Report (sage)
at 11 Mar 2008: 23:40
It just clogged /ah anyways.
235 Report
at 11 Mar 2008: 23:43
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)
236 Report
at 11 Mar 2008: 23:44
>>211 Right... It's their site. :3 But if they want their site to have users, then the content of their site has to be relevant to the interest of the users. Right? If we don't like what they're doing they don't have a site because there's not enough interest in it.
237 Report
at 11 Mar 2008: 23:46
>>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.
238 Report
at 11 Mar 2008: 23:50
>>237 - But they wouldn't enforce this law fully, cuz if they deleted all the Tails, Klonoa, and EVERY image based off how it really looks, they'd barely have much "legal" content in Toon (except Tails with a sixpack, lol) and their number of users would drop.
239 Report
at 12 Mar 2008: 01:36
>>231 Please list them, then.
240 Report
at 12 Mar 2008: 02:06
>>230 LLz, this was his Yahoo instant messenger. I doubt one, someone would of hacked onto his YIM. Two, would have a legislature involving what we were discussing on hand, to give me. I did offer alternatives to him. The law states a person can have 3 at a time, without having consequences, if they're willing to be deleted at a moments notice. A limit of such images could be posted. But that would be, as Xeno stated, difficult to monitor. Also, censoring could be done (As it states, and I quote, from Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 71, Section 1466A, subsection f3 "(3) the term “graphic”, when used with respect to a depiction of sexually explicit conduct, means that a viewer can observe any part of the genitals or pubic area of any depicted person or animal during any part of the time that the sexually explicit conduct is being depicted" This means we could censor all cub-porn. Then again, that would mean editting original pictures, without permission. However, according to the law, any artist-censored cub-porn images, are fine to post. So go at it.
346 Add Reply
Name Sage? - =
First Page - Last 40 - Entire Thread