The recent "Cartoon Law" story should be retracted
The recent article made by FurteanTimes' Editor-In-Chief Alexgrey is out-of-turn for professional journalistic writing. It is full of faults. The story's title is presumptuous, and the story presents opinion as fact, makes wild claims, and it threatens to cause hysteria and fear as it ripples through the fandoms. A full retraction and apology should be written in its place lest the FurteamTimes lose any credibility as a quality news source.
The recent United Kingdom "Cartoon Law" is untested. Like any obscenity law, it resides in a huge gray area of legal interpretation. Moreover, no single piece of anthropomorphic art has been examined during common-law legal proceedings since the Friendly Frank's obscenity case in the United States back in 1986, as far as this author is aware.
Until the fateful day when a legal complaint is made against an artist, publisher, or consumer and a trained law enforcement officer determines the validity of a complaint, a warrant is issued by a judge, an arrest is made, and the defendant is tried and convicted for the possession of a piece of "furry" erotic art or literature, no single editor for any news source (unless they are psychic) can proclaim anything further than mere speculation.
This is basic "Law & Order" material, guys. Not even a lawyer experienced in obscenity law can give more than expert opinion in this matter. So save that extra two thousand in your bank account until you really need it.
Any rookie journalist knows that a news story of this magnitude should merely speculate on potential legal outcomes should any case be made. It should use language such as "might", "may", "could", etc. And any editor responsible for a reputable news staff should know to carefully examine the language used in such a story. The "Cartoon Law" article is in violation of very rudimentary journalistic guidelines. It pontificates onto the reader that what the editor-in-chief says, goes. By doing so, he is taking on the dangerous role of a law enforcement officer, lawyer, judge, and jury. He is not reporting; he is predicting, and could even cause the reader to speculate and form opinions as to the political bias such an editor-in-chief might personally have.
In some more avant-garde publications, the article could be passed off as an editorial after heavy editorial scrutiny and a heavy re-writing from what is seen here. But the "Cartoon Law" story is not presented as an editorial; it is presented as a news story and therefore should stick to proper news story styles and guidelines. Such guidelines can be found in common guideline practice books such as "The Associated Press Stylebook" ISBN 0-465-01262-0. Read up.
The FurteanTimes should issue a full editorial apology for improper journalistic protocol and retract the article. Until then, many fur fans should be weary of what they read in makeshift fan-made news outlets such as this. As George Carlin would say, "It's all guess work in a white coat."