fchan

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.