FA Policy Notice - "Cub" Art

[Solaris]

i still think its wrong cause what if later the pedofiles gets incouraged to do something like raping a 14 yr old girl in real life?

What if someone listens to marlin manson, and decides to shoot up his or her school? Who's responsability is it? In your example where does the blame fall, the artist or the rapest?

I think the decision made was in the best intrest as a whole. We can not deny one group from having the freedoms others so openly enjoy and express.

 

[uncia2000]

Uhm, it was in the friggin' browse dropdown lists

Cub (Mature)

or something

=> http://www.furaffinityforums.net/showthread.php?tid=4209&pid=60800#pid60800

d.

 

[uncia2000]

Heh. /not/ that topic, N3X15; the link above is just 'bout the filter/category and another reason, why it was it in the system, and why it didn't necessarily just mean "cubporn".

Apologies for not stating that out in full, 'coz I'm having fun elsewhere watching out and banning new accounts.

 

[dave hyena]

Heh. /not/ that topic, N3X15; the link above is just 'bout the filter/category and another reason, why it was it in the system, and why it didn't necessarily just mean "cubporn".

Apologies for not stating that out in full, 'coz I'm having fun elsewhere watching out and banning new accounts.

Don't forgot to go up the wooden hill to bedfordshire tonight. I know I get grumpy and bad tempered If I go to bed at 12, so going at 3am is just not accceptable.

 

[StalkerAT]

Do you have a link and specific context on that, please?
Thank you,
David/u2k

Please ignore this statement.
I haven't found anything valid and believe now that this might be nothing more than a rumor spread in some chatroom.

 

[tacticalsnake]

I'm getting really confused....
I understand what's going on with cub-- whatever, really-- but I'm curious as to why it's thought we have to deliniate between human cub and furry cub...
The law states only illustrations based on an actual child or done to appear like an actual child, such as photo-realism are illegal, not any illustration of a human. ^.^; I mean, yeah, you can't draw porn of the kid who plays Harry Potter in the Harry Potter movies, but you can draw porn of how you picture harry and it's perfectly OK (in so far as an example of illustrated CP being ok-- it's not ok as far as copywrite is concerned but no one really gives a shit about that any way. ). He just can't look exactly like daniel radcliffe or however his name is spelled. Or like a real kid, so you need to keep it stylised. Not really a big deal. The consideration is to block photographs, images based on photographs/using children for models, and images that can be confused with photographs.
If we couldn't have illustrations whatsoever, then 4chan would have been in a lot of trouble by now. I mean, shit, we all know the Party Van was there recently over the whole stadium bombing threats. And we've still got all our loli and shota, so yeah.

Also-- discussing what to do about fan art in this regard, or fan art as a whole--- I'm pretty sure it's meant fan art in this regard, but all the same-- huh? I don't understand why there would be special considerations for this. ^.^; At all.

I just really hope that things don't get narrowed, specified and restricted. In short, I'm really hoping this doesn't turn into another sort of Y!Gallery. The fact that there's delinations being made based on species and then whether it's original or fan work is making me a little nervous on whether or not the site will decide to up and close its self off from anything non-furry. Seriously. I would hope we could stay the great, open and free site this is, and that it does not become just another highly controlled 'theme' gallery, which really doesn't do any good for any one and could only lead to problems. Nothing like 'clear restrictions and regulations' to start fights. ^.^; There's already been several questions asked in the thread about what makes something furry enough to be cub and not human any more. And the last thing needed is for there to be a list of requirements, which is only going to be disputed and fought over by the users who have their own delineations until the end of time. again, I'm ssure some of us remember the debacle at Y!Gallery, which thought it could define 'furry', and still thinks it can define what makes something too furry for the site. It's really quite insane.
Concrete definitions don't work out very well, in other words.

ANOTHER ITEM...
Is there going to be an update on the main site about any of this, or are we going to have to look in the forums? I only popped in because i had absolutely no idea what was going on and there were a thousand confusing journals mucking up my inbox. Since i have material in my gallery that may or may not be allowed (human fan art cub, depending on what the cut off is... Since I'm talking about characters who are generally 12/13 and 15 in the image) I'd like to know before hand if I have to get rid of it/never upload Naruto pr0nz again, etc. Before I get banned or something. That would be... full of not fun. :/

 

[Summercat]

lol furries.

That's sadly the best comment I could think of. Ah well.

But.... I think this will eventually be a good thing, for we have NOT cut off a portion of the fandom because they are 'too weird'. That's a good thing, IMO.

 

[GranDragon]

Why do you use the Us code? Is not the FA a international community of artist? Did you ask us our opinion?

 

[Vekke]

Also-- discussing what to do about fan art in this regard, or fan art as a whole--- I'm pretty sure it's meant fan art in this regard, but all the same-- huh? I don't understand why there would be special considerations for this. ^.^; At all.

It's a legal issue. Companies and copyright owners who've created certain things that are supposed to be okay for everyone to see are probably not going to be too happy about pornographic derivative work. I wouldn't. Angry people could complain to the people who own the original work, not knowing who was responsible for the art. The company could take legal action against any sort of derivative work, clean or not. I would imagine that they don't care much about the clean stuff (it's free advertising, dude), but pornographic work can be pretty damaging (Disney, for example, has already gotten all kinds of crap for tiny things supposedly included in their movies) . . . then imagine, on top of that, the characters being underage. Not good news. And most likely, any action taken would be against FA.

Why do you use the Us code? Is not the FA a international community of artist? Did you ask us our opinion?

Already been addressed at least a couple of times. FurAffinity's server is hosted in the United States, so the website is subject to US laws. They won't get in trouble for hosting something that is illegal in another country if it's legal in their area.

 

[Arshes Nei]

Why do you use the Us code? Is not the FA a international community of artist? Did you ask us our opinion?

Because servers are accountable by the country they are hosted in. In this case the server is US based.

 

[kittizak]

Section 163.1 of the Canadian Criminal Code defines child pornography as "a visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means", that "shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity", or "the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years." The definitive Supreme Court of Canada decision, R. v. Sharpe, interprets the statute to include purely fictional material even when no real children were involved in its production. From paragraph 38 of the decision:

Interpreting "person" in accordance with Parliament's purpose of criminalizing possession of material that poses a reasoned risk of harm to children, it seems that it should include visual works of the imagination as well as depictions of actual people. Notwithstanding the fact that 'person' in the charging section and in s. 163.1(1)(b) refers to a flesh-and-blood person, I conclude that "person" in s. 163.1(1)(a) includes both actual and imaginary human beings.

—Supreme Court of Canada, R. v. Sharpe, Paragraph 38

http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/2001/vol1/html/2001scr1_0045.html

In April 2006, an American was sentenced to 30 days in jail for bringing child pornography to Canada. While he had possession of three videos and three images of real children, a criminal investigator cited the 13,000 "mostly cartoon" or "anime" images in his possession and the "prohibitive nature of these goods"

http://www.cbc.ca/ns/story/ns-porn-anime20060404.html

While it is true that it does not specifically mentions furry, they refer to a depiction of a fictional being that is visibly underaged and enganged in a sexual act to be encompased under Section 163.1

Canada already stamped furry porn as illegal.

Do you have a link and specific context on that, please?

Thank you,
David/u2k

 

[kittizak]

President George W. Bush signed into law the PROTECT Act of 2003 (also dubbed the Amber Alert Law) which again criminalizes cartoon child pornography, so far as it would be found obscene under the Miller test. In December 2005, Dwight Whorley was convicted under this law for receiving both "...obscene Japanese anime cartoons that graphically depicted prepubescent female children being forced to engage in genital-genital and oral-genital intercourse with adult males," and "...digital photographs of actual children engaging in sexually explicit conduct." Neither Whorley's, nor any other conviction under this law has been reviewed by the Supreme Court. However, the reason that "lolicon" was used against him in his trial was because he was on parole from prison, and the charge that put him there was having child porn also. Having any depiction of "child porn", this includes lolicon, violated his parole

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/04/30/bush.amber
http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD/MGArticle/RTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1128768481527
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/ceos/Press%20Releases/EDVA%20Whorley%20Verdict%20PR_120105.pdf
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/ceos/Press%20Releases/EDVA%20Whorley%20Verdict%20PR_120105.pdf
http://www.fbi.gov/page2/march06/obscenity031006.htm

Why do you use the Us code? Is not the FA a international community of artist? Did you ask us our opinion?

Because servers are accountable by the country they are hosted in. In this case the server is US based.

 

[uncia2000]

Thanks for the clips, kittizak.

<legislative clip>Interpreting "person" in accordance with Parliament's purpose of criminalizing possession of material that poses a reasoned risk of harm to children, it seems that it should include visual works of the imagination as well as depictions of actual people. Notwithstanding the fact that 'person' in the charging section and in s. 163.1(1)(b) refers to a flesh-and-blood person, I conclude that "person" in s. 163.1(1)(a) includes both actual and imaginary human beings.

(emphasis mine)

Person => human beings.

Is a photo of a horse's rump classified as "child porn" because the horse is under 18?

To say nothing of a fantasy character that cannot have a flesh-and-blood analog.

While it is true that it does not specifically mentions furry, they refer to a depiction of a fictional being that is visibly underaged and enganged in a sexual act to be encompased under Section 163.1

Does the highlighting above help assuage that concern?

Yup; depictions of underaged humans in a Canadian legal context was mentioned in passing earlier by myself; q.v. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolicon

 

[uncia2000]

Do you have a link and specific context on that, please?
Thank you,
David/u2k

Please ignore this statement.
I haven't found anything valid and believe now that this might be nothing more than a rumor spread in some chatroom.

And many thanks for the honest, visible reply, StalkerAT.

Rumors have a lot to answer for...

 

[kittizak]

You're right -- it actually says person/human being, but it settles a judicial precedent where they treat a fictional depiction as real child pornography.

Its ironic that Sweden has one of the thoughest laws on child pornography for its broad interpretation, since it states that no matter how abstract the depiction, if its underaged is, therefore, illegal.

Thanks for the clips, kittizak.

<legislative clip>Interpreting "person" in accordance with Parliament's purpose of criminalizing possession of material that poses a reasoned risk of harm to children, it seems that it should include visual works of the imagination as well as depictions of actual people. Notwithstanding the fact that 'person' in the charging section and in s. 163.1(1)(b) refers to a flesh-and-blood person, I conclude that "person" in s. 163.1(1)(a) includes both actual and imaginary human beings.

(emphasis mine)

Person => human beings.

Is photo of a horse's rump classified as "child porn" because the horse is under 18?

To say nothing of a fantasy character that cannot have a flesh-and-blood analog.

While it is true that it does not specifically mentions furry, they refer to a depiction of a fictional being that is visibly underaged and enganged in a sexual act to be encompased under Section 163.1

Does the highlighting above help assuage that concern?

Yup; depictions of underaged humans in a Canadian legal context was mentioned in passing earlier by myself; q.v. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolicon

 

[uncia2000]

(re. Canada)

You're right -- it actually says person/human being, but it settles a judicial precedent where they treat a fictional depiction as real child pornography.

Yep. Fictional depiction of a human child.
A precedent, perhaps, but only in the context of human children.

We've also had legislation here in the UK since 1994 when it comes to pseudo-photographs that are also not necessarily relating to RL human children. (I do work in Criminal Justice myself, these days...).

All of this is still far removed from anything furry-side, but still good to pin down properly.

Its ironic that Sweden has one of the thoughest laws on child pornography for its broad interpretation, since it states that no matter how abstract the depiction, if its underaged is, therefore, illegal.

Human children again?
(Any links, please?)

Kindest regards,
David.

 

[Trickster]

The rules will change so that art depicting human children in sexual situations will no longer be allowed -- this includes Anime series. The law is specific. Furries are not real, and thus cub art is permitted. The law, however, is specific as to humans, and they are no longer permitted.

I'm sure this has been covered by someone else, but drawn erotica of children is not against Federal law in the US. As long as it's clear that something isn't an actual child, it isn't a child by law. It's a drawing.

Not only was this interpretation upheld by our Supreme Court 7-2, it featured a 6-member majority opinion. So it isn't likely that this will change anytime soon. The only materials that legally constitute "child pornography" are 1) photographs of children in lewd positions, or 2) sexualized photomorphs based on the photographs of identifiable children (whether or not the photographs were erotic).

Trickster

 

[Master_Oki_Akai]

The rules will change so that art depicting human children in sexual situations will no longer be allowed -- this includes Anime series. The law is specific. Furries are not real, and thus cub art is permitted. The law, however, is specific as to humans, and they are no longer permitted.

I'm sure this has been covered by someone else, but drawn erotica of children is not against Federal law in the US.  As long as it's clear that something isn't an actual child, it isn't a child by law.  It's a drawing.

Not only was this interpretation upheld by our Supreme Court 7-2, it featured a 6-member majority opinion.  So it isn't likely that this will change anytime soon.  The only materials that legally constitute "child pornography" are 1) photographs of children in lewd positions, or 2) sexualized photomorphs based on the photographs of identifiable children (whether or not the photographs were erotic).

Trickster

See, if ya say that that happened, ya gotta prove it.

 

[kittizak]

President George W. Bush signed into law the PROTECT Act of 2003 (also dubbed the Amber Alert Law) which again criminalizes cartoon child pornography, so far as it would be found obscene under the Miller test. In December 2005, Dwight Whorley was convicted under this law for receiving both "...obscene Japanese anime cartoons that graphically depicted prepubescent female children being forced to engage in genital-genital and oral-genital intercourse with adult males," and "...digital photographs of actual children engaging in sexually explicit conduct." Neither Whorley's, nor any other conviction under this law has been reviewed by the Supreme Court. However, the reason that "lolicon" was used against him in his trial was because he was on parole from prison, and the charge that put him there was having child porn also. Having any depiction of "child porn", this includes lolicon, violated his parole

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/04/30/bush.amber
http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Sat...8768481527
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/ceos/Press...120105.pdf
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/ceos/Press...120105.pdf
http://www.fbi.gov/page2/march06/obscenity031006.htm

The rules will change so that art depicting human children in sexual situations will no longer be allowed -- this includes Anime series. The law is specific. Furries are not real, and thus cub art is permitted. The law, however, is specific as to humans, and they are no longer permitted.

I'm sure this has been covered by someone else, but drawn erotica of children is not against Federal law in the US. As long as it's clear that something isn't an actual child, it isn't a child by law. It's a drawing.

Not only was this interpretation upheld by our Supreme Court 7-2, it featured a 6-member majority opinion. So it isn't likely that this will change anytime soon. The only materials that legally constitute "child pornography" are 1) photographs of children in lewd positions, or 2) sexualized photomorphs based on the photographs of identifiable children (whether or not the photographs were erotic).

Trickster

 

[Trickster]

President George W. Bush signed into law the PROTECT Act of 2003 (also dubbed the Amber Alert Law) which again criminalizes cartoon child pornography, so far as it would be found obscene under the Miller test. In December 2005, Dwight Whorley was convicted under this law for receiving both "...obscene Japanese anime cartoons that graphically depicted prepubescent female children being forced to engage in genital-genital and oral-genital intercourse with adult males," and "...digital photographs of actual children engaging in sexually explicit conduct." Neither Whorley's, nor any other conviction under this law has been reviewed by the Supreme Court. However, the reason that "lolicon" was used against him in his trial was because he was on parole from prison, and the charge that put him there was having child porn also. Having any depiction of "child porn", this includes lolicon, violated his parole

The Protect Act defines illegal obscenity as any “digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is <b>indistinguishable from</b>, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct.”

The fact that the law was bent to affect a parolee is not unusual, as parolees are not held to the same standard as law-abiding citizens. Several years ago a parolee was convicted for writings in his diary, even though nothing written has been obscene for normal citizens since the Supreme Court last overturned the ban on Naked Lunch. This doesn't mean that citizens are in danger for owning written erotica--it just means judges don't enough about care about convicts on parole to try their cases with merit.

Trickster

 

[kittizak]

Actually, also in the US.

PROTECT Act of 2003
http://judiciary.senate.gov/special/S151CONF.pdf

And the first man sentenced under it: Dwight Whorley
http://www.fbi.gov/page2/march06/obscenity031006.htm
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/ceos/Press%20Releases/EDVA%20Whorley%20Verdict%20PR_120105.pdf
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/ceos/Press%20Releases/EDVA%20Whorley%20Verdict%20PR_120105.pdf

So, technically, the judicial precedent has also been established in the US courts.

Dismissing this precedents over something being human or not is walking over a very fine thread that can snap at any time, specially since the PROTECT Act of 2003 uses the Miller Test as its basis (Miller v. California)

* Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
* Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions [1] specifically defined by applicable state law,
* Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Part 1 and 3 are fully satisfied and and Part 2 can go either way, depending on the judge (Either by using a broad approach of the Miller Test or the Protect Act) and thus making it obscene.

(re. Canada)

http://www.police.se/inter/nodeid=33909&pageversion=1.html
It never states human children, only children -- Concordingly, considering Sweden's broad approach to the issue states that no matter how abstract (a child with cat ears and a cat tail for example) the depiction is - ergo, its still illegal.

Human children again?
(Any links, please?)

Kindest regards,
David.

 

[Trickster]

See, if ya say that that happened, ya gotta prove it.

In Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 2002, the majority opinion only left room for the definitions I mentioned. The recent attempts by the government to circumvent this are only written such a tone as to target pornography that is "indistinguishable" from children. Nobody at the capitol cares about cartoon porn of Lisa Simpson.

Trickster

 

[kittizak]

Actually, as long as it passes the Miller Test, it will fall under the Protect Act -- Not to mention that, like I've stated before, it does set a legal predecent in the US Courts.

President George W. Bush signed into law the PROTECT Act of 2003 (also dubbed the Amber Alert Law) which again criminalizes cartoon child pornography, so far as it would be found obscene under the Miller test. In December 2005, Dwight Whorley was convicted under this law for receiving both "...obscene Japanese anime cartoons that graphically depicted prepubescent female children being forced to engage in genital-genital and oral-genital intercourse with adult males," and "...digital photographs of actual children engaging in sexually explicit conduct." Neither Whorley's, nor any other conviction under this law has been reviewed by the Supreme Court. However, the reason that "lolicon" was used against him in his trial was because he was on parole from prison, and the charge that put him there was having child porn also. Having any depiction of "child porn", this includes lolicon, violated his parole

The Protect Act defines illegal obscenity as any “digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is <b>indistinguishable from</b>, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct.”

The fact that the law was bent to affect a parolee is not unusual, as parolees are not held to the same standard as law-abiding citizens. Several years ago a parolee was convicted for writings in his diary, even though nothing written has been obscene for normal citizens since the Supreme Court last overturned the ban on Naked Lunch. This doesn't mean that citizens are in danger for owning written erotica--it just means judges don't enough about care about convicts on parole to try their cases with merit.

Trickster

 

[Aikon]

kittizka dude you're rokin', keep goin. Seriolusly you're on a roll.

 

[Trickster]

It never states human children, only children -- Concordingly, considering Sweden's broad approach to the issue states that no matter how abstract (a child with cat ears and a cat tail for example) the depiction is - ergo, its still illegal.

Really? Find me one definition in law where a child can be non-human. Every legal definition of "child" in Federal law is human. The precedent for this is exhaustive--otherwise animal rights activists could sue breeders for "raping three year-olds".

Trickster