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

Filter Revision Proposal - The /AH/ Autofilter

Spatsbear

New Member
I was a bit heated in the my previous post... but I am with Ahkahna on this:

My opinion has been stated as an overwhelming and fixed, "No filter, Ban the pedo."

I watch too many good artists on this site, and I really hate to leave, but that may be what it comes down to, as well as several others I know. I will not use a site that supports this type of material.

I am, however, going to wait and see the outcome of this first.

I also think some users don't even check the forums, so they won't know this is going on. If you want feedback, I suggest posting this on the main site as well, or as an administrator's notice banner.
 

Duo

New Member
hmm. All I can say is, Until a filter is in place, bear with it and take it all with a grain of salt.
 

VermyFox

New Member
Okay first of all, I see many are playing the typical furry fashion of defending people who don't fully deserve it, believe everyone should have free reign as Furries are sooooo oppressed, legalities from non-lawyers, etc.

First of all, no it isn't illegal per se, but things need to be realized:

By hosting images of the intent of underage sex, FA opens the doors for potential suits as it is responsible to some degree for the material hosted. Civil suits do not need to be over illegal issues. As soon as one minor gets it by a pedo who wants to claim FA helped his urges (even if lying!) it will open up for legal problems. Yes, I am aware they might claim the same for other offenses, but realistically the underage one would be much easier to claim against a site which hosts borderline material.

Secondly, by having underage material you will bring a much higher possibility of being in the view of law enforcement or other people who do monitor things and personally I rather not be on a place that has big brother watching me with suspicion for who I share artspace with. Gore, regular porn, zoo, etc fans aren't a big issue to law enforcement so I'd prefer to keep it like that.

Underage material by the majority of people is repulsive while being borderline illegal. Some other kinks like babyfur make me nauseous, but unlike cub porn aren't iffy in people's minds on legality. Also, the internet is so chock full of porn, the people who draw cub can get their rocks off elsewhere so barring one type of porn isn't going to harm FA at all. The worst is a few furries who play the fursecution card will leave for two weeks before they miss the non-cub art, and people who are putting FA at civil suit risk leave (or happily post non-cub work).

Lastly, I can tell you that people who are into underage art are more likely to be doing that kind of stuff (though I know not all do!) as the material does convey for intent child molesting. Sure, they aren't human, but as furries we give human qualities to animals so we can relate. Human qualities and feelings put on animals + on a child animal + porn= ?

As we the users do not control FA, the admins have full right to control the content. If cub work goes bye, I won't miss it one bit and most others won't either. Sure you oppress a few at your own safety and image. Also, don't forget, some victims of child molestation could be users on this site and I think they can tell pretty well what is going on.
 

Arshes Nei

Masticates in Public
Rouge2 said:
Dragoneer said:
Der Der Der Der

It's a dumb idea. We have enough filters.
[size=xx-large]
THEY DON'T WORK![/size]

The filter system has not worked for a long time.
 

Arshes Nei

Masticates in Public
Vermy, replace bestiality with "underage" and you also have a strong argument for Furry Porn too.
 

KurtBatz

Member
VermyFox said:
Underage material by the majority of people is repulsive while being borderline illegal.

Sums up my feelings on the matter nicely. Filtering is a very good idea. I for one, really don't want to be seeing this sort of thing, ta.
 

XeNoX

Member
Please...filter it...I can't take the millionth incarnation of this discussion anymore :(
 

PervDragon

New Member
Before this derails any further into a discussion of the acceptability of cub pornography, I would like to quote sections of our current federal law (the "PROTECT" act of 2003) relating to the topic:

§ 1466A. Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children

(a) IN GENERAL.—Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that—

(1)(A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
(B) is obscene; or

(2)(A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and
(B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value; or attempts or conspires to do so,

shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 2252A(b)(1), including the penalties provided for cases involving a prior conviction.

...

( c ) NONREQUIRED ELEMENT OF OFFENSE.—It is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exist.

...

(f) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section—
(1) the term ‘visual depiction’ includes undeveloped film and videotape, and data stored on a computer disk or by electronic means which is capable of conversion into a visual image, and also includes any photograph, film, video, picture, digital image or picture, computer image or picture, or computer generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means;

...

This is not meant to be a discussion issue; just a note to the FA admins who happen to see this. It's up to them to determine whether or not they'll risk their necks and the entire website on the premise that this law does not apply to anthro art, or that the cub art here has some sort of "serious artistic value" (note: anything intended to be primarily erotic almost definitely does not count as having serious artistic value).

As far as actual filters, I think two things should be done:
1) Get a cub filter working ASAP. No matter whether or not you think it's legal, no matter what debate there is about banning, there needs to be a working filter for it as soon as humanly possible. Even if it's not a final solution, it'll make all of us a lot happier.
2) A default /AH/ filter is an excellent idea, and I agree with it completely.
 
I don't see why not, although there is going to be the challenge of coming up with fair, accurate guidelines and then consistently enforcing them. I have my filter preferences set so I don't see content that I know will squick me, but I can see how it would be upsetting to new users to run across galleries that were nothing but loli Sonic hyper inflation scat death porn. Fchan has /ah and 4chan has /d for a reason.

For all of you guys coming in here screaming about OMG PEDOS! - If you don't like it, don't look at it, simple as that. I'm not going to get into the implications of drawing cubs or lolis or anything else because frankly it's a dead horse, but there's a lot worse shit out there on the Internet to be upset about than someone posting a porn drawing of a baby fantasy creature. If that's all it takes to get your panties in a twist then maybe you shouldn't participate in a community site where underground material like that is going to be distributed. There's quite a bit of content on the site that I personally find distasteful, which is exactly why I have my preferences set to filter it out. It's not the end of the Internet.
 

VermyFox

New Member
Even though I'm repulsed a bit with bestiality, it is legal in quite a few places and no, the two don't interchange very well from what I see. If they are I have some questions for you:

What are the chances of a civil suit due to sex between a thinking human and a non-comprehending-the-situation goat (which is legal in most places)? Now what are the chances and risk of human on child? Way different league.

When was the last time Dateline did "To catch a furry!" ?

Do you want two negative stigmas to furry or just one? And the zoophile one furries already have is easy to disprove and doesn't leave people wanting to attack you.

Beastiality even though to me fairly gross, is not on a child, and not the same risk or law enforcement concern. Animals at least know enough to bite and scratch. Kids often won't figure out what was truly happening til later.
 

Arshes Nei

Masticates in Public
VermyFox said:
Even though I'm repulsed a bit with bestiality, it is legal in quite a few places and no, the two don't interchange very well from what I see. If they are I have some questions for you:

What are the chances of a civil suit due to sex between a thinking human and a non-comprehending-the-situation goat (which is legal in most places)? Now what are the chances and risk of human on child? Way different league.

It's not legal in all places and many have changed their law to enforce tougher bestiality laws. I do recall owners pressing charges on people who touch their animals, and I do know people who go to jail for bestiality, so yeah what does a civil suit have to do with anything. You don't need civil suits when you actually break the law.

Do you want two negative stigmas to furry or just one? And the zoophile one furries already have is easy to disprove and doesn't leave people wanting to attack you.

There is still more than one stigma actually, and how do you exactly "disprove" zoophila? You said it's easy. Ok disprove it.

Beastiality even though to me fairly gross, is not on a child, and not the same risk or law enforcement concern. Animals at least know enough to bite and scratch. Kids often won't figure out what was truly happening til later.

Animals don't exactly bite and scratch when it happens, there have been many incidents of dogs and other animals howling in pain, but are obedient to their masters or have a temperament that doesn't cause them to bite or scratch because they're domesticated.
 

KurtBatz

Member
PervDragon said:
Before this derails any further into a discussion of the acceptability of cub pornography, I would like to quote sections of our current federal law (the "PROTECT" act of 2003) relating to the topic:

§ 1466A. Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children

(a) IN GENERAL.—Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that—

(1)(A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
(B) is obscene; or

(2)(A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and
(B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value; or attempts or conspires to do so,

shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 2252A(b)(1), including the penalties provided for cases involving a prior conviction.

...

( c ) NONREQUIRED ELEMENT OF OFFENSE.—It is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exist.

...

(f) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section—
(1) the term ‘visual depiction’ includes undeveloped film and videotape, and data stored on a computer disk or by electronic means which is capable of conversion into a visual image, and also includes any photograph, film, video, picture, digital image or picture, computer image or picture, or computer generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means;

...

I sincerely hope people will finally stop flogging the argument that paedophile furry art cannot be construed as illegal under any circumstances and subsequently have a good think over the very important points raised in this post.

This site has gone from 'no cub art allowed, under any circumstances' (which to me, was the much prefered option - does FA really want the notoriety involved?) to 'it'll be allowed, but with filters'.

Now, I can just about cope with the filters myself, on a personal level, because I won't have to look at it. I dislike this type of artwork on every single fundamental level it is possible to utterly despise a genre, but eh. Opinions are like assholes, etc.

But if the argument is raised by anyone that fantasy depictions of underage characters that don't exist in real life do not represent a legal issue, I believe this post should be used as a point of reference for them.

None of the people arguing in support for paedo art on this site are paying for the bandwidth after all, but ultimately, Preyfar is and any legal repurcussions of borderline illegal activities fall back on the maintainers heads, not the people being precious about having their particular fetish represented.

Have the filters if they're the only way forward by all means, but don't ever doubt the dubious legality of it all or the potential for vilification/bad reputation for being a community allowing a subcategory of art that is vehemently hated and loathed by some.
 

Growly

Member
Ah... now that I know that pedofur art IS in fact, illegal, I change my stance from "let it stay, with filters" to "ban it forever plz".
I love FA, it is my favorite place to post art, and I do not want to see it disappear. :(
 

Arshes Nei

Masticates in Public
Kurtz, yes, because the usual argument was that it was struck down, however, that was in 2002. It was added in the Amber Alert bill of 2003, so I brought up the websites talking about this

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/04/16/scotus.virtual.child.porn/

http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,53510,00.html

"The Supreme Court settled this issue -- if the image is not of an actual person under age 18, it cannot be criminalized as kiddie porn," said Jon Katz, a First Amendment lawyer based in Maryland.

Actual children being harmed no.

But as I stated previously my argument is along this lines and it is a better argument to make.

"Pedophiles use these images to desensitize children and engage in criminal activity," said Colby May, director of governmental affairs at the American Center for Law and Justice.
 

VermyFox

New Member
Arshes Nei said:
It's not legal in all places and many have changed their law to enforce tougher bestiality laws. I do recall owners pressing charges on people who touch their animals, and I do know people who go to jail for bestiality, so yeah what does a civil suit have to do with anything. You don't need civil suits when you actually break the law.

If those come up, sure, there is a problem. Though saying zoo suits are as frequent, high priority, or seen in civil issues is being a wee bit naive. (most actually are more likely to get charged with animal cruelty, not bestiality as it is easier to prove and also rarely does animal cruelty go to civil unless it dies) Also, personally who would you rather have at risk of defending yourself on? A child rapist, or a guy whose going to pay a $2000 fine and a week in jail if not probation? Also, since you know people who do go to jail for bestiality, please tell me how many also get their info publically displayed and go door to door explaining themselves when they move in? Guess what? They don't! Pedos do for a publically know reason.

There is still more than one stigma actually, and how do you exactly "disprove" zoophila? You said it's easy. Ok disprove it.

To some extent, I do think you're just trying to argue for fun ;). Anyhoo *kisses his man in public!* Now I'm just a "fag" as far as people care, not a "dog-humper". Easy no? (and before you say "well, they might think that still!" people may think I'm a purple marshmellow poopin colobus monkey, though it is safe to believe they trust their eyes and non-pedos more)

Animals don't exactly bite and scratch when it happens, there have been many incidents of dogs and other animals howling in pain, but are obedient to their masters or have a temperament that doesn't cause them to bite or scratch because they're domesticated.

I'd love to see a pedo in court say "But judge, he's jus domesticated!" and see how far that goes. That doesn't make it any less. Children are given a heavier status than a dog in court as fido is listed as property.

*changed as I was slow replying heh*

The main point I want to get across is that even if someone tries saying it legal, or no less harmful than something else, they need to ask themselves how much risk to civil suit and personal problems are they willing to go? By offering a cheeto to someone I am at risk of them poking their eye or getting food poisoning, etc. I find that a comfy zone nonetheless. Do the admins here feel having pedo art > risk of having pedo art?
 

Arshes Nei

Masticates in Public
VermyFox said:
Also, since you know people who do go to jail for bestiality, please tell me how many also get their info publically displayed and go door to door explaining themselves when they move in? Guess what? They don't! Pedos do for a publically know reason.

Ever look at the sex offender registry lately? Various ones do have it listed.

There is still more than one stigma actually, and how do you exactly "disprove" zoophila? You said it's easy. Ok disprove it.

To some extent, I do think you're just trying to argue for fun ;). Anyhoo *kisses his man in public!* Now I'm just a "fag" as far as people care, not a "dog-humper". Easy no? (and before you say "well, they might think that still!" people may think I'm a purple marshmellow poopin colobus monkey, though it is safe to believe they trust their eyes and non-pedos more)

How does kissing someone in public disprove anything? You can say you're not 'gay' and kiss a woman too, especially if you're still visiting glory holes at night. It's just a matter if you're caught or not. It hasn't disproved anything. Again you said it was easy but this example still fails.


I'd love to see a pedo in court say "But judge, he's jus domesticated!" and see how far that goes. That doesn't make it any less. Children are given a heavier status than a dog in court as fido is listed as property.

Grasping at straws? This is jumping from the original point, you said "at least animals know how to bite and scratch" not about what weighs heavier.

Here is the whole point, you guys are making the wrong argument which is Drawings = a 'phile of that nature.

If you actually read my previous posts, the better argument is that the imagery is used by ACTUAL pedophiles to abuse children. That's where people don't want to take accountability. An artist who draws underage illustrations is not a peodophile, however there are real pedophiles that use the art.
 

VermyFox

New Member
First of all, I see no matter what is said you will argue hypotheticals made from anything *shrug*

Here is something taken from the US Gov't National Sex registry:
This Web site is provided as a public service by the U.S. Department of Justice ("the Department"). Using this Web site, interested members of the public have access to and may search participating state Web site public information regarding the presence or location of offenders, who, in most cases, have been convicted of sexually-violent offenses against adults and children and certain sexual contact and other crimes against victims who are minors. The public can use this Web site to educate themselves about the possible presence of such offenders in their local communities.

See anything about dogs? Nope. Sorry, but unless your local paper decides to post a beastialist on their own and he publically wants it out there I don't think there are any listed in news/web. Please provide backing up of your example from a US database.

nsopr.gov if you would like to check for me. ^.^

Next, please don't accuse me of changing topics when you first came in to say "well, you could say that about bestiality". I was talking about one thing and you another before me. Though I am willing to argue back, as I'm honestly sitting here with a cold and don't mind.

I am happy to see from your own argument as to why you are against the material, though I remain fervent in mine as well despite you feeling it isn't as good of one from your point of view. *^.^*
 

Arshes Nei

Masticates in Public
Look up "Buggery" http://www.rcsd.net/offender/offender-law.htm

That's one example because most think it's just "bestiality"
 

Bravo

New Member
Ok I don't even understand why this is an issue.

This isn't CubAffinity. This isn't PoopAffinity. This isn't even VoreAffinity.

*FUR*Affinity.

If you want the hard stuff that makes people look at you like a filty, dirty freak, I believe you should be polite enough to go to a site that better suits your needs SPECIFICALLY.

You want macro? That's fine, but you'll find a community suited to you better at Macrophile.
Toons? There's a toonfur group that would love to have some new life. Or copywrongs... there's that as well.
Hyper? I believe there's a hyperfur community.
Vore? Vor-com. Bam.

I really don't want to segregate, but I think some lines really need to be drawn, and I don't think it's fair that a potentially dangerous subject material should be allowed to jeopardize FA and the users who are NOT interested in this questionable subject material.

Tell the /AH/ to stay in AH. If I want to see /AH/ material.... I'll GO to /AH/. We don't need another /AH/.

If you actually read my previous posts, the better argument is that the imagery is used by ACTUAL ******** to abuse children. That's where people don't want to take accountability. An artist who draws underage illustrations is not a ********, however there are real ******* that use the art.

Sorry, I can't even stand to acknowledge that this exists and is BEING ARGUED.

Ok, you gave a valid point. So why are you fighting for them? All that suggests is that this action is silently supported by FA.

Making a filter is only going to place a small hurdle that anyone can easily get over to get what they want. Must be over 21 to enter? Click to enter? DUHHH. *click*
 

VermyFox

New Member
Buggery also applies to all forms of anal. Male on female, etc.

Please do provide me info of a regisitered sex offender who goes door to door due to bestiality and not a general law that can mean gay men.

Also, please let me know when you wish to answer my question about Dateline doing a "To catch a furry!" episode. Then let me know when they do a sting on pedos. Which will we see first? Hmm... Oh wait, let me answer that one. Most folks in law enforcement in media don't give a flip on bestiality and the pedo one is on this week. Which one do you honestly think is considered a bigger issue here?

I am aware that anything here can be argues down into philosophical nothingness if you want, but I like to draw the lines with where society publically does. But where do they draw the lines? What is to say there is a line? What is to say tht? Why does someone get any say so over another person? ad nauseum.
 

Visimar

Member
Oh for the love of god...just stop snarling at each other already!

Seriously.

Arshes has already shown that VIRTUAL (key word) porn of kiddies is allowed, and by virtual this means not actual photos but something else, ie drawings. Photomanipulations are just edits of real photography and thus should not be labeled as 'virtual.' There is still the issue of pedophiles using said virtual images as an excuse for sexually abusing children, but that's all it really is. Just an excuse. Yet, people like to point fingers not at the actual offender, but something related to it instead, and thus is the cause of the problems to begin with.

And as what already been said above, the ones who draw expilict minors are not pedophiles (Unless, of course, they draw it just to satisfy their urges due to actual acts of pedophilia being illegal), it's the ones that utilize the imagery that are a major problem.

Now please start acting like civilized people and GET BACK ON TOPIC.

I say go for the filters. I don't think anyone who registers for the site would want to see a certain type of fetish that they dislike upon logging in for the first time, and if there is one or more of the fetish types that they like but can't see, they can just enable it manually. It won't disable all of it due to submission organizing issues, but it'll cut down on the ones that are labeled properly, for sure. If anyone enables the disliked content just to whine and groan in order to shift others' attention to them, that's their problem. FA didn't make them look at it, they themselves did.
 

VermyFox

New Member
Oh for the love of god...just stop snarling at each other already!
Aka you are okay with drawings of kid porn and wish the rest of us would be content because you are? The forum mods closed the topic on the subject and told us to come here and say what we felt. So here we are, and hopefully more will come and get the admins to side with caution.

I am not here wanting to argue whether it is legal or not.

If allowed, I know a few who will leave. This isn't a whine or plex. Just an honest statement FA needs to either be child porn depiction friendly art site, and a non-child porn depiction friendly art site as this is a drawing line for some. I'm betting some will leave either way they go on the issue, it is FA's choice on which way they want their image to go. I likely would move to what I feel is more wholesome. And when I consider gore and tentacle demon spooge pics more-wholesome than something else, well. I am looking to alternatives in case ^.^

What I want to say is: I am super highly against child porn even if not real. Please go back in time to lose your virginity before you learn cursive to an adult and let me know your opinion on it. Legal or not, it doesn't change it is on the border of legality (in a year or two, it'll be 100% illegal again knowing it), and a very dangerous risk to civil lawsuit for FA. Lastly, does FA want to risk problems, and what image do they want for the site? Not what the users, nor the people who are 'fursecuted' by me speaking my mind, or my own opinion be guaranteed what admins decide on. However, I want to let them know my opinion. Not mad here, just wanting to get my say out. ^.^
 

VermyFox

New Member
InvaderPichu said:
I'm for the working filters.

I'm not for banning cub, loli, or shota. If we ban that, then we must ban all rape artwork, and all violent artwork. Last I checked, things like rape and murder were also illegal and morally wrong. Even if they do depict adults.

I'm not too big on rape either, or intentionally meant as murder of another person pics (violence, gore, or things under R-rated movies to me are fine such as orc beheadings, accidental, non-intent pics like "omfg you stole my triscuit, STABBITY!").

If those have to go to get rid of cub work. Then that is the price to pay. What is the worst to happen? 4-Chan gets 10000 more hits, and FA gets a better image while keeping Porn and R-rated furry art.
 
Top