281 Report (sage)
LLz at 12 Mar 2008: 14:09
>>280 Selective reading isn't helpful.
282 Report
AWL at 12 Mar 2008: 15:49
I thought it was just REAL child porn that is illegal...not drawn images of non-existent(in real life) characters.
283 Report (sage)
LLz at 12 Mar 2008: 16:25
>>282 You can blame the PROTECT Act for the change. Whee slippery slope.
284 Report
Amoren at 12 Mar 2008: 20:01
Well, I don't know about this law (I don't pay attention to news much, but I'll probably be researching it soon now that it's affected one of my more favorite dirty secret caches), I'm more or less trying to figure out if it would affect an internet thread board. From what the post said, it's a STATE law (unless I'm reading this wrong) and does only has jurisdiction within the state that contains the law. From what I know of, state laws might subject someone who say, has the illegal material on his hard drive, but I don't think it could affect an internet site (since how can you prove a net site is in a State? It really has no location...). So under that premise, a simple disclaimer similar to what most porn sites have (I.E. "Do not enter if you're under eighteen, or pornographic materials of x, y, z nature is illegal within your state.") Combined with the fact that I have yet (although like I said I don't listen to the news a lot) to hear a law curtailing pornographic material on the net (as I believe the Supreme Court struck it down as Freedom of Speech), it should be enough to cover Fchan's ass. But like I said, I've only got a glimpse on the new law. So if anyone could provide a link to some Judicial Site containing the text of the law, me and some friends of mine would be most appreciative.
285 Report
Friendly at 12 Mar 2008: 20:55
>>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
286 Report
at 12 Mar 2008: 20:56
>>284 "since how can you prove a net site is in a State?" 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...
287 Report
Amoren at 12 Mar 2008: 21:08
"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?
288 Report
at 12 Mar 2008: 22:23
Is this thing threadstopped?
289 Report
at 12 Mar 2008: 22:35
"Posting not allowed"
290 Report
at 12 Mar 2008: 22:37
(Paws_dot_RU, Sectachan, Fapchan)
291 Report
Sen at 12 Mar 2008: 22:37
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.
292 Report
at 12 Mar 2008: 22:38
>>287 Try skimming the Overchan for something.
293 Report
at 13 Mar 2008: 00:03
>>290 e621
294 Report
at 13 Mar 2008: 00:22
>>293 (oh, its a board, thought it was some law subsection...lol)
295 Report
at 13 Mar 2008: 00:32
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 Report
~ at 13 Mar 2008: 02:39
# Post only furry art and do not post illegal content. Fchan is for anthropomorphic furry art only (the occasional non-furry anthropomorphic image is fine, but don't overdo it). Pretty much anything that's non-furry is allowed on 4chan, and will be deleted. If you persist in posting non-furry material you will be banned.http://fchan.me/ah/#68186 isn't half of this non-furry? if a admin/mod starts a non-furry thread its ok right?
297 Report
at 13 Mar 2008: 02:47
>>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...
298 Report
at 13 Mar 2008: 02:51
>>296 That's quite funny actually. Breaking your own rules, or putting yourself above the law, is a dictatorial trait.
299 Report
LLz at 13 Mar 2008: 02:53
>>297 Unless the trainers are drawn as adults, as I would imagine has to be implied.
300 Report (sage)
LLz at 13 Mar 2008: 02:54
>>298 Your point being? This was never a free server.
301 Report
Draconis Khaan at 13 Mar 2008: 02:58
>>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 Report
at 13 Mar 2008: 03:08
>>301 Dude, mods and admins of other sites don't break their own rules. Plus, the mod continues to post more non furry images days after the original test post.
303 Report
Draconis Khaan at 13 Mar 2008: 03:18
>>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 Report
~ at 13 Mar 2008: 04:36
>>303 lawl angels are furrys! They have wings! ^^; sorry couldn't resist that one
305 Report
at 13 Mar 2008: 05:40
>>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 Report
AWL at 13 Mar 2008: 07:01
I still don't get this at all...Why does the friggin US govt. care if people are drawing pictures of young-looking furs going at it? They should only care if people are making REAL LIFE child porn.
307 Report
at 13 Mar 2008: 07:26
>>306 in fact,they do'nt. there's no law against it. it's all lies.
308 Report
LLz at 13 Mar 2008: 07:44
>>306 >>307 The PROTECT Act of 2003 was signed into law by President George W. Bush on April 30, 2003. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_Act There has been a successful charge for harbouring drawn images of child porn based on said legislative changes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_Whorley Granted lolicon is not cub porn, however, the fact is that we do not know how large the range of targettable material would be. Note that there's 2 different sections of the legislative changes. One targets material indistinguishable from minors (which is not the point we're in contention with), the other specifically targets drawings and etc, and hence does not require any from of resemblence to an actual minor. E.g. Lolicon, which is stylized and hence is obviously not a minor, but could be treated as such. It is possible that the 2nd portion could possibly target cub art. (on that note, it is my opinion that the whole PROTECT Act breaks all kinds of first amendment rights. Just because it uses the Miller Test doesn't mean that it's fundamentally different from Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996, which WAS struck down.)
309 Report
at 13 Mar 2008: 08:21
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 Report
at 13 Mar 2008: 09:19
The Protect act was deemed unconstitutional in terms of drawings showing minors in 2004/2005 (don't remember) by a supreme court ruling, making drawings of minors (like lolicon, shotacon, and cub ) legal in the USA.
311 Report
at 13 Mar 2008: 09:53
>>310 link source.
312 Report
at 13 Mar 2008: 10:03
>>4 too bad, so sad, don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. p.s. being all dramatic and shit like this is not going to help matters.
313 Report
at 13 Mar 2008: 10:38
>>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
314 Report
at 13 Mar 2008: 10:42
>>310 Uhm.... no it wasn't? The only part that was deemed unconstitutional was the part that made promoting underage art illegal. As in, it used to be illegal to say "Cub art iz hawt lul!", whereas now its not. To quote wiki (inb4 "omg wiki iz wrong!") ....(i) an obscene visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or (ii) a visual depiction of an actual minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct. ....court held that although the content described in subsections (i) and (ii) is not constitutionally protected, speech that advertises or promotes such content does have the protection of the First Amendment Given that the second part makes the distinction of "an actual minor", the first part doesnt carry that stipulation. As such, an obscene pic of a non-real minor (eg: cub, loli, shota) ISNT constitutionally protected and IS illegal. Obscene, in this case, meaning that it doesnt pass the Miller Test. SO: show around 20 people from your home town your cub collection. If the majority say they're offended, you're off to jail. If they say "ew gross" but aren't actually offended, you're off the hook. Yea right.
315 Report
at 13 Mar 2008: 14:47
>>309 I found that stuff far more disturbing. But nobody complained about YOUR interests.
316 Report
jono at 13 Mar 2008: 15:11
>>315 Agreed. Which is why the fandom is so fucking factured, because people only look out for their own interests and everyone else can hang, for all they care. People need to stop judging each other based on their sexual fetishes and behaving so childishly. You think people don't feel like your scat/vore/etc. topics clutter up /ah like you feel cub art does? Well it does, and /ah is ALWAYS cluttered with stuff you're not looking for, but topics are pretty well labelled in /ah so if you stumble across something you didn't want to look at, you only have your illiteracy to blame.>>314 Since the Miller Test is entirely subjective depending on who you ask, I don't think that's a reasonable evaluation of pornographic art. Besides, if you showed people a picture of two naked cubs snuggling and then a picture of two furs shitting in each others' mouths, people would almost universally be more offended by the latter. So there goes the Miller Test's credibility, because croprophilia nauseates people far more (see 2girls1cup, for example) than an animated depicition of minors engaging in sexual activite.
317 Report
at 13 Mar 2008: 15:15
>>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?
318 Report
at 13 Mar 2008: 15:15
at any rate. if cub porn is banned. furry guro should as well.
319 Report
at 13 Mar 2008: 15:17
after all, killing/hurting people is leaps and bounds worse than pictures of fake young anthro animals in sexual situations
320 Report
jono at 13 Mar 2008: 16:37
>>317 Because something that is perfectly legal would seem much more repulsive than something that is (supposedly, but isn't actually) illegal. I would say it's pretty safely undermined by my comparison. Of course, cub porn would still likely be considered obscene because it depict graphic sexual activity, but it would nauseate far fewer people than shiteating does. Either way, the Miller Test does little to really define what is or is not of literary or artistic value. Also, work is only considered obscene is all three of the test's criteria are satisfied; in the case of explicit cub art, only the second criterion is met in this case (depicts explicit sexual action). The first criterion may not apply, since studies have been conducted showing a surprisingly high percentage of males who have "positive sexual reaction" (ie. erection) to heterosexual pedophilic stimuli that equaled or exceeded their arousal to the adult stimuli. The third condition is also debatable, since no one will easily come to an agreement about what does or does not have serious literary or artistic. Therefore, it is not I but rather the internet that has undermined and ultimately invalidated an already antiquated (1973) method of determining something's obscenity. A "law" passed in the 70's pertaining to adult entertainment needs serious re-evaluation to even come close to being socially relevant today. What it does, you say? It does nothing but lay out three criteria that are easily met by just about anything, legal or not. Just goes to show you how invalid it really is. Pwned.
346 Add Reply
Name Sage? - =
First Page - Last 40 - Entire Thread