Wow................

Yeah :/

lol The FBI has been reported many times to us. The servers are not in a It rape not art state. there is little they can do. I love when the uk thinks they can make american law. besides that will only last until the parliament is caught knee deep in another CP scandal.

Sorry, did I say the UK was making American law? No, I said cub porn is now officially illegal in the UK, and that it'll probably have bad knock-on effects to FA in the USA.

Well if the uk is going to "hound" an american website to the point of getting the FBI involved then yes. The UK is attempting to effect US policies with their own laws.

Would you object to the FBI reporting a child porn website in, say Germany, to the German authorities?

No that's what interpol is for. FBI goes to interpol with a "The Germans are at it again" and interpol then calls The German interpol who calls the German FBI who say they have found nothing.

Also 1/4 of the AO material on FA IS lol or cub.

Sorry, I associate Interpol with the cold war, and honestly didn't realise it still existed. I thought it had been replaced by a different agency. Though your argument is a little pedantic if it's simply that A-to-B was wrong but A-to-C-to-B is correct.

I'm also curious where you got the 25% figure. Off the top of my head I would have presumed 10%, tops. If it is the former then I think it's time for the UK furs to jump ship before they're all tarred with the paedophile-brush, as the work of deleting that much content will likely be more than the site owners will be bothered with, and it'll be easier to simply annex the UK.

All the sonic porn is loli, half the adult stories are loli, and most the "Zoo" pix count. Not to mention all the Palcomix clones. there are 3 million submissions as of a few weeks ago.

Even at 10% that's still 300,000 pictures.

I'm not going to lie I made up the 25% but based off the 1500 artists I watch but the point is still valid. heck at a random search I got over 100k not including the insane number of artists that do not label their works.

Mature and Adult only
(1 - 60 of 1590), 0.043 sec.
loli: found 2028 times in 1590 documents

(1 - 60 of 9240), 0.073 sec.
cub: found 12071 times in 9240 documents

(1 - 60 of 5655), 0.085 sec.
young: found 21645 times in 16944 documents

(1 - 60 of 1769), 0.080 sec.
child: found 10952 times in 8255 documents

(1 - 60 of 20865), 0.153 sec.
girl: found 73864 times in 57210 documents

(1 - 60 of 10644), 0.129 sec.
boy: found 38239 times in 30373 documents

(1 - 60 of 4736), 0.081 sec.
sonic: found 32326 times in 18465 documents

3,045,251 as of my reply.

I feel your searches are misleading. For example "young lady" or "when they were younger" would be included in results. Likewise the sonic search. How old is sonic supposed to be anymore? And more often than not he's portrayed as a teenager of adult with no childlike qualities. And again simple terms like Boy and Girl don't explicitly mean children.
Also the submission number is inaccurate as it also accounts for deleted submissions.

Still, assuming these are all correct somehow that only comes to just shy of 55k. Or 1.97% of total submissions, rounding up.

The only accurate way to find out quickly would be to have database access and simply see how many entries were content tagged as fetish|adult|cub, presuming accurate tagging.

Personally I have been hoping dragoneer would rethink the sites stand on cub art as it is. I don't now nor will I ever draw such. Anything even close to young looking in my stuff has a disclaimer to say as such.

and yet your icon is by an artists who is known for her loli fetish.

Ok first off. I commisioned her because I like her style. I did not at any point commision her, nor would I commision anyone else based upon their fetishes. A fetish is exactly that. It does not effect the artists ability to draw well, merely their personal preference.

My icon is not in anyway child/cub related. So I fail to see as to how that is relevant either to the journal itself. Nor to the subject matter at hand.

If you feel you must flame and cause drama, please. I ask nicely because I am not a vicious individual. Please do it somewhere else. After all, Sci did not ask for it, and to be honest, neither did I.

You know my stance on this subject...so to hear the UK is cracking down on child porn well it kind of restores a bit of my faith in humanity. This has been one of the last safe places for cub art...and while people might get all butt hurt about infringing on personal rights they have to understand some things have no place in any kind of public domain. Furs have been caught in scandals that make more then just local news I mean Alan the Panda any one? How can we as a fandom ever earn any kind of respect of acceptance when we openly take in pedophiles?

So what does this mean for the sight? Well the administration better be able to be ready to remove all sexual cub art or be ready to be investigated for the trafficking of child porn. Personally I think the amount of HUMAN like Shota and Loli art on this page is way out of hand. So at least our admins might want to consider getting rid of that, because even if it is a drawing it's still a human child.

--Just throwing out my two cents.

There have been a number of arrests in Canada for manga fans importing such collections, under obscenity laws.

I'm unsure where US law stands on this, but I suspect the constitution's free-speech portions would put a considerable hold on it until a lawmaker finds a work-around.

“child pornography” means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where—
(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
© such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/1.....6----000-.html

The only thing I am not able to find at the moment is what the charges for trafficking such things are in the US is . But I know for a damn fact that it is not Legal.

Actually if that's the whole of the definition then there's sufficient loophole to get away with it fine in the USA, presuming it's not further dependant on varying state laws.
The use of a minor for one. It could be debated that a drawing isn't an actual minor. The language is unclear. Is a picture of a cartoon animal child indistinguishable from that one a human child?
That said portion C is more damning as it says a "depiction" and "modified" to appear as an "identifiable" minor. There is possibly some leeway, but this seems to be the affective sentence.

But is it applicable to all US states? Specifically the one FA's server resides in.

That's the one thing I am not sure of, and trust me I can hear and see the possible loop holes for all I know that's what's keeping this page safe. I am unsure if state laws differ or not. Considering the Alan the Panda incident and I am sure there are others it will only be a matter of time before the US get's down to investigating sexual cuby artists, while it is true that some of the people that make the art might be innocent, there are those that are not. The only thing that I can advise any one to do that is part of this community is to make it loud and clear what side they are on before the legal hammer comes crashing down.

The one thing I can not get my head around is how sexual cub artists can even have the gull to say what they are creating is anything less the child porn because lets face it a child is a child is a child regardless of how it's presented.

I completly agree with the sentiment of the law; personally I can't see cub art as anything other than child porn O_o

Actually I meant to type cub porn rather than cub art as clearly there's a difference ^^

Sigh. Thoughtcrime is thoughtcrime regardless of the content. I always thought the law was around to protect people from being harmed. There's never been a proven link between looking at images (violent, or BDSM, or whatever) and an increased instance of murder, or torture. Pictures are pictures, actions are actions and frankly, I think that anyone who just says "about time too" is an idiot.

Truly, I do. The whole bunch of you are stupid. Nobody can believe that the role of the law is to enforce morality to the point where anyone who enjoys anything "immoral" is punished, surely?

Why not lock up people who draw pictures of stealing? Stealing is wrong, after all, and since there's now officially no difference between hurting someone in real life and looking at a picture, I reckon anyone who has ever looked at a picture of the Hamburglar ought to have their hands cut off.

Actually it makes me feel bad for the victims of sexual abuse. It lumps people who would never harm a real child in with the terrible child molesters, it dilutes the pool, it makes the issue more complicated. We ought to punish people who harm children. Not people who enjoy looking at an assortment of pixels or lines of ink.

See, you're probably right. It's not evidence of a crime, it's not a record of an actual event. As this came after the government's ban on "extreme pornography" it does tie in rather neatly to a government dictating a moral standard, as well as tarring all questionable artworks with the same sex-offender brush.

However it is law now and possession of just one piece of the work could land you on the sex-offenders register for 5 years to start with. That means your movements are limited, you can face arrest going near schools, your job options become very limited, and that's presuming someone doesn't beat you in the street because suddenly you're associated with the word "paedophile".
People are still in such a frenzy mindset about the crime that even if you were proven 100% innocent of any accusation at all just half an hour later, you would likely never live it down. People would always ask why you were suspected in the first place. Paedo's are the new boogymen. Everywhere and nowhere, and the slightest suspicion is enough to send folk screaming with literal torches if not pitchforks.

Regardless of the legitimacy of the crime, the first step is to prevent innocent people being punished for it. And that means either having sites that distribute the now illegal content (regardless of whether you look at it) remove the work and so avoid being labled as child-porn sites (Oh yes Mr XXX, I looked into you and found you post your art to a site that was blocked by my ISP for containing child porn. Expect a call from the police.). The only other real safe alternatives are either being publicly and vehemently opposed to the content (prove you're fighting for change) or leave the site entirely, leaving as little trace you were ever there as you can.

--

Also as more of a personal opinion, by and large you're right. Those who draw cub porn are probably harmless. But in a self-reinforcing environment filled with (to be fair) extreme fantasists, the fantasy art does become increasingly intense over time. While the proportion is low, there are those who do use it to fuel real desires. There are a lot of fatfur fans who complain about not being able to put on enough weight, there are cub fans who do put on nappys, shit themselves and jerk themselves into a stupor, and there are vore fans who're awaiting sentencing for penis-eating murder conspiracy.
Those are all examples in the UK, btw.

What about that cub-artist who recently left because some b-tards found out his real name? Turns out he's a highschool teacher in Japan. Is it fair? No. Can you understand why he'd be afraid? Yes. Because if just one parent found out their kid's teacher was drawing hundreds of pictures of obviously child-based creatures being raped, the man would be be hanging from a lamp-post by weeks end.

I don't believe it should be a crime, but I don't believe fantasising over raping children is healthy and should be encouraged, which is what this site does by openly permitting it even in the face of a majority NO vote by it's users.
As far as the law goes, what can they do other than make it illegal? They have no affective halfway legislation they can use. Short of sending a social worker around to every single house to check they're not having any unhealthy fantasies anyway, which I think might be rather worse received.

If the government wants an effective long-term solution to it, then they should encourage the development of cheap social spaces and things that allow people to network in varied conceptual environments. Help foster an environment of mutual trust where people don't need to have power-abuse fantasies. But as modern government runs on the stick of FUD rather than the carrot of positive action, this is unlikely to happen and can only be accomplished on the individual level.
Personal confidence and a varied lifestyle is the affective counter to obsessive fantasies of power.

To me it honestly doesn't matter whether or not cub porn does lead to child abuse. That's not the issue to me. The issue is the question of whether the law ought to be permitted to intervene before a crime is committed. I think the law ought to restrict itself to incidences of harm to real people. Any contingent like "maybe causes", or "is linked to" should be left outside the boundaries of the law. After all, even stronger than the function of punishing the guilty is the modifier of ensuring innocent people aren't punished. Therefore any contingent causes have to be treated as not being a cause until someone has actually committed a crime.

Echoes of the same debates can be found in the proposal to lock people with personality disorders away because it may cause them to be predisposed to violent crime.

Healthy or unhealthy is a moral judgment and as such, ought to be left to society. Otherwise we'll end up with things like what happened to Alan Turing. We can't punish people because we disapprove of their fantasies or orientation. Only if they have hurt someone.

lol indeed. Case in point the gun ban in Washington DC. and the gun laws in Montana and Maine.

When DC increased the gun law by banning them with in city limits Extreme gun violence and illegal sales skyrocketed. when Maine Passed the "guns are ok everywhere but church. you hear of maybe 1 mugging a month and Very low anything. Montana has an Anything is legal gun law and you never hear anything about gun crime.

the reason is simple If your going to jail for a petty crime as even having it the hells going to stop you from going through with the real thing?

Morality laws or not hanging someone for having a drawing or actually having sex with a child what will they choose with the punishment being the same? let the pedos have their art and they are Loads less likely to actually go through with the plan.

Two very different examples. The USA has a perpetual watch for anyone trying to take away guns from the citizens, so it's not surprising that when there is an instance everyone rushes for them and becomes very gun-centric, as well as criminals trying to take advantage of a potentially disarmed citizenry.

The cub porn issue isn't one of people wanting what they can't have. If I were to use an analogy I would probably be a drugs one. But analogies are essentially flawed because they aren't ultimately what you're actually talking about.

If you distribute material that reinforces a mindset in an environment where endorsement and encouragement for that mindset are common, then that mindset becomes stronger.
A substantial portion of furries are not well socialised (though mercifully this proportion is decreasing) and still get the majority of their comfort time through the fandom, which in turn is fantasy-centric and often centred around a single theme of it.
Cub porn (not general cub art) is conceptually an image of a pre-sexual person being sexualised. I don't think I can make a more all-encompassing statement than that.
In a fandom where peoples fantasy personas and their real-life identities are frequently if not commonly interchangeable, does it seem wise to have active reinforcement that sexual fantasy images of children is ok?

There seem to be three basic types of cub porn that I'm aware of. 1} Child willingly involved with an adult, 2} child unwillingly involved with an adult, 3} child involved willingly with another child. Each has it's own incorrect reinforcements.

1} While in the real world children are not capable of making the informed decisions of consent, the fantasy images reinforces that the kid is able to and would enjoy it.
2} The majority of child abusers historically don't actually do it primarily for a sexual act, but as part of a dominance act. Raping someone is pretty much the most dominant thing you can do to someone, and mollestors typically are so poorly socialised that the only thing they can find non-threatening enough to show their dominance over is a child. Cub art with this theme reinforces the child as an object to be sexually dominated.
3} While there is actual study evidence of pre-pubescent sexual interaction in children as part of the self-exploration stages of life, the images showing two cubs sexually interacting is nothing to do with this, and only serves to show two children in a state of sexual arousal. While there may not be anything inherently wrong with this if it were a real event, the critical point is that the image is a sexual fantasy for the benefit of the observing adult. Again, further and possibly the most generalised reinforcement of children as sexual objects.

As far as I am aware there is no redeeming quality to cub porn, in that it only serves to reinforce the sexualisation of children in the minds of those who enjoy viewing it, as well as further distance them emotionally from the rest of society. While not all might go so far to act upon it, it is a profoundly unhealthy interest which can only proceed into deeper and deeper fantasies as the real-world reality is so different by comparison.

Did you know there were dozens of images of Chuck-E-Cheeses stored on the softpaws server at one point? With maps to rear exists and quiet nearby areas?

To that end you are also saying Violent gun games lead to violent gun crime, Violent art leads to Assault and Violent music leads to Murder? There should be a ban on these too if that's a case. So we are now to the point of not blaming the Individuals who preformed the crimes, who would have done it anyway with or without any media help but punishing everyone who has really done nothing?

1. The majority of child abuse comes from a trusted source like a parent, neighbor, close friend and Religious Officials. Most of whom have never seen a drawn act of a child with 1- willing with an adult, 2- Child unwilling 3- Child with child and 4- Child solo. Biologically we are advancing at a far faster rate than 30, 20 hell 15 years ago. Did you know children are Reaching puberty as early as 7 but as average as 9 yeas old now? Hell I didn't even think of girls till I was 12. We are advancing faster and faster with information as well. During the 1950's it was taboo for women to even show their legs. Now anyone with an internet connection has access to a mind blowing amount of smut and has attempted to replicate it alone or with a friend.

2. Next Because it is taboo people gravitate it. Breaking the rules of the time is why Rock is here, rap is here and sticking it in the pooper is not a crime punishable by death. The harder you try to remove something the harder people look at it. To that end I would look around the UK to see what is really going on. This subject is Very touchy and will draw much attention away from what is really going on.

3. Not everyone is into the Huge breasts, with Super nipples. some are into Smaller breasted women only because it is different than the "Dolly Parton" and California Super bimbo that has saturated the market. Unfortunely as it stands there are very few if not nonexistent alternatives between Jail bait and like matter... Like if all you eat for 6 years is stake sure it's good at first but after a while you will be wanting chicken.

4. Have you or will you ever Sexually abuse a child? Will you or have you ever Assaulted someone to the point of killing them? Have you or do you Pirate music, movies, videogames, pictures, ect..? All 3 are as taboo as the other yet the you have a hard drive full of music.

Did you know there are dozens of tactical combat plans of every school you ever went to ever? With maps to rear exits and sniper resistant areas near by?

What's going to stop you? Public exposure. Despite all the fantasy reinforcement, in person people know it's something shameful, something that needs to be hidden.

Conspiracy to murder. Arresting someone for planning to kill someone. It hasn't happened yet but there is sufficient evidence that they have every intent of doing so.

Conspiracy is different though, you have to have hard evidence of times and places and suchlike. There has to be sufficient evidence of a planned actual event in the future whereby someone is going to get hurt - threats aren't admissible, for example. Looking at pictures provides no such evidence - at best, it's just a possible indicator of something that possibly might happen at some point in the future. Therefore I don't believe it ought to be seen the in same way as conspiracy.