From what I've heard, it's illegal to view/draw/own loli/shota nsfw images, but is that really true? Because I believe if that were the case, images such as Frisk x Toriel for example would be removed from the site, right? Or any other post depicting a human loli/shota with some kind of animal/furry? From what I understood, they're only illegal if the child depicted is based on an existing minor in the real world, right?

Nope.avi.

It is illegal to possess child pornography of any kind, but drawn children that do not look real is a grey area. If I recall correctly, you cannot be arrested but it can be used against you if you possess any drawn Loli/shota/cub. Heavy emphasis on remember, I do not recall where I remember this, I just do.

Cripes, is this the kind of fear mongering nonsense people/furries spin to others...

No, it's not illegal. The only thing that's truly illegal is content involving actual, real life children. Like Siral said tho, it's a grey area. For example nobody's gonna bust down your door for owning loli/shota doujin, browsing it online, or drawing it, but if you're in trouble for something else, and you get caught with that stuff, especially by someone who personally dislikes the content/it's themes, then there's a chance they might try to bust you for it, less because you did something wrong, and more that it's just more crap to stack against you.

DeltaFlame said:
From what I've heard, it's illegal to view/draw/own loli/shota nsfw images, but is that really true? Because I believe if that were the case, images such as Frisk x Toriel for example would be removed from the site, right? Or any other post depicting a human loli/shota with some kind of animal/furry? From what I understood, they're only illegal if the child depicted is based on an existing minor in the real world, right?

It depends on the country you live in. According to Wikipedia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_cartoon_pornography_depicting_minors ), the countries where it is illegal to possess, create, or distribute the material include: Australia, Canada, the Philippines, South Africa, South Korea and the United Kingdom. I would suggest reading the article itself, which of course I have linked to above, for full details.

In the USA it's not illegal *unless* it's a 3D rendering that's realistic enough to make people think it's a photo of a real child.

EDIT: Also, what SirBrownBear said. It's only really going to get you into trouble if you're already in trouble over something else.

Not illegal, but you should seriously evaluate your life

Knotty_Curls said:
...but you should seriously evaluate your life

are we really going there.

Everyone can say "it doesn't harm anyone" and offer their censorship arguments all they want, nothing is going to change my opinion on loli/shota/cub apologists in particular.

But hey, nothing I say will leave a dent either. What ultimately matters is whether or not you're honest with yourselves.

Knotty_Curls said:
Everyone can say "it doesn't harm anyone" and offer their censorship arguments all they want, nothing is going to change my opinion on loli/shota/cub apologists in particular.

Funny how people can mow down 12 other people with a minigun in Team Fortress 2 and still acknowledge it's just fantasy, while continuing to harp on how a drawing on paper is the same thing as taking a photograph of a real child being molested. The cognitive dissonance required in order to say "fantasy equals reality for loli/shota/cub/etc. but not anything else anywhere in existence" is truly astounding.

Knotty_Curls said:
Everyone can say "it doesn't harm anyone" and offer their censorship arguments all they want, nothing is going to change my opinion on loli/shota/cub apologists in particular.

But hey, nothing I say will leave a dent either. What ultimately matters is whether or not you're honest with yourselves.

are you honest to your self that alot of the content you view on this site daily is no better or "morally sane" then nsfw works that contain fictional underage characters. there is no one apologizing for someones interests. there are only hypocrites trying to force their subjective opinion that one should be ashamed of certain interests and whats right and wrong on others.

apologist means something completely different

cub apologists are like the vegans of furries

I'm not sure if cub anthropomorphic characters that resemble animals more than humans are less of a legal issue. Fuck, I thought the Phils does not abide to the stupid 'drawn explicit cub is unlawful' thing, guess I need to get a weapon of sorts just in case they get to me.

Knotty_Curls said:
you should seriously evaluate your life

Then you should probably do the same when you get off to feral porn.

Knotty_Curls said:
cub apologists are like the vegans of furries

To quote you:

"apologist means something completely different"

Apologists don't force their views onto other people, they simply try to explain why things aren't as bad as some people want to act like they are.

People calling for the banning of cub/shota/loli because it's a "gateway drug" (which has never been proven, by the way, and which there is ample evidence *against*) are the "vegans of furries" because vegans have a tendency to try to force their views down other people's throats, not unlike the talkative preacher at your door who won't shut up even after you've slammed the door in his face, 'cuz he has to "save" you from yourself.

Knotty_Curls said:
Not illegal, but you should seriously evaluate your life

Hello pot, I'm kettle, you're black.

It's kind of funny to observe how usually, people scared about child pornography (Involving anything but human characters) are mainly from the US, because I always knew the laws were much harsh on Australia and Canada, since I am Canadian myself.

Really weird to see websites like FA banning anything remotely child pornography that's obviously not human (The staff is really ignorant on their own rules too, one Kirby picture got deleted and the artist got banned one week for """Child Pornography""") when the US laws clearly refer to what is child porn or not, and anything that's not human is completely exempt from that law

In the U.S., even if you don't get brought up on cp charges, you can be charged under the obscenity laws if they feel like it. Hell, they could charge you with that for adult furry porn if they dislike you enough. Doesn't mean you'll definitely get convicted, but still.

Neitsuke said:
It's kind of funny to observe how usually, people scared about child pornography (Involving anything but human characters) are mainly from the US, because I always knew the laws were much harsh on Australia and Canada, since I am Canadian myself.

9/10 people here in the US fear association more than the consequences from the law itself (hence why you have whole legions of artists who either avoid, refuse to use, and/or repeatedly condemned the use of, and the people who use inkbunny because they allow cub porn. That's not to say that's the only reason why people wouldn't like it, but that's a topic for a different thread.) because let's face it, nobody actually gets in trouble for that stuff, unless like I said above, you're already in trouble with something that's serious enough that they're looking for anything they can to add on to your charges, that or you get a conservative religious person who personally disagrees with it and feels that you should burn because of that, and etc.

InannaEloah said:
Funny how people can mow down 12 other people with a minigun in Team Fortress 2 and still acknowledge it's just fantasy, while continuing to harp on how a drawing on paper is the same thing as taking a photograph of a real child being molested. The cognitive dissonance required in order to say "fantasy equals reality for loli/shota/cub/etc. but not anything else anywhere in existence" is truly astounding.

agreed 100%, especially that last bit.

if someone caught me with a drawn (key word there: DRAWN) picture of 2 or more underage characters in a sexually explicit situation. said persons first reaction would likely be to call me a pedophile and get me in serious legal trouble.

compare that to someone catching me playing a violent videogame and shooting countless people in the game. said person wouldn't bat an eye and would likely ask if they could join me.

i mean, wtf? how can someone be like that? if your gonna do the former reaction then what is stopping you from attempting to charge me for murder in the latter situation? seriously, what is stopping you?

i've heard of things like selective hearing, selective memory, etc. where a person only hears or remembers what they WANT to hear or remember but what would this be called?

my first thought when i hear someone attempting to equate fantasy with irl in this manner is: "o.O what mental problems is this person suffering from?" cause there must be at least one involved.

treos said:
agreed 100%, especially that last bit.

if someone caught me with a drawn (key word there: DRAWN) picture of 2 or more underage characters in a sexually explicit situation. said persons first reaction would likely be to call me a pedophile and get me in serious legal trouble.

compare that to someone catching me playing a violent videogame and shooting countless people in the game. said person wouldn't bat an eye and would likely ask if they could join me.

i mean, wtf? how can someone be like that? if your gonna do the former reaction then what is stopping you from attempting to charge me for murder in the latter situation? seriously, what is stopping you?

i've heard of things like selective hearing, selective memory, etc. where a person only hears or remembers what they WANT to hear or remember but what would this be called?

my first thought when i hear someone attempting to equate fantasy with irl in this manner is: "o.O what mental problems is this person suffering from?" cause there must be at least one involved.

While I don't agree with banning said content, I can certainly see why the sexual fantasies could be more concerning to people. Almost everyone has a bit of blood luster in them, and violence in a lot of cultures is not as stigmatized. Plus, I find that with a lot of people, if they have a fantasy, and nothing bad would happen to them if they acted it out, they would act it out.[Obviously not true for everyone especially if it causes harm to others]

But banning any kind of drawn porn is always bullshit because they are artistic expression.

inannaeloah said:
It depends on the country you live in. According to Wikipedia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_cartoon_pornography_depicting_minors ), the countries where it is illegal to possess, create, or distribute the material include: Australia, Canada, the Philippines, South Africa, South Korea and the United Kingdom. I would suggest reading the article itself, which of course I have linked to above, for full details.

In the USA it's not illegal *unless* it's a 3D rendering that's realistic enough to make people think it's a photo of a real child.

EDIT: Also, what SirBrownBear said. It's only really going to get you into trouble if you're already in trouble over something else.

What if one doesn't know they're in trouble for it?

castleprice03 said:
What if one doesn't know they're in trouble for it?

Holy necromancy, Batman.

Most countries, to my knowledge, treat certain crimes with leniency if done in ignorance rather than malice, while other crimes are treated the same regardless of awareness. In a country that treats fiction/art as seriously as reality, it's probably a safe bet to assume it's going to fall into the latter category.

Ignorance of the law is not protection from the law. Either way this necro was unnecessary entirely.