View Full Version : [RESOLVED] policy violations
TheDragonGirl
03-04-2006, 02:28 PM
I am currect in remembering that people arent supposed to post kiddy or cubby porn?
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/67065/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/65040/
That is correct. This looks like a TOS violation to me. Hopefully an admin will come across this soon. I'd remove it if I could. There's a lot of strange stuff on FA, but certain specific things like this are just too far out there and universally frowned upon.
Ah yes, 8horns. Have you even taken a gander at the rest of his gallery? Notice a trend? Notice that he hasn't been banned yet?
I'm still kind of unsure about what FA's stance is on loli/underage drawings. I think that this kind of stuff was allowed back when FA went live over a year ago, but Preyfar made a post a few months ago regarding the FAQ, saying "young furry" art was not allowed. Then some people had a stink about it, and personally I don't think it should be banned because drawings like that aren't illegal in the US, etc.
The only thing the FAQ says about it is this:
Q: What content is not allowed?
A: FA does not allow photographic nudes, "cub" related pornography and images whose intent are to slander or discredit others.
The characters in these pictures aren't technically "cubs" and where the heck do you draw the line at what qualifies as a cub or not? My character pico has small boobs and looks young, but she's 19 in furry land or whatever. Obviously not everyone is cool with this subject matter, but a lot of people aren't cool with things like vore, inflation, scat, etc., and I'm willing to bet that those things won't be banned from FA anytime soon. And what about babyfurs, where the characters are obviously older but dressed like kids?
The TOS goes a bit more in depth, but basically says if you have some sort of excuse (e.g. my character is 80 years old, really!), it's ok to upload the image. Again, I think that "underage" art should be allowed, but it would be quite helpful to offer FUNCTIONAL filters so people don't have to look at it.
The only thing the FAQ says about it is this:
Q: What content is not allowed?
A: FA does not allow photographic nudes, "cub" related pornography and images whose intent are to slander or discredit others.Yes, and it says exactly what it says. Humans are just another type of animal despite how much they want to think of themselves not as. Thus "cub" would be analogous to baby as "cub" is analogous to puppy or kitten, whelp, calf, etc. I'm not going to debate about the implications or correctness of the rule nor technicalities and loopholes assocated with its definition. The rule is what it is irregardless of opinions or what the other fetishes are all about. The wording of the rule also carries with the furry theme of the site, but that's besides the point. When you go to a carnival they don't have tapemeasures to see if you're tall enough. They use wooden painted signs that carry a theme or character of some sort same as the rule does. FA is also a private institution thus if Preyfar/Dragoneer wants to make a rule about this it's his say. There's no public vote or shareholder meeting required. What's done is done.
While this type of artwork may be legal in the US (I thought it wasn't, but I guess I'm wrong), the site depends on the services of its datacenter and ISP, whom either or both could (and probably do) demand not to see under-age porn artwork transmitted because of the legal implications on an international scale from providing their services. As private business entities, these services probably have some type of legal document where the fine print outlaws this type of data being transmitted over their systems. Additionally, clients accessing the resources of Fur Affinity could be using ISP's that outlaw looking at child pornagraphy and may categorize this under that heading. Thus, it's possible, although not likely, that a rather large scale legal and service fiasco could errupt from this. You say it's not fair to outlaw kiddie porn art, but I'd rather think of all the other fetishes that it wouldn't be fair to to lose a place to post because the child porn stuff got the site shut down or blocked by certain ISP's. The needs of many outweigh the needs of a few, or single, here.
They don't make news shows and search the net for vore, unbirth, yiff, inflation, etc. They search for the kiddie porn. Someone who loves seeing animals peeing would be outcast from "normal" society just the same, but no one is looking for them. They won't get on TV prime-time like a couple child-predator shows have. That's the key difference. It's not a matter of personal opinion or preference here. It's about possible problems associated with the wrong person coming across this kind of kiddie porn artwork that could lead to a reduction or complete shutdown of FA services. Just think of FA was GTA: San Andreas and we had kiddie porn instead of the hot coffee mod. FA runs on donations and couldn't possibly support a legal fiasco of the likes Rockstar had/is going through.
If this artist wants to draw kiddie porn, fine for him. Please go ahead. No one is going to stop them from drawing it. However, it is a danger to FA from a legal and service viewpoint when the artwork is posted on FA servers. The artist should shell out the money to have their own host so that in some future point if someone comes across the site and disagrees with it, the artist in question can deal with the implications of that situation rather than affecting thousands of other users.
If it were up to me I'd leave the cub porn as it is and specifically ban human baby porn of any kind. They bust people for child porn not clubbing baby seals. I don't make the rules though.
dave hyena
03-05-2006, 06:15 AM
FA is also a private institution thus if Preyfar/Dragoneer wants to make a rule about this it's his say. There's no public vote or shareholder meeting required.
That would be the whole "shuta upa your mouth because this site is free and private" fallacy.
Remember that there is no community without the users and that they put in time and effort to make this place an actual community and thus the site owners have a solemn duty towards them.
It doesn't matter how much money or how much programming one puts into a place like this if one has no users or they all go away because of TYRANNY (on the internet).
Mitch_DLG
03-05-2006, 10:22 AM
If I recall correctly, 8horns WAS banned once before for having underage art in his FA gallery back before the great crash of 2005.
long thing
ok, I understand where you're coming from, but again remember that this kind of artwork, technically, is just as legal as all the other fetishy stuff on FA (and therefore there are no "legal implications" against it). And by your argument FA should also ban art depicting zoophilia, rape, murder/snuff/vore, illegal drug use, and a multitude of other things because apparently someone might come along see it and get upset about it. And I won't even get into sites like not4chan.
You might want to read the TOS (http://www.furaffinity.net/lm/tos/); here's a snip from the "Allowed Mediums" section:
What we do NOT allow:
Depictions of sexually immature characters in any sexual situation are not permitted on Fur Affinity
We define 'sexually immature' as:
Clearly underdeveloped sexual characteristics for the species being represented, either by comparison to other characters in the depiction, or other 'well known' characters. This definition has a 'narrow focus', meaning we will accept any reasonable explanation to exclude a character from this definition.
In other words, if, in your description or in a note to the admins, you say that your character IS sexually mature, it is allowed on FA.
I don't know what FA's ISP's policies are, but if it clearly states that it does not want to host this kind of material, well, we'd only know if Preyfar were to clarify, and if so then that clause stated above should be reworded. But I kind of doubt that FA would be hosted on a place that demands any kind of pornography to be "outlawed" because FA is an enormous grey area regarding all sorts of porn-y stuff.
Just remember, artwork != real life.
I'm not saying that people have some god-given right to post kid porn to the net, but people always make such a fuss about it, yet not so much regarding zoophilia, rape and murder art, and perhaps even fanart.
And I know 8horns was banned, but he's back now and has a whole bunch of Dot porn/etc. in his gallery. That was my point :*]
Pico, the way I worded my argument specifically draws a rather faint line between the kiddie porn and other fetishes like zoophilia or even rape. ISP's/Governments shut down sites with real kid porn while they don't normally touch the ones that have things like real farm animals yiffing people. You can still find some of those around but nothing with kids. I don't know what different service provider policies are or if that was the cause of this decision. I just know the risk of getting into trouble with this sort of subject matter (ignoring medium) is greater than the other fetishes.
At the very least 8horns should explicitly state on each artwork his explanation for them. I can't tell if that explanation is on there (nor could I take a look at the rest of the gallery like you stated) since FA keeps crapping out on me and refusing to load stuff.
FA is also a private institution thus if Preyfar/Dragoneer wants to make a rule about this it's his say. There's no public vote or shareholder meeting required.
That would be the whole "shuta upa your mouth because this site is free and private" fallacy.No, what I said was quite different. Why can Walmart decide not to say Merry Christmas while Macys can decide they want to say Merry Christmas? Because as individual institutions they can define what goes on in within their doors. Granted, they're not private, but they are institutions that run according to how the people up top say to run it. These places make decisions and change the way they do things as they will. Some people will be upset with their decisions and may stop coming, but as they say "You can't please all the people all the time." Same goes for companies like Atari or EA. Why leave certain features out of a game or patch? Because someone running the project decided to do it that way. Users/Players will be upset, but it is the right of the person behind the show to make the decisions since they're the one in charge.
It doesn't matter if the site is free. I said nothing about it being free. The site is run by someone and that someone, who happens to be Preyfar/Dragoneer/Jheryn, can make decisions affecting the site as they want because it is their site and they are in charge. You may not agree with everything someone like President Bush does and may even chose to disagree and protest by doing certain things, but the fact is that he is in charge and what he says goes. If you want to put pressure on the decisions they possibly change that's your choice, but if the person at the top intends to carry through then that's it. There aren't back-seat drivers here, just people with voices.
TheDragonGirl
03-05-2006, 08:24 PM
I'm willing to accept the explination that the warnerr bros are older than they look, or whatever..but the character that he cites this to be -is- an underaged character, without qualification otherwise -.- and the TOS clearly say that isnt allowed
vashdragon
03-05-2006, 09:17 PM
To help cove this topic, here goes the TOS quoted.
Law
US law does not prohibit 'artistic' depictions of child pornography, even photo-realistic depictions, on the basis that no actual child was involved in the creation of the depiction.
A rule prohibiting this in the Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA) of 1996 was deemed unconstituional ultimately by the Ninth Circuit Court. A new act, the CPPA 2000, and later the Child Obscenity and Pornography Prevention Act of 2002 (not the same as the other COPPA) was codified to work around the constitutional issues, but was never passed (need confirmation on this). However, both acts specifically excluded artistic renderings, which clearly applies all material on the Fur Affinity.
So, it is safe to say that all material on the Fur Affinity, even if borderline, is not illegal under US law.
What we do NOT allow:
Depictions of sexually immature characters in any sexual situation are not permitted on Fur Affinity
We define 'sexually immature' as:
Clearly underdeveloped sexual characteristics for the species being represented, either by comparison to other characters in the depiction, or other 'well known' characters. This definition has a 'narrow focus', meaning we will accept any reasonable explanation to exclude a character from this definition.
vashdragon
03-05-2006, 09:22 PM
Sorry i forgot a bit...
And 'sexual situation' as:
Character is portraying any kind of sexual behaviour. Character is being protrayed in a provacative manner, such as their sexual characteristics being presented to the viewer, or any object in the drawing. Any other character in the drawing is displaying sexual behaviour, such as erections or sexual actions. This definition has a 'wide focus', meaning we will accept any reasonable explanation to include a situation in this definition.
Pico, the way I worded my argument specifically draws a rather faint line between the kiddie porn and other fetishes like zoophilia or even rape. ISP's/Governments shut down sites with real kid porn while they don't normally touch the ones that have things like real farm animals yiffing people. You can still find some of those around but nothing with kids. I don't know what different service provider policies are or if that was the cause of this decision. I just know the risk of getting into trouble with this sort of subject matter (ignoring medium) is greater than the other fetishes.
At the very least 8horns should explicitly state on each artwork his explanation for them. I can't tell if that explanation is on there (nor could I take a look at the rest of the gallery like you stated) since FA keeps crapping out on me and refusing to load stuff.
I agree that 8horns should clarify that his characters are not underage, as it were. Nevertheless, just because bestiality sites exist doesn't mean that it's any less illegal than pedophilia (obviously pedo stuff is taken more seriously because human kids are, in our society, valued more than animals). But...still, the point is that drawings of underage children are not illegal in the United States, which is where FA's server is. Yes, it may be risky to host that sort of stuff on your website, just as it is risky to host drawings of bestiality and snuff, but honestly I think FA is more likely to be sued by, say, Disney than get stepped on by the popoz.
dave hyena
03-06-2006, 08:58 AM
what he says goes.
Yeah exactly what I said, you're using the whole "shut up the owner can do whatever they want" thing. :-/
TheDragonGirl
03-06-2006, 04:03 PM
whether its illegal or not..its specifically banned by this site..
whether its illegal or not..its specifically banned by this site..
Did you even read my posts, or even the TOS?
TheDragonGirl
03-06-2006, 10:03 PM
yes, I did, you seem to not have read mine, or looked at the pictures in question or something, because he -specifically- lists the one piece as an underage character out of a popular anime, and she is, specifically, in a sexual situation.
yes, I did, you seem to not have read mine, or looked at the pictures in question or something, because he -specifically- lists the one piece as an underage character out of a popular anime, and she is, specifically, in a sexual situation.
Your post implied that all underage porn should be removed because it's banned by the site, even though it's not. However, the pics in question indeed should be removed because he hasn't stated that the characters are sexually mature; I never said that those specific pictures should stay, as I was speaking of underage art in general.
TheDragonGirl
03-07-2006, 12:06 PM
actually underage porn -is- specifically banned by the site, however they made allowances for beings that simply resemble underage characters.
Arshes Nei
03-07-2006, 04:23 PM
actually underage porn -is- specifically banned by the site, however they made allowances for beings that simply resemble underage characters.
Ok, what is this debate about, you just repeated what Pico said?
TheDragonGirl
03-07-2006, 06:45 PM
I dont even know..I pointed out a couple of pictures that voilate the TOS and he started ranting about pedifilia art in general being banned/not banned and whether it was illegal or not
Arshes Nei
03-07-2006, 06:58 PM
I dont even know..I pointed out a couple of pictures that voilate the TOS and he started ranting about pedifilia art in general being banned/not banned and whether it was illegal or not
Well Pico is a she actually.
Also there is a difference between illegal, and violation of a Terms of Service.
As people were saying "psuedo child porn" or illustrations in this case is not illegal.
However, it is a violation of the Terms of Service if they're not clearly outlining that these are merely adults in consenting age, only with the appearance that they're underdeveloped. Also, "psuedo child porn" is a violation of the TOS as well.
Does that clear things up?
TheDragonGirl
03-07-2006, 07:06 PM
ah, my applogies to her for the misused pronoun.
I understand its not illegal, I understood that when I joined FA and read the TOS.
I also understand what is not accepted under the TOS
For a while I thought that she was trying to say that the pictures I pointed out should be allowed, which was confusing me. I..really wasnt understanding why there was a large debate about it..when the artist clearly stated in his description that the one character is in fact an underaged character from an anime...and listed the other as underaged girl hentai...
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.