81 Report
Jono at 8 Mar 2008: 03:41
To clarify the first part of my post (because a few lines got cut off): The prohibition is worded ambiguously: "Babyfurs that are not clearly adult and Cub art will not be tolerated" Could be easily read as: "Babyfurs that are not clearly adult and not Cub art will not be tolerated" The negative can apply to both articles of the list.
82 Report
LLz at 8 Mar 2008: 04:10
>>79 Hm, must've missed that sometime then. Shows how long I've been lurking here. c.c>>80 The problem is that cub art, or at least most of them, are anthropomorphic. Or if I were to be a persecutor, I would argue that human child qualities are implied in said images, and hence can be treated as equal. (this is also why I noted that I'd have no problems defending a case of non-anthropomorphic cub art, at least as non-pedophilliac material: no human charactistics involved.) Hence, it is still too risky to allow cub art here. Case of weakest link again: until you can prove that it is NOT legally risky due to the new legislations, you cannot prove that it is an excuse for the moderators to remove cub art due to their biases.
83 Report
at 8 Mar 2008: 09:01
>>82 Couldn't you make the same argument with the Miller test to Scat and some of the other fetishes here as obscene artwork, which would technically put Fchan in the same kind of hot water as cub art would?
84 Report
at 8 Mar 2008: 09:17
>>23 By the way, I'm pretty sure that the SCOTUS ruled that code, or part of it, to be unconstitutional.
85 Report
LLz at 8 Mar 2008: 12:25
>>83 Except that the other fetishes aren't targetted by laws (in terms or artwork) far as I know. Which is the whole issue here.
86 Report
at 8 Mar 2008: 12:43
>>85 ...then what kind of artwork would you say obscenity laws target?
87 Report
Jono at 8 Mar 2008: 13:31
Also, note this in the law previously cited: "...and (B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;" The "and" implies that both it and the previous article be a condition fulfilled by the artwork in question for it to be considered illegal. What lacks value to one person may be rich with it to another. Also, by the "Definitions" section, softcore cub pics (ie. where the "pubic area" is not visible as described in said section) are allowed by the law and, thus, should be allowed on fchan. That's what's called a "loophole" and laws are full of them.
88 Report
LLz at 8 Mar 2008: 16:10
>>86 Actually, please quote which "obscenity law" you're referring to, because I've never heard of any "obscenity law" as such. If you're talking about the law linked in >>23 , please re-read it carefully. If you still think >>23 affects all obscene materials, reply stating such and I'll carefully explain the law quoted there.
89 Report
Dr. Rourke at 8 Mar 2008: 22:29
This makes no sense to me... it's a fantasy-based fetish. They're not actually raping children or even having sex with them. They're viewing pornographic artwork (not photos, as that requires one to put a child in a sexually comprimising situation) of fictional children. literally speaking, no children were harmed in the making of these pics, mentally, physically, or emotionally. Other than the questionable morality that comes with looking at ANY porn, there really doesn't seem to be a problem here, even if it's against the law. If it is, there's gotta be loopholes somewhere to properly affect this discussion, and if not, then it should be fought for. This is no worse (and no better, mind you) than necrophiliac, bestial, rape, and scat pornography. it's all fantasy; none of it is action, and therefore no action should be done in response. Only when there IS action should one respond with it. in other words, if someone rapes a child, corpse, or any other thing for that matter, THEN legal action should be taken. No one's getting hurt by porn, so there should be no worries. I feel I need to mention that no, I do not generally enjoy cub porn, but I hate seeing things like fetishes and fantasies being treated unequally when they're all on the same level. People should be able to masturbate to whatever they want as long as what they're masturbating to did not harm someone in the process of making it. So all that shit they have on those other porn sites about animal sex and what not is what should be targeted, not harmless drawn pictures of fictional characters.
90 Report
LLz at 8 Mar 2008: 22:59
>>89 Talk is cheap, Action is expensive. You're likely right that someone should do something, but who? FChan doesn't have the resources, which is part of the problem.
91 Report
sage at 9 Mar 2008: 10:30
>>89 Exactly. From my point of view, you're all furries, no matter what is your fetish, furry IS a fetish and it includes anything that could be drawn, from the softest to the weirdest things known to the man. If you consider an underaged furry character to be like a kid, you're pulling the anthropomorphism too far. Please come back to reality. Those ares drawings. Those are NOT real.
92 Report
at 9 Mar 2008: 10:33
>>84 This law will never be voted anyways. The staff of this site is not anticipating, it just want a sub-fetish to be banned here, putting the responsability to an inexistant law.
93 Report
at 9 Mar 2008: 18:59
What a bunch of bullshit. Drawn child pornography is not illegal.
94 Report
at 9 Mar 2008: 19:37
Käse zum whine?
95 Report
at 9 Mar 2008: 20:06
>>116544 But apparently it would seem the mod's don't care about what goes in Toon, just AltHard. It's rather hypocritical if they only police one area. The "governmental law" they're trying to comply with says that -any- depiction of below age characters breaks the obscenity code. Tails, Klonoa, Shippou, Arthur, Tiny Toons etc would all fall under this unless they were drawn over the age of 18. Fchan would also need to see the ID of every 'model' before accepting images.
96 Report
at 9 Mar 2008: 21:11
>>92 Which I find funny because I've seen them state in the past that /ah was created to be a dumping ground for content that the staff doesn't like.
97 Report (sage)
LLz at 9 Mar 2008: 21:17
>>92 IIRC the law already exists. hence your point about "law won't be voted" is not applicable to this case in the slightest. Unless you're talking about whether said laws will be appealed. We'll be waiting here for you.
98 Report
at 9 Mar 2008: 21:44
Would the government see the diff between "chibi" and "cub?" or care about "respective styles?" Would the government care if Shippou is really 1000 years old even though he looks 6? Probably not. There's stuff in Toon that's just as "cub" as anything in AH. I see folks say "Go show the contents of your hard drive to a cop and see what they say." Well go show a cop some Tails and Klonoa pr0nz (or some Guro or Scat, lol). You and I do not decide what's obscene, the gub'ment does and they're not going to spare our fan favorites just cuz WE say it's not cub.
99 Report
LLz at 9 Mar 2008: 21:54
>>98 The point is, given 100% no lore of a character, would you be able to differenciate between (a) an adult and a child, and (b) a morphic/human-like or a non-anthropomorph creature? Chibi is mostly safe because it's a defined style which does appear to render adults in a smallish manner. Shippo is not because as mentioned, he looks 6. Unless he is rendered in a style which makes his age questionable. Toonish characters I'd say it's questionable, because adult and child characters are recognisable, the factor protecting them is the 2nd part: can you tell if it's having human characteristics, or a non-morphic creature? And as mentioned, cub IS banned in /toon. It's just that the checks are less stringent.
100 Report
at 9 Mar 2008: 21:58
>>99 Then why is there still a Klonoa thread, a Tails thread, a Bugs Bunny thread with a pic of Bugs being screwed by an obvious cub wolf thing, an Arthur thread (those chars are certainly not 18) and Digimon / Gaomon threads where the human participants are still kids?
101 Report
LLz at 9 Mar 2008: 22:04
>>100 Because no one reported them, maybe? It's not as if I'm visiting /toon to report threads. Also, it's already notes that the Klonoa and Sonic style of drawing makes the age of characters questionable. The bugs bunny thread should probably be reported. The arthur thread, in my opinion, should probably be reported. the digimon thread should be reported, period.
102 Report (sage)
LLz at 9 Mar 2008: 22:11
>>100 I don't see any bugs bunny thread. Please tell me exactly which thread you mean. The only Arthur thread shows characters as seemingly grown up. The Gaomon thread had only one image which is questionably with kids, the rest have either not rendered the trainers as young, or didn't have trainers in adult situations. And the image was conveniently not reported (I just did so.)
103 Report
at 9 Mar 2008: 22:18
Guess it fell off the face of Fchan, but there is a Sonic Males thread with Chris getting goned by Sonic, and another of him getting spanked by Sonic whilest nude.>>107428 >>107424
104 Report
LLz at 9 Mar 2008: 22:23
>>103 Stop complaining without reporting them first. If you don't report, mods wouldn't know. If mods don't know, they can't remove. If mods know and don't remove, then you can complain.
105 Report
at 9 Mar 2008: 22:27
fchan was designed as the place to post all furry art, there is sections for different styles so that if something is a tab bit more controversial people know not to look in those threads. yet cubs have been removed due to some people finding it immoral. In that case scat threads should be banned because i dont like them =/ /end rant
106 Report
LLz at 9 Mar 2008: 22:33
>>105 False, fchan was designed as the place to post all LEGAL furry art. Art containing underaged in sexual situations (inclusive of cub art in most instances) is made illegal in some states. Hence banned. I'd ask you to at LEAST read the first post in this thread.
107 Report
at 9 Mar 2008: 22:39
in that case the whole website is illegal. Furry yiff could be considered bestiality which is illegal in a majority of US states. But we are allowed to post them because they are fictional pictures containing no real situations. Same goes for a majority of the threads on the /ah/ board. I bet over half the threads in there are contain situations that are illegal. So why cubs? why all of the sudden ban them when they are just the same as all the other art as being fictional situations and characters. Im not even a big cub fan, although I do enjoy it from time to time. Its just I see a domino effect happening soon. Cubs arnt ok well in that case we have to remove such and such so people will stop complaining about those....and now we have to remove this and that
108 Report
dMilesFox at 9 Mar 2008: 22:45
I don't get it!! This is art, drawings, nothing real. You are talking about a law or a future law, com'on! Be realisted, if you want to tell us you want to block/not allowe this kind of artworks because of this law, well, you need to take down a lots of art on this site, YOU ARE ALLOWING ART from COPYRIGHT stuff, from different companies such like Disney,WB and many more. If you don't like and don't want this kind of material just say it! Don't say its because of a suppose law. Where is your "worry", the needs to be protected, about copyright laws. dude, if you are taking down current and future artworks under this subject you most take down all the rest of art that is copyrighted. One to respect a law, well, Respect all of them and not just the ones u consider fine with u. Just post a link to a gov website or at least a copy of the text where that law is, it can be scan or a photo, I don't care. I'm not a fchan lover or anything, but I most say this is stu##id. Sorry for my words, but its the true. I think you are making more enemies than anything else. I know there are other websites that maybe will allow other to post this kind of artworks, but we are not talking about those site. Please consider this. If you are taking down this kind of art, at least show us the approved law. OR if you don't want this kind of art on this server just say it. I know your hosting company, and they don't have any kind of prob with the kind of content you have here, babyfur/cub or not. This will create bad publicity to you. Lots of it. I know there are guys does not like this kind of art. ok, they are free to think what ever they want. same happens to me, I do't like mutilations and many other stuff u have here, on this site, but Im not letting that to interfere. well, I'm going out for a bite.
109 Report
dMilesFox at 9 Mar 2008: 22:49
"False, fchan was designed as the place to post all LEGAL furry art. Art containing underaged in sexual situations (inclusive of cub art in most instances) is made illegal in some states. Hence banned. I'd ask you to at LEAST read the first post in this thread." Com'on, give me a break, "LEGAL furry art" there is lots of copyrighted characters all over fchan! be realistic. and If that was the case, you are breaking your own initial vision!
110 Report
LLz at 9 Mar 2008: 22:54
>>107 AFAIK bestiality laws doesn't target artwork. This law SPECIFICALLY targets artwork. If you've complaints, tell the people making the legislation, not us. I don't know how accurate the link provided in >>23 is, but it seems to be accurate. Link: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1466A.html >>108 >>109 a) You're mistaking copyright and trademark. b) Look up on parody. All trademark/copyright laws have an exception clause stating such. c) This law state here does NOT have a seperate clause for parody. The only bypassing clause is about "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;" which is highly contentious in the majority of all cub imagery.
111 Report
dMilesFox at 9 Mar 2008: 23:00
"(a) In General.— Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that— (1) (A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and (B) is obscene; or (2) (A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and (B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;... " Com'on, they are talking about humans!! One thing is if I create a human cartoon or drawing of childreng having sex or what ever and a total different thing is a furry drawing cartoon. Think of it!
112 Report
dMilesFox at 9 Mar 2008: 23:01
Besides, that website its not from the GOV. so is not official!
113 Report
at 9 Mar 2008: 23:03
<<106 Furry Guro has as much chance of inspiring the viewer to torture real animals as Furry Cub has of inspiring a viewer to molest real children. So let's get rid of them both.
114 Report
at 9 Mar 2008: 23:09
"a visual depiction of any kind including a drawing, cartoon" "depicts an image that is, or appears to be of a minor " Hmmm, guess Tails and Klonoa count as minors simply for LOOKING the part. No room for fan debate there, lol.
115 Report
dMilesFox at 9 Mar 2008: 23:12
>>114 Yeah, but they are not humans, not even near!
116 Report
at 9 Mar 2008: 23:12
the term “visual depiction” includes undeveloped film and videotape, and data stored on a computer disk or by electronic means which is capable of conversion into a visual image, and also includes any photograph, film, video, picture, digital image or picture, computer image or picture, or computer generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means. Thus meaning real pictures are illegal, as it always was. Doesnt say anything about drawn
117 Report
dMilesFox at 9 Mar 2008: 23:14
>>114 Besides, tails its a fox right! so, how long a fox can life in RL!? so, what we consider as an adult, as a kid or as what ever, doesn't apply to animals/furries on on this case!
118 Report
Johnny Blanco at 9 Mar 2008: 23:42
*shrugs* This is Fchan's decision and there will be more than a few sites that will either agree or disagree with this and you know what? That's fine! I look at it this way. Fchan has stuff, FA has stuff.. why do you need to completely exclude one site because it can't cater to ONE thing that you're looking for. That makes absolutely no sense.. that's like saying here were going to give you a WRX STI and a Porsche and you don't drive the STI because it's not a Porsche.. are you DUMB? No! They're giving you both cars! And that's my point on it.. if Fchan don't want to get into trouble over cub art.. that's their call. Oh and I bet FA'll go that route if it's pushed hard enough. It's not worth it for the REST of us if the sites WE like are shut down because of YOUR Fetish. Sorry.. that's my 2 cents
119 Report
at 9 Mar 2008: 23:54
the law says its illegal unless it contains artistic value. so someone go figure out what that exactly means and fix it =3
120 Report
LLz at 10 Mar 2008: 00:18
>>111 >>112 >>114 >>117 If it was that easy, I could just quote "The Treachery of Images" and call it a day. Unfortunately, it's what they represent that counts. Also, since you're so uptight about GOV links, here: http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C71.txt Look under section 1466A.>>113 We're not talking about effects whatsoever. We're talking about the law here. If you want to complain, please direct your complaints to the US government/legislation offices.>>114 Again, only appearance count, not lore. Because of style, you cannot accurately determine the ages of Sonic or Klonoa-styled characters.>>116 Quoting from the page: "(a) In General.— Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that—" I think this is more directed towards artworks based on that description.>>119 Been trying to. No one wants to help though. (refer to "Did Strider Orion quit???")
346 Add Reply
Name Sage? - =
First Page - Last 40 - Entire Thread