Creative Commons license icon

Does the "Cartoon Law" really affect furries?

Edited by GreenReaper as of Thu 11 Nov 2010 - 09:08
Your rating: None Average: 3.3 (39 votes)

Today reported that a new law just pasted by the British government will make paedophilic depictions of furry pornographic illegal. But does it really do this?

The law in question is the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 and the bit covering this new law is Sections 62 to 68. Now, it has been reported by some sources, such as The Register and that this law will ban depictions of under-age children and people, which will be a worry to some anime/manga fans.

However, what is actually meant be "people" and "children"?

A "child" is defined by the act (Section 65.5) as "a person under the age of 18". According to my dictionary - Collins English Dictionary: Complete and Unabridged - a "human" can be defined as "an individual human being" or "the body of a human being, sometimes including his or her clothing". Let us call these meanings "Definition A".

However, Collins also defines a "person" as “a being characterized by consciousness, rationality, and a moral sense, and traditionally thought of as consisting of a body and a mind or soul.” This is classed as a philosophical definition, which we shall call "Definition B".

Now, the act bans the following depictions (Section 62.7): intercourse, oral sex, masturbation, penetration of the vagina or anus (either with a child or in the presence of one), and intercourse or oral sex with an animal, “whether dead or alive or imaginary” (either with a child or in the presence of one).

Taking this into account, it would appear that the act makes it perfectly clear that you cannot depict a child having sex with an imaginary, and for that reason I can assume, anthropomorphic, animal, so bestiality is illegal. However, this in a way was already banned by the “extreme pornography” bill brought in last year.

But now, let us return to the definitions. If we take Definition A, and a human is an individual human being or body of a human. With the definition of a child as stated in the act, it would appear to me that "cub yiff" would still be legal because an animal is not recognised as a person. If they were, then that would mean that, for example, the government's position on animal rights would have to be that animals and humans are equal. This is not the case.

If we take Definition B however, it would appear that an anthropomorphic animal would count as a person; therefore cub yiff would count and therefore would be illegal. However, as has been stated, this is only a philosophical viewpoint and not one that everyone will share.

I therefore believe that examining this law closely, it would appear that furry pornography is not covered by this law, except in the case of bestiality. As with extreme pornography, so long as humans and animals do not appear together in the same picture, you should be OK.

It should be stated however that the maximum penalty for breaking this law is three years in jail and a fine, so you still may want to be careful out there.


Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

Wouldn't furries/nekos be considered proto-humans?

Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)

Nekos/catgirls probably would yes.

Furries are animals so no.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

Furries aren't just animals though, they're animals given human shape, minds, personalities, etc. They are not completely animals, nor completely human - thus it is logical to believe that they are proto-human.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (3 votes)

I would argue that technically speaking a furry is still an animal and not a human, and therefore would not be covered by the law, while a catgirl is a human but with some pointy ears and a tail added.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

Anthropomorphic animal (human-like animal), thats sounds an awful lot like a proto-human to me.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)

Well, I've been trying to ask for some expert opinion via the website of the organisation I respect the most - QI.

Please see here (I'm Ian Dunn).

Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)

well furries have anthro characters which comes from Anthropomorphism-is the attribution of human characteristics to, or, some would argue, recognition of human characteristics in non-human creatures and beings, phenomena, material states and objects or abstract concepts.

thus our Anthro characters would be: Animals given Human Characteristics

Are furries proto-humans, maybe, but I'm leaning towards "no they are not"

all I can say is that we have to wait and watch on how this turns out

Your rating: None Average: 5 (3 votes)

My cynical guess is that, if you explained our concept to them sufficiently well, they'd still consider it banned.

(Pardon me for the following; I'm mentally exhausted to the point where I don't really care exactly what I'm writing.) :)

Anyway, as I've been saying elsewhere, I'd love to see a massive and public act of civil disobedience to this law by gathering enough artists (not necessarily just furries either) together to draw (large?) images of loli or shota or (if it is in fact covered by the law) cub. I don't expect such a thing to happen, but I can't think of a more principled way to tell the government to shove this law up their arses, that their law protects few to no children and obstructs the artistic interests of many otherwise law-biding people. I mean, yeah, it probably is public obscenity even if it were of adult figures, but still, it's the thought that counts. Either that, or you could mail a massive amount of images to your MPs.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

^That's a terrible idea

Your rating: None Average: 2.3 (3 votes)

Someone has just reported FA to authorities in the UK and told them it's a CP site cause of cub.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

I'm confused... There can be live action depictions in TV and film of sixteen, seventeen year olds, even younger, engaging in sexual acts but there can't be drawings?

Your rating: None Average: 3.8 (4 votes)

^Actually now the law even covers that, I'm so glad I don't live in the UK at the moment.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (3 votes)

If it's a kid and sex is involved, it's pedophilia. It can't be ANY clearer than that.

I draw and collect art of adult furry girls in bondage because I like to look at adult real girls in bondage.

Therefore, if you draw or collect art of furry children involved in sex .... do the math.

Your rating: None Average: 3.7 (3 votes)

I'm not saying it isn't pedophilia. What I'm saying is the British law does not recognise it as pedophilia, becuase it only bans pornography depicting human children. Technically speaking, cub yiff appears to be legal.

Post new comment

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <img> <b> <i> <s> <blockquote> <ul> <ol> <li> <table> <tr> <td> <th> <sub> <sup> <object> <embed> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <dl> <dt> <dd> <param> <center> <strong> <q> <cite> <code> <em>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

This test is to prevent automated spam submissions.
Leave empty.