fchan

The legislation is (likely) intentionally vague so that it can be argued include things outside the word-for-word meaning of it. Which is a pain in the ass, because really it depends on who you're talking to whether or not it applies.

My main argument for its legality is precedent: there is a published cub art magazine for which people pay money and receive without legal action or scrutiny, and Softpaw itself promises intense legal action for attempts to interfere with its operation. Maybe their confidence is misplaced in the law and their lawyer(s), but when I e-mailed them, they seemed pretty damn confident in their ability to legally defend their publication.

If that isn't enough for your provider (and generally, an explanation like that is), then chalk it up to the mods looking for an excuse to ban something they don't like. If they were really interested in serving the community in any way (this place would be anything without user-posted content, so they should be willing to help the people that make their site happen), they should be trying to help us get cub art re-allowed instead of flatly standing against part of the community, the unconstitutional-ness of the ruling and the unreasonable logic of their provider.