• Fur Affinity Forums are governed by Fur Affinity's Rules and Policies. Links and additional information can be accessed in the Site Information Forum.

Draw Muhammad Day

Nicthalon

New Member
Draw Muhammad Day: 5/20/2010 has been designated 'Draw Muhammad Day' by the Internet. While we do permit artistic freedom, please keep in mind that derogatory, sexual and/or outright insulting Muhammads will not be permitted. Keep them clean, respectful. Derogatory Muhammads will be removed.


Okay, just showing what Dragoneer posted. This brings me to a question, specifically concerning the last sentence. Since derogatory (and I assume sexual) Muhammads will be removed, will you be going through all the submissions to ever feature Jesus and remove all of them that are "derogatory, sexual and/or outright insulting?"

If not, then like it or not, you are being hypocrits. You cannot single out a single religion or religious figure for "special treatment" unless you're going to do it for ALL of them.
 

fuzzygrifter

New Member
SECONDED.

What happened to FA being for 'freedom of expression'? If we're going to have to respect ONE religion that cannot abide dissent, how about changing the AUP so ALL religions have to be respected?

And seriously, how can you say you 'respect artistic freedom' if you restrict the art people can post? If derogatory pictures of other religious figures are allowable, why not Mohammed? Why do Muslims get a veto on art that no one else gets? Seriously, how do you justify restricting the images that can be posted of one religious figure without doing so for all others? Can some admin give me a clear explanation of that?

If I can't post furry Mohammed getting mounted by his goat , then I would expect that all images of Jesus masturbating, screwing a nun, blowing a raptor, and any of Bhudda, Shiva, Quetzalcoatl, Zeus, Zoroaster, Confucius, Odin, or anyone other deity/spirit/object of worship that are 'derogatory' to be eligible for removal upon listing as religiously significant.
 

EagleTheCheetah

CHEETAHFACE
I think FA is afraid of having their servers DoS bombed by suicidal muslim extremists. e.e

In all seriousness though... is this the position that you really want to take FA? You would indeed compromise the "free expression" façade that you like to put on.

To them, posting any depiction whatsoever of Muhammad is enough for the more nutty of that crowd to shriek and point at you as if you've committed a capital crime. So what's the big deal if it also happens to be smut?
 

Lobar

The hell am I reading, here?

Taren Fox

Filmmaker
What's the point of this? Why piss off a massive group of people for no reason?

Freedom of Speech? Sure. But what's the point? Just leave everyone alone. D: If everyone did that, the world would be a better place.

(Copy pasta from the other thread)
 

Fay V

Lost to this world
they're just covering their asses. Unlike other religions mohammed can not be pictured. So they're just trying to avoid trouble
yeah they're being hypocrites, they're a private organization so they have every right to do that. if you really cause enough shit over Odin images they'll probably remove those too. Right now they're probably thinking just mohammed is a threat and they're valuing lack of threat over artistic freedom.

successful sites rarely have the ideals of the individual. they're hypocrites and deal with threats, that's why they are successful.
 

AshleyAshes

Arcade Snowmew Of Doom
Actually in another post somewhere on here, Dragoneer made it clear that any images of major relegious deities had to be tasteful as well. Muhammad isn't special though this also means there's a bajillion Jesus images that need to be reported.
 

fuzzygrifter

New Member
Just out of curiousity, what would you have hoped to accomplish by posting such a thing?


It's just hyperbole, but it would probably accomplish about the same thing as a picture of Jesus getting it on with a dragon, or a nun- either it would be a Diogenes-ian rebuke towards a group that makes illogical, self-serving rules, or it would be just to be a jerk. That being said, I have no plans to draw anything like that. I am merely pointing out the inconsistency of claiming they will actively vet posts featuring Mohammed while images of another religious figure are not given the same scrutiny.

Trust me, I understand that FA is a private organization that can do whatever it wants (within the strictures of the law) and has no obligation to provide any services to the users (it's free for pete's sake,what more do people want?) or pretend that it has to provide anything like First Amendment rights. It's a business, and at the end of the day they have to make money (unless they want to subsidize it for their own purposes, but that's a bit of an expensive hobby.)

However, FA has benefitted from the perception that it is a relatively free forum for the expression and storing of images, works, and opinions of the users. The occasional use of phrases like "respect artistic expression" are meant to reinforce that, but the content of the rest of the DMD blurb belies the concept expressed in that phrase. All I'm doing is pointing it out and expressing my opinion that it's an inconsistent application of their own rules seemingly driven by fear that one group may be willing to engage in electronic or IRL threats, acts of vandalism, or worse in their pursuit of stifling dissent- does anyone really expect some Christians to initiate a DDoS attack for Furry Jeebus?
 

Taralack

Hit 'em right between the eyes
Just to be clear, the admins of FA determine what people can post, and because it's a privately owned site, they can do this.

"Freedom of speech" and/or US laws do not factor into this.
 

Lobar

The hell am I reading, here?
Just to be clear, the admins of FA determine what people can post, and because it's a privately owned site, they can do this.

"Freedom of speech" and/or US laws do not factor into this.

I know it's a common occurrence, but the First Amendment has yet to be invoked in this thread to argue against the restriction on offensive Muhammads..
 

Lobar

The hell am I reading, here?

Redregon

Banned
Banned
I know it's a common occurrence, but the First Amendment has yet to be invoked in this thread to argue against the restriction on offensive Muhammads..

it probably will... and then we can all have a hearty laugh at the idiot.

seriously, it's like every second user has this self-entitlement complex going on. protip: nobody has any actual rights on FA... only priviliges (which can be revoked at Dragoneer's whim and fancy.)
 
Top