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 😅.

*

notmenotyou said:
While not directly an update to the Code of Conduct we have also raised the amount of versions for bases we allow to 10 versions total.

This includes the "base" version, so one base and 9 extra version for a total of 10 variants.

what is a base?

3ducksinatrenchcoat said:
what is a base?

A base refers to the original artwork that all subsequent variations/alts are based out of (e.g., clothed base/underwear alt/naked alt, clean base/wet alt/messy alt, multislot YCHs, etc.).

somerandomvoir said:
Well firstly, misgendering doesn't only apply to trans it can be applied to anyone, secondly, this is a website that takes it's tagging very seriously and logically. It doesn't matter if a character is feminine or masculine, goes by different pronouns, or simply doesn't identify with their actual sex, if they have specific parts, they're labeled accordingly. I understand this sites efforts to make this a more inclusive place, however, rules like these not only feel unnecessary, but are made to purposely protect a certain kind of people only, as well as go against people that do not wish to participate with this.

I am entirely for rules against harassment, no one should be attacked or targeted by other people, however it feels just as wrong to force people to comply to something they do not believe in, in a context such as this. If someone can have the freedom to identify as whatever they like, then the freedom to acknowledge or refuse this identity should be equally as free. If you think they are wrong, then that's entirely valid, however forcibly silencing them for it feels unfair.

"You CAN be free to identify how you like, but only if I'm also free to invalidate your identity"
- This ass clown right here for some reason

i'm sure i'm far from the first person to ask this, but i'm new here and curious: why keep around posts with "young" and similar tags? it seems a bit silly to me that i would even have to put that in a blacklist. it seems like common sense that characters who are visibly underage in porn shouldn't be allowed on any platform.

grab-hana's-antlers said:
i'm sure i'm far from the first person to ask this, but i'm new here and curious: why keep around posts with "young" and similar tags? it seems a bit silly to me that i would even have to put that in a blacklist. it seems like common sense that characters who are visibly underage in porn shouldn't be allowed on any platform.

If you can't tell the difference between fiction and reality, you shouldn't be allowed on any platform.

grab-hana's-antlers said:
i'm sure i'm far from the first person to ask this, but i'm new here and curious: why keep around posts with "young" and similar tags? it seems a bit silly to me that i would even have to put that in a blacklist. it seems like common sense that characters who are visibly underage in porn shouldn't be allowed on any platform.

fuck off with this, you literally have snuff in your favs, my dude. don't come out here being like "cub is gros" when you're over there getting off to characters being tortured, raped, and murdered.

sipothac said:
fuck off with this, you literally have snuff in your favs, my dude. don't come out here being like "cub is gros" when you're over there getting off to characters being tortured, raped, and murdered.

to be fair, i like to think of myself as being on the receiving end of that stuff

and i feel like any extreme kink is in an entirely different category to what is essentially pedophilia

Blacklist the content then pretend it doesn't exist. If you can't separate fiction from reality, that isn't our problem.

grab-hana's-antlers said:
to be fair, i like to think of myself as being on the receiving end of that stuff

As do a number of people into art of young characters, they view themselves in the roll of the young character.

grab-hana's-antlers said:
and i feel like any extreme kink is in an entirely different category to what is essentially pedophilia

So what would you call the torture and rape of visibly young characters? In the end, it's all fiction. Being into art of young characters doesn't make one a pedophile any more than being into art of snuff makes one a murderer.

grab-hana's-antlers said:
to be fair, i like to think of myself as being on the receiving end of that stuff

I guess it's totally impossible to imagine being a child, then? all the people with cub fursonas just don't exist.

grab-hana's-antlers said:
and i feel like any extreme kink is in an entirely different category to what is essentially pedophilia

fetish for me but not for thee.

So what would you call the torture and rape of visibly young characters?

i don't think most of those should even have those tags to be honest.

that's the last i'll be writing on this, the arguing is going nowhere. have a good night yall

grab-hana's-antlers said:
i don't think most of those should even have those tags to be honest.

post #2377395 tagged "shota furry" at source
post #3394449 originally posted to Baraag, and the artist does shota almost exclusively
post #3652081 artist's Pixiv is filled with content she's tagged "loli"

post #4228258 originally posted to Baraag, artist only has a few pieces that are "obviously" young. this exact post, though adolescent-looking humanoid with proportionally small horns I think that's enough to justify the young tag.

swaybat's the only one in there that dosn't post to websites that explicitly allow loli and shota and/or dosn't make a habit of drawing young-looking characters for the most part. and here two posts are the only ones I can see having an argument against the young tag.

_{1:5 == most, I guess.}

calydor said:
A classic example of this is how a minor can be tried in court as an adult for producing child pornography by taking a nude picture - of themselves.

It doesnt even need to be a nude, i still remember how i read the news report on the girl who gets trialed and put on the sex offender list for daring to make pictures of herself in the bikini swimsuit she bought.

Do not mention any actions of suicide, self harm / mutilation, depression-induced pain, or other malicious acts directed towards the self.

Does "the self" refer to the person saying it or a character doing it? if someone comments on a depiction of a character doing that is that breaking the rule? eg "what's going on in here" "I think it's implied he hung himself". Maybe clear up the wording.

gaian-commander said:
As for: "Specified that any attempts to contact someone who had indicated that they do not wish to talk to you constitutes harassment, not just repeated ones."

Remember as a kid when you were playing catch or any other game and some little shit would say stop or leave the game right when people were about to catch them then "rejoin" to catch others? Because this sounds like a recipe for that. Or an argument where someone who says a massively unpopular opinion says they don't want to talk anymore, people continue. Leading to endless back and forth with admins over whether this counts (Regardless of whether the user was a troll or getting ganged up on)

notmenotyou said:
Here is a flowchart:

I hope this helps clear things up.

Apologies, I should have clarified: is an adult artist allowed to post art they drew when they were a minor?

stavinair_caeruleum said:
Apologies, I should have clarified: is an adult artist allowed to post art they drew when they were a minor?

No. Any art drawn when the artist was a minor is not allowed on the site. This is to avoid any legal grey areas