fchan

discussion

Several changes and clarifications in policy

Pages:1 41 81 121 161 201 241 281 321
241Report
Draconis Khaan at 12 Mar 2008: 02:28

>>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...

242Report
at 12 Mar 2008: 02:32

>>241 - Ya can't be a half-arsed "Moral Champion"

243Report
at 12 Mar 2008: 03:28

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.

244Report
at 12 Mar 2008: 03:35

>>243 - Sucide is illegal? But how would they catch you...

245Report
at 12 Mar 2008: 03:40

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?

246Report
at 12 Mar 2008: 03:52

>>245

At this point, I think I'd actually pay to see that, just so that this whole thing crumble down, have some law suits handed out and stuff.

247Report
at 12 Mar 2008: 04:30

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

248Report
LLz at 12 Mar 2008: 04:51

Just a quick note, quoting subsection (c):
"(c)  Nonrequired Element of Offense.— It is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exist."
Hence cub can be targetted.

2nd note: Stop complaining about inequality of Cub to other issues to FChan. The inequality is legislated in 1466A. Complain to the Us Government/Legislative offices.

3rd note/Trivia: 1466A was signed in by G.W.Bush. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003 ) Yay reduction of rights.

4th: Stop claiming child pornography is inherently wrong. This issue has nothing to do with wrongness, only legislation.

5th: Stop claiming it's the mod's bias. It's the Host's concern that is the main issue eitherway.

249Report
Draconis Khaan at 12 Mar 2008: 05:14

>>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.

250Report
at 12 Mar 2008: 05:22

well we must always remeber the Constatution, Freedom of Expression! we are free to express ourselfs, along with freedome of speach, BUSH IS A RETARD!

251Report
at 12 Mar 2008: 05:31

>>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.

252Report
LLz at 12 Mar 2008: 05:43

>>251
a) Frankly, I'm in doubt that people would pay for lawyers just for this. And not challenge the legality of said law in the process (it's breaking all sorts of 1st amendment rights). But so long as it can be worded to some extent to target cub, it still remains a risk.
b) I would presume that the mods have come in contact with the hosts, and decided with them what is and is not permissable. We have to assume that the current decisions are based on said communications.

(on a side note: why was the thread about cub porn being demonized  threadstopped? It's vastly relevant now, and I'd hate to blow up this thread further by discussing the legality of banning cub porn for the protection of children.)

253Report
at 12 Mar 2008: 05:53

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.

254Report
LLz at 12 Mar 2008: 06:29

>>253
Wrong ruling. We're talking about 1466A. Note >>248.

255Report
at 12 Mar 2008: 06:33

>>251. I <3 you.

256Report
at 12 Mar 2008: 06:46

>>252

This matter has been discussed (outside of Fchan, I mean), because this case isn't new... FurCons, other sites, etcetera... they already explored this case before.

Now, some voted for a ban, for the sake of covering their butts.
Other's didn't gave in because, I imagine, they can't be pressed with charges.

I don't know where others stood on having legal advice, and I surely have not -paid- to a lawyer for advice on such a matter (it's not my fight. Fchan related, "my" cubs are still accessible on the good ol' /c/ as before)... but a small friendly chat with someone with a good amount of time on practice gave me such a secure interpretation as that.
If it's not a Human-esque depiction of a child, it cannot be associated with a potential threat to children due to similarities and whatnot (even if the fictional depiction is made out of head, rather than based on a existing child).
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.


I haven't searched for anything of the sort, but, mind to tell me if you heard (and of course have some data to back that up) of any person/site/whatever that was sued and lost in such a situation?
Thus far, I heard about threats and the accused party simply giving up, rather than to take up any fight.
I head about how many people still stand up with this kind of art pretty much unworried about any legal processes.

I have not however heard someone being taken up to court on this case and losing, and the whole of the circumstances.

257Report
LLz at 12 Mar 2008: 06:49

>>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.

258Report
at 12 Mar 2008: 06:52

>>254

The ruling exposed by >>253 would be also right, if you want to consider 1466A as related to cub art.
If you are vouching that 1466A pertains to include cub art, then it's also affiliated with the 2252A in relation to the constitution of the said pornographic child art.

I can see the accusing party right now.
"... your honor; it is quite clear that this pedo-fag artist has abused of the rights of this children. He forced this 5 year old anthropomorphic puppy to pose naked for the completion of the drawing, therefore, violating any defense possibility of the point a, of section c of the law 2252A."

259Report
at 12 Mar 2008: 06:53

>>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."

260Report
LLz at 12 Mar 2008: 06:55

>>258
From 1466A:
"(c)  Nonrequired Element of Offense.— It is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exist."
From 2252A:
"(2) the alleged child pornography was not produced using any actual minor or minors."
It's safe to assume that they're talking about 2 different issues entirely.

261Report
LLz at 12 Mar 2008: 06:59

>>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.

262Report
at 12 Mar 2008: 07:00

>>260

Have you actually read through 1466A? Noticed how the implicated consequences are pointed out at 2252A, and the associated defense possibility?

There's no need for a law, without punishment attached, and a reasonable mean of defense.

You can't call for 1466A to accuse someone, if you're not going to apply the punishments of 2252A (which are the related penalties) and allow the defending party to use the associated affirmative defense.

263Report
LLz at 12 Mar 2008: 07:01

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

264Report
at 12 Mar 2008: 07:02

>>261

Woo.. wait wait... what I'm telling here it's based on someone's interpretation of the law (and potentially intended effect).
When you add a factor with a mind of its own (the jury)... that's other story.

265Report
at 12 Mar 2008: 07:03

>>263

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

Beyond that...

266Report
LLz at 12 Mar 2008: 07:11

>>265
Also, from 2252A:
(e) Admissibility of Evidence. - On motion of the government, in
    any prosecution under this chapter or section 1466A, except for
    good cause shown, the name, address, social security number, or
    other nonphysical identifying information, other than the age or
    approximate age, of any minor who is depicted in any child
    pornography shall not be admissible and may be redacted from any
    otherwise admissible evidence, and the jury shall be instructed,
    upon request of the United States, that it can draw no inference
    from the absence of such evidence in deciding whether the child
    pornography depicts an actual minor.

267Report
at 12 Mar 2008: 07:21

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.

268Report
LLz at 12 Mar 2008: 07:26

>>265
And just because I want to make sure my point is indisputable:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_Whorley
Granted it has nothing to do with cub, but it inherently means that lolicon (anf any other forms of non-real child porn imagery) is most definately illegal (in the US at least), unless proven otherwise.

269Report
at 12 Mar 2008: 07:36

>>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.

270Report
LLz at 12 Mar 2008: 07:56

>>269
I was referring to >>253, which is seperate from what you're talking about, I presume. (it would really help if the anonymous all used a unique identifier name so we know who we're talking to... like everyone knows that LLz refers to the same person.)

My point against you (I presume you were >>251) is that the term "appears to be" in 1466A is too vague. I'd like to see it challenged and redefined to be more specific, but I don't think anyone here has the resources to do so. (heck, I'd like to see the whole child porn issue to be challenged, but that's a little too optimistic.)

271Report
Some Fuzzy Bastard at 12 Mar 2008: 08:28

>>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.

272Report
LLz at 12 Mar 2008: 08:38

>>271
And the added measure could also be to try and prevent people to base off some model off existing children, and then to alter them (adding animalistic attributes) and passing them as something else. The point is that there's a possibility, which makes the issue a possible (though not necessarily definate) target.

273Report
at 12 Mar 2008: 09:17

>>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.

274Report
at 12 Mar 2008: 09:23

TAILS IS 10 YEARS OLD

275Report (sage)
LLz at 12 Mar 2008: 09:34

>>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.

276Report
LLz at 12 Mar 2008: 09:37

>>273
I'd agree to the extent that the Sonicverse style should not be allowed due to sunic style being reasonably close to child-like proportions. The rest is still judged by a case by case basis, like everything else.

277Report
at 12 Mar 2008: 09:49

>>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.

278Report
at 12 Mar 2008: 10:19

>>219
>>222
And especially >>223 wich i should quote for the awesomeness within:

"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."

Site is sucsessful: Xeno happy, feels special, makes rules and rocket science
Site dies: Xeno unhappy, stops paying for it
Thats all the reason this site is runing, but while you are at it dont forget that this place isnt rolling like hentai famous where the mods actually take the time and sort out pictures themself, dising crap themself without baning others and playing god.
Fact is all Xeno and his team is doing is to delete pictures, ban people and make up more rules. They arent completing requests, contributing and/or anything at all, and its not like they are supposed to do it, but then what the f*ck are they and the likes of you so proud on?

Free flashes and pictures? I go to 4chan request it 3 times and its served by link via rapidshare, and that board is just for trolls its not even a fukken Fboard. Seriously, only people who are total newbies on the net are talking like this.
"zomg its not ur site, and gtfo cause this is the only place i can get my porns from, its the best, what would i do without it you stupid troll"

K, suggestion.
Instead of pissing off your users all the time do as mentioned and take over the sorting of the galeryes like on agnph and hentai famous.
There nothing goes to the board without first approved by the moderators. That means that the moderator checks it, aprroves or dieses, if approved he moves it to the fitting place and voila, no drama, no 6065406 post long arguings, no bans, no offenses, no nothing just a clean and nice board everyone loves.

THATS ALL, but hell here all the mods do is making a ban fest cause all of them feels special only when they can ban off others as last word. Capital BS.
If you arent capable to use common sense kids, then stop writing replyes cause its not me or my fellow ppl who can actually THINK  who "'re costing the site money by coming here and arguing." its YOU. So dear >>223 and his followers, if you cant say anything beyond "ITS THEIR SIRE NOT YOURS" then i suggest you get the **** out cause you are constantly "costing the site money by coming here and arguing." about stuff you cant even comprehend.

**** are today all kids born with mental dampeners or is this site specific?

279Report
at 12 Mar 2008: 11:12

>>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.

280Report
at 12 Mar 2008: 14:00

>>268

Dwight Whorley was convicted because he had REAL child porn. Not because of the virtual stuff he had.

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