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

FA Policy Notice - "Cub" Art

Status
Not open for further replies.
First off, I'll just say that I agree that this was probably the best decision that the admins could have made in order to make as many users happy as posible. Obviously your not going to make everyone happy and, given that fact, they did a verry good job of compramising. Anyone who gives them a hard time about it should realy attempt to create a membership site and try to moderate it. Its not easy and your verry tempted to just go with what "you" think is right an not what would be best for as many people as posible. So please for the love of cake leave them be. Their job is hard enough as is. Dont make it worse by trying to make them feel bad.


Now, for the actual reason I posted. Their is a part of this that is confusing to me and, though its been asked several times, I have not found an answer. Its the same debate Y!G is still having. What makes a fur? At least where this rule comes in to play? Are characters that have ears, a tail, and a bit of fur, but otherwise human considered human or fur?
 

kittizak

New Member
Why thanks! Ironically, I aint taking any sides (although I'm leaning towards the yay for the ban since they actually won on the poll)-- I just consider the legal precedents and ramifications, and how they can be applied to this issue.

Kinda like Roe vs Wade, one of my favorite legal cases, but that's opening another can of worms.

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

Trickster

New Member
kittizak said:
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.
The Miller Test is virtually impossible to apply to Internet traffic because there is no single "community" to which the viewing of obscene material can be isolated, thus no clear "community standard" is available for the test. This has made prosecuting Internet obscenity based on the Miller Test very difficult.

I fail to be concerned if the only precedent for some new attempt at going over the Supreme Court's head is a parole violator, particularly when the Feds are up to their necks in REAL child pornography.

Trickster
 

uncia2000

Member
kittizak said:
Actually, also in the US.

New page: was making it clear to anyone else that that was referring to Canada.

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

I've read the relevant sections.

Per that other legislation...
"(14) To avoid this grave threat to the Government’s unquestioned compelling interest in effective enforcement of the child pornography laws that protect real children, a statute must be adopted that prohibits a narrowly-defined subcategory of images."

A direct link is made in the stated purpose of the legislation, clearly showing that "child" is in the context of real, human children.

I thought I read enough legislation in my day-job, thanks. :)

Could you please point out anything that permits the sort of scope-creep to "furry", etc., that you are strongly implying is there?
Not just supposition and clips of irrelevant stuff such as a pointer to the use of the Miller Test which is a basis for determination of obscenity not the actual species depicted.

Cheers,
David.
 

kittizak

New Member
By your definition as well, you can have a drawing of an underage girl engaged in a sexual situation, with cat ears and tail, and therefore its not illegal anymore.

Remember, Sweden's law states No matter how abstract the depiction is, its still illegal.

As for the breeders (and real animals), that's what animal-welfare laws are for. And I'd not be surprised if PETA or Greenpeace decide to sue for that... considering they're a bunch of morons.

Trickster said:
kittizak said:
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
 

uncia2000

Member
kittizak said:
Why thanks! Ironically, I aint taking any sides....-- I just consider the legal precedents and ramifications, and how they can be applied to this issue.

In which case, please stick to the facts and not your personal interpretation or potential scaremongering.

kittizak said:
.... (although I'm leaning towards the yay for the ban since they actually won on the poll)...

I'll bite my tongue, rather than make any personal observation on what that says about many people simply adopting a herd mentality. :)
 

Trickster

New Member
kittizak said:
By your definition as well, you can have a drawing of an underage girl engaged in a sexual situation, with cat ears and tail, and therefore its not illegal anymore.

Remember, Sweden's law states No matter how abstract the depiction is, its still illegal.
And remember, you're the only one arguing about Sweden. :) I've been saying US over and over because that's where I live. I could bring Japan into this, but that wouldn't be fair either.

kittizak said:
As for the breeders (and real animals), that's what animal-welfare laws are for. And I'd not be surprised if PETA or Greenpeace decide to sue for that... considering they're a bunch of morons.
Morons or no, it illustrates what happens when you try to interpret law to mean things it was never intended to mean--turning paper dolls into real children. It's a legal can of worms, and the portents of doom don't worry me for a moment. These are the last, desparate gasps of people who see the world becoming inundated with objectionable ideas due to new information technology. It will pass, and drawings will still be legal at the end of it all.

Trickster
 

kittizak

New Member
Yet, it wasn't real child pornography, rather computer generated images of child pornography that landed Dwight Whorley back in jail... ok, he was a parolee with a previous sex offender record (so he deserves to be jailed to begin with) but it was because they used a broader application of the Protect Act that enabled the court to land him in jail.

As for the Miller Test, The Protect Act does use it as part of the criteria to establish if something depicting a minor is obscene or not.

Yes, its a flawed test, no, its not perfect... but its one of the tools we have to fight obscenity and child pornography - whether people like it or not.

Such is the constitution and our founding fathers left like that with the option to ammend it as we require it as our society evolves.

Don't get me wrong, I love the 1st amendment, but I love the 2nd amendment even more.

uncia2000 said:
A direct link is made in the stated purpose of the legislation, clearly showing that "child" is in the context of real, human children.

I thought I read enough legislation in my day-job, thanks. :)

Could you please point out anything that permits the sort of scope-creep to "furry", etc., that you are strongly implying is there?
Not just supposition and clips of irrelevant stuff such as a pointer to the use of the Miller Test which is a basis for determination of obscenity not the actual species depicted.

Cheers,
David.
 

kittizak

New Member
Please, dont get me wrong -- I love this place, this place has so much potential -- so the last thing I want to see is it being closed over legal issues.

All I'm saying is that I'd rather see FA to be on the safe side of the law rather than testing it.

BTW, I didn't even vote (poll had been closed by the time I decided to cast my vote) -- and it wasnt until today that I decided to give my input when they started to ask about legal precedents on this thread.

uncia2000 said:
kittizak said:
Why thanks! Ironically, I aint taking any sides....-- I just consider the legal precedents and ramifications, and how they can be applied to this issue.

In which case, please stick to the facts and not your personal interpretation or potential scaremongering.

kittizak said:
.... (although I'm leaning towards the yay for the ban since they actually won on the poll)...

I'll bite my tongue, rather than make any personal observation on what that says about many people simply adopting a herd mentality. :)
 

Trickster

New Member
kittizak said:
Don't get me wrong, I love the 1st amendment, but I love the 2nd amendment even more.
Er, what?

Though I don't understand why you're bringing guns into an argument, I agree that the 2nd amendment is important. Like the Anti-Federalists for whom the amendment was crafted, I believe that under no circumstances should the United States have a standing army.

Trickster
 

icywolfy

New Member
kittizak said:
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
Paragraph 39:
This definition of child pornography catches depictions of imaginary human beings privately created and kept by the creator. Thus, the prohibition extends to visual expressions of thought and imagination, even in the exceedingly private realm of solitary creation and enjoyment. As will be seen, the private and creative nature of this expression, combined with the unlikelihood of its causing harm to children, creates problems for the law’s constitutionality.

P61. Section 163.1(6) provides a defence for a representation or written material that constitutes child pornography if it has “artistic merit”.


(The statute) S163(6) Where the accused is charged with an offence under subsection (2), (3) or (4), the court shall find the accused not guilty if the representation or written material that is alleged to constitute child pornography has artistic merit or an educational, scientific or medical purpose.

P63. I conclude that “artistic merit” should be interpreted as including any expression that may reasonably be viewed as art. Any objectively established artistic value, however small, suffices to support the defence. Simply put, artists, so long as they are producing art, should not fear prosecution under s. 163.1(4).

P81. I conclude that the argument that limitations on possession of child pornography can never be justified as a matter of principle must be dismissed. We must conduct a detailed analysis of whether the law’s intrusion on freedom of speech can be justified under s. 1 of the Charter.

P128.5 The various statutory defences (i.e., artistic merit; educational, scientific or medical purpose; and public good) must be interpreted liberally to protect freedom of expression, as well as possession for socially redeeming purposes.


Emphasis mine.

Canadian Law explicitly mooted the 1993 hastily written law in that it prohibits freedom of speech and expression. Something, that in canada is much more strongly upheld than in the US.

However not to be very one sided, it was also said (you can read the summary [I have a highlighted copy from the campus law library]) that artistic merit is not an absolute proof, and that unless it is required for the piece, and that it's primary purpose is not to merely depict a youth, it is not a valid defence.

And one must take in the context: The ruling was made specifically to the charge of having photographs of boys under 14 (the age of consent in Canada), and stories of paedophilia. The defense was using expression and artistic merit. Written content was ok. The imagery caused the clarificiation of artistic merit as it applies to this section (it is defined per offence, not blanket for all).

It was left to future courts to further clarify the laws, and to tackle the creative expression of youths in other depicted manners.
 

uncia2000

Member
kittizak said:
Yet, it wasn't real child pornography, rather computer generated images of child pornography that landed Dwight Whorley back in jail...

=> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_Whorley

Yup. But still depictions/pseudo-depictions of human children, per our legislation in the UK on pseudo-photographs of human children, as noted above.

There is NO scope creep beyond depictions of real or pseudo-real "human children", nor any possibility of such under current legislation. The expired equine is well-and-truly flogged.


=
(re. deleted post/s: please keep on topic; there are too many people around to let important stuff be lost on previous pages for the sake of that... Thanks.)
 

kittizak

New Member
I thought the servers were in the US to begin with

uncia2000 said:
Yup. But still depictions/pseudo-depictions of human children, per our legislation in the UK on pseudo-photographs of human children, as noted above.

It's not pinin', it's passed on! This horse is no more! It has ceased to be! It's expired and gone to meet its maker! This is a late horse. It's a stiff. Bereft of life, it rests in peace... yadda yadda

I always wanted to do the Dead Parrot joke

uncia2000 said:
The expired equine is well-and-truly flogged.
 

czgoldedition

Chinook McMutton Z
Hey, kiddies, not to throw this off topic - but Election day is tomorrow in the US of A! Do you know which Senators you're voting for yet? What issues in your particular State? It would be beneficial for all of us to spend less time beating a dead horse on this issue and more time worrying about things that will actually have an impact on the world we live in.

Personally, I don't care whichever way it ultimately went - I hopped in the arguements once just on principle/to play devil's advocate, but honestly, it doesn't matter. Preyfar made the choice he thought was correct. It's his website. Respectfully, to all of you: end of discussion.

Good night, and happy voting tomorrow! I <3 you all, and since I do not use any other gallery sites frequently anymore, I do sincerely hope you'll stick around.. because I love giving critiques and feedback on everyone's work as well as receiving them on my own. Cheers!
 
kittizak said:
I thought the servers were in the US to begin with


Since nobodies answered this one yet...are you saying they're NOT in the US? That FA is NOT a U.S. site?
Now that I think about it I never bothered to check to know...
 

Summercat

Former Motterator
Because it interupts the flow of conversation
What's wrong with top posting?


Dear lord, please.... put your replies UNDER what you are replying >.<
 

Tabuu-Lion

Member
Some people would rather get their opinion in before the reader's tl;dr (too long; didn't read) instinct kicks in.
Summercat said:
Because it interupts the flow of conversation
What's wrong with top posting?


Dear lord, please.... put your replies UNDER what you are replying >.<
 

tigermist

Member
Ok now I know Ill more than likely get flammed for this but, I agree with the decission while still having qualms. The only thing I really feel strongly about it the reaction to it, what started out as calm, cool headed disscusion turned rapidly into all out name calling. Why not try to come up with a fitting comprimise right off the back instead of going after each other, because if it isnt obvious there is never just black and white there is a thousand shades of gray. My opinion doesnt matter, but what I do think needs to be talked about is what the issue is really about, how is it the we jump to moral attacks and slander to try and force our opinions and then say we have the moral high ground?
 

uncia2000

Member
tigermist said:
...because if it isnt obvious there is never just black and white there is a thousand shades of gray. My opinion doesnt matter, but what I do think needs to be talked about is what the issue is really about, how is it the we jump to moral attacks and slander to try and force our opinions and then say we have the moral high ground?

*nods da tiggy*. Very rarely are there not thousands of shades of grey.

And yes, your opinion does matter; and stated in a calm, level tone-of-voice. Thank you.
 

Summercat

Former Motterator
tigermist said:
Ok now I know Ill more than likely get flammed for this but, I agree with the decission while still having qualms. The only thing I really feel strongly about it the reaction to it, what started out as calm, cool headed disscusion turned rapidly into all out name calling. Why not try to come up with a fitting comprimise right off the back instead of going after each other, because if it isnt obvious there is never just black and white there is a thousand shades of gray. My opinion doesnt matter, but what I do think needs to be talked about is what the issue is really about, how is it the we jump to moral attacks and slander to try and force our opinions and then say we have the moral high ground?

There are never absolutes outside of philosophy. But people like to make it so - their way, or no way.

*sigh* Not enough have tried my way. It involves popcorn, confettie, and three gallons of whipped creme.
 

StoneHawk

New Member
I applaud you, Dragoneer.

Society left without rules will make its own rules. People will filter out their own associations to not include things they don't like. Smaller social groups will form with their own unspoken codes of conduct just like they do out on the streets. We as furries especially know what it's like to be socially taboo, and know how to avoid becoming targets. Now that there is no disallowed genre, and we are within reach of true freedom and personal expression (which inflicts on no others), I only hope that those who most take the advantage now presented to them shall NOT rub it in everyone else's FACES like some kind of gods damned pride march.

However... why are we thrusting it into the center stage? Surely it is a GOOD thing that we are not turning into thought police, but there are obviously socially detrimental facets of the self that, though healthy to come to terms and find peace with, are NOT necessarily healthy to show to complete strangers. All I'm saying is, the fur fandom's capability to accept and promote various outlandish lifestyles should be seen as a FEATURE, not a FLAW.

Can't we be satisfied to accept it but keep it to ourSELVES? This kind of lampooning and spotlighting of everything people find the most DETESTABLE about our interests borders on griefing against the entire community ;_; are you TRYING to feed more material to MTV!?
 

Summercat

Former Motterator
StoneHawk said:
I applaud you, Dragoneer.

Society left without rules will make its own rules. People will filter out their own associations to not include things they don't like. Smaller social groups will form with their own unspoken codes of conduct just like they do out on the streets. We as furries especially know what it's like to be socially taboo, and know how to avoid becoming targets. Now that there is no disallowed genre, and we are within reach of true freedom and personal expression (which inflicts on no others), I only hope that those who most take the advantage now presented to them shall NOT rub it in everyone else's FACES like some kind of gods damned pride march.

However... why are we thrusting it into the center stage? Surely it is a GOOD thing that we are not turning into thought police, but there are obviously socially detrimental facets of the self that, though healthy to come to terms and find peace with, are NOT necessarily healthy to show to complete strangers. All I'm saying is, the fur fandom's capability to accept and promote various outlandish lifestyles should be seen as a FEATURE, not a FLAW.

Can't we be satisfied to accept it but keep it to ourSELVES? This kind of lampooning and spotlighting of everything people find the most DETESTABLE about our interests borders on griefing against the entire community ;_; are you TRYING to feed more material to MTV!?
That's the issue a lot of people have. But...

*shrug* I don't want another Burned Fur movement over this, just as I don't want to have to star the Frozen Fur movement.
 

StoneHawk

New Member
Summercat said:
StoneHawk said:
<my above post>
That's the issue a lot of people have. But...

*shrug* I don't want another Burned Fur movement over this, just as I don't want to have to star the Frozen Fur movement.

Nope, I don't want any movements over this whatsoever >_> I'm ALL FOR people being able to do what they want with themselves as long as it hurts nobody else.

I'm only upset that there is a deal, made big-ly, about this chain of events.
We've turned this into a fiasco.
You do realize that nobody would give a shit if people weren't so hung up on having AMMUNITION to get others banned with.
"THATS BANED PR0N SAY GODBYE 2 UR SIGHT LOL"

*shudder... growl...* it's all... so... selfish.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top