41 Report
Sen at 7 Mar 2008: 07:42
Gotta love this argument. It's a failure on Dragoneer's part that allows cub porn to exist on FA. It's a failure on Xeno's part for taking it off of Fchan. Wow. GG guys.
42 Report
anonymous at 7 Mar 2008: 08:45
xxx xxx img.4chan.org/b Do you need more examples of similar boards privately owned? Grow up some balls goddamit. I quit, unless you decide to defend a bit more the most precious thing on the internet . FREE SPEECH. imbeciles. I am not even a furry and I make YOU THE MORAL about this.
43 Report (capped)
Xenofur at 7 Mar 2008: 09:02
>>38 Over the past three years fchan has faced 2 lawsuits that were only narrowly avoided. I'm not taking any chances, period. Additionally: Fchan has ZERO financial backing, not a single cent would be spent by anyone if it were to ever come under any legal scrutiny. FA has a reasonably wealthy owner and quite a few willing donators. I won't do your homework on this one, feel free to sniff around on your own.>>39 > xeno, have you actually read and understood this legal text ? no, you did\'nt. Excuse me, but i seem to have a higher grasp on the english language than you do, and i actually do have a measure of formal education in reading legal texts, even if IANAL. As for your question: There is no free speech on fchan and never was, period. What is here is the freedom the server owner and the administration grants you, the users. Nothing else. Your precious first amendment ONLY forbids your government from passing laws that restrict speech, but we all know how well they follow that, don't we? If the american government would pass such a law, i'd ask the server owner if he was willing to spend the cash to host fchan on more expensive offshore servers and if he says no, it would go down. I'm here to provide a service for your convenience, i'm not here to fight your wars. In the end your boners don't mean shit to mine and the server owner's ass.>>41 I've been secretly amused about that as well. :3>>42 I direct you to read point 3 on this page: http://www.4chan.org/rules.php As for the other two boards you listed, one of them is not in the USA and the other is too small to register on those that would seek legal retribution. As for growing balls, i repeat the same to you that i said to >>39 : I'm here to provide a service for your convenience, i'm not here to fight your wars. In the end your boners don't mean shit to mine and the server owner's ass.
44 Report
Sen at 7 Mar 2008: 09:10
>>42 Hate to break it to you, but free speech really isn't as free as it seems nowadays.
45 Report
LLz at 7 Mar 2008: 09:14
I'd also note that fchan, despite being based on a website advocating free speech (aka 2ch), has never been completely free. Free speech does exist on the internet though (to an extent). You are always welcome to host your own server (so long as it does not infringe on the ToS of your service provider).
46 Report
at 7 Mar 2008: 09:30
>>44 When it's managed by people like Xenofur. I'm sorry but on many other sites, like others chanboards, ED... even FurAffinity ...freedom of speech reigns. It's a huge responsability, and it all looks like you dont want to endorse it, Xenofurry, am I wrong? Either you're afraid of freedom; like globally you explained, to protect your butt from some hypothetical and improbable lawsuit, either you want to reign on your little chan, which involves to ban freedom of speech from it. Prove me wrong, Xenofur. Obviously I got time in my hands to write all this, I'm not even furry I'm more in moe/ecchi and animu hentai. But ...God, I never saw anybody manage a board this way XD
47 Report
LLz at 7 Mar 2008: 09:40
>>46 Except that said lawsuit is NOT hypothetical and improbable. Hence he/she can't prove you wrong. And I don't know about you, but 2ch is the only board with complete freedom of speech AFAIK. Go ahead and prove me wrong on this: name me a single other board which doesn't ban people or delete posts for any reason whatsoever, inclusive of hacking, spamming, posting stuff out of bounds, etc.
48 Report
at 7 Mar 2008: 10:03
Even 2ch has rules on what can be posted: http://info.2ch.net/guide/faq.html#B0 There is no free speech on the internet. Anyone who says anything else is either a complete retard or a troll.
49 Report
LilShock at 7 Mar 2008: 12:51
>>40 Personally, I wouldn't say anything if they just said "I don't like it, I own the site, so it goes away" Rather that say it's a legal issue. The reason there is no .gov link to the 'law' is because it does not really exist as this page quoted. A Student might of just mistyped this law or maybe they want to try and rally to pass it as it's written, I don't know. Saying that under aged cartoon/game character that are popular are allowed but not somefur's creations says right there it's not a legal issue at all.
50 Report (capped)
Nadia#Admin Emeritae at 7 Mar 2008: 13:24
I have stated many times, "I do not like it." And, if you want to see other places in the fandom that have banned it, check out Eurofurence, which is governed by the same laws as Xenofur is. Their lawyers are more knowledgeable about German law than any of us are. Then check Further Confusion, who also banned it. Their lawyers have explored this issue thoroughly and made that decision based on current legal interpretation. Also, check FurBid, one of the first places in the fandom to ban underage art, who also had lawyers investigate all options. Just because Fur Affinity did not ban it is no reason to assume it is acceptable. If we followed that logic, Centaurs would still be un-furry, because Yerf declared them such. The full truth is, laws do exist, on both state and federal levels. Some of them have been challenged, and failed. Some have not been challenged yet. In one case, one was challenged, they won, then it was re-challenged and lost, and now it is on the docket for the Supreme Court, and we have no answer yet as they have not made a decision. We, as fchan, and your furry fandom do not wish to be the first test of the law. We do not like the stuff, we do not want it here, and frankly, we have far better uses for our time and money than fighting a legal defense for something we do not like. Like, chocolate, movies, and long pointless walks on the beach at sunset. Unless they were with a very cute girl.
51 Report
LLz at 7 Mar 2008: 13:36
>>50 Agree on points, but your example at the end doesn't really make sense. The last line should probably be replaced with "Especially if they were with a very cute girl."
52 Report
at 7 Mar 2008: 13:52
So, just for the record here, what you're saying is that it is completely a legal issue. Therefore, if it ruled upon by the supreme court that said images were not, in fact, illegal, would you then lift the ban? Everyone on the Mod staff seem to be absolutely 100% against cub art ranging from barely tolorent to abject hatred. So, now the question comes, if this really were a legal issue, then should it be decided pro-cub art, then would fchan follow suit? Or is this just the excuse everyone was looking for to finaly git rid of what is evidently thought of as a distasteful form of furry art?
53 Report
LilShock at 7 Mar 2008: 14:43
Okay, so this brings the question...again. Why is an eight year old cartoon two tailed fox and his fifteen year old hedgehog friend okay to go at but somefurs characters of the same age not? This is where the confusion lies the most. Isn't cub cub? Or is it only cub if it's not wildly popular? Is there a provision in this law to allow popular cartoon children? This is really not a legal issue, I'm sure. I'm just wishing there would be a better definition of cub. Like age rather than how popular it is. If it were illegal, the judge would not give it an okay because it's from a cartoon. Also, why this law? Why not copyright laws upheld? I know WWOEC Has gotten letters from companies lawyers about their characters before (I have scans of one such letter). It just doesn't make sense to call it a legal issue when there's a double standard and other laws not payed any attention to. I know this is just racking my head against a brick wall since a majority of the staff are cub haters. I think it just causes a bigger outcry and argument calling it a legal issue rather than a "My server not yours" issue. If Fchan really wanted to follow the law there would be no /toon/, there would be real ID checks, and other things put in place to protect itself.
54 Report (capped)
Nadia#Admin Emeritae at 7 Mar 2008: 15:08
>>51 My fault. I was commenting on the word pointless there. Might have been better to be more clear about it.>>52 No, we are not saying we would lift the ban in that case. We will consider lifting the ban. But, if the Supreme Court ruled on that one in favor of CP, then it is a step in the direction of lifting it. However, there are other state issues as well. Depends. Let us see how it unfolds.>>53 Again? It has been explained to death. Ambiguity. The truth of the whole matter is we as a collective have a dislike of many things that we allow. We "TRY' to not allow personal feelings get in the way of being objective. Yes, we are human, we do make mistakes from time to time. However, it is our call here. There are plenty of places you can go for that on the internet, so it is really not that big a loss for you, is it? Here is the way it stands. For the time being, people can scream all they want. We will listen, but we will not change the decision. If it is posted, we will delete it. If it is reposted, we will ban the poster for a minimum of 30 days, a maximum of forever. We do not wish to ban anyone. So, please, do not try and test us. Help us keep our image of kind, benevolent people who are here to help people. Not evil Nazi Ogres who crave power and dead babies.
55 Report
LilShock#DomqBXTOlk at 7 Mar 2008: 15:40
>>54 I'm not saying I'll post it to annoy you or make a statement, I'm not even wanting to argue. Heck, I maybe have three cub pics (including Tails) and I'm DNP even if I had more. It's not a loss to me, no, I just really don't like people making remarks to make something worse than it is. It would be no loss to say it's just something you don't like rather than say it's a legal issue to not look bad. There's more legal fodder on this site that a couple of fuzzy midgets dressed in osh-gosh overalls and going at it. You don't have to be so hostile in responses and assume I'm out to be a martyr or a rabble-rouser. If we didn't question things that seemed wrong to us, where would we be?
56 Report
LLz at 7 Mar 2008: 16:07
>>55 Except it's hard to define what's wrong. Almost everything you can think of can be argued in a positive sense. Even genocide, to give an example. The only proper classification we can give for wrongness is via legal matters, which though is not a proper measure, is at least a measure which everyone can agree on since it's (usually) well defined. I'm note that even though there's no real free speech in fchan, it's STILL based on a forum advocating free speech (again, 2ch).
57 Report
at 7 Mar 2008: 16:52
I've given it some good hard thought, and i've decided to delete fchan from my favorites, like anyone cares anyway. xP Seeya bitches.
58 Report
at 7 Mar 2008: 17:25
>>57 Good good. I, on the other hand, will be perusing /ah/ more because now I dont have to trawl through cub to get to my delicious vore. Bye-bye now, don't let the door hit you on the way out.
59 Report
Edis Krad at 7 Mar 2008: 18:45
>>40 Meh, 99% of my art that was posted here was uploaded by third parties. I really don't care much whether fchan allows cub art or not. It's not a mainstream site anyways. To be honest, I actually didn't know about this measure until someone brought it to my attention, and decided to give my two cents (thus, the two day delay) That's pretty much it :3>>43 When you start an argument with "I don't want to take any chances", then it *is* a backbone issue. No matter how much you want to deny it. Now I'm not saying that all of the sudden you should allow cub art. It's your site, do what you want with it. But at least be honest with yourself and admit it you did it out of fear.
60 Report (sage)
LLz at 7 Mar 2008: 19:11
>>59 Fine. The mods fear that having unnecessary risk would be more harmful to the clientale than the benifits posed by allowing such art. Would that satisfy you?
61 Report (capped)
Xenofur at 7 Mar 2008: 19:19
>>55 It is as she said, we've explained this to death over the past three years so many times that it's gone far beyond being unfunny. It IS highly annoying when people manage to even ignore the explanations posted here in this very thread. I'll, again, try and explain in small words and short sentences why Tails is less of an issue: - Only the image is relevant, nothing else at all matters in the least, period. - All images of sonic porn are unclear on the age due to style.>>49 Can you please point me to the .gov site that carries all american laws?>>59 Personally i think it takes more backbone to face the kind of criticism and possible trolling this decision brought upon us. Also, it is not a matter of fear, there are precedents on the dangers that fchan is under and the consequences of any legal proceedings against fchan are more than crystal clear. It is a matter of pure rational conclusion.
62 Report
Edis Krad at 7 Mar 2008: 19:31
>>60 That depends on your definitions of "unnecessary" and "benefits".>>61 You surely must be jesting if you're trying to compare the risk of a lawsuit the the trolling of a few internet furries. Then again, the trolling is more real than the risk lawsuit, so I concede you the point :3 Good luck running your site!
63 Report (capped)
Xenofur at 7 Mar 2008: 19:34
Actually, good point. :x
64 Report
at 7 Mar 2008: 19:37
>>54 Thanks for confirming that this is just a legal loophole to remove cub art because none of you like it.>>61 Care to elaborate on legal precedents set from legal proceedings taking place based on fictional minors? I have not seen anything based on this, and at the moment, have only noticed that said changes on the net have come about from rampant fears. I still think something is wrong with society when rampant displays of violence are considered far less hurtful then cub art. They're both bad, don't get me wrong, but at the moment I think most people would rate cub art as worse, which just confuses me. Graphic depictions of characters being eaten and killed are a-ok, while cub art is NOT OK.
65 Report (sage)
LLz at 7 Mar 2008: 19:44
>>62 Unnecessary: dictionary definition: Fchan doesn't need to take on such risk. Fchan can decide to take on said risk by allowing such works, or drop said risk by banning them. Risk: In this case, lawsuits from outside sources pertaining to questionable works. Risk is proven by similar situations happening in the past. (though it may be helpful to quote exactly what happened, so people stop assuming that said lawsuits don't exist.) Benifit: In this case, increased variety of illustrations, more viewership, higher ad revenue to offset site costs (against higher site cost from higher downloads), and more social interaction (from more posts and viewership).
66 Report (capped)
Xenofur at 7 Mar 2008: 19:45
>>64 That was only relevant in Fchan being in danger of legal proceedings. Read the whole thread. PS: Nice try interpreting, but you're bad at it. Troll harder.
67 Report
at 7 Mar 2008: 19:47
To those claiming a lack of backbone on the mods part, I'll tell ye what. Download as much Cub, Loli and Guro as you can, put it all in easy to access folders on your desktop, and then hand it in at a Police Station. Let us know how it goes, and there you have it hmm?
68 Report
lost souls at 7 Mar 2008: 20:51
>>39 Compared to America, Europe has no freedom of speech whatsoever. Proposed national motto for Britian by a columnist: Smile, you're on CCTV!
69 Report
lost souls at 7 Mar 2008: 20:51
>>67 He/she speaks truth.
70 Report
LLz at 7 Mar 2008: 21:03
>>68 CCTV has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Just making a correction: privacy != freedom.
71 Report
at 7 Mar 2008: 21:09
>>61 I'd say that Tails is quite clearly underaged by his appearance in nearly every art piece I've seen of him.
72 Report
at 7 Mar 2008: 21:10
>>54 I don't think there's any ambiguity in it. If you see a girl in a pub who looks 17, you have sex with her and she does you for staturatory rape because guess what, she was only 15 and just looked older - you're still going to jail. Characters lke Sonic, Tails etc arn't real people and don't have real rights to intrude upon, but they are by definition of character underaged (At least in most the canon), it seems to me the mods are just riding over their own rules as and when it suits them. Cubs are only cubs if they look about 3 years old (Even if they're canonically older, ie. most of inuki's stuff), characters confirmed to be underaged but ambiguous don't count. Anatomically correct is a big no-no, unless of course it's male whereas go go knotted penis and barbed shafts til your ass is sore. Multi arn't acceptable, unless it's a taur, because everyone knows having 6 legs and 2 sets of stomaches is perfectly normal.
73 Report
at 7 Mar 2008: 21:17
>>72 Additional ficton is irrelevant, image content is important! Otherwise evasion would be as simple as slapping on a line of "Age: 300".
74 Report
at 7 Mar 2008: 21:35
>>73 That's the mods stance, but how would the courts look at it? - I thought the entire point of this exercise was to make fchan unchallengeable in court, when that undermines the whole thing.
75 Report
at 7 Mar 2008: 21:59
>>66 Wait, I'm confused. I thought the whole point of this was because Fchan was worried about laws being placed that made Fchan worried about legal proceedings?
76 Report
Kito at 7 Mar 2008: 22:10
aren't just adult diaper pics allowed since they clearly aren't children?
77 Report
LilShock#DomqBXTOlk at 7 Mar 2008: 22:19
>>72 Thank you. This thread makes me think of an episode of SVU where a company was digitally making children out of adult models. While Olivia said it should be illegal, it wasn't. I still believe there's more (but slim) chance of a lawsuit from the toons rather that digital kitten diddling if it was actually illegal. And Xeno, no need to be rude because I bring up a very valid point that you don't like. I'm not being rude to you at all. Tails is smaller than the other characters and looks younger. Beside another style he would look ambiguous, next to Sonic, he looks younger. Would a character like Kit Cloudkicker or Gosalyn Mallard fall under the Tails clause or the cub clause?
78 Report
LLz at 8 Mar 2008: 01:36
>>74 According to the current legislation, still positive/legal, due to ambiguity. In the same way that if I draw 3 stick figures, 2 distinctively taller than the other, then draw them performing sexual acts, it's still legal. I think the point we're missing is that Tails is protected not because of his percieved age, but he's sufficiently ambiguous to be not considered humanistic to begin with. (aka you probably won't be caught for child porn if you own specifically non-anthromorphic cub porn. Heck, if anyone tries to challenge me based on non-anthromorphic cub porn, it's likely too easy to refute. Though animal rights activists might have a say in the matter.) (aka if you draw tails in a less morphic/toon manner, the image would likely be considered questionable and thus slated for removal.)>>77 The main reason is the law's untested and unchallenged. Copyright laws have been tested to an extent, and refuted to an extent too. Not to mention that fchan also obeys copyright laws to an extent, just that fchan decides on usage on ambiguity. (though it is still in my opinion that images from sites which sars "do not distribute" and/or have a watermark saying such should be banned as well.)
79 Report
at 8 Mar 2008: 02:51
> (though it is still in my opinion that images from sites which sars "do not distribute" and/or have a watermark saying such should be banned as well.) they are. http://fchan.me/read.php/faq/1177385376/l40
80 Report
Jono at 8 Mar 2008: 03:39
The "not" can apply to both items in the list: "Babyfurs that are not clearly adult and not Cub art will not be tolerated." Therefore, babyfur that isn't cub art is not tolerated, but babyfur that IS cub art is allowed. Syntactically, my interpretation is correct, though that's obviously not your intention. You say you can interpret laws? Then how did you get so woefully tangled up in syntax that you let a glaring ambiguity like that sit there for so long? I think you need to find a valid source for that law we're all quaking in fear over and read it a little more critically. The word "child" has a human connotation, but "cub" is obviously non-human. The law (as written in that website previously cited) is very clear in its use of the word "child" and can be interpreted to either apply or not. Finally, using this as an excuse to expunge cubart from fChan is an extremely underhanded tactic. If it is determined that the law does not apply, to not allow cubart to be posted is extremely unfair, especially given that there are fetishes (gore, vore, snuff, scat, etc.) that squick people way worse than cub.
346 Add Reply
Name Sage? - =
First Page - Last 40 - Entire Thread