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

Why don't we sue CSI?

Status
Not open for further replies.

cpam

Member
Furries just don't like it cause it speaks partly of the truth. I mean the show had to have researched somewhere. Probably asked furries at a CON about the fandom then picked out the parts that would make an interesting storeyline in the show. I very much doubt CSI deliberately targeted the worse side of the fandom. They used what they could make a storey out of, big deal, live with it.

That's pretty much what happened. They did have technical advisors on the show, but the producers ignored them when the facts were inconvenient to the story. Whether or not it spoke the truth in any way is what's highly debatable. It seems they simply took the most visual and vicarious aspects, of which is only a tiny percent of a real furry con; can it really be said that this tiny part is really the truth, even if its factual? It's like saying that it's true that all soldiers are mindless and soulless killing machines bent on atrocities because a very, very few actually have done so; the statement is really a distortion of the truth, and everybody suffers as a result.
 

Zrcalo

I STALK PRINCIPLES
That's pretty much what happened. They did have technical advisors on the show, but the producers ignored them when the facts were inconvenient to the story. Whether or not it spoke the truth in any way is what's highly debatable. It seems they simply took the most visual and vicarious aspects, of which is only a tiny percent of a real furry con; can it really be said that this tiny part is really the truth, even if its factual? It's like saying that it's true that all soldiers are mindless and soulless killing machines bent on atrocities because a very, very few actually have done so; the statement is really a distortion of the truth, and everybody suffers as a result.


well in order to make it a crime, of /course/ they had to use the dark side of the fandom... no one would've thought the episode would've been good if they used the lighter side..
in my opinion, I'm honoured that CSI acknowledged the existance of furries, and being a fur myself I have no problem with it.
 

HoneyPup

Potos flavus
well in order to make it a crime, of /course/ they had to use the dark side of the fandom... no one would've thought the episode would've been good if they used the lighter side..
in my opinion, I'm honoured that CSI acknowledged the existance of furries, and being a fur myself I have no problem with it.
Yep. If it showed what furries were really like it would be boring to most of the TV show's viewers.
 

Azure

100% organic vegan hubbas
You want to know why we can't sue CSI. Because none of you fucks can afford a lawyer, and even if you could, he'd laugh your ass right of his office, after he took your money of course. This thread is why we can't have nice things.
 

pheonix

back'n up back'n up
Why is this even still alive? Unintelligent = more feedback which is just terrible. What would even make a person think that this would even be possible?
 

Jashwa

Member
You want to know why we can't sue CSI. Because none of you fucks can afford a lawyer, and even if you could, he'd laugh your ass right of his office, after he took your money of course. This thread is why we can't have nice things.
Awesome.
 

Amu

New Member
If people sued for every single thing that offended them, everyone would be bankrupt from court costs.

There is something called freedom of speech. If something offends you, refute it politely, or suck it up.
 

cpam

Member
well in order to make it a crime, of /course/ they had to use the dark side of the fandom... no one would've thought the episode would've been good if they used the lighter side..

But... it's the only side that was shown. For that matter, the only view it gave of the fandom was the fursuit side. All in all, it was pretty unbalanced.
 

cpam

Member
There is something called freedom of speech. If something offends you, refute it politely, or suck it up.

Freedom of speech does have limits. You can't yell 'Fire' in a crowded theater if it isn't true, for instance. And you can't indiscriminately lie about people; that's why there's slander and libel laws. Not that any of it applies in this instance, but.
 

cpam

Member
Yep. If it showed what furries were really like it would be boring to most of the TV show's viewers.

That kind of criteria never seems to apply to other equally boring scenarios, though, does it? It's only as boring as it's portrayed. Or as it's not portrayed, I suppose.
 

Randy-Darkshade

Bike riding squirrel thing.
But... it's the only side that was shown. For that matter, the only view it gave of the fandom was the fursuit side. All in all, it was pretty unbalanced.

No, the show spoke the truth, wether we like it or not. And please use the multi-quote button.
 

cpam

Member
No, the show spoke the truth, wether we like it or not. And please use the multi-quote button.

If you really believe that, then you've never really been to a furry con. I've been to several off and on since the fandom first got together, and no con was ever like the one portrayed. No, the show was fixated on one aspect and that was all they were interested in.
 

Randy-Darkshade

Bike riding squirrel thing.
If you really believe that, then you've never really been to a furry con. I've been to several off and on since the fandom first got together, and no con was ever like the one portrayed. No, the show was fixated on one aspect and that was all they were interested in.

And how do you know what furries do behind closed hotel room doors?.

And if you believe that no fursuiter does anything sexual in their fursuit, then i suggest you take a trip to Xtube.com and search fursuit. That and ONE con does not represent ALL cons.

Oh yes and may i remind you of that guy that was mentioned earlier in thread organising a sexfest in his hotel room at the next con?, now tell me CSI was bullshitting.

If you believe CSI was lieing then you are comeing across as a bit naive to me.
 

coolkidex

Hug a wolf today!
It'd be kind of hard because there isnt a leader of the furries... yet. *Cough* ZEN *COUGH*

I was offended by CSI's portrayal of furries, but... Whatever. People have very fucked up ideas of what all furries are.
 

cpam

Member
And how do you know what furries do behind closed hotel room doors?.

And if you believe that no fursuiter does anything sexual in their fursuit, then i suggest you take a trip to Xtube.com and search fursuit. That and ONE con does not represent ALL cons.

Oh yes and may i remind you of that guy that was mentioned earlier in thread organising a sexfest in his hotel room at the next con?, now tell me CSI was bullshitting.

If you believe CSI was lieing then you are comeing across as a bit naive to me.

What furries do behind closed hotel room doors is their own business and is not part of the convention; the episode strongly implied it was the major point of the fandom. And I never said that such things never happened, but that they are a very small part of the fandom and do not represent the fandom as a whole, or even in any significant part. Nor did I say that CSI was lying, but that they misrepresented the fandom by showing a particular side of it -- a particularly sleazy side shown specifically for its sleazy qualities -- and giving it far more prominence than it has in reality.
 

AshleyAshes

Arcade Snowmew Of Doom
I'm gonna answer this seriously because I feel like being a dick.

Sue 'CSI' for Defamation?

So let's imagine in some magical fantasy world 'The Furry Fandom' was some how a person that could be represented in court and it was sueing Jerry Bruckheimer Television and CBS Productions for defamation of character. Defamation is more commonly refered to as 'libel' in the United States so we'll be using that term for the remainder of this.

The most signifigant legal defense for a libel suit is one simple thing. The truth. If I made you look bad with lies, that's libel. If I made you look bad with truth, verifyable facts about you? Well it sucks to be you, trial over.

Let's look at what libelist things the CSI episode Fur And Loathing presented.


It showed us a furry couple having an arguement cause the guy was sniffing the crotch of another chick, who was infact not only a man, but Willie Garson.

1) Furries argue amongst them selves including relationship issues and cheat on each other. There isn't enough space on all of the internet to list off every example of batshit crazy furry drama. So this was the truth.

2) Some male furries have female fursonas and even female fursuits. Also truth.

Next up?


Furries have fursuit sex parties at fur conventions.

1) As Taryn The Red HIV Panda so clearly showed us all recently, these kinds of parties happen at actual furry conventions.

2) But that's not all! Other sex parties are being planned. You can even see some announced at the LJ group titled 'Fursex'. I won't directly link this, but it's not safe for work and if you want to find it, Google for 'fursex' and 'LiveJournal' together. It features topics of sex parties for various conventions and furries showing themselves jerking off in their fursuits. Once agian TRUTH.


Finally, the other thing it showed us! Almost all furries own fursuits! ...Okay that one is actually not true. Fursuits are expensive and the majority of the active fandom does not own a fursuit. ...However showing the majority of the fandom in posession of fursuits was not libel either, it doesn't make furries look good or bad. It was inaccurate but harmless.

Conclusion...

THE ENTIRE FURRY FANDOM REALLY IS THE SHIT HOLE THAT THE MEDIA PRESENTS IT TO BE, SO QUIT BITCHING ABOUT THE 'LIES' WHEN YOU'RE LIVING OUT THE HORRIBLE TRUTH YOURSELVES YOU FUCKING FURFAGS. CONSIDDER YOURSELVES LUCKY THAT THE MEDIA HASN'T REALIZED THE TRUE CANCER OF THE FANDOM IS THE DRAMA. DR. PHIL COULD DO AN ENTIRE SEASON ON FURRY DRAMA. ONE WHOLE EPISODE DEDICATED TO STUMBLES THE STAIR DRAGON EVEN!
 
Last edited:

ArielMT

'Net Help Desk
It's a TV show. It's not accurate. It's supposed to be entertaining, accuracy be damned. (Whether it's actually entertaining or not is a whole other matter.) Why is this thread still going on?
 

foxmusk

uh oh stinky
THE ENTIRE FURRY FANDOM REALLY IS THE SHIT HOLE THAT THE MEDIA PRESENTS IT TO BE, SO QUIT BITCHING ABOUT THE 'LIES' WHEN YOU'RE LIVING OUT THE HORRIBLE TRUTH YOURSELVES YOU FUCKING FURFAGS. CONSIDDER YOURSELVES LUCKY THAT THE MEDIA HASN'T REALIZED THE TRUE CANCER OF THE FANDOM IS THE DRAMA. DR. PHIL COULD DO AN ENTIRE SEASON ON FURRY DRAMA. ONE WHOLE EPISODE DEDICATED TO STUMBLES THE STAIR DRAGON EVEN!

you've said pretty much what i've been thinking but not feeling like typing out.

there is nothing pleasant or positive to this fandom. we're a bunch of people who roleplay and dress as anthropomorphic animals. a large part of the fandom is nothing but perverts, fetishists, infantiles and zoophiles. hell, we even have a few fucking pedophiles, and i'm not talking lolicon.

we are a fandom that openly supports sexual deviance, and flaunts jokes of rape, pedophilia, zoophilia, and other crude subjects. Hell, the best-known joke from the furry fandom is the fucking "Cockwaffle", which is the most idiotic thing ever. the top artists are the ones who draw close to nothing but porn. Hell, the most popular artists in the fandom, Blotch, have SO much potential, and they choose to draw close to nothing but straight up pornography.

A large majority are nothing but drama whores and sex fiends who cyber in public. this fandom is pretty much the sludge pit of the internet. 4chan isn't even as bad as this is. For Christ's sake, zoophiles are welcomed with open fucking arms.

what is there to be proud of? why should we sue CSI for telling the truth?

EDIT: also, now that i'm thinking about it, who the hell would get the money if we had sued CSI and won? that wouldn't happen, but who were you thinking would get it? Blotch? Adam Wan? Our Motherland, the Furaffinity?
 
Last edited:

Panzermanathod

SHAVE ALL FUR! BALDIES FTW!!!
Although I wouldn't be so absolute, I do agree with it.

And, really, as you said you can't exactly sue for "Defamation of character" if there isn't any real defamation in the first place.
 

ArielMT

'Net Help Desk
Hell, the best-known joke from the furry fandom is the fucking "Cockwaffle", which is the most idiotic thing ever.

I had to look it up, and I had a hell of a time finding it, too. Krystal's sandwich is more well-known.

EDIT: also, now that i'm thinking about it, who the hell would get the money if we had sued CSI and won? that wouldn't happen, but who were you thinking would get it? Blotch? Adam Wan? Our Motherland, the Furaffinity?

Certainly not Alan T. Panda.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top