fchan

discussion

Cub art illegal?

Pages:1
1Report
Worried artist at 6 Apr 2008: 13:08

Ok I'm not trying to start any drama or request that cub art be allowed on fchan again, I just have a quick question.  Is there a law against drawing underage characters now?  I ask because I draw a bit of cub art and I don't want to have the FBI breaking my door down accusing me of making child pornography.  Any answer would be appreciated.

2Report
at 6 Apr 2008: 14:06

>>1
No, it's not illegal unless they have reason to believe you used child porn as direct reference or were making children pose for you. You won't be arrested or have your PC confiscated for drawn child porn even though they could use it as an excuse to investigate you further. Still, they require warrants and probable cause to take your PC and search it for child porn.

If all you do is draw some cub art you should be ok, if you download child porn then be worried.

3Report
at 6 Apr 2008: 14:08

"In America, the Supreme Court ruled in 2002 that banning drawn representations of child sexual abuse was unconsitutional. However the Child Protection Act of 2003 did make possession of such material an offense, a law that has not yet been tested in the Supreme court. Legal opinions differ on whether the law would stand up."

4Report
at 6 Apr 2008: 15:47

>>2
Wait, did you just use 'probable cause' seriously in the post PATRIOT act era?  Optimistic, I applaud you! 

5Report
at 6 Apr 2008: 17:05

How _COULD_ you use a real child as a refference for a cub pic? I mean, what physical features would transfer over? Haircolor, birthmarks? Unless it was some yucky "uber realistic" drawing style there's really not much that could tie a FURRY CUB PIC to a human child IRL. Even with a shota pic, the way its drawn, how would you know? "OMFG, HE HAS PURPLE HAIR AND DINNER PLATE EYES JUST LIKE MY SON BILLY!!1"

6Report
at 6 Apr 2008: 17:35

No. It's illegal nowhere in the united states, despite what the mods say. The US Supreme Court ruling "Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition" overturned all contexts of every law banning virtual CP. Virtual CP is defined as artistic depictions (for example, illustrations such as in shota or lolicon) of child-like characters preforming sexual acts or are sexually provokitive in nature. Cub art, if it were to be considered illegal by any court, would be classified as Virtual Child Porn which is no longer illegal in the United States. But do not access or dissiminate cub art in Canada, as virtual CP is still very illegal there. And nowhere else in the world.

7Report
LLz at 6 Apr 2008: 18:06

>>6
It was legal in the short period between 2002 and 2003.

Copy-pasted from my reply in that other topic:

"The PROTECT Act of 2003 was signed into law by President George W. Bush on April 30, 2003. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_Act
There has been a successful charge for harbouring drawn images of child porn based on said legislative changes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_Whorley

Granted lolicon is not cub porn, however, the fact is that we do not know how large the range of targettable material would be.

Note that there's 2 different sections of the legislative changes.  One targets material indistinguishable from minors (which is not the point we're in contention with), the other specifically targets drawings and etc, and hence does not require any from of resemblence to an actual minor. E.g. Lolicon, which is stylized and hence is obviously not a minor, but could be treated as such. It is possible that the 2nd portion could possibly target cub art.

(on that note, it is my opinion that the whole PROTECT Act breaks all kinds of first amendment rights. Just because it uses the Miller Test doesn't mean that it's fundamentally different from Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996, which WAS struck down.)"

8Report (sage)
at 6 Apr 2008: 18:42

TL;DR: The Ashcroft shit is irrelevant since it's from 2002: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalition

The law in question however is from 2003: http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C71.txt
(read 1466A)

9Report
at 6 Apr 2008: 18:48

so what your saying is   the mods jumped the gun in saying " OMG NO CUB  PLOX OR B& "   and they should just let us have it

10Report
LLz at 6 Apr 2008: 19:24

>>9
Different point: Mod's reason is that host is uncomfortable with the content.

11Report
at 6 Apr 2008: 19:33

>>9

No, they no how fucking disgusting it is and they did the right thing :)

Legal or not, it's child porn

12Report
LLz at 6 Apr 2008: 19:46

>>11
Prove child porn, or child sexual interactions is wrong, without boing into abuse. If you think child porn or child sexual interactions definately means child abuse, say so, and I'll prove otherwise.

To start off, I'll quote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rind_et_al._%281998%29

13Add Reply This thread is threadstopped. You can't reply anymore.

Powered by: Shiichan Version 3956
The contents of this page are asserted to be in the public domain by the posters.
The administrators claim no responsibility for thread content.
Manage