FA+
Shop
About this new UK law.
15 years ago
READ IT.
Part 2, Chapter 2, Section 62, Subsection 1 of the Coroners and Justice Act of 2009.
"It is an offence for a person to be in possession of a prohibited image of a child."
Part 2, Chapter 2, Section 64, Subsection 1.
"Where a person is charged with an offence under section 62(1), it is a defence for the person to prove any of the following matters—"
Paragraph B.
"(b) that the person had not seen the image concerned and did not know, nor had any cause to suspect, it to be a prohibited image of a child; "
Paragraph C.
"© that the person—
(i) was sent the image concerned without any prior request having been made by or on behalf of the person, and
(ii) did not keep it for an unreasonable time. "
MEANING. If the thumbnail of a cub porn image gets loaded into your cache, and you weren't aware of it, or did not request it, you have the defense under part 2, chapter 2, section 64, subsection 1, paragraph c that you "were sent the image without any prior request", and if you NOTICE it and clear your cache, "did not keep it for an unreasonable time".
Merely browsing a website with 'cub porn' on it in the UK isn't illegal. It's illegal to LOOK at it, and SAVE it willingly.
AND if you're REALLY worried about it. Just download firefox and use private browsing mode. STORES NO CACHE, so you don't even have to worry about it.
EDIT:
I am by NO MEANS telling people not to be wary of the laws. I'm simply stating that I wish for people to read and understand what they're flipping out about BEFORE they flip out about it. If after reading this, and knowing exactly what the law states, you still wish to be wary of using FA, by all means, that is your decision.
I am simply here to help educate.
Part 2, Chapter 2, Section 62, Subsection 1 of the Coroners and Justice Act of 2009.
"It is an offence for a person to be in possession of a prohibited image of a child."
Part 2, Chapter 2, Section 64, Subsection 1.
"Where a person is charged with an offence under section 62(1), it is a defence for the person to prove any of the following matters—"
Paragraph B.
"(b) that the person had not seen the image concerned and did not know, nor had any cause to suspect, it to be a prohibited image of a child; "
Paragraph C.
"© that the person—
(i) was sent the image concerned without any prior request having been made by or on behalf of the person, and
(ii) did not keep it for an unreasonable time. "
MEANING. If the thumbnail of a cub porn image gets loaded into your cache, and you weren't aware of it, or did not request it, you have the defense under part 2, chapter 2, section 64, subsection 1, paragraph c that you "were sent the image without any prior request", and if you NOTICE it and clear your cache, "did not keep it for an unreasonable time".
Merely browsing a website with 'cub porn' on it in the UK isn't illegal. It's illegal to LOOK at it, and SAVE it willingly.
AND if you're REALLY worried about it. Just download firefox and use private browsing mode. STORES NO CACHE, so you don't even have to worry about it.
EDIT:
I am by NO MEANS telling people not to be wary of the laws. I'm simply stating that I wish for people to read and understand what they're flipping out about BEFORE they flip out about it. If after reading this, and knowing exactly what the law states, you still wish to be wary of using FA, by all means, that is your decision.
I am simply here to help educate.
I love your brain, for it is not covered in dramallama brand sauce. And the fact you ACTUALLY FUCKING READ THE THING!
Sincerely,
Keesh
(1) The following apply for the purposes of sections 62 to 64.
(2) “Image” includes—
(a) a moving or still image (produced by any means), or
(b) data (stored by any means) which is capable of conversion into an image within paragraph (a).
(3) “Image” does not include an indecent photograph, or indecent pseudo-photograph, of a child.
(4) In subsection (3) “indecent photograph” and “indecent pseudo-photograph” are to be construed—
(a) in relation to England and Wales, in accordance with the Protection of Children Act 1978 (c. 37), and
(b) in relation to Northern Ireland, in accordance with the Protection of Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 (S.I. 1978/1047 (N.I. 17)).
(5) “Child”, subject to subsection (6), means a person under the age of 18.
(6) Where an image shows a person the image is to be treated as an image of a child if—
(a) the impression conveyed by the image is that the person shown is a child, or
(b) the predominant impression conveyed is that the person shown is a child despite the fact that some of the physical characteristics shown are not those of a child.
(7) References to an image of a person include references to an image of an imaginary person.
(8) References to an image of a child include references to an image of an imaginary child
(8) References to an image of a child include references to an image of an imaginary child
a cub would be an 'imaginary child', since it doesn't specifically say that it has to be a human child.
using a real child to base your art from i think would fall under this
But then, they do define a child as a *person* under the age of 18, and I have a feeling a person is used in the common meaning or is defined as a human being.
Then again, maybe if people just STOPPED drawing it, we wouldn't have this problem. Either way, I think the FA users in the UK shouldn't be worried to the point that they are leaving.
Meaning, "technically legal" usually means they can still bust you and force you to defend yourself.
My boyfriend may be screwed.
Fuck the law. End of. =]
Fuck the law. End of. =]
XD
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/3673362
since it falls perfectly into the definition. (Sorry for pasting part of your comment but I disagree completely with all this thing.)
If they click on it, didn't realize what it was, didn't willingly save a copy of it, and/or cleared their cache afterwards, then there is no issue. It's only when possession is MAINTAINED.
* Assuming we don't continue our longstanding tradition of creating laws that violate the Bill of Rights, and then having the Supreme Court hold them up for a few decades while the old crusty farts appointed by a conservative president 20 years prior die off.
And besides, the act of "bestiality" is defined as a human having sex with an animal. While it certainly exists, most furry art does not depict humans in sexual situations with anthros/non-humans. You could certainly get into the question of the humanness vs. the animalness of anthro characters, but it is a moot point.
Really, people are spazzing without reading their own law. You'd think they'd actually look it up and make an effort to understand it themselves before overreacting. :\
Thanks man^^
Without the internet, there would be no way to really argue with who is right and who is wrong.
"did not keep it for an unreasonable time."
If you open it not realizing what it was, and close it immediately, then that constitutes you not keeping the image for an unreasonable time.
This law is about willful possession. If you were to open the image, then save a copy of it, THEN you would be in violation of the law.
And honestly, clicking on one image, no one is going to have to silence the alarms at the internet watch center then alert the police that you might have seen and saved an image. I'm pretty sure that the whole basis of this law is to deter the people who hoard images. It would be a total waste of resources to go after one person who MIGHT have clicked on a picture or two.
But then you get the problem of can watching an artist be considered to have requested it.
It's on such fine points that a law is hung.
If such is uploaded here and a thumbnail loads but you don't access the full image, you've still downloaded and are in possession of the thumbnail image. However, taking appropriate measures safeguards you from prosecution. For example, deleting cash, not downloading the actual image because it wasn't your intent, etc.
In short: Don't look, you're good.
You know what might help against accidental downloadings on here? Proper thumbnails and tagging. Buuuuuuut, this is FA, where visible bits an' sex pics are still uploaded under General submission =<
i'm simply curious, because i know many canadian lawmakers are sure to jump on the bandwagon.
"drawn" or other fictional depictions of children in sexual situations is already illegal.
So.. still good reason not to do it at all, if you're worried about it.
Thats how I see it going down in an american justice system at least.
* (Do I hear laughter?)
Thank you endlessly much for actually getting the facts on the table after all the drama and hysteria I've seen in the furry circles. Whether I'm for or against it - or as it so happens, a mixture thereof - I like to relate to the facts. If you come to AC this year then I'd love to shake your paw and buy you a beer.
People like you make this community worth being in.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts200.....5_en_5#pt2-ch2
-BC
Possession.
There are cub porn artists in the UK.
There are baby fur artists in the UK.
There are diaper fur artists in the UK.
This doesn't change much but that cub porn artists in the UK are in trouble.
FA is still labeled as a child pornography site and someone on Lulz has already reported it as a child porn site to a UK anti-CP site.
FA needs to get rid of it's cub porn or people are going to be in trouble.
You can clear your cache but traces are still on your comp.
we'll see!
What are you talking about
Idk why you're raggin on me when your buddy alex likes that shit.
I'm not ragging just making sure your beliefs line up to what's in your favs :3c
I'm saying why are you ragging on me for having past shit faved when your buddy likes it?
I don't like it. I rarely fave porn and when I do it's because of the art itself.
Last porn I faved: http://www.furaffinity.net/view/3670915/
and I'm gay. :V
If you don't believe it still then that's fine.
:3c
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/3670513
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/3668947
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/3661016
how much
can you lie to yourself
a lot apparently
I don't know why you care so much about me but
Continue
My ego is at 120%
But damn double standards are hilarious shit to me.
I don't care what worthless pieces of shit like you think of me.
Because that is what you are.
Worthless.
Go back to complaining about this in your own journal.
I move on from guys very fast.
& it was months ago.
People will leave you
& you can't dwell on them or you'll end up nowhere
So I don't dwell on anybody anymore. I can break up with my boyfriend one day and move on the next.
Browse with discretion!
To be honest i would have stayed on FA even if it was illeagal - it's too good to pass up ^^
Also, for anyone who doesn't know how to put private browsing on firefox, it's Tools >> Start private . Quite easy :3
Cheers,
Rico ~
Stupid touchpad
However, I noticed something else, nowhere in the law did it say anything about written works. Just images and movies. Is that law already in the books there or was that another loophole they forgot to plug?
But yeah, the law says in possession. Which according to the law to possess something is not viewing it on a webpage, unless of course you own that webpage or are a user on that webpage and uploaded the content yourself.
I mean, I'd love it if that weren't the case, then I'd be in possession of FA, Wikipedia, I'd be in possession of the whole effin' tubes. But the fact is that if they charged someone for looking at cub porn on a website, their law, as it is written doesn't cover it. One would have to actually possess the art itself.
(PS to those concerned: possession != ownership, someone can draw something and I can steal it and I'm still in 'possession')
I have read the law myself, unfortunately knowing the law is only half the problem. The other half is how it will be interpreted and enforced.
Hell, I've stuck my head in enough legal matters and books and I've still been amazed by some of the really messed up interpretations of even really clear laws made in the courts.
So while I do understand enough not to be hysterical. I do think that a great many people have gone "it's not a problem" far too soon.
sometimes cub porn just reminds me the macro/micro stuff....
i love that
So yeah, do you really think they're gonna put every UK FA visitor in the police record? Very highly unlikely. If they do, I'll be completely stumped.
But c'mon, even they have common sense. Everyone who browses the internet has the chance of getting unwanted material on their computer. That's just the internet.
So thanks for posting this, hope it clears it up for some people.
Kudos to you Dax for clarifying the finer points of the Digital Economy Act that's getting everyone in a fuss.
In my personal opinion, I doubt that cub art (which I highly disagree with) will be the most prominent problem when there are "troll" artists out there (drawing highly controversial things just for the sake of it; a prominent problem most certainly on e621) with... scenes too surreal to describe involving certain human protagonists. And of course, the bog standard child pornography problem as well.
Even if something does happen, I'm staying on FA anyway. Sure, there are some questionable things here but meh, it's all about self-expression really. There's some good and bad to everything. Besides, no doubt if they DO start getting heavy-handed, whenever this law comes in, someone'll start crying "Human Rights! Human Rights!" if their internet is cut off -- ah well; the media were trying (at the time) to get some sort of interest in politics considering the general apathy about the election (and Britain's Got Talent hadn't started yet).
Still, kudos to you for actually READING the law and not just going off on hearsay.
This means that - despite the fact that I have saved on my netbook all four issues of SoftPaw, and the fist issue of Finding Avalon - I am fully exempt from classification as a "paedophile" for another three years, 20 days, 18 hours, 35 minutes and counting.
I guess that I'll just have to enjoy it while it lasts, eh?