watsit said:
Do you know they didn't?
A lawyer won't generally tell you "Yes" or "No", but will douse it with plenty of "maybe"s, "probably"s, "it depends", etc. It becomes a matter of risk and probability. And if law enforcement decides to take action to get the site shut down and bring people to court over that stuff being hosted here, I doubt you telling them "I do not see any reason why it should matter." is going to convince them to drop the case.

I'm not talking about porn created by minors, I'm talking about safe images created by minors.

visionsinfire said:
I'm not talking about porn created by minors, I'm talking about safe images created by minors.

Distinguishing what could be legally okay from what's not is not simple, especially if you want it codified in the rules to avoid appearing arbitrary (since it would be based on what the law might consider porn, not what the site would rate non-safe). It would also put a risk on the moderator who knowingly approves art created by a minor, as it can then turn on whether they "should have known" (legally speaking) it crossed the line or not.

Just scrolling through rating:s shows a good number of borderline cases, sure it might be safe by the site's standards, but a lot of it is still going to be hard to justify hosting if it was drawn by a minor. Sure, it's a shame to lose a good selection of art, but most artists aren't under 18 for long but you're realistically only losing a handful of years at the start of their career.

Being cautious is much better than the rules by the nutcases at FA where 13-year-olds can legally sign up and upload all sorts of fetish content all within their rules.

visionsinfire said:
I see the utter laziness of the moderators is making its way into the rules again.
"We can't be bothered to get off our ass and decide things on a case-by-case basis so all of it gets banned"

That's not the lazy route, it's the smart route. You're free to try and read up on the laws we deal with yourself. There is a LOT of red tape around the entire subject of hosting works created by minors and how some courts interpret these works based on when they were made, not just whether that person is still a minor or not.
This gets even more convoluted with suggestive works and what your theoretical max-puritan judge would consider obscene once you add "animals" giving fuck-me eyes to the viewer.
We operate a free service, we don't take commissions, we have no paid subscriptions, we're not going to be able to hire a full-time team of lawyers to make a judgement call on every piece that lands on the border of acceptability.

visionsinfire said:
As long as the content isn't uploaded by minors I do not see any reason why the age of the person who created it should matter.
And as far as I'm concerned this has even less relevance if the person who created it is no longer a minor.

"Dude trust me bro" really isn't going to help make your point.

notmenotyou said:
That's not the lazy route, it's the smart route. You're free to try and read up on the laws we deal with yourself. There is a LOT of red tape around the entire subject of hosting works created by minors and how some courts interpret these works based on when they were made, not just whether that person is still a minor or not.
This gets even more convoluted with suggestive works and what your theoretical max-puritan judge would consider obscene once you add "animals" giving fuck-me eyes to the viewer.
We operate a free service, we don't take commissions, we have no paid subscriptions, we're not going to be able to hire a full-time team of lawyers to make a judgement call on every piece that lands on the border of acceptability.

You keep citing your reasoning as being due to legal grey areas, yet you still seem more than happy to host nearly 150k cub images.
Pretty sure that's in a fairly grey area legally as well, what would you think a "Max-puritan judge" would think of what could potentially be called fictional child porn?

visionsinfire said:
You keep citing your reasoning as being due to legal grey areas, yet you still seem more than happy to host nearly 150k cub images.
Pretty sure that's in a fairly grey area legally as well, what would you think a "Max-puritan judge" would think of what could potentially be called fictional child porn?

It won't be called that because the law is surprisingly clear (for once) on what is child porn and what isn't, and cub artwork doesn't fall under that. It could fall under the general obscenity laws but that already covers everything else we host so it's whatever at that point.
There are exceptions, as always, and cub porn could fall under CP but that requires special circumstances like the piece being traced from actual CSAM or depicting a real minor in a pornographic context.

We put a lot of thought into what we do and the risks we're willing to take, but that particular subject isn't worth the time we would have to invest to get any other conclusion than to just nuke it to be safe.

visionsinfire said:
You keep citing your reasoning as being due to legal grey areas, yet you still seem more than happy to host nearly 150k cub images.
Pretty sure that's in a fairly grey area legally as well, what would you think a "Max-puritan judge" would think of what could potentially be called fictional child porn?

E621 is hosted in the United States which makes a relatively clear division between fiction and reality. If it were hosted in, say, the United Kingdom, then there'd be an issue.

notmenotyou said:
Greetings!

Yet another CoC update for you all to enjoy, though this time it's a lot more incremental than the last one. Without further ado here's the general changes.

As always we welcome all feedback.

Is there any ruling on people repeatedly uploading images without tags for things that are on the blacklist for unlogged users, I have had to add underaged and feral tags to hundreds of posts with only a handful of users being the ones to upload it and think there should be a punitive action against someone that ignores or refuses to add tags for extreme paraphilia on any of their uploads

ambrosehyena said:
Is there any ruling on people repeatedly uploading images without tags for things that are on the blacklist for unlogged users, I have had to add underaged and feral tags to hundreds of posts with only a handful of users being the ones to upload it and think there should be a punitive action against someone that ignores or refuses to add tags for extreme paraphilia on any of their uploads

Yes, report them. Users have even been banned in the past for refusing to tag the hard fetishes on their posts.

notmenotyou said:
Greetings!

Yet another CoC update for you all to enjoy, though this time it's a lot more incremental than the last one. Without further ado here's the general changes.

As always we welcome all feedback.

Follow swiftly with disallowing content that's has been widely regarded as extremely immoral. Any attempt to defend it, will be taken as an admission.

feuercorvin said:
Follow swiftly with disallowing content that's has been widely regarded as extremely immoral. Any attempt to defend it, will be taken as an admission.

Fiction is fiction, art is art; you've already been told to use your blacklist.

juansanchez said:
I'm fully in support of having as many cases of what is essentially child porn (by method of it being porn created by a child) removed from the site as possible.

I don't get why this would be a contentious rule.

Does this include sfw work?

stavinair_caeruleum said:
Does this include sfw work?

why are you bringing this discussion back up? it's been months? and, if I remember correctly, the admins have already discussed their reasoning at some point in this theead.

but, uhh yeah. for consistency I think it'd make sense, as well as it being best to avoid toeing any lines. it's easier to just say "if it was made by a minor it's a no-go" than to try to make exceptions and draw more, potentially blurrier, lines.

juansanchez said:
why are you bringing this discussion back up? it's been months? and, if I remember correctly, the admins have already discussed their reasoning at some point in this theead.

but, uhh yeah. for consistency I think it'd make sense, as well as it being best to avoid toeing any lines. it's easier to just say "if it was made by a minor it's a no-go" than to try to make exceptions and draw more, potentially blurrier, lines.

So I take it SFW made by an artist who was a minor at the time of the art completion ain't allowed?

stavinair_caeruleum said:
So I take it SFW made by an artist who was a minor at the time of the art completion ain't allowed?

Yes, that is what has been said dozens of times already.

stavinair_caeruleum said:
So I take it SFW made by an artist who was a minor at the time of the art completion ain't allowed?

Here is a flowchart:

[Any art made by minor] → [Don't upload]

I hope this helps clear things up.

I think the changes specifying that no attraction to real life minors or animals is a good one. Ambiguity in that regard is problematic to say the least. I have a question though, where there any changes to the wording of any of these clauses apart from this one, when the rules where split into two different sections?
Thanks for your time,
- Chord
Edit: sorry I didn't see how old this forum post was when I opened it. I'm not on here often. All in all good changes 👍

Sorry, found the answer to this one too, apologies for the inconvenience 😅.

*