More about this: http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/7615236/

Evidently some Pokemon aren't allowed either, including Riolu.

Genjar said:
More about this: http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/7615236/

Evidently some Pokemon aren't allowed either, including Riolu.

Man, they are really starting to hit themselves with flaws in limitations. I wouldn't be shocked if they have to ban guro/death and all forms of vore (MAYBE excluding soft vore, but that is not often seen, but against it is soft digestion paired with soft vore), because it goes against "common sense"...

This is getting entertaining. Anyone got a list of the babby-mon?

I didn't really want to login to FA.
But since I've done so, I might as well paste this so that others don't have to login:

"tl;dr :FN considers riolu and company cub [because they are in the 'baby' category of pokemon], while fa does not provided the context is right. My big comic can't go up on FN, and I'm bummed out about it."

Link for reference (EDIT: which seems to incidentally fulfull Siral's request, heh):

http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Baby_Pok%C3%A9mon

HuskyK9 later clarified that actually, it probably can go up on FN, given the context.

Genjar said:
More about this: http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/7615236/

Evidently some Pokemon aren't allowed either, including Riolu.

What the heck? Species are not cubs. You can easily have a level 100 "baby stage" pokemon. Baby stages are simply stages that you would normally need to breed Pokemon to get, and with the exceptions of Togepi and Riolu, they were all introduced after their evolutionary line.

Qmannn said:
That's not entirely correct. Levels are not (indicators of) ages and while evolutions are generally a representation of growing capability, many of them are clearly also show some sort maturation.

That said, most Pokemon aren't anthropomorphic and many real life animals look just as small and cute at full maturity. The anime has also shown mature NFE Pokemon as well.

What's NFE?

Furrin_Gok said:
What's NFE?

Not fully evolved

Furrin_Gok said:
What the heck? Species are not cubs. You can easily have a level 100 "baby stage" pokemon. Baby stages are simply stages that you would normally need to breed Pokemon to get, and with the exceptions of Togepi and Riolu, they were all introduced after their evolutionary line.

Same line of logic otaku use when they get off to Loli characters and then talk about how the character is 18 but looks 14 or how the character looks young because they are vampire that never ages or some bs like that.

memeboy said:
Same line of logic otaku use when they get off to Loli characters and then talk about how the character is 18 but looks 14 or how the character looks young because they are vampire that never ages or some bs like that.

There are points where a character is obviously a cub, and there are points where a character is obviously not one despite their otherwise youthful appearance. The line between those two points is pretty wide, but if you don't like it, blacklist it. I'm sure the site can enforce tagging Baby_Stage_Pokemon.

I think characters should be banned from being depicted in sexual situations until 18 years have passed since the date of their creation.

"Hold on!" I hear you say. "Isn't that a little extreme?"

Aha, but you forget. These characters exist on the Internet, and, a day on the Internet is like a year outside of it.

Once they're 18 it's free game.

This sounds like pure faggotry shit at it's finest.

Relevant

;)

Clawdragons said:
I think characters should be banned from being depicted in sexual situations until 18 years have passed since the date of their creation.

...snipped...

These characters exist on the Internet, and, a day on the Internet is like a year outside of it.

Once they're 18 it's free game.

Bold is mine.

So in other words, we should wait until these characters have existed on the Internet for 18 days IRL. Cool.

memeboy said:
Same line of logic otaku use when they get off to Loli characters and then talk about how the character is 18 but looks 14 or how the character looks young because they are vampire that never ages or some bs like that.

It's the same logic that defeats thoughtcrime censorship. Aside from vampire/fantasy scenarios there are people who look younger than 18 but are older than 18-21 in real life, and people with horrifying genetic diseases that make them look 6 forever.

The problem with bringing logic into this discussion is that there is no logic when it comes to payment processors/merchants/PayPal. You can be blocked and have money frozen with no warning or recourse. We get to enjoy relative freedom at e621 because it is paid for by silicone dildos being shoved up arseholes.

Lance_Armstrong said:
We get to enjoy relative freedom at e621 because it is paid for by silicone dildos being shoved up arseholes.

lol true

NotMeNotYou said:
We ignored all anon/fake votes in our decision. The interface clearly shows where the votes came from, and the ones with legitimate accounts against cub still crushed the people who were for keeping it.

And, would you mind sharing with the class what the actual vote tally was, then? Your superior seems to have not addressed these massive concerns over the integrity of the vote at all, so you are the only one in power to state anything at all on it.

Darosne said:
And, would you mind sharing with the class what the actual vote tally was, then? Your superior seems to have not addressed these massive concerns over the integrity of the vote at all, so you are the only one in power to state anything at all on it.

It's really no secret at this point that the vote was merely a scapegoat to escape all the SJW pressure falling on Varka's head and website. It would be nice, though, to have some sort of explanation instead of the usual robotic PR babble we've been getting for the past week. Maybe even an explanation for all the support page censorship.

Novalight said:
It's really no secret at this point that the vote was merely a scapegoat to escape all the SJW pressure falling on Varka's head and website. It would be nice, though, to have some sort of explanation instead of the usual robotic PR babble we've been getting for the past week. Maybe even an explanation for all the support page censorship.

We won't, unless he's pressured and aggravated enough to begrudgingly craft an explanation. I perused the Twitter storms of activity around that time. Those pressing him on these concerns were ignored, while he thanked every time those who naively praised his great adherence to a community will that probably didn't even exist. A concurrent alternative petition that would have had them do what they were planning- a default blacklist- was approved with 80%.

Also, this delightful fellow made a Downfall parody on the subject. I had no idea Hitler was into cub porn. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOYB0R49620

The answer "why" is at https://e621.net/forum/show/195122. This is also something that was said in the official statement, just not as blunt.

I mean, image what is going to happen if someone runs crying to the merchant processor yelling about people using their service for CP. This is not going to be a risk any sane person will take when there is an entire website at stake; especially with how "willing" people are to investigate something like this.

Darosne said:
And, would you mind sharing with the class what the actual vote tally was, then? Your superior seems to have not addressed these massive concerns over the integrity of the vote at all, so you are the only one in power to state anything at all on it.

Something around 4 against for every single person for cub was the last I heard.

NotMeNotYou said:
The answer "why" is at https://e621.net/forum/show/195122. This is also something that was said in the official statement, just not as blunt.

I mean, image what is going to happen if someone runs crying to the merchant processor yelling about people using their service for CP. This is not going to be a risk any sane person will take when there is an entire website at stake; especially with how "willing" people are to investigate something like this.

Hate to say it, but basically this. It's like a person at a party/large gathering of some kind screaming rape, all factors of due process are ejected and the accused are automatically guilty. By the time anyone bothers to actually look into matters the person's life is already ruined/the establishment already got burned to the ground.

This sadly isn't an issue that can be battled, or argued to a compromise. This goes past furry drama and into longstanding social/moral biases. The "pro cub" side lost the moment that artist posted the ticket and rallied support for their side.

I've always found the moral crusade against "cub porn" to be rather stupid... even back when that debate was happening back on Fchan. After all that drama started happening (and them rather hypocritically still allowing popular characters who are canonically and visually underage, like Tails, Kit Cloudkicker, Buster Bunny etc - I mean fuck, if yer gunna make a rule, at least be thorough in following it, right?). I dropped that place and started coming here, and also to Wildcritters / Veebooru and Inkbunny more.

Srsly though... it's a god damn drawing, and as long as the drawing is not a photo-realistic sketch of an actual living, breathing person, I fail to see why it needs to be made into such a big deal.

If you say "a cub furry drawing may as well be actual child porn of an actual human being" then you may as well start saying that a movie or a video game where somebody kills another person may as well be actual murder. (Like the famous idiot lawyer, Jack Thompson). People >outside< of the furry fandom could just as easily (and totally do) make the argument that looking at pictures of anthropomorphized animals will lead to wanting to commit bestiality.

Contrary to what someone else might think, Tails (to use him as an example) isn't a real person. Tails isn't real, so he is not going to need to go through 300+ hours of emotional therapy to get over being butt-rammed by Sonic in 50 different drawings.

It could also be applied to music: "Don't write any lyrics that talk about XYZ subject, because some impressionable person might go out and try to copy it!!!" - Yeah, then nobody could write any song ever, because morons might interpret it in some weird way, like Charles Manson did with The Beatles. If we start trying to accommodate all the people who can't discern reality from fiction, then we turn the world of art into the equivalent of a house where all the electrical outlets are plugged up with those plastic baby proofer things and nobody can use any of the outlets at all...

Why can't we just operate under the novel concept of holding people personally accountable for their choices and actions, rather than instantly blaming forms of media and entertainment for whatever it was they decided to do? Uh-Oh, so and so played Dungeons and Dragons and he murdered all of his friends, so obviously it was the DnD that made him do it! LET'S GET EVERYONE TOGETHER AND BURN ALL THE EVIL DND BOOKS! PUH-RAAAAAYZE JAYZUSS! AMEN, LAWWWRD-UH!

memeboy said:
Same line of logic otaku use when they get off to Loli characters and then talk about how the character is 18 but looks 14 or how the character looks young because they are vampire that never ages or some bs like that.

You mean like Shippou from Inuyasha... or shit, what about Koenma from Yu Yu Hakusho. I get the point though, canonically older - visually younger characters.

Pendraggon said:
I'm glad e6 sticks to its guns regarding the content on the site. If you don't like it, you blacklist it, and the only thing that stops content on here is the law (copyright and new pirated content) Which is how it should be.

Despite some of the attitude and general uppitty-ness of some of the mods (not quite as uppity as some of Fchan's were), that is one thing I have always appreciated about e621. They simply do not give a shit, and if you don't like something - great, you don't like it and you totally have the right to not like it, but it's still staying even if you don't think it should, because FREEDOM, bitches.

Actually cub is illegal.

http://horrificfursuits.tumblr.com/post/144928124193/drawing-porn-of-child-characters-from-comics-or
https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us-federal-law-obscenity

Axelthefox said:
Actually cub is illegal.

http://horrificfursuits.tumblr.com/post/144928124193/drawing-porn-of-child-characters-from-comics-or
https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us-federal-law-obscenity

Wasn't that ruled unconstitutional? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalition

(Yes, the first amendment protects our right to view porn apparently. In fact there's an old law that ALL porn is illegal, but that was also ruled unconstitutional. lol)

Deh-tiger said:
Wasn't that ruled unconstitutional? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalition

(Yes, the first amendment protects our right to view porn apparently. In fact there's an old law that ALL porn is illegal, but that was also ruled unconstitutional. lol)

Oh? Of course i'm not sure about the laws in my state. One time i asked a lawyer,but they told me to refer to the revised statues,but the revised statues are tl:dr.

Axelthefox said:
Oh? Of course i'm not sure about the laws in my state. One time i asked a lawyer,but they told me to refer to the revised statues,but the revised statues are tl:dr.

It varies, some states are strictly against it, some openly allow it, others don't care until you get caught (usually because of something else that warrants an investigation.) But it's not something that's illegal on a national level.

Hell, it all kinda boils down to "it's only illegal if you get caught". Drawn cub/loli/shota/underage/etc porn is illegal in the same sense that downloading a movie is illegal, the police/feds aren't going to bust down your door for the simple act of drawing/looking/partaking, but if you get caught with it, especially while in trouble for something else, it gets tacked on.

Axelthefox said:
Actually cub is illegal.

http://horrificfursuits.tumblr.com/post/144928124193/drawing-porn-of-child-characters-from-comics-or
https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us-federal-law-obscenity

Because the USA is the only place that actually exists... >_>

Mana_Dragon_Flammie said:
I've always found the moral crusade against "cub porn" to be rather stupid...
[...]
If you say "a cub furry drawing may as well be actual child porn of an actual human being" then you may as well start saying that a movie or a video game where somebody kills another person may as well be actual murder.

Something that I've struggled to deal with is that there are MANY people -- perhaps MOST people -- who simply don't care about truth. They want to feel good. The only case in which they REALLY care about their argument breaking down, is when it gets them generally condemned.

So I'm just saying -- AFAICS they don't care whether it's actual murder/porn/etc, they just care about the justice-boner and support from others they get from saying that it is.

If we start trying to accommodate all the people who can't discern reality from fiction, then we turn the world of art into the equivalent of a house where all the electrical outlets are plugged up with those plastic baby proofer things and nobody can use any of the outlets at all...

The thing is that the bureaucrats want to be in control of everything . If that shit is necessary, it gives them power; the bureaucracy can grow. They already have enough power to make it so, albeit gradually. Unfortunately that accommodates the agenda of people who enjoy playing the victim, rather well.

savageorange said:
Something that I've struggled to deal with is that there are MANY people -- perhaps MOST people -- who simply don't care about truth. They want to feel good. The only case in which they REALLY care about their argument breaking down, is when it gets them generally condemned.

This has been my experience as well. Some of the worst bullies I had to deal with as a child were actually nice people when they were alone with me. It was only when they were surrounded by their "friends" that they became assholes. It's indicative of a herd mentality and a desperate need to be accepted no matter what the cost may be. And when it comes to something as heated as the whole loli/shota/cub thing, ignoring the facts and even outright lying is completely acceptable to some people, just so that they are approved of by the majority. It's an unfortunate truth about life in this world, but it's still the truth that facts don't matter, unless they make you popular with the crowd.

Also, the website you linked to gives a 404 "Not Found" error.

Manasgael said:
This has been my experience as well. Some of the worst bullies I had to deal with as a child were actually nice people when they were alone with me. It was only when they were surrounded by their "friends" that they became assholes. It's indicative of a herd mentality and a desperate need to be accepted no matter what the cost may be. And when it comes to something as heated as the whole loli/shota/cub thing, ignoring the facts and even outright lying is completely acceptable to some people, just so that they are approved of by the majority. It's an unfortunate truth about life in this world, but it's still the truth that facts don't matter, unless they make you popular with the crowd.

Also, the website you linked to gives a 404 "Not Found" error.

Thanks, fixed (missing "www.") and posted bug report.

correct link is https://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/iron.html .. for some reason linking http://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/iron.html
(ie. http, not https) causes e621 to eat the 'www.' and cause a 404.

NotMeNotYou said:
The answer "why" is at https://e621.net/forum/show/195122. This is also something that was said in the official statement, just not as blunt.

I mean, image what is going to happen if someone runs crying to the merchant processor yelling about people using their service for CP. This is not going to be a risk any sane person will take when there is an entire website at stake; especially with how "willing" people are to investigate something like this.

You are an atrociously bad spokesperson on this matter, which is especially disconcerting given your position here and the Varka/BD general hierarchy. Multiple things you have said are self-contradicting. We'll start with this one. No, concerns over payment processors rejecting the place was not stated in the official announcement on the FN blog. One paragraph could conceivably have been meant to cover this concern, but if that is the case it was poorly written.

"Investment and future of the site is a factor, because we have made a substantial investment into building and supporting the site and its growth. In the interests of the site’s future, it’s advantageous to choose the option which would lead to the best competitive advantage in future."

This comes across as concerns over artists refusing to use the site and thus FN gets less business, NOT the scenario of Paypal and MasterCard and the like deciding to blacklist it. Further reinforcing my assertion is the general emphasis on scaring ARTISTS away. Varka wants more artists to use FN's commission payments feature, and that was the overarching theme when he described the rationale for the decision. Meaning, he saw FN and himself would get less money, thus thus was a decision based on greed rather than necessity or ethics.

Something around 4 against for every single person for cub was the last I heard.

Last you 'heard'? This is incongruent with your previous statement.

We ignored all anon/fake votes in our decision. The interface clearly shows where the votes came from, and the ones with legitimate accounts against cub still crushed the people who were for keeping it.

The bolding was added by me. You massively implied you were directly involved in tallying the votes and saw the process of determining real from fake yourself. Now you speak as if you were merely informed of this by your colleagues. Which is it?

Also, 4 to 1 is even worse than the results listed on the petition page. Considering the fact Tartii and her side mobilized and were allowed to largely ambush the other side before they could similarly mobilize and organize, and considering indications the site in general was not concerned with the matter before and was fine with a default blacklist, I assert that it is an illegitimate number whether it is 'real' or not.

Axelthefox said:
Oh? Of course i'm not sure about the laws in my state. One time i asked a lawyer,but they told me to refer to the revised statues,but the revised statues are tl:dr.

Then why in blazes are you authoritatively speaking of matters you openly admit to not researching yourself? FFS, this is how this cub porn hysteria is amplified. People who are as instudious and thoughtless as you are mistakenly informed this is illegal, and then they in a panic want it banned as well. This is utterly infuriating!

Darosne said:
Last you 'heard'? This is incongruent with your previous statement.

The bolding was added by me. You massively implied you were directly involved in tallying the votes and saw the process of determining real from fake yourself. Now you speak as if you were merely informed of this by your colleagues. Which is it?

Also, 4 to 1 is even worse than the results listed on the petition page. Considering the fact Tartii and her side mobilized and were allowed to largely ambush the other side before they could similarly mobilize and organize, and considering indications the site in general was not concerned with the matter before and was fine with a default blacklist, I assert that it is an illegitimate number whether it is 'real' or not.

"We" refers to Dragonfruit. NMNY is a part of Dragonfruit, but that doesn't mean he's involved with the tallying.
Also, the vote count being even "Worse than the listed count" means that while there were duplicate votes against, there were even more duplicate votes for allowing it.

Furrin_Gok said:
"We" refers to Dragonfruit. NMNY is a part of Dragonfruit, but that doesn't mean he's involved with the tallying.

Your definition would be consistent with his choice of words, but then he should have made that distinction clear. It sounds just like he meant he personally was involved.

Also, the vote count being even "Worse than the listed count" means that while there were duplicate votes against, there were even more duplicate votes for allowing it.

Yes, of course, I'm sure some on my side either voted once as non-FN members or deliberately cheated. My assertion the vote in general was unfair is valid. I will not believe such a resounding majority of furries on FN feel that way until the results are duplicated in a new vote which is open for at least 72 hours, preferably a week. I find that such a decision is extraordinarily unlikely, however. Thus, I will always assert this was done improperly.

To everyone who's deluded themselves into thinking cub porn should be socially acceptable, I'd like to thank this thread for making you crawl out of the woodwork.

If you'd like FurryNetwork to change their content policy, why not go directly to the merchant system owners and politely ask them to allow cub porn? I'm positive that they'll listen to reason. Head on out and ask them in person. Go on. We'll wait.

To everyone that makes comments that basically amount to "lol, you like cub porn, get outta here you pedophile", I'd like to thank myself for making you come out and show just how dense you really are. I mean it's not like there's multiple walls of text explaining why people are actually upset about this, none of which equate to "make my fetish socially acceptable", but nah, who wants to have their bias views/opinions challenged? Just point at em and insult em, I mean after all, why challenge a well put together argument when you can basically just call em a pedo and feel morally superior? Whatever helps you onto your high horse, right?

Well, the thing is that no matter how any re-vote turns out, that isn't gonna change the rules of the systems that FN's depending on. So however morally and certainly intellectually dubious KC's post is, it does kind of raise the question of : exactly what do people think it is *possible* to achieve here by continuing this discussion?

To me, it seems the most optimistic outcome would still just be that the vote is redone, it comes out however you personally think it should, and nothing changes -- just the numbers.

Knotty_Curls said:
To everyone who's deluded themselves into thinking cub porn should be socially acceptable, I'd like to thank this thread for making you crawl out of the woodwork.

you are aware that cub porn does not equate child porn, right?

you do know how to differentiate fantasy from reality, right?

seeing someone say that leads me to question these things. especially the latter of the 2.

socially acceptable...spare us the PC talk. regardless of how it affects ones emotions, art is art, and censoring any of it will likely lead to nothing good in the long run.

Darosne said:
Your definition would be consistent with his choice of words, but then he should have made that distinction clear. It sounds just like he meant he personally was involved.

Yes, of course, I'm sure some on my side either voted once as non-FN members or deliberately cheated. My assertion the vote in general was unfair is valid. I will not believe such a resounding majority of furries on FN feel that way until the results are duplicated in a new vote which is open for at least 72 hours, preferably a week. I find that such a decision is extraordinarily unlikely, however. Thus, I will always assert this was done improperly.

It's like you're ignoring all of the valid points of this: The vote was ended early because of the Merchant.
Like Knotty Curls said:

Knotty_Curls said:
If you'd like FurryNetwork to change their content policy, why not go directly to the merchant system owners and politely ask them to allow cub porn?

Unless you convince the Merchant system to allow it, FN won't do anything else.

ThatBIackGuy said:
To everyone that makes comments that basically amount to "lol, you like cub porn, get outta here you pedophile", I'd like to thank myself for making you come out and show just how dense you really are. I mean it's not like there's multiple walls of text explaining why people are actually upset about this, none of which equate to "make my fetish socially acceptable", but nah, who wants to have their bias views/opinions challenged? Just point at em and insult em, I mean after all, why challenge a well put together argument when you can basically just call em a pedo and feel morally superior? Whatever helps you onto your high horse, right?

That's how things are going on both sides of the argument xD

ThatBIackGuy said:
To everyone that makes comments that basically amount to "lol, you like cub porn, get outta here you pedophile", I'd like to thank myself for making you come out and show just how dense you really are. I mean it's not like there's multiple walls of text explaining why people are actually upset about this, none of which equate to "make my fetish socially acceptable", but nah, who wants to have their bias views/opinions challenged? Just point at em and insult em, I mean after all, why challenge a well put together argument when you can basically just call em a pedo and feel morally superior? Whatever helps you onto your high horse, right?

If you'd read past the first part of my post, you'd have seen that I've offered a solution to your problems.

Knotty_Curls said:
If you'd like FurryNetwork to change their content policy, why not go directly to the merchant system owners and politely ask them to allow cub porn?

So - and this goes for everyone here - I'm a paedo-basher? A nonintellectual, unable to distinguish reality from fantasy, pro-censorship - is that what I am now?

Even if I were any of those, I'm condescending because all I've seen here is insults to FN management rather than rhetoric that would change the merchant system's policy. Only then can one argue that there is an issue of censorship.

Quite frankly, all I see here is arguing ability roughly equal to that of someone the same age as the characters being defended.

Walls of text are nothing without substance, and ultimately your audience here is not the one in control of the situation.

Well I've read just about every single comment in this thread.

This subject is very duanting to me because I understand the ramifactions of this descison. It's only a matter of time before furry porn is banned next.

I believe someone already post this but I'll do it again

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1466A

(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

SirBrownBear said that it was more of a "only illegal until you're caught" case but is that enough?

Won't there always be people who can see cub porn and then have it be removed if they talk to the right people because it is illegal? If I'm not understanding this correctly please correct me. But I'm wondering exactly what is keeping e621 from being shut down for having cub porn?

Loli/cub isn't my fetish but It infuriates me that people actually want to put it under the same group as real life child pornography. and this is going to keep going until someone goes and at least gets that law changed for fictional characters.

and to top all that off you can be put in prison, REAL FUCKING PRISON for drawing a picture. That's fucking scary.

The_Diggler said:
I believe someone already post this but I'll do it again

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1466A

(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

I agree. What bothers me about that whole thing is Point B, "is obscene." "Obscene" isn't defined in any specific manner, so it is essentially subject to the individual interpretation of the judge/jury/whatever.

SirBrownBear said that it was more of a "only illegal until you're caught" case but is that enough?

There have been several cases in the United States where people have been charged with possession of lolicon or cub porn, and in all but one of those cases the charge was tacked onto a more serious charge, such as possession of real CP. The problem is that though loli and cub are technically legal, anything that is "obscene" is not.

But I'm wondering exactly what is keeping e621 from being shut down for having cub porn?

I would imagine the diligence of the site's moderators has plenty to do with why the site hasn't been shut down. Every submission is subject to moderator approval, so if somebody tries to upload something that definitely is illegal, it'll get taken down rather quickly.

Loli isn't my fetish but It infuriates me that people actually want to put it under the same group as real life child pornography. and this is going to keep going until someone goes and at least gets that law changed for fictional characters.

As I said before the part of the law that made such things illegal was struck down, but the problem is that new laws were made where other things could be used to stifle such media, such as the ultra-vague word "Obscene."

But even if it were spelled out to where there was no doubt at all as to the legality of drawn material, there would still be lots of people, both ordinary and in law enforcement, who would find ways to harass and otherwise punish people who draw or like stuff that is "socially unacceptable," because there are too many people out there who are either wilfully ignorant of reality or just plain against a given thing to the point that they simply don't care what the law says. And this topic is an extremely heated topic, so there are going to be a lot more such people in this whole debate than in a lot of others.

The_Diggler said:
Won't there always be people who can see cub porn and then have it be removed if they talk to the right people because it is illegal? If I'm not understanding this correctly please correct me. But I'm wondering exactly what is keeping e621 from being shut down for having cub porn?

https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us-federal-law-obscenity

In addition, Section 1466A of Title 18, United State Code, makes it illegal for any person to knowingly produce, distribute, receive, or possess with intent to transfer or distribute visual representations, such as drawings, cartoons, or paintings that appear to depict minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct and are deemed obscene. This statute offers an alternative 2-pronged test for obscenity with a lower threshold than the Miller test. The matter involving minors can be deemed obscene if it (i) depicts an image that is, or appears to be a minor engaged in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse and (ii) if the image lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. A first time offender convicted under this statute faces fines and at least 5 years to a maximum of 20 years in prison.

IMO the law is likely to be unconstitutional, but the law is likely to be untested in court, because real child pornography is the real enforcement priority. In cases where the suspect is caught with both real CP and drawn loli, they will take a plea deal, and the constitutionality of the law goes untested. It would take a case where the defendant only has fake porn and is willing and funded to fight the case in multiple courts to strike down the law, since Congress has no reason to pass a bill softening the language of the law.

http://classic.tcj.com/news/sean-michael-robinson-criminal-contexts-the-simpsons-child-pornography-case-and-its-implications/

Kutzner’s counsel, D.C. Carr, told TCJ that he and prosecutor Jim Peters discussed the implications of the statute itself in the course of the plea agreement. “We talked about the first amendment implications at length,” said Carr. “Painfully at length. This statute puts the government in places it shouldn’t be. Unfortunately, in this case, they had the leverage.”

Both the Department of Homeland Security and Immigrations and Custom Enforcement were involved in the investigation, led to Kutzner by the German Federal Police, who reported that his IP address was involved in sharing child pornography on the “eDonkey2000” network. Almost a year later DHS and ICE agents contacted Kutzner at his home, where he allowed them to search his computer. Investigators found more than 8,000 images described in the plea agreement as “Child Erotica,” or, “non nude or semi nude photographs and videos of children in sexually suggestive poses that are not themselves images of child pornography, but still fuel the sexual fantasies of pedophiles and others who have developed a sexual interest in minors.” After agreeing to the plea deal, Kutzner admitted during his court-mandated psycho-sexual evaluation to viewing “child pornography … for approximately eight years.” Although the additional images and admissions were discussed in the sentencing memorandum, they were not directly related to the statute that Kutzner pleaded guilty to violating.

Carr told TCJ that the complicated circumstances gave them a limited set of defensive options. “If this was the only charge, I would have taken this all the way. And this statute needs to be taken all the way.”

The test case has to be perfect. Having images of children, even pseudo-CP, is going to prevent a defendant from succeeding all the way to the US Supreme Court. You might as well take the plea deal and plan out how you want to live the rest of your fucked life.

Take the case of Texas vs. Jesus Castillo. In 2000 Castillo was found guilty by a Dallas, Texas jury for obscenity, i.e. selling an undercover police officer a copy of the second volume of Demon Beast Invasion, clearly marked on the cover as “Absolutely Not For Children.” Texas residents among you are invited to order Demon Beast Invasion through Amazon.com — it’s still available.

It’s this lack of a clear line that is the most insidious aspect of legal considerations of obscenity. Handley’s counsel stated it very clearly in an interview with Wired magazine: “Obscenity is the only law I’m aware of, if a client shows me a book or magazine or movie, and asks me if this image is illegal, I can’t tell them.” In the United States, obscenity is one of the few kinds of speech not sheltered by the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Current laws seem to have been passed in 2003, after that case.

Perhaps more importantly, when a “crime” involves no real people, involves feelings or thoughts rather than actions, is this a crime that the government should pursue? As Carr said, “Where is the victim? People like Jim Peters look at Steve and say, ‘We caught him just in time.’ Come on. A lot of the predators that I represent should be locked up. But we go from 0 to 60 in cases like this. Everything is a fetish. Everything is bad.”

It’s worth remembering that no children were exploited by any of these defendants. At worst, Kutzner may be guilty of harboring pedophilic desires, although there is no evidence that he ever would have acted on those desires. Kutzner is being sent to jail not for the images he possessed, but for what those images suggest about what is in his mind.

I think e621, rule34, and other sites exist because since the images aren't child pornography, other laws obligating the sites to report the material do not apply. If you upload actual CP, you will be reported to law enforcement. Don't take my word for it, it would be better for an admin should answer this question. There are a lot of laws, so I probably missed something.

Knotty_Curls said:
To everyone who's deluded themselves into thinking cub porn should be socially acceptable, I'd like to thank this thread for making you crawl out of the woodwork.

Socially acceptable... So to you, something being generally not given a fuck about on a website like e621, means socially acceptable in the great big world >outside< of e6... lol.

All these websites, inkbunny - wildcritters - veebooru - e621... they are websites dedicated to a niche audience, an audience that centers around cartoon animal porn. I really don't think we as a fandom have a reach that far outside of our little pockets of the internet, and what's "socially acceptable" here obviously might not be kosher outside... and there's way more out there than just cub stuff that would count as "fucked up" in some people's opinions. (Oh hey, remember Kuma-Kun's drawings? Wow... think about walking into a dealers den and seeing something like that, with decapitations and dick removals).

And like I said previously - it's a drawing... and a drawing doesn't make someone do something, just like a TV show, video game, movie, song or a book doesn't make someone do something... (with the exception of the Bible or the Koran - but those people can also choose to acknowledge that those are also works of fiction and maybe try >NOT< doing some of the crazy shit those books say to do)... people make their own choices, people are responsible for their own actions... and artists, musicians, authors, directors, game developers - should not be held responsible for what someone else decided to go do. If we did hold creators responsible, then no one would be able to or would want to create anything, simply for fear that some loon who can't distinguish between real and imaginary might go do something stupid and blame it on their creation.

To be honest, I don't even give a fuck about The Furry Network, never heard of it, don't know what it is, don't even care. If the owner of that doesn't want to allow "questionable material" whatever - I guess sites like FurBuy wouldn't want to either... but as for e621 itself, and the rest of the sites that aren't run by SJW-catering cucks, I'd like to hope they remain as free from moral crusading as they currently are. Every time I see someone try to flag images for being cub on this website, I laugh and take solace in the knowledge that e621 don't give a fuck and operates on the philosophy of "if you don't like it, blacklist it."

Mana_Dragon_Flammie said:
Every time I see someone try to flag images for being cub on this website, I laugh and take solace in the knowledge that e621 don't give a fuck and operates on the philosophy of "if you don't like it, blacklist it."

i'm a bit surprised that doesn't happen more often.

Mana_Dragon_Flammie said:
and a drawing doesn't make someone do something, just like a TV show, video game, movie, song or a book doesn't make someone do something... (with the exception of the Bible or the Koran)

That's funny, I don't remember ever seeing a Bible or a Koran wielding joysticks that were hard-wired to people's brains so they could force people to do stupid shit in the name of whatever god they represent. Could just be me, though. ;)

cub porn incites people to fuck kids just like furry porn incites me to fuck animals durr

I'll never visit any site that pulls this stupid shit...

If this a correct summary of what's happening? fuck i wish i could understand half the us law

You're unlikely to be tried for possession of all media depicting fictional minors unless you have actual CP, and that the law hasn't been contested because no one gets to the Supreme Court level without real CP.

XerxesI said:
You're unlikely to be tried for possession of all media depicting fictional minors unless you have actual CP, and that the law hasn't been contested because no one gets to the Supreme Court level without real CP.

Correction: no one gets to the Supreme Court level WITH real CP.

Clawdragons said:
I think characters should be banned from being depicted in sexual situations until 18 years have passed since the date of their creation. "Hold on!" I hear you say. "Isn't that a little extreme?" Aha, but you forget. These characters exist on the Internet, and, a day on the Internet is like a year outside of it. Once they're 18 it's free game.

Huh, how strange... now I am finding >myself< in disbelief that I found something >you< wrote to actually be comedic and entertaining, and quite similar to the snarky things I used to say when Fchan was having their own moral dilemma about the subject of "cub" porn... Let's make the characters have to carry ID cards. If they can't prove they are +18, then they can't participate in pornography. ^.^

Mana_Dragon_Flammie said:
"But what if it's the art being the asshole?" ~ The art isn't a person... it can't be an asshole to you, and you can't be an asshole to it - at least, I don't think. Though I will agree there should be more tolerance for humor.

Clawdragons said:
This is the first time I can remember absolutely and unambiguously agreeing with you entirely. Very well put. Very well put indeed.

Hilarious how it has broken their community apart rather then Bringing it to the "best interest of the community as a whole."

TheKvltGoat said:
Hilarious how it has broken their community apart rather then Bringing it to the "best interest of the community as a whole."

It is kind of interesting how they seem to have alienated the whole community with their policies, both those who were in favor of the cub ban and those who opposed it. I noticed some people were complaining on Twitter that Zaush's comic was allowed to stay even though the characters have a youthful appearance. And most of the Pokefurs have been scared away by the rumor that some of the Pokemon species would be considered cubs on Furry Network.

Ehh, I guess that's what happens when one half of the argument practically holds a gun to the site's head with the threat of negative publicity and forced site takedown through lies.

Anonymless said:
It is kind of interesting how they seem to have alienated the whole community with their policies, both those who were in favor of the cub ban and those who opposed it. I noticed some people were complaining on Twitter that Zaush's comic was allowed to stay even though the characters have a youthful appearance. And most of the Pokefurs have been scared away by the rumor that some of the Pokemon species would be considered cubs on Furry Network.

The comic is cub. It was stated to be a cub comic, then that was changed with a later edit. It's a massive "fuck you" to those who want to see the cub rule enforced, and he's reaping all the free publicity for it.

It's a dinosaur fossil of the fandom basically doing all it can to remain relevant.

I think the reason FN caved into the cub ban might also have something to do with business reasons besides the threat of negative publicity when an influx of artists from FA wanted to move to FN after the hacking incident but are afraid because of explicit cub.

With the ban in place, more artists move into the site and more artists equals more revenue(?) or something along those lines. I don't know, this is just my theory since I only have a vague idea of how FN operates... Still, the way how the 'anti-cub' artists enforce the new 'no explicit cub' policy is pretty 'wuss' material if you ask me, people that defend explicit cub with good points get downvoted to the nth degree regardless.

Political correctness and morals should NOT apply to drawn artwork of fictional characters (to me at least) if you consider that artwork of rape, bestiality and other morally questionable things (except cub/young) are considered okay in most of the furrydom because double standards.

it's to adhere to the merchant system's policy. that's it

I understand and respect the profit motive more than anything described in FN's official announcement, where the concern with third party merchant services was barely even hinted at. I get the feeling that Nimmy's unofficial statement in this thread may have provided insight that wasn't previously publicly available, or perhaps those dots weren't connected elsewhere? I definitely won't waste any time researching that assumption though.

Moreover, I find deliciously ironic that the revelatory post doesn't even touch on any other considerations described in FN's official statement that supposedly factored into the decision, which FN enumerated to give the public an impression of fairness, thereby implying the entire official announcement was a ruse and a smokescreen. Admittedly, my reading between the lines assumes Nimmy was giving a complete statement, which I rather doubt.

Still, FN should be taken to task for saying

Our style of decisionmaking is founded upon making well-researched, factually backed, objective decisions that are fair and considerate – and in this case, this meant soliciting and analyzing feedback over the next 24 hours, particularly from individuals who stated their case maturely and respectfully.

...

At its core, the issue at hand is that for a significant portion of our user base, underage furry characters in sexual situations (typically referred to as “Cub Porn”) was a significant ‘deal-breaker’ for being a part of Furry Network, for a number of reasons, and as such, is something we must exclude.

when the deciding factor had little to do with the community directly but was entirely profit-driven. Indirectly, the community obviously also profits from FN becoming a commission house, meaning we can't say that FN's decision was only made in its own self-interest, but that was entirely beside the point in FN's official statement so not much of argument against my accusations. It's disingenuous to even suggest that the community's feedback held weight in the decision when the profit motive ultimately trumps any (other) points the community would raise.

Knotty_Curls said:
Even if I were any of those, I'm condescending because all I've seen here is insults to FN management rather than rhetoric that would change the merchant system's policy.

Here's a suggestion:
*FN goes into business with the merchant service (in spite of the risks)
*the merchant stops providing its service because FN is outed as hosting illegal content
*FN sues the merchant service
*FN takes the case to the supreme court
*supreme court unequivocally says cub porn is not illegal
*merchant service must honor its agreement

Or Dragonfruit can just start up another company to be their own merchant service, not unlike eBay buying Paypal (another idea). Dragonfruit's commission house could be way more profitable than using a third party service since Dragonfruit could provide that service to other sites, and then FN could divest itself from such profitability concerns and focus more on being a content platform as I assume it purports to be.

But that would require having the balls to put their money where their mouth is.

On a related note, I wonder how many users and artists FA's former tolerance toward cub content actually cost them. I'm guessing not many since I doubt would-be boycotters' ability to stick to their convictions. No... don't make the counterargument--I've already thought of it... FN is in very different circumstances from FA back then (i.e., new site vs. main, established site), so a direct comparison isn't very useful.

On a personal note, I was hoping e621's "no bullshit" attitude would extend to FN since both are under the same umbrella, but that's not what I'm seeing. That FN won't be inclusive to cub porn dissuades my interest in becoming any more involved there than I am for any other furry site except e621. For the record, I care more about the management fostering a "no bullshit" environment than I do cub porn lol...

Once the legality is settled in the UK, maybe we can do this as well:

• FA/IB/SF start using the same merchant service
• the UK pressures service providers to drop them as porn sites without age verification
• All the above sue the UK for legislating to their detriment via investor-state dispute settlement
• Profit!

Of course, in theory the UK is leaving the EU, but that just means it's more likely to make trade deals with the USA.

I think alot of these anti-cub and SJW's need to be slapped. If I ran my own furry porn site I would allow cub and if anyone bitched and whined about it I would whack them for it. First off the whole "cub porn promotes pedophilia" argument is a load of bullshit and deep down they know it too. Also explain something if cub porn is so frowned upon then why is gore,snuff,blood,scat,and feral allowed it's a double standard that needs to stop. Another thing why does alot of hentai and western rule34 sites allow Loli/shota and they're more human than cub.
I mean good luck changing my mind about this because it's down right retarded.

AlexHusky112 said:
I think alot of these anti-cub and SJW's need to be slapped. If I ran my own furry porn site I would allow cub and if anyone bitched and whined about it I would whack them for it. First off the whole "cub porn promotes pedophilia" argument is a load of bullshit and deep down they know it too. Also explain something if cub porn is so frowned upon then why is gore,snuff,blood,scat,and feral allowed it's a double standard that needs to stop. Another thing why does alot of hentai and western rule34 sites allow Loli/shota and they're more human than cub.
I mean good luck changing my mind about this because it's down right retarded.

this is why you don't run a business.

AlexHusky112 said:
Another thing why does alot of hentai and western rule34 sites allow Loli/shota and they're more human than cub.

If you are referring to sites like Danbooru, it's because they're human-centric sites that don't allow any furry content that they don't deem japanese enough.

Knotty_Curls said:
this is why you don't run a business.

Well I wouldn't make an entire community suffer for what some SJW or troll said.

It's a double standard and it's sad how the anti-cub and SJW's make the administrators of furry sites their bitch.

AlexHusky112 said:
Well I wouldn't make an entire community suffer for what some SJW or troll said.

It's a double standard and it's sad how the anti-cub and SJW's make the administrators of furry sites their bitch.

forum #195122

"You guys completely miss the point of the "business" part of the decision. Furry Network wants to earn money by offering a commission service through a merchant that gives otherwise non-existent securities to both the commissioner and the artist. With this simple truth out of the way the issue becomes rather clear: how many merchants would allow their service to be used to create art that resembles child pornography in front of an actual judge?

It's completely irrelevant what any one of us feels about the thematic because most of the judges don't give a fuck, thus it had to go. It would have taken one person to whine to the merchant about FN peddling CP through their service and the thing would have been shut down faster than a reactor in case of an earthquake."

This is going to sound rude no matter how I word it: don't just read the title and half of the first post before deciding what your opinion on a matter is. Learn the whole situation.

Knotty Curls, you have been on fire recently.

Clawdragons said:
Knotty Curls, you have been on fire recently.

Sometimes, internet needs its heroes. And sometimes, they come in the form of burd.

Knotty_Curls said:
forum #195122

"You guys completely miss the point of the "business" part of the decision. Furry Network wants to earn money by offering a commission service through a merchant that gives otherwise non-existent securities to both the commissioner and the artist. With this simple truth out of the way the issue becomes rather clear: how many merchants would allow their service to be used to create art that resembles child pornography in front of an actual judge?

It's completely irrelevant what any one of us feels about the thematic because most of the judges don't give a fuck, thus it had to go. It would have taken one person to whine to the merchant about FN peddling CP through their service and the thing would have been shut down faster than a reactor in case of an earthquake."

This is going to sound rude no matter how I word it: don't just read the title and half of the first post before deciding what your opinion on a matter is. Learn the whole situation.

Ok fine but I'm pretty sure that furry network allows gore and snuff. Second of all if that's the case that furry network would get shut down faster than a nuclear reactor if it allowed cub then how come inkbunnk has been around since 2010? They have widespread commissions and auctions that 70% of the time is cub. Furthermore I wasn't just talking about furry network it's most of the fandom as a whole. Basically with the logic that most sites have about cub then gore and snuff fans are serial killers IRL, scat fans have hepatitis from eating shit IRL. Feral fans are zoophile's IRL. What's also stupid is that hentai makes a huge amount of money on commissions and most of it is Loli/Shota. Even western sites that promotes Loli/Shota make alot on commissions and nobody complains. I honestly think the "it hurts business" is just an excuse to ban cub and save face.

AlexHusky112 said:
Second of all if that's the case that furry network would get shut down faster than a nuclear reactor if it allowed cub then how come inkbunnk has been around since 2010? They have widespread commissions and auctions that 70% of the time is cub.

Different site, different rules.

This is a very long thread that has allowed many many tangents and half-thought-out exclamations to confuse the issue.

THE BASICS OF CP VS. CUB ART

WHY PEOPLE HATE THE SHIT ANYWAY

U.S. LAW AND CHILD PORNOGRAPHY

BEYOND THE LAW

FibS said:
This is a very long thread that has allowed many many tangents and half-thought-out exclamations to confuse the issue.

THE BASICS OF CP VS. CUB ART

An actual child in real life - as well as some adults - is either not psychologically prepared for or is actively terrified of sexual contact. They can either be forcibly raped or coerced into sex by a psychosocial dominant figure, both of which are sickly acts.

Children are furthermore anatomically underdeveloped and generally of small scale, meaning they're much more likely to be physically injured by sex.

Most people known to sexually pursue children in real life are indeed abusive of these children and the case has indeed resulted in gross lasting trauma to the child and future adult.

It is not "sex with children" that is wrong, it is manipulation and abuse of someone who is naive, vulnerable, and/or terrified. This includes select adults.

We cannot in good conscience stop and think over every single instance of child sexuality to determine whether the individual child is one of the 0.0001% who is not all of those three things AND whether their partner is one of the 0.0001% who is not an abuser - this will in practice never happen - and thus we must presume it is abusive in all real life circumstances because that will almost always be correct.

But this does not apply to fiction, which is not bound to any statistics, mechanics, or patterns of the world of reality.

In fiction we very well can have neomorphic characters who are not harmed by sex (at least not any more than an average mature adult would be) and are therefore fair game. Characters who are "older than they appear" are almost always clearly psychologically developed and it isn't at all a stretch to presume they may be sexually developed as well. They are adults in everything but their most superficial appearance.

Even if they were harmed by sex, it would not matter because they are fictional characters. Similarly, we may freely portray violence, murder, gore, psychological torture, etc. in fictional media because there is no victim and if there is no victim there can be no crime.

And no, being uncomfortable with a concept does not make you a victim.

WHY PEOPLE HATE THE SHIT ANYWAY

Ironically, because they are babies.

• Small children are not able to discern anything beyond the superficial. If you show a young child an abstract drawing of an animal, he/she will pick the closest animal they already know and adamantly state that the drawing is of that exact animal. Subsequently, whatever they expect to be traits of that animal will be irrevocably assigned to the creature in the drawing as well. In short, "The closest thing to x I understand is y, therefore x is y".
• Small children also think that everything in the world is divided into two teams: the good guys and the bad guys. Everyone who likes what they like is a good guy and anyone who isn't clearly a good guy must be a bad guy.

Immature adults are no different. Despite the REASONS THE FUCK WHY sex with real children is virtually always an abusive and sickly, anti-cubs do not and cannot comprehend them, instead presuming that everything that looks enough like a child literally is a child no tag-backs and therefore automatically off-limits end of discussion.

To even consider otherwise would mean they were not on the GOOD GUY team which would instantly make them BAD GUYS. This means they will go out of their way to stretch what constitutes a child in order to avoid bad guy-ness as much as possible.

These mechanics are also responsible for:

• "Furry is the same as zoophilia"
• "Natural is good and artificial is bad" / "Vaccines give u autism!!"
• "Um wow furry artist try being ~anatomically correct~ where's the [udder / cloaca / etc.]"

U.S. LAW AND CHILD PORNOGRAPHY

After many back-and-forths and panics, U.S. law can be summarized by the furry community as: "Furries do not count as people so the law doesn't give a shit."

While U.S. law makes multiple references to minors, a minor must be a human being, therefore CP laws do not apply to furry artwork. This is why some furry communities allow furry cub art but not human "loli" et al and related to why Inkbunny does not allow erotic human content of any kind.

However, laws against zoophilia may be extended to furry depending on how crotchety, old, and Christian the judge & jury are.

BEYOND THE LAW

There is a far more powerful force in society than law - tradition. Traditions are, effectively, laws that aren't written down and have no formal punishment, because neither is needed.

Some cultures are more open to exposing children to sex, alcohol, etc. than others are, such as Japan. Most of these cultures have been this way for generations, possibly hundreds of years.

But the United States has not. It's dropped rapidly down a slippery slope of oppression and inquisition, no doubt related to its dense concentration of extremist Christians.

All businesses that rely on a sufficiently large chunk of the public must honor those traditions or else they are - you guessed it - BAD GUYS, which usually means they will be out of business within months.

Bad Dragon already targets pervs as it is, so e621 is more or less completely unaffected by deviant content - but any site relying on more mainstream funding will be whimsy to society's infantile demands, because their benefactors are.

It really doesn't matter what the law says. The people fear what they don't understand and seek to destroy it, with or without it.

You are a genius and a hero, good sir.

Yes, excellent post. Only critique I would make is that 'virtually always an abusive and sickly,' seems to be missing a word before the comma ("practice" or "behaviour" maybe?), which makes that sentence read oddly.

(personally I would consider both dot points of WHY PEOPLE HATE THAT SHIT ANYWAY as being the same thing, an inability or unwillingness to understand that the actual world is immeasurably more messy and complicated than their model of the world is. But I can see why you wrote them out separately.)

I wish I could talk fancy with law and order like all of you guys, but I'm not exactly at that level. But what I do understand that is that there are people who want to take our freedoms away, and they actually seem to have the ability to do it. And that actually scares me. If cub porn is banned from e621, then I will have given up on this community, because I think this is the only site that actually gives a shit about our freedoms. I praise it for that. Thanks, Notmenotyou, and everyone else who works to keep this site free from ignorant people.

savageorange said:
Yes, excellent post. Only critique I would make is that 'virtually always an abusive and sickly,' seems to be missing a word before the comma ("practice" or "behaviour" maybe?), which makes that sentence read oddly.

When I write, I frequently jostle sentence structure around, sometimes causing vestigial articles or conjunctions to remain.

I would have corrected this, but my edit time expired before I noticed it. : ( EDIT: There is no edit time limit, I am blind, fixed

Doing a bit more research, it seems that fictional underage erotica under U.S. law currently maintains the same "free speech unless obscene" protection as other expression, with the exception of fictional images / animations that are indistinguishable from photographs / videos.

In 2005 Dwight Worley was convicted because he had a Japanese manga about raping little girls that I will presume given my experience with Japanese porn was supremely obscene.

FibS said:
When I write, I frequently jostle sentence structure around, sometimes causing vestigial articles or conjunctions to remain.

Conjunction dysfunction

HypnoBitch said:
I wish I could talk fancy with law and order like all of you guys, but I'm not exactly at that level. But what I do understand that is that there are people who want to take our freedoms away, and they actually seem to have the ability to do it. And that actually scares me. If cub porn is banned from e621, then I will have given up on this community, because I think this is the only site that actually gives a shit about our freedoms.

Looking at cub on e621 is a privilege rather than a freedom.

Unless you are using some kind of decentralized and uncensorable image swapping service, or run a centralized booru or image host yourself, you are at risk of having content you like removed.

If your ability to draw, host, distribute, discuss, or think about cub was made illegal, then that is your freedom being taken away.

If your ability to access e621 was restricted, as it has been in at least one country, that might be considered your freedom being taken away.

FibS said:

This is a very long thread that has allowed many many tangents and half-thought-out exclamations to confuse the issue.

THE BASICS OF CP VS. CUB ART

An actual child in real life - as well as some adults - is either not psychologically prepared for or is actively terrified of sexual contact. They can either be forcibly raped or coerced into sex by a psychosocial dominant figure, both of which are sickly acts.

Children are furthermore anatomically underdeveloped and generally of small scale, meaning they're much more likely to be physically injured by sex.

Most people known to sexually pursue children in real life are indeed abusive of these children and the case has indeed resulted in gross lasting trauma to the child and future adult.

It is not "sex with children" that is wrong, it is manipulation and abuse of someone who is naive, vulnerable, and/or terrified. This includes select adults.

We cannot in good conscience stop and think over every single instance of child sexuality to determine whether the individual child is one of the 0.0001% who is not all of those three things AND whether their partner is one of the 0.0001% who is not an abuser - this will in practice never happen - and thus we must presume it is abusive in all real life circumstances because that will almost always be correct.

But this does not apply to fiction, which is not bound to any statistics, mechanics, or patterns of the world of reality.

In fiction we very well can have neomorphic characters who are not harmed by sex (at least not any more than an average mature adult would be) and are therefore fair game. Characters who are "older than they appear" are almost always clearly psychologically developed and it isn't at all a stretch to presume they may be sexually developed as well. They are adults in everything but their most superficial appearance.

Even if they were harmed by sex, it would not matter because they are fictional characters. Similarly, we may freely portray violence, murder, gore, psychological torture, etc. in fictional media because there is no victim and if there is no victim there can be no crime.

And no, being uncomfortable with a concept does not make you a victim.

WHY PEOPLE HATE THE SHIT ANYWAY

Ironically, because they are babies.

• Small children are not able to discern anything beyond the superficial. If you show a young child an abstract drawing of an animal, he/she will pick the closest animal they already know and adamantly state that the drawing is of that exact animal. Subsequently, whatever they expect to be traits of that animal will be irrevocably assigned to the creature in the drawing as well. In short, "The closest thing to x I understand is y, therefore x is y".
• Small children also think that everything in the world is divided into two teams: the good guys and the bad guys. Everyone who likes what they like is a good guy and anyone who isn't clearly a good guy must be a bad guy.

Immature adults are no different. Despite the REASONS THE FUCK WHY sex with real children is virtually always abusive and sickly, anti-cubs do not and cannot comprehend them, instead presuming that everything that looks enough like a child literally is a child no tag-backs and therefore automatically off-limits end of discussion.

To even consider otherwise would mean they were not on the GOOD GUY team which would instantly make them BAD GUYS. This means they will go out of their way to stretch what constitutes a child in order to avoid bad guy-ness as much as possible.

These mechanics are also responsible for:

• "Furry is the same as zoophilia"
• "Natural is good and artificial is bad" / "Vaccines give u autism!!"
• "Um wow furry artist try being ~anatomically correct~ where's the [udder / cloaca / etc.]"

U.S. LAW AND CHILD PORNOGRAPHY

After many back-and-forths and panics, U.S. law can be summarized by the furry community as: "Furries do not count as people so the law doesn't give a shit."

While U.S. law makes multiple references to minors, a minor must be a human being, therefore CP laws do not apply to furry artwork. This is why some furry communities allow furry cub art but not human "loli" et al and related to why Inkbunny does not allow erotic human content of any kind.

However, laws against zoophilia may be extended to furry depending on how crotchety, old, and Christian the judge & jury are.

BEYOND THE LAW

There is a far more powerful force in society than law - tradition. Traditions are, effectively, laws that aren't written down and have no formal punishment, because neither is needed.

Some cultures are more open to exposing children to sex, alcohol, etc. than others are, such as Japan. Most of these cultures have been this way for generations, possibly hundreds of years.

But the United States has not. It's dropped rapidly down a slippery slope of oppression and inquisition, no doubt related to its dense concentration of extremist Christians.

All businesses that rely on a sufficiently large chunk of the public must honor those traditions or else they are - you guessed it - BAD GUYS, which usually means they will be out of business within months.

Bad Dragon already targets pervs as it is, so e621 is more or less completely unaffected by deviant content - but any site relying on more mainstream funding will be whimsy to society's infantile demands, because their benefactors are.

It really doesn't matter what the law says. The people fear what they don't understand and seek to destroy it, with or without it.

have this +1 for an excellent explanation of that topic. :)

"WHY PEOPLE HATE THE SHIT ANYWAY"

i remember an artist on deviantart getting some flak for this kind of art (well, porn but...meh, art is art) a while back. all throughout the comments on his journals you could see the sheep arguing that fictional CP (cub porn) was equally as bad as irl CP. some even going so far as to try and make it into a legal issue which as you pointed out, it isn't. that whole side of the argument seems nothing short of stupid to me.

though what you said would explain their seeming inability to differentiate fiction from reality in the case of cub porn.

Yeah, I'd like to continue and clarify that just because people should be able to draw pretty much whatever they want doesn't mean that art hosting sites should be forced to allow it on their servers.

e621 chooses to allow a wide range of erotic work, but in the overwhelming majority of circumstances they would have the right to refuse arbitrary content for any or no reason.

Of course, they would still have to consider the effect that blocking x content would have on their PR.

AlexHusky112 said:
I think alot of these anti-cub and SJW's need to be slapped. If I ran my own furry porn site I would allow cub and if anyone bitched and whined about it I would whack them for it. First off the whole "cub porn promotes pedophilia" argument is a load of bullshit and deep down they know it too. Also explain something if cub porn is so frowned upon then why is gore,snuff,blood,scat,and feral allowed it's a double standard that needs to stop. Another thing why does alot of hentai and western rule34 sites allow Loli/shota and they're more human than cub.
I mean good luck changing my mind about this because it's down right retarded.

There's an ongoing belief that child porn can be used by pedophiles to condition children into thinking sex with an adult is ok. Thus preying on them.

Children are highly impressionable which is why, while we don't ban gore we still keep it from minors.

And if you cry about what a privately owned site disallows, you're entitled as fuck.