http://e621.net/post/show/322783/2013-balloon-blush-child-cub-female-friendship_is_

I am sorry, I understand that there is something called loli, but usually it is a child looking character with some furry features, but this....

If it wasn't for the new tagging admendment, this would not even be tagged MLP, it would literally just be a child...

I really do not want to see this on the site. Before someone chimes in with *blacklist it*, I really think it should not be allowed at all.

Blacklist it.

Blacklist it.

Renard_Queenston said:
Blacklist it.

Wow... glad to know people actually read these posts....

Especially admins....

_Waffles_ said:
Wow... glad to know people actually read these posts....

Especially admins....

I read the post, I just felt like saying it because you said not to.

Heh there has been a flood of humanized ponies. expected after the rule tweak I guess =/

CamKitty said:
Heh there has been a flood of humanized ponies. expected after the rule tweak I guess =/

And we shouldn't be approving NEARLY as many of these as we are. I informed some of the most active admins of this a few days ago but I'll be reminding everyone this time just to be sure. Humanized ponies should not be getting automatic approval just because they're MLP related; there are a LOT of humanized MLP pics that have been approved recently that I don't agree with.

There is a fine line between Cub Porn and CP,

Mario583 said:
There is a fine line between Cub Porn and CP,

Yes, I understand that, but a lot of these (look up "child") are way too damn close to that line.

_Waffles_ said:
Wow... glad to know people actually read these posts....

Especially admins....

I read the post, I just felt like saying it because you said not to.

Aurali, are you a parrot now?

post #56983

:D

_Waffles_ said:
Yes, I understand that, but a lot of these (look up "child") are way too damn close to that line.

The line is easy to find.
It's right between drawings and reality.

Hammie said:
The line is easy to find.
It's right between drawings and reality.

This.

If people still can't tell the difference, I hope no furry has a pet . . .

Renard_Queenston said:
Aurali, are you a parrot now?

Naw, was just fun to say at the time

I'm going to add to the choir and say "blacklist it". Yes, yes, I read your post, and the rest of the thread. The blacklist is powerful, and exactly intended for shielding your precious little eyes from the evils of the world that you can't deal with. Use it.

teh SSDs are clogged

I'm not seeing the problem. If you don't want to see it, blacklist it (yes I read your post too) If you feel that e6 shouldn't host the content, that's debatable. We host a lot of content that isn't furry or anthropomorphic; thus the tag "not_furry" This is no different and while I agree that we probably shouldn't approve as much of it I still stand by approving the ones that our users would enjoy, are high quality drawings and are interesting.

Rainbow_Dash said:
I still stand by approving the ones that our users would enjoy, are high quality drawings and are interesting.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

post #321200

Okay.

Um... yeah, there's a very clear difference between actual child porn and pornographic artwork depicting underaged characters. With actual child porn, a real child is exploited and emotionally scarred for the profit and... "satisfaction" of others. With pornographic artwork of underaged characters... unless they're using a child as a model to base their artwork off of, no child is harmed, exploited, abused, raped, etc., so there's not really any harm in it.

Oh, and I seem to recall the Supreme Court of some country(the US? I dunno) ruling that loli porn(i.e. pornographic artwork of underaged characters) counts as artwork and is therefore protected under freedom of speech or something. Someone correct me on that if I'm wrong though.

So yeah, if you don't like it, blacklist it.

Then again, in some countries drawn child porn is illegal. Because won't someone think of the imaginary children?

But that's solvable by blacklisting. If you, or your legal system, are not cool with explicit images of underage characters, blacklist "young rating:e" (and on a separate line, "young rating:q" to be safe). Problem fucking solved.

Test-Subject_217601 said:
Oh, and I seem to recall the Supreme Court of some country(the US? I dunno) ruling that loli porn(i.e. pornographic artwork of underaged characters) counts as artwork and is therefore protected under freedom of speech or something. Someone correct me on that if I'm wrong though.

Sorry to bump for a tangent, but: Other countries' courts are sometimes not so "understanding", so I'd just like to remind folks that proper tagging of these things *is* important so that the blacklist *can* work.

The community here does a pretty good job, but since law was mentioned, it's worth remembering that there are other countries with very different ones. Also, folks in those countries can have very different perspectives on whether depictions of underaged characters are appropriate material.

To circle back toward the topic, I don't fault folks for their opinions, but if they find the material offensive or dangerous then they should blacklist it.

Edit: Doh, ninja'd by Snowy, who made my point with much more brevity than I did.

Test-Subject_217601 said:
Um... yeah, there's a very clear difference between actual child porn and pornographic artwork depicting underaged characters. With actual child porn, a real child is exploited and emotionally scarred for the profit and... "satisfaction" of others. With pornographic artwork of underaged characters... unless they're using a child as a model to base their artwork off of, no child is harmed, exploited, abused, raped, etc., so there's not really any harm in it.

Oh, and I seem to recall the Supreme Court of some country(the US? I dunno) ruling that loli porn(i.e. pornographic artwork of underaged characters) counts as artwork and is therefore protected under freedom of speech or something. Someone correct me on that if I'm wrong though.

So yeah, if you don't like it, blacklist it.

US Supreme Court has actually ruled that more than once.
And will again in the future.

Test-Subject_217601 said:
Um... yeah, there's a very clear difference between actual child porn and pornographic artwork depicting underaged characters. With actual child porn, a real child is exploited and emotionally scarred for the profit and... "satisfaction" of others. With pornographic artwork of underaged characters... unless they're using a child as a model to base their artwork off of, no child is harmed, exploited, abused, raped, etc., so there's not really any harm in it.

Oh, and I seem to recall the Supreme Court of some country(the US? I dunno) ruling that loli porn(i.e. pornographic artwork of underaged characters) counts as artwork and is therefore protected under freedom of speech or something. Someone correct me on that if I'm wrong though.

So yeah, if you don't like it, blacklist it.

Uhh...

The current law continues to be found partly unconstitutional every time it heads to an appeals court, if the Supreme Court would actually review it they would strike the whole thing down.
Which is exactly why they won't review any of the cases, so they don't have to.

Edit: The simple fact is that the US constitution protects all forms of speech as long as they don't do any harm to another individual/group.
Drawn images have been considered protected speech for a very long time.
Lolicon does no harm to anyone(unless it's a drawing of an actual act which is definitely illegal and should be).
Therefor Lolicon is protected speech, no matter how much people think it shouldn't be.

The Supreme Court continues to not review any of the cases, therefore people still go to prison for it.

Therefore we should be damn careful and ensure that all young images are tagged as such, so that people can properly blacklist.

Hammie said:
The current law continues to be found partly unconstitutional every time it heads to an appeals court, if the Supreme Court would actually review it they would strike the whole thing down.
Which is exactly why they won't review any of the cases, so they don't have to.

Edit: The simple fact is that the US constitution protects all forms of speech as long as they don't do any harm to another individual/group.
Drawn images have been considered protected speech for a very long time.
Lolicon does no harm to anyone(unless it's a drawing of an actual act which is definitely illegal and should be).
Therefor Lolicon is protected speech, no matter how much people think it shouldn't be.

But there are obscenity laws. Even if lolicon is legal, people can still find any form of sex with any kind of child obscene, whether fictional or not, and a conviction will follow.

I really hope people understand drawing and real child are not the same....

Dogenzaka said:
But there are obscenity laws. Even if lolicon is legal, people can still find any form of sex with any kind of child obscene, whether fictional or not, and a conviction will follow.

Some obscenity laws have been ruled unconstitutional as well.
For basically the same reason.

tfkcex said:
I really hope people understand drawing and real child are not the same....

Well, you're welcome to hope that.

tfkcex said:
I really hope people understand drawing and real child are not the same....

This is Earth. do you really think that the inhabitants are that smart?

Look, this kind of stuff is illegal in a lot of different places. With furry loli, most people can get away with it for it has some kind of furry aspect to it.

With some of the images I brought up, there is nothing. No one from an oustside source is going to care if a drawn human child has the same hair color of a MLP character.

I remember a couple years ago that this site nearly went away due to this kind of stuff. I dont want to see this happen, nor can I imagine any admin wanting it either.

Like Char said: We dont need to accept every image into e621.net just because it has some MLP correlation.

_Waffles_ said:
Look, this kind of stuff is illegal in a lot of different places.

Where?

Dogenzaka said:
This is Earth. Do you really think that the inhabitants are smart?

Fixed for accuracy

Oh come on. . .

Just blacklist it and shush.

You don't have to go on a crusade.

Dominion said:
You don't have to go on a crusade.

Actually, for this kinda stuff, people seem to want to. it's weird.

Munkelzahn said:
Where?

Well, according to Wikipedia, possession, creation, and/or distribution of pornography depicting minors (even cartoon ones) is illegal in the following countries:

• Australia (certain provinces only)
• Brazil (untested)
• Canada
• Netherlands
• New Zealand
• Norway (untested)
• South Africa
• Sweden
• United Kingdom

Edit: I can also specifically recall reading about a furry artists in Australia who was imprisoned under their CP laws because an otherwise adult anthropomorphic character was depicted with a birthday cake that had only 13 candles. That province is serious about their CP laws. Sadly, I was unable to Google up the reference.

There was actually a story on BrandX the other day about a guy in New Zealand who is going to jail over images of pixies and faeries that were judged to be "underaged"

Most, if not all of those countries would have the same legal problems with cub art as they do with lolicon.

That being said, I do agree that it should all be properly tagged so that people can easily, and accurately blacklist it.

Yup. Wikipedia mentioned the case, and links to an Ars Technica article about it.

Ugh, hate that they argue that art makes people move toward real child porn.

Studies have actually shown that availability of fantasy(i.e. not real children) pornography that looks young helps reduce the incidence of sexual offenses against children.
Not to mention that by making it legally the same you remove the negative legal impact of actually making the change to real child porn.

The incidence rate of molestation in Japan where lolicon is particularly prevalent is one of the lowest of any country.

Protip: Illegalizing lolicon increases the danger to children.

Hammie said:
Ugh, hate that they argue that art makes people move toward real child porn.

Studies have actually shown that availability of fantasy(i.e. not real children) pornography that looks young helps reduce the incidence of sexual offenses against children.
Not to mention that by making it legally the same you remove the negative legal impact of actually making the change to real child porn.

The incidence rate of molestation in Japan where lolicon is particularly prevalent is one of the lowest of any country.

Protip: Illegalizing lolicon increases the danger to children.

It's like the forbidden fruit.

The more it's disallowed the more you want it.

My question is why you'd try and defend this sort of thing.
I just passively dismiss it; "Glass Houses" rule sort of applies here.

"Don't go on a crusade against it," someone in this thread says.
Well, don't go on a crusade for it. Just leave it alone - do as Dominion said, blacklist it and be done with it, or do whatever it is you do if you're for it.

what image

ippiki_ookami said:
what image

Oh snap.

ippiki_ookami said:
what image

This is by no means a crusade, but why was this one deleted? Would this deletion validate or mark the other "sister" images of full-human mlp under the tag of "young"?

_Waffles_ said:
This is by no means a crusade, but why was this one deleted? Would this deletion validate or mark the other "sister" images of full-human mlp under the tag of "young"?

I guess it's because not furry images can be always removed for any reason.

And I know I'm not original, but if underage humans images disturbs you, or government of your country, then blacklist young tag. We're certainly not banning images because imaginary characters are having sex or are naked. It's what FA do. And FA sucks.

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
It's what FA do. And FA sucks.

So?

The world's greatest fool may say the Sun is shining, but that doesn't make it dark out.