| 82Report |
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.
|