fchan

>>335
the point vs loli and cub art, is that loli is a picture of a *human child*, whereas an animal of any age isn't a person, let alone a child, and it's "children" that this act 'protects'. The fact that neither of them exist is neither here nor there since, as you say, the legislation is awfully vague, however the point remains that a furry cub, no matter what it is doing, can't be construed as a person since real-world examples of furry cubs do not exist.

The point of the vagueness of the law is to protect children from being exploited using the loophole of (digital) manipulation of pictures to the degree that identifying *actual children* becomes virtually impossible, not to encompass juvenile animals and other non-human creatures into the bargain.

and, as was already stated, non-sexual pictures in no way fall under this law whether they are of humans or animals or somewhere in between in any medium whatsoever, otherwise copies of "home alone" for goodness' sake would be illegal.

so, where's the failing to understand this?

If you don't like cub art, if enough of the mods, or the host, doesn't like cub art or art involving furries in diapers or of juvenile furries so much, then don't hide behind a purposefully vague law to justify your actions.