Fur Affinity bans mature loli, shota; restricts unoriginal work
The rules at Fur Affinity will change effective March 15, as site admin Dragoneer explains:
First and foremost, Fur Affinity was always intended to be an art site […] Unfortunately, that was never emphasized and certain aspects became… too casual.
The change raising the most debate was to ban human and proto-human minors in mature situations, based on UK, Canadian and Australian law. The site's definition covers elves, dwarves and "neko-style characters" — humans with non-human ears, tails or paws.
Other altered policies restrict keyword abuse, unoriginal or underdressed photography, most second Life screenshots, hard-to-see images and unoriginal photo edits and memes. The definition of flooding has changed and a restriction on comics using generated art has been introduced.
About the author
GreenReaper (Laurence Parry) — read stories — contact (login required)a developer, editor and Kai Norn from London, United Kingdom, interested in wikis and computers
Small fuzzy creature who likes cheese & carrots. Founder of WikiFur, lead admin of Inkbunny, and Editor-in-Chief of Flayrah.
Comments
Hm, this is very interesting. Unusually good news indeed. =] I'll pass this along to some other furs to see what their take is on it as well.
Just bear in mind, this doesn't indicate a change in FA policy regarding non-human "cub" characters. It's designed to meet laws like this aimed at drawings of children (people under 18). Nekos look enough like people to count.
Trying to carve around retarded if misguided laws without running afoul of too much of the user base?
Basically, yeah. They don't want anyone going to jail just for using the site, especially for stuff which arguably isn't furry to start with.
The UK law is unfortunate, especially as the consultation leading to it failed to find any actual harm:
The police raised the issue because they arrested someone, seized his porn, couldn't prosecute, and had to return it.
So, basically, they couldn't find anything actually WRONG with it, but they think it's icky, so it's legally censored.
AND IT SHOULD HAVE ENDED THERE. >.<
Smile! The world could use another happy person.
On the plus side, it makes for some hilarious satire.
I do agree with that. :3
Smile! The world could use another happy person.
So what's the bad news?
Also, I'm of two minds about the restriction of keyword abuse. On one hand, some keyword abuses are hilarious. But really, the keywords were put there to make searching easier, and everybody who adds keywords unrelated to the actual image/story on display, is making it harder to use the site as it was intended.
Ultimately, I'm having to side with the admins on that count, since all the humor value of keyword abuse can be transferred to the description field, where it won't interfere with actual keyword searches.
Smile! The world could use another happy person.
So they have a problem with Loli and Shota, but not Cub?
Double standards ahoy.
They have a legal problem, because people have actually been prosecuted for it, and they don't want FA users to be included in that.
Your problem is with the UK government, not with FA.
The day UK prosecutes someone for cub porn, FA will probably do something.
Meh.
I find Cub porn way more offensive then Meme's.
But you know, furries have to have their wank.
Still It's good that murraffinity is protecting it's basis when it comes to legality, and I sure as hell don't mind the new anti flooding rules.
It's the beginning of the end for the fandom, first we're gonna lose loli/shota, as it'll be deemed kiddy porn. Then we'll lose feral porn, as it'll be deemed zoophilic. Eventually, being deemed as promoting of bestiality, all furry related material will become illegalised.
I believe the fandom loses a part of itself the moment people decide it's okay to "tone it down".
How can we believe in compromise when it hurts the artists.
So the fandom IS centralized about sex, thank you for clearing that up...
If the artists can't draw porn, by golly, they aren't creative enough to draw anything else.
And no, ALL furry related material will not be illegalized even if your slippery slope theory came to pass, just the porn. I mean, if you're going to use a logical fallacy, do it right, you can't go. "We'll lose this porn, then we'll lose that porn, and then we'll lose things not related to porn." If you said lose all furry porn and not all furry related material you might have looked less panic stricken...
Unless of course to you "all furry related material" is equivalent to "furry porn" which is a different case entirely.
Ironically the same fallacy you use is the very one you fight. Like so: "First they'll fap to loli/shota, then they'll fap to pics and vids of RL children, then they'll fap on all your kids. How can we compromise if it hurts the kids?"
Opps, posted in wrong window. You need some kind of delete function, but make it so that you can't delete after a certain period, like digg...
Um... I relied to the dude below... and it puts it here... argh... delete delete delete. I'm making myself look stupid, which isn't hard but sheeh.
It's either sarcasm or sloppy thinking. And the legal equating of furry porn with bestiality is a possibility, if a remote one, so not everything he said was wrong, merely most of it.
So you're saying that Sonic the Hedgehog games will become illegal should furry porn be made illegal?
I mean, yeah I can see the XBox PS3 game fitting in that category, but otherwise, no.
He was doing ok until he said "all" furry related material... sorry I think Disney World would throw some major lawyer bombs at that.
While I would certainly hope that you're right about equating furry porn with bestiality being a remote possibility from a legal standpoint, there are nonetheless some people who think that way. I explained at some length to my ex-wife (while we were still married) what the differences were between bestiality and most adult furry art and literature, and why the latter was not bestiality. She listened, then went on to ignore everything I said, and say that to her they were the same thing. It wouldn't surprise me if that were the prevailing view in some sufficiently local jurisdictions.
And if furry porn were illegal would you still be a part of the fandom? Would the fandom be destroyed?
It would change sure, but to say it would be destroyed is showing that to the person claiming such, the fandom is porn.
Though right, hopefully it's not considered bestiality. Though as far as laws being made, I think transsexuals and gays are more on the 'morality law' radar then people who pretend to be anthropomorphic while having sex.
Luckily for us people worry more about their kids then random animals being exploited to such an extent that they'd make laws based on the concern.
After all cruelty to animal charges only get pressed if the animal is owned by someone for the most part.
No, because it would just recede back out of view. Sexuality is part of being human. Societies have had and continue to have all sorts of rules repressing sexual behaviors in certain circumstances (no sex before marriage, no sex between people on opposite sides of 18 years of age, etc.), but people keep on fucking as they wish, the consequences be damned.
Because the fandom is composed of people (sorry therians), in this way sexuality is necessarily part of the fandom. It's not involved in all activities, but it exists because it must. And it certainly is not an acceptable situation if whether or not someone is prosecuted for clearly bullshit crimes is up to the whim of a prosecutor or district attorney! In the case of the dude serving time due to manga, which is what prompted this whole dog and pony show (lolz) on FA in the first place, he stupidly pled guilty. There were extensive pro bono legal resources and enough case law in his favor that taking the less risky path was not the right call.
Or am I getting this mixed up with some other recent event? Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
Nah, it's really no up to the prosecutor or district attorney, it's really up to the people who elect said district attorney. I mean NORML does many things to try and get pot legalized, but did it stop to think that maybe they should start getting involved in trying to get DAs into office that would be less harsh on marijuana crimes? Probably not because people tend to forget that DAs are elected officials. That and they would have to overcome the collective thoughts of the thoughtless majority.
And you're right, realistically furry porn will always exist, should it be illegalized. People would have to go to more underground places to get it, but it would still exist and always will. The thing is to say the furry fandom itself will be destroyed should porn be legally subtracted from the equation though says to me that the person who made said argument is part of the fandom because of porn, and nothing else.
To me its like someone who goes to a funeral just to get the food at the reception. Though, at least the one crashing the funeral knows they're doing so. I don't think those who are coming into the fandom just for the porn actually realize there's more to 'the funeral' then 'the food'.
Good. All pornography is gross. If you want naked people find a lover and have a relationship. It comes in HD. ;)
That may be your opinion, but I don't want your opinion made into law any more than you want my opinions made into law.
Smile! The world could use another happy person.
You gonna help me with all my psychological and emotional issues in that area?
Didn't think so. :)
let them have their drawn porn and shut up i say. its alot better than pedophiles acting on those urges in real life on real people. seriously am i the only one to think this???
> seriously am i the only one to think this?
Not by a long shot! I wholeheartedly agree.
Smile! The world could use another happy person.
Post new comment