GODDAMN IT BIG BROTHER
JOHN BULL GOTTA FIGHT THE POWER

ROW ROW FIGHT THE POWAH D:<

WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK WE ARE!?

No god damn it. Not THAT fight the power! Yall kids need to listen to some Public Enemy!

Need to fight the powers that be.

SEE
THATS WHAT IM TALKING ABOUT

THESE KIDS KNOW NOTHING ABOUT RAP.

rap - thats you whippersnappers vanilla icecream & ice cubes and ice trey... why is everything ice? whatever happend to *insert inane rambling about musicians from 40 years ago* And why is everything so loud it makes the cars down the street vibrate! Why you know *insert story about when cars had no radios*

You got no rap - but you want to battle
It's like havin' a boat - but you got no paddle
Cause I never pause - I say it because
I don't break in stores - but I break all laws
Written while sittin' - all fittin' not bitten
Givin' me the juice that your not gettin'
I'm not a law obeyer - so you can tell your mayor
I'm a non-stop, rhythm rock poetry sayer
I'm the rhyme player - the ozone layer
A battle what? Here's a bible start your prayer
This word to the wise is justified
If they ask you what happened - just admit you lied
You just got caught a - for going out of order
And now you're servin' football teams their water
You messed with the master, word to Chuck
And I'll wax cold tax, made sure you got DUNKED
You just got dissed - all but dismissed
Sucker duck MC's - you get me pissed
It's no fun - being on the run
Because they got me - Public Enemy number one


One, One, One One!

Public Enemy number one....

Ranging Entei is raging at the news.

raging* *face palm*

Bah. Entei likes Milfs. Not Lolis

Team Dai-Gurren of course o-o

Those poor UK people.

You do know that it means that it won't be long before they try to pass a similar law in the US, right?

Oh Crap, That won't be good at all!! I hope they don't.

They probably won't. It could be declared unconstitutional since that means that it could affect what art we make, as well as saying that seeing somebody die in a movie is as bad in reality, and the movie could be canned for being bad. In other words, won't happen due to 1st Amendment rights.

That's good, because if they did, I would be pissed off to the extreme.

We all would.

i must say, politely, speak for yourself on that one XD

if they made drawn kiddie porn illegal? lol yeah right.

No, I dislike kiddy porn with a PASSION. But it's the wording that states that fantasy is the same as reality. That means that you could get arrested for murder for making a picture that shows you killing somebody. THAT'S why I think the law is fucking stupid and shouldn't have been allowed to pass.

Kiddie porn are like rape victims, they dont say anything until they know for sure they are safe.

Its kinda hard to kill someone without someone noticing. You kill someone, people are gonna notice one way or another.

But the law includes Fantasy.
IE: A drawing of a Child who never existed in the nude, even if s/he is just standing there, is now illegal.

If they can say that is against the law, where do we draw the line?
Do I approve of CP? hell no.
Do I approve of art of CP,? hell no.
Do I approve of a law that bans the rights of others to create?

ask yourself that.

well not only unconstantushinol but it would be like that one bitch who tryed to run for president and said she would ban video games yea 1 hardly if anyone voted for her and 2 you would have 97% of the whole US on your ass yea id like to see our army try and stop that it since most of the army would help XD

sadly humans are the stupidest creatures on this hole planet they are the true cockraoches and will never truly survive when all hell breaks loos laws are supposed to help not be made cause one group dont like one thing like come on if its not real life then yes i can like while in rl i kinda like the fantasy but comeon will i do it thats whats un ethical humans have got to learn the they never have all information its the true searchers for knowledge that gets the facts like me and a collection of others when i gets ma paws on the world im nott letting go and i will makes dem realize just how much i am an influance to knowledge and its revenues and uses can lead people happy lives and itl even make laws real and not just a way to get people in trouble for something one dont like knowledge is that way u dont have to like it since knowledge is true regardless of who likes it or not eh so it might help the world to invite me into the fray and see what happens to morales in this pitiful existence humans think they have they need me on the side of inevitability eh

actually, my mistake. i was refering only to the removal of loli and shota. losing more of our rights would, obviously, be a shame. i read your response too quickly.

The bad thing is that, yes such a law would probably be declared unconstitutional as it violates free speech, but then the liberals and progressives would pipe up and say "But it's for the children" and suddenly such a law is a good thing.

And then I'd say, "Well then, I can arrest you for watching Clash of the Titans because you did nothing to save those people who died."

And the funny thing is...I would win.

its one of those "sucks to be you" moments, if such a law was passed, there would be nothing in hollywood, or anywhere for that. Economy would drop even lower than it is now.

I beg to differ. Liberals are the ones supporting free speech in ANY form. Like artwork made out of human feces.

Conservatives are the ones that want to take away artistic freedoms.

Not... really. Remember Tipper Gore?

The libertarians are the ones who believe in free speech in all forms, but people rarely listen to them because they believe in same.. batshit insane things too.

Not really, Hillary Clinton has been railing against violent video games consatantly.

Urgh, if there's one thing I hate more then anything, its that "for the children" bullshit.

I agree, it shouldn't be to the goverment to say 'it is for the children' bs, that is the parent's job. Parents need to step up and stop being lazy about raising their kids.

Pretty much this, it's not the governments job to parent children, its the parents. To bad like you mentioned, parents these days, blah, just, blah.

The problem with this logic, however, is that the porn glorifies the sex act with the child. The movie, however, does not (usually) glorify the murderer, and the killer is usually caught by the good guys who are against it.

The fantasy presented in the movie is the fantasy that you can be that good guy that takes out the bad guys through whatever means necessary. This, however, IS glorifying a DIFFERENT crime, vigilantism.

I'm not against cub porn, but your logic has a slight flaw.

I was well aware of the flaw, but you see the overall point of my argument.

I do, but perhaps a better comparison would have been video games? Oftentimes, we glorify killing sprees with malicious intent, especially in our videogames. Prime examples would be GTA. By the UK's reasoning, if you play GTA, you should be arrested for killing hookers and stealing Mustangs, BMWs, ambulances, and police cars.

they passed the healthcare bil and the supreme court is to busy off in their own little world to even take notice that the bill is VERY unconstitutional, was passed with bribery and slaughter votes, unconstitutional right there

don't you get it?, the left doesn't give two shits about the people's voice

Have you actually READ the healthcare bill?

The Supreme Court already ruled banning simulated (drawn, etc) child porn as unconstitutional. Their rationale was it could be used to suppress things like Romeo & Juliet.

That's a rationale...that makes sense.

actually, there was a recent court ruling in favor of service providers, that the FCC can't regulate things on the whole where the internet is concerned, and that individual ISPs can block things at a whim. Of course, the FCC could potentially do a national ban, but I don't think that's in the near future... I hope. Also, congress could make it go the other way, where the FCC can designate what ISPs can and can't block. though... mandatory block, that's just another step up, and it scares me.

they cant do that to us. freedom of speech and press bitch

Damn straight. Thank god for the Constitution.

this is one of the few moments where i can say... um *ahem* U.S.A! U.S.A! U.S.A!!

It always amuses me when Americans think they somehow have superior freedom of speech over everyone else....I trust you've never actually lived in the UK?

What do you mean? The US passed such a law before the UK did:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/20.....05/manga-porn/

Read the law. It is not against the law to own pornographic ART of children, as long as it's deemed unplausible for it to have been traced from real images of child abuse.

That guy was an idiot and did not question his arrest or conviction, and I do believe it was overturned

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1466A.html

You mean this law? It has no "traced" stipulation at all. It's pretty clear. However, I would like to know if it has been overturned.

doubt it... things like that have been tried many many many times, and always got shot down as unconstitutional

As a mad militant UK dragon I say thus on the matter "Hmm, oh something about art I don't look at. Meh, where's my beer..."

Here you are. *hands you beer*

Ah cheers old bean -drinks away happily-

Cheers. ^^
*watch*

That's what i said.... untill i realised it could just make BROWSING FA illegal X3

Anywho, furries =/= human, so we're safe :3

How? It isn't possession of the art. And it's for Human depictions. Last I checked, a tiger was far from human.

I don't like such art by any means, but furries are getting overly strung and panicky over loosing FA when the chances of such happening are nill.

I mean fuck, if the UK Government DID block us form accessing it, well we are going the way of China and alot of people would fight against such actions. In passive and non-passive ways I am sure.

Of course, i agree, i also forgot what i was going to type next, so i'll leave it at that :3

Of course people will still be OMG CUB ART TOO?!

YES! BAN THE CUB PRON! WHO NEEDS THAT SHIT?!

Agreed, but look at the wording. Fantasy is as bad as reality? Doesn't that then mean that you could get arrested for murder just from showing a picture of a guy getting killed by something?

Did he not mention 'gore art' in that journal?? I believe he did.
Even if it is fantasy, seeing a cub/child having sexual things done to it is still food for pedophiles' eyes.

Even if it is food for a pedophiles' eyes, it's still fantasy.

Yes, but by the same token, they could do the same thing to videogames where gore is concerned. Neuter FPSs something fierce, and it may even stretch to movies! This is just one good detail of a very bad thing going on.

Exactly why I wrote my journal about this.

OH WELL. If you have to pull drama to make them stop FINE. WTFever. I DON'T CARE.

We're a communist country ANYWAY.

What country you talking about?

As stated by John Stewart on his Daily Show.. on one of them I recently watched, he calls America a communist country. I agree. They are taking over. Blah blah but seriously, I really don't care about this topic anymore.

yes, exactly, if they keep this up, then they may take away FPS games and violent movies from their citizens, what they would have in its place is a bunch of disnified crap force fed to them on a silver platter, that seems to be what the british government is aiming for, complete and utter disnification of the entertainment industry, where violence and sex is completely cut out......Wow, I just realized that when the slippery slope becomes valid in a discussion, you know something has become completely messed up beyond all logic :/.

yeah I agree with Cindercheth on this, this is yet another aspect of cub art that people fail to understand, its NOT that the fur is a pedo, its more or less part of Age play, and age play goes both ways, you could have a 33 year old Roleplaying as a baby/cub fur, and no matter how old the character is, the player is STILL 33 years old, just as you could have a 20 year old Roleplaying as a 50 year old and older, the character may be old and wrinkly, but the player is still young, and and the fact that he/she roleplays/cosplays as an eldrly bear, or fox, or gryphon, or any other human/animal hybrid does not change the age of the player, Plus, what would people rather have? a child preditor, which is another thing people here have misconcieved, child preditor is not a true pedophile, just as a someone who is into beastiality is not a true zoophile/zoosexual, pedophilia is NOT a fetish, its actually no more a sexual orientation than gay, straight and bi, same with zoosexuality, its not the persons fault they are sexualy attracted to someone of the same sex, oposite sex, both sexes, animals or children, what it boils down to is this, they were born this way, zoophiles only do it with animals when they are willing, and pedos do it if the child wants it, but of course, the laws treat children as though they are not people till they hit 18, untill then, they are just subpeople with less rights than adults, an adult can have sex, why can't a child, even if he or she is concious enough to consent, an adult can look at porn, yet children can not, hell, its not like the parents these days are going to give their child the birds and the bees talk anytime soon, which leaves the child oblivious as to where they even came from, then when they are sexually mature, but not legally deemed people yet, the moment they start masturbating, because they found that rubbing themselves there feels goodm the parents (who are probably batshit insane christians, which is so bloody common these days) come down on them with the wrath of god in their eyes stating that if they keep that up, then they will be dooming themselves to eterhal damnation to hell where molton hot magma will be poured on their cocks for all eternity as punishment for spilling their seed and indulging in one of the carnal sins of the flesh, the way I see it, people are looking for equality, yet they do not see children as equal, but instead inferiour compared to adults, what I am seeing is adult supremicy, if you think gays have it bad with dealing with straight supremicy, and blacks with dealing with white surpremicy, children have to deal with adult supremicy, gays have been deemed the N**grs of this time, but the way I see it, they are not, yes they deal with prejudice, but at least they have a voice thats being heard, children STILL do not have their voices being heard when it comes to equality, all because they are children, some things that come with learning, like certain responsibilities I can understand them not having access to, like being able to drive, because for one thing, they are too small to reach the pedels and to see over the wheel, and drinking, well imho, thats a gray area, because in some places like cuba, there IS no Age of Majority, I should know, my dads been there, and my step sister and step mother are cuban, and my dad was at this one childrens party and they were passing out drinks to the kids that could qualify as rocket fuel, it was so strong, I don't even want to know what proof of alchol ot was. probably was as potent as moonshine, and they were passing it out to children, this is because while its a socialist country, the people are still equal, no matter how young. old, crippled or different the person is, unless they are part of the elite, the citizens have at the most part equality, even then, with the elites, the elites are equal amongst themselves it seems, they all have equal ammounts of money, they have equal rights to things, and they don't get any more or less rights then their peers within their class, so even with classism, there is still some degree of equality among the classes. Anyways, the point I am getting at is this, if we truly had equality, then children would not be given such steep restrictions on what they can and can not do, they think kids are stupid by default, but no, they are being MADE stupid by not being allowed to experience some things, and they are not being taught some things either, like sex for an example, they are not being taught about responsible sex, and if they do have sex, they are forced to have sex within their age group, no older, no younger, any older and the older person gets charged with statutory rape, any younger and its the kid that gets charged with statutory rape, which in my HONEST opionion is an oxy moron, because if both parties are willing, reguardless of age, then the authorities and governments should FUCK OFF and let the lovers have their fun, reguardless of age differences, because the last time I checked, the definition of rape is when one forces sex on the other without that persons consent, if a child preditor is abducting a child to rape, then it is most definately rape, because he is not only fulfilling his sick, twisted fetish, but he is also forcing it on his victim, which is no different than what a beastialist does when he grabs his dog and sticks it in it, he doesn't know if the dog wants it, and chances are, the dogs too terrified to bite, knowing that he would be punished and raped till it bleeds, then provided medical care for any injuries so that he can keep raping the dog at a later date, thats the thing with beastiality, they control the animals with fear of abuse if they resist, but zoophilia, its anything BUT raping animals, they let the animal come to them for sex, not the other way around, it is the same thing with pedos, they ask if the child wants to have sex, if the child says no, then they do not proceed, if yes, then thats what they do, I see no ethical reason to keep pedophiles from persuing their love intrest as I see no reason to keep gays from pursuing their love intrests, if they wanna keep pedos from having sex, then they need to ban sex alltogether, but Woops, do that and you put the whole population at risk of extinction, not that its a bad thing, because the way I see it, this planet is over crowded enough as it is, maybe a ban on sex for a while till some of the population dies down to a more reasonable level may actually help provide more habitat for the animals, including ones that are endangered and at risk of extinction, and it would also drastically reduce the amount of fish being caught in comercial fisheries, because less people, means less fish needs to be caught, there would be less comercial farms and more small farms to provide food to the population, and most of all there would be less polution because there would be less cars on the road, humanity seriously needs to start practicing population control and start culling some of the population if it really wants to survive, be it terraforming another planet and colonizing it, or the more drastic measure, weeding out the deadbeats, idiots, and morons, the weak, the stupid, and basically anyone who is not contributing to society in any way, it may mean stripping some human rights, but hey, this is what animals do, humans are no more animal than a dog or a cat or a monkey or an ape, the fact is, we humans ARE apes, the only thing that sets us a part from man and ape is two things, the ability to walk upright, and the ability of communication through the spoken word and the written word, where as most animal communication is I believe fifty percent body language, twenty five percent vocal, and twenty five percent scent. Anyways, I don't know where this post is going anymore, yet it all seems to tie in together, the main point is, the fact of the matter is, the government is targeting both pedophiles and preditors alike, because people lump them intogether, and rest more easily under the false safty that sick depraved people won't go after little timmy and little amanda to get their rocks off, not knowing that take away a molesters shota and lolicon, more and more preditors will become desperate and more and more children will be abducted and raped, then possibly killed and disposed of, hoping nobody finds the body.

ok, I understand you don't agree, and we both share different opinions, lets just agree to disagree ok :P

I understand, I guess I didn't think before going off on a rant, I tend to do that, it is sort of something a person is born with, but its something that can get them in trouble as well, I may have been wrong about the other stuff, but there is a huge difference between a molester and a pedo, but the fact is, its better to have them fapping to fake kiddy porn than to have them going after the real thing, so anyways, lets just drop this mess, and move on, I didn't mean to offend you or anything or cause any drama for that matter, it just kinda happened, and I should have kept quiet about it I guess.

Oh and for the record, I am not a pedo, just incase you thought otherwise, I was voicing an opinion, there is a HUGE difference between opinions and facts, :<, oh, what a mess I got myself into, the last thing I need is enemies within the fandom, I have enough of those outside of it *eardroops*

Seconded.

http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/1321273/

Since the reason for such a ban is to protect 'human children', the way I read and interpret this is being applied to humans only. A cub is no more an 'imaginary child' than a dragon is a dinosaur. And the arugement that liking cub art makes you a petophile holds as much credability as enjoying slasher films makes you want to dawn a hockey mask and go kill teens in the woods or liking Vore art makes you want to eat live small rodents. I persoanlly enjoy slasher and murder mystery films because I KNOW it's NOT REAL.

"Oh but Wookiee, we've seen some cub artists jailed for posessing real child porn."

Yah, 'SOME' artists. They don't speak for all artists that draw cub art any more than those plushy-f**king or diaper wearing furries represent all of furry fandom.

We can argue the fact till we are all blue in the face but in the end it will be up to the courts to determine how close the art represents a human child. So in the end, a law designed to protect human children may now serve to restrict our own imagination possibly leading to banning similar forms of artistic expression. That's just sad in my opinion.

I'm guessing this comment is supposed to be for the journal and not directly towards me? *hides from wookiee's wrath*

Just commenting on the content of the link. :)

Thank you! I was afraid some of my best pals woule be gone because of this. *hugs and sighs, relieved*

"rating fantasy art as equal to real acts"

Am i the only one who thinks the above is absurd?

I agree, it's extremely stupid

It is. Thats like saying 'if you kill someone in Call of Duty, you just killed them in real life to the law.'

*nods* The government really needs to just get with the time. We need a more diverse population making up our government. I doubt any of our MPs have even played a game, but heard in passing 'Ohh, my boy never came out of his bedroom, playing games 24/7 and then he went and shot up a highschool', and just rolled with that. I play games a fecking lot, like, I LOVE games, play them far more than I should and I'm very placid.

Well, then, what you don't know is that tomorrow I'm planning on travelling back through time to WW2 and win the Pacific campaign single handedly using just a flamethrower with unlimited ammo, then I'm going to become a big green dinosaur, eat a few babies and then lay giant eggs.

After that I was thinking of fighting the Covenant on Reach and then hunting down a serial killer or two. Its only because of this fantastic law that this is now possible, by the British Government making it that fantasy and reality are now totally the same.

....idiots z.z

Hah XD Glad ya approve.

and manhunt

No.

My question to UK lawmakers (who claim fantasy art is a "gateway" into real activities) is what about rape art? Gore art? Drugs, murder, asphyxiation, transgenders, etc. Fantasy doesn't lead to people running out and engaging on those acts.

If so, we'd better ban any children's movie that shows the use of imagination. THAT COULD LEAD TO CHILDREN JUMPING OFF ROOFTOPS ON BROOMSTICKS TRYING TO HARRY FUCKING POTTER!

Seriously. There's so many bad arguments in their story and how they came up with it...

Yet the law still passed, i guess the fallacies don't matter to them.

That's because the guys in charge of their government are idiots.

Isn't that true of most?

It got through mainly as a "LOOK AT US WE ARE MORAL" PR campaign.

Before you slag off our government, it might be a good idea to just remind yourself of the two simple words 'George Bush' for a second and realise that maybe, just maybe, we're kind of even on this one.

At least we don't have moronic politicians that outlaw what one is allowed to create.

no, you're right, you've never ever had a moronic politician.

Feel free to complete the sentence.

Here, let me help you in case you failed to catch it the first time.

...that outlaws what one can create

Yeah, Im sure the USA never prevent people expressing themselves, ever. Absolutely no stupid laws there, nope. Get off your very tall horse; your government is just as fucked up, if not moreso, than ours.
If you honestly think the USA is this huge free haven of expression while the UK is a little supressed pit of government control, I have to either laugh at you, or feel very sorry for you.

As far as I'm aware, much less concerned, the USA has no laws in place that prevents artistic freedom as long as it does not impose on other people and their rights.

Though I do have to give you kudos for attempting to derail the argument into a "who's government is more screwed up" debate.

It wasn't me who brought up screwed up govermnets. I believe that, if you read the comments here, you'll see comments like "That's because the guys in charge of their government are idiots." And of course your little gem "At least we don't have moronic politicians that outlaw what one is allowed to create."
So yeah....good job, there. Perhaps read the other comments here before you accuse me exclusively of 'derailing' the argument. It happened long before I arrived.

All Im saying is that no-one in America has any right to cast the 'screwed up government' stone.
British politics aren't perfect, but they're certainly no less screwed up than yours. Thats what Im saying; get off your high horse.

And before you go off into cloud cuckoo land with your idealistic view of America's freedom of expression vs ours, you might want to look at how restrictive American television is vs ours......Is that not restricting what people can create, and there 'artistic freedom'?

Please, don't try to push your arguments with other people on me to get the response you're looking for, because it won't work. Furthermore, I never said, implied, inferred, nor insinuated that the United States Government is superior to yours in any way shape or form. To be perfectly blunt, for someone who complains about people being ignorant towards the UK, you have yet to display that you're any less ignorant towards the US.

Before you get into another opinionated rant, know that I don't care about your opinion, personal views, or preferences. What I care about are facts. If you have no facts to bring to the table, then you have nothing to argue.

you have yet to display that you're any less ignorant towards the US

I've not actually stated anything about the US, other than saying their government is just as fucked up as ours, and that they have more restrictive television guidelines, both of which are true, so Im not quite sure what you're smoking.

Stop trying to play the poor wittle victim. If you're not prepared to back up your statements or have the balls to defend them, then you probably shouldn't say them. There are no facts worth debating here, the only facts that exist are that this law is in place and we're all going to have to deal with it.
If you didn't care about my opinion, btw, you probably wouldn't be constantly replying to me.
I'll show you how its done, love. I don't care about your opinion, so watch as I move on and refuse to acknowlege it further :)
Thats how we do it.

First, you're merely voicing an opinion in regards to our government with no factual evidence, even after I told you that I don't care about your opinion. Second, television regulations are based off television companies, not the government. Also, what statements do I have to back up? The only statement that I made towards you is that your politicians are morons, which is widely agreed upon in this journal. Furthermore, a moron is someone who lacks judgement. A politician that outlaws lolicon and shotacon on the pretext that "there's no difference between fantasy and reality" lacks judgement. For someone who acts superior towards other people simply because you're in the UK, you don't know much about American slang, much less our laws, do you?

Yet you're arguing like its mandatory for baby furs to display theirs? When they could keep it to themselves and there would be no issue?

What does this have to do with restricting creative rights?

On a side note - Going back to your television example, the ability to create is not related to the ability to display. It's not mandatory for artists to display their creations, especially through a third party such as a television company.

It's not mandatory for artists to display their creations

Yet you're arguing like its mandatory for baby furs to display theirs? When they could keep it to themselves and there would be no issue?

The law likely wouldn't have passed if not for the way it was done, it and a number of other questionable laws were put forward now because the current ruling party announced the date of the next election and this means that parliament must now dissolve [leaving insufficient time to give proper scrutiny to whatever is being rushed in right now.]

Now it's starting to make more sense. They have a window of oppertunity where awareness is at a low level, so they're sneaking it in now when they couldnt earlier.

More just that they only may have had a few hours to check it rather than days [like with the electronic bill they've tried (not sure of status) to pass.]

Trading Freedom for security never works.

Plus laws where it's illegal to have "X" data can be abused in so many ways? Want to frame someone you don't like? Break into his computer and sneak in some questionable material. Already happened too... :|

Plus by that (flawed) logic, wouldn't most furries be into bestiality too?

Yep, read a story like that. Stalker guy wanted the husband of his victim to be arrested, so broke into their house to put illegal material on the other's computer, then called the police anonymously. Police immediately took husband in for questioning. Later, police find similar illegal pictures on the stalker's PC too so took him in instead. Still......

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither Liberty nor safety." ~ Benjamin Franklin


I thought it fit in with your comment

I had that quote in mind when I wrote that post, but I forgot the exact wording and winded up paraphrasing it. :) It's probably one of my favorite political quotes ever, as it's so true.

It's been demonstrated time and again that the people that push hardest for this kind of legislation are usually the ones with the most to hide.

some christian groups tried to get some harry potter books banned actually.

And succeeded... in Australia.

"Jimmy get off the roof!"
"I'M TRYING TO HARRY POTTER."

... Okay, in all seriousness, this sucks. :( I do recall a story of a boy who jumped off a building thinking he was a Pidgey, but there was no legal action taken against Pokemon that I recall. In that case it's not the shows fault, it's either the kids fault for being an idiot, the parents fault for not keeping track of their children, or both.

Still, when people think that they've been "wronged" by viewing something, they may go to ridiculous measures to make sure no one else will be "wronged" again.

People do come up with pretty stupid arguments for pretty everything, like the whole thing with Texas trying to do away wit the 12th grade because seniors were slacking off.

That was Utah trying to do that with the 12th grade. It in one Dragoneer's journals call Utahard or spell something like that.

Oh, yeah, that's right. My mistake.

No texas is trying to make a mockery of history class....


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/.....cre-u_n_498003

That was it! I knew that something fucked up happened in Texas; I just got the stories screwed up.

Utah was planning on getting rid of 12th grade.
Texas had their history books altered by ultraconversaties.

Stories straight now. Thanks. :P

no prob, had it saved in my history, kinda concerns me cuz I live in texas and all. Really don't agree with what they are doing in either utah or texas, both seem really REALLY wrong in my mind

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/....._n_498003.html

looks like the first one was broken

It doesn't matter...They're the Government...at this rate, the UK being burned to the ground looks mighty appealing if it will stop the spread of the madness. And by burning the UK, I mean the officials that think this is a good idea.

this action they made seems pretty stupid

I hope it gets repealed.

With their slippery slope logic its only a matter of time until any sort of picture of a child AT ALL is banned. So peoples mothers better shred those baby/ childhood photos of their kids before they get hauled off for "intent of child pornography/ unlawful possession of an image of a minor"

We are gonna need a shit ton of Crisco and crowbars to ever pry these stuffy morons heads outta their own asses.

I really can't stand to see where this world as a general is headed, we all watch movies and read books about a doped up hive-mind like existence and go "oooh those crazy 1950's sci-fi writers, what pot they must have done" only to turn around and see laws like this being passed and pretty much slowly pushing for people to be able to do nothing more than sit in a corner and suck on a salted cracker so it seems.

There were rumors of people who actually wanted to ban Harry Potter because they could lead to children wanting to learn about the black arts of the occult (the sound you just heard is your brain screaming BS at this bit...that or your jaw dropping on the floor).

Law makers are always trying to invent an excuse to try and force people into agreeing with what they dislike. Jack Thompson, for example, always used the violence in video games as an excuse to cover up real life problems that people had.

Is it just me or wouldn't it be better for pedophiles to have something drawn (fantasy art) to fap to rather than go out and create his/her own fantasy (pictures, rape, etc.) with real kids? I believe some researchers did a study a few years back on rapists that had been arrested and released several times. The rapists were less likely to continue going out and raping when released if they had access to porn magazines and sex toys. Need to relocate that page, was a good article for this sort of thing.

I think it's because Gordon Brown only has half a brain, hence only having one eye that works *nod*

Which is why if charges were pressed on me with a similar logic pattern I'd have the judge's kids arrested for animal cruelty for watching Tom and Jerry.

Reminds me of a Robot Chicken sketch where Peter Pan came and told the kids that they could fly, only for them to jump out the window and plummet to their deaths because they forgot to imagine that they were actually able to fly.

I think the more absurd thing is that people are willing to stand up for and tolerate people who get off to the idea of children having sex.

A person who goes out and rapes a child deserves to be put in prison, but you can't compare a real act to one depicted in fantasy.

The UK might as well ban all books, music, and movies depicting illegal acts if they are truly "as equal to real acts".

At the bare bones of this law, it has nothing to do with banning something because it's equal to the depicted act. I'm all for it because it bans something that is fucking deranged, which is deriving sexual pleasure from fantasizing about children in sexual situations.

Finally, no more having to read Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita or Stephen King's It :V

Actually alot of Stephen King books and stories. A few have rape or child rape involved in them to show plot, i.e. Bag of Bones with it's gangrape or The Library Police with the main character having been raped as a child, and so possessing a terror for the library which adds a subplot.

Ah but the law is only against IMAGES and 'Series of Images' (movies) there is nothing about text or word in the law.

As long as they don't commit real acts, it's not really my place to comment on what possible illegal acts take place in an individuals fantasy, and if they decide to portray that onto a medium, i simply wont look at it.

Until i can find the law i can't comment on it's base reasoning. But if this law was indeed passed soley because, once again, "rating fantasy art as equal to real acts", then British lawmakers have a lot of egg on their face.

Thoughtcrime! Great! Big Brother would be so proud.

Minority Report! Pre-crime division.

But these people are sexually into their illegal fantasies. Illegal acts in stories and art can be used to move along a plot or make a point, so banning those would not happen.

Not that banning fantasy porn will do anybody any good

And whats the difference between someone having an illegal sexual fantasy, and one about drugs and murder?

The intent, I suppose. People writing about drugs and murder is not necessarily a bad thing. Neither is writing about child rape, given you write it while hating it, using it only to prove a point or add to a story. Sexual fantasies are things that, to at least some extent, people would wish to happen because it turns them on.

This law is still dumb though, as it's only use is frustrating porn viewers. A pedophile is a pedophile - Not having porn won't stop them.

Which isn't to say loli and shota fans are necessarily going to rape anybody.

I understood what you meant. I'm not a fan, i just don't believe artists should be stifled because they portray acts that are illegal, but not real.

Or even have it made illegal in the first place.

off topic, that avatar is awesomely funny =3

I defend the right of the KKK to say what they want because I believe in personal freedoms, does that mean I want to lynch black people?

It does to the mindless liberal left who don't believe in personal freedom.

As much as I dislike stuff like the KKK, they do have 1st amendment rights to do what they want. I am a strong constitutionalist.

Actually being very liberal in regards to personal freedoms means being against any form of censorship, that's why I'm suprised liberal leaning furries are going along with this.

Because this crosses against 'liberal' and 'conservative' and boils down to "please ban something I find icky". Both liberals and conservatives can be stupid like that.

The ACLU has defended the KKK on numerous occasions, but, I doubt you want to do anything but beat up strawmen.

Incorrect in a manner. They do not have the right to do what they want. What they do have is the right to express their personal opinions without being persecuted for it legally so long as they break no other laws (such as libel and slander).

Oh, yes, this is quite true. They do have freedom of expression, but they can only do it without breaking any other law.

DAT ASS(your icon)

IT is absurd but what humanity creats.... or something like this, i forgot the rest >.<

Anyway, it's bullshit to rate both on same @.@

Yeah, it's really ridiculous.

Some people thing fantasy is a reality. Especially here.

huh. Parliament has had a long history of not knowing the difference between fantasy and reality.

Well, just another example of how retarded the UK government are. On the run up to an election instead of fixing out economy their only policy is, 'Porn is bad!'. Buncha idiots need exterminated z.z

That's because it gets the votes.

That's because the majority of people that vote hate something or want to blame it for their problems. So if the Government goes to parents, 'See this cartoon porn....its making paedophiles eat your babies' those idiots are gonna buy it, just like linking games to violence >.>

But meh, I'm not into cub so I don't care about it being taken off, just think its retarded when the world is in the state its in that they are targeting porn :P

Remember, the general UK population has long been taught that the gov't knows whats best for them, and thus have no idea of what actual freedom is.

Gonna head you off here, as you're starting to sound a little biased. No people currently under any form of government can experience "actual freedom". The purpose of a government is to establish laws (rules) that individuals are to follow and a system to punish those that break such laws.

Wow...that doesn't sound a lil racist at all. Since I myself a British Citizen and what you just said it stupid in so many ways.

WRONG! We see this crap going on and hate it even more than you do, but given the current climate if you tried to protest it you have a 50/50 chance of being banged up as a pedophile.

The only reason they havent been strung up from the gates of westminister is because we're so sick of hearing this endless torrent of bullshit that the entire country is consumed in apathy. No one is prepared to take the risk of being crucified by politicos and the media to stand up for a cause. Its the same in just about every other country. Freedom of speech is a complete fantasy.

I'm going to go stock up on Guy Fawkes masks and scarlet carsons now.

or like linking games in general to addiction

oh for the love of christ, just because a guy spends possible 12-17 hours a day playing video games doesn't mean he has a problem

it means he either needs a job, girlfreind or a life.

not that i'm aggainst video games or people without jobs, i know a computer engineer who had to take a job at McDonalds because the firm he worked for had to lay him off, and his family doesn't want to move 3 and a half hours to omaha, which that firm isn't even taking jobs right now.

alot of people can't get jobs because firms or places don't have the money to pay

Video Games can lead to addiction. I am an avid gamer myself, and I've seen people who are addicted. You can become addicted to anything, and thus become unhealthy. In addiction, it's not always a case of a substance, but often the case of a weak mind. People who become addicted to non substance things usually have no control over themselves. They aren't lifeless, alot of times they even have jobs. This is where it becomes dangerous, because they CAN lose their jobs and become homeless because of this addiction.

There has been a person in the furry fandom who has showed rabid addiction to furry art as well, but that's a whole nother story.

From people not like me. You tell me where to vote against it and I will.

I thought people in the UK can't vote on anything, the parliment does all that.

Vote to chance the people in parliment.

Nothing's getting the votes. No fucker is voting. Political confidence is in a total slump.

No, it's because the UK politicians are asleep at the wheel. The people are FURIOUS at them. ALL of them.

To be honest though......no. I live in the UK, and no-one I know would even know of this law if I didn't tell them about it. It doesn't actually affect most people and most people have no clue about its existence. So to imply people will be voting based on this law is kinda silly; virtually no-one is aware of it.
What is deciding the votes in this country at the moment is the war, or fox hunting. They're the two issues people are basing their voting decisions on, not this obscure law.

I thought the law only covered actual possession of that dumb shit anyway?

So as long as you don't download it you're fine

Also, what if they amend it to involve cub specifically? What will you do then?

Digital or otherwise.

And if they amend it to involve cub or "fantasy creatures" we'll... figure that part out. I don't have a good answer.

Well I'm just worried because, as you might see, I've been here for a couple of years and I quite like it here :c

It does.
Before, it only applied to photographs and videos of real subjects - real life porn. It excluded cartoons. Now it does.

As long as you don't save stuff, you're safe. There are measures in the law that state you aren't guilty if you can prove it wasn't your intent to view them. For example, if you're browsing the nets and catch a thumbnail of prons in it you can easily prove it was not your intent to view.

Tell my internet browser cache to not save that. Oops.
Seriously, of all the people who use computers for web surfing, how many know to clear cookies and temporary internet files?

People are just paranoid.

OMG, save the children! ._.

Idiots.

But thanks Dragoneer for filling us in. :3

Is Privacy mode active by putting your settings under Privacy to not log history?

WTF are Lolli and Shota? I don't even know what these stand for/mean.

Underage boys/girls :c

Oh, Cub. Ok. Never felt that was an appropriate thing, anyway.

From what I gather, the loli/shota stuff generally refers to human art, not furry.

Why try to make a distinction that won't stand up in court. Honestly, I don't want the pedophiles and perverts turning to furry art to satisfy their needs to see young children in sexual situations. A Vice Cop spoke to my Sociology class once about sexual predators and pedophiles. He broke it down simply:

Looks Underage and Is Underage: Illegal and Unethical
Looks Underage but Isn't Underage: Legal but questionably ethical
Doesn't Look Underage but Is Underage: Illegal and questionably ethical
Doesn't Look Underage and Isn't Underage: Legal and Ethical

The law only cares whether or not something is legal or not. If the exception is made for furry art, then every sleazy pedophile will suddenly become a Furry to fill their need for child porn. If Dragoneer says no Cub, then at least this site won't have to worry about attracting pedophiles.

Of course, soon enough everything will be against the law and we won't have anything left to ban. So much for gaining traction on the slippery slope.

Here's the thing you are missing though. A pedophile will do what they want regardless. Taking away pictures will not make them stop. I highly doubt that anything would work. short of just shipping them to an uncharted island or something like that. xD

If a pedophile tries to use cub porn as an outlet, I look at it this way. If it stays that way and keeps them from messing with kids, good. But, dunno. It's all just uncharted territory I guess. But by drawing stuff like that, you aren't harming anything. Pedophiles will hurts kids if it's what they want to do, regardless of anything.

My two cents, take it or leave it. :3

And here's what you're misunderstanding: You don't want to encourage it. Yes, they'll do what they want. That's what people do. Laws don't change that. Rules don't stop people. Lock only keep out honest people. But you don't go out of your way to encourage bad behavior.

And it won't. I'm not good with pedophiles using furry cub as an outlet for their diseased perversions. It will only feed their urges and provoke them to do something damaging. People with those sorts of problems need professional help. They need to stay away from anything that feeds into their problems. The alcoholic doesn't work in a winery because he only likes beer. Sooner or later he'll fall off the wagon. But with a pedophile, falling off the wagon means some child is going to be screwed up for life. You're good with being a party to that?

"It will only feed their urges and provoke them to do something damaging."

No it won't.

Sex is not an addiction, it's a drive. If you're sated, you're less likely to do something stupid to release some of the pressure. Take the fake stuff, the safe analogue away, and you're left with a fucking catastrophe waiting to happen.

As an unrelated aside, do you know what makes people monsters? Treating them like monsters. Nobody wakes up one day and says "Gee whiz, I think I'll go and try to boink a child today. That sounds just super." Why don't we treat them like people and help them understand and overcome this instead of further dehumanizing them?

"As an unrelated aside, do you know what makes people monsters? Treating them like monsters."

That's... a really brilliant quote, even in its simplicity.

"Sex is not an addiction, it's a drive."

Tell that to Tiger Woods!

OH SNAP! lul sorry, couldn't resist.

I pretty much had that one coming.

Very witty, by the way.

FORE!

Well there's the matter that people still need an outlet. Pedophiles (and gore/scat/etc fetishists) can't help what they are any more than people who only like women with DD-cup breasts, or those who are only attracted to superhuge muscles. But there's no rehab for people who only like it missionary, 'cause that's "normal".

I would personally much rather have the "sick" ones get their jollies off of fake artwork of any genre than kidnapping, molesting, and probably murdering a neighbor kid. It's been well established that people who are repressed and have no outlets inevitably break down, often leading to committing a real crime.

In a perfect world, we could "heal" the "sick" so they didn't have disturbing fetishes... but this isn't a perfect world and never will be.

(From the law)
(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.

Which actually means your line:
Looks Underage but Isn't Underage: is actually Illegal, as looking underage can give the impression that they're a child...

Just think about the implications here

Yes, Kidtail, I agree that the implications are dangerous. The law they passed changes the statement I made, which was only being used as a reference to vice laws in northern Virginia, not the EU. The way that law is worded, giving the impression of being underage is the same as actually being underage.

And now I'm concerned about this leading to the argument that women dressing up in sexy outfits are asking to be raped. As I said, so much for gaining traction on the slippery slope. I suppose we just need to enjoy the slide down into the mire.

Ah, I missed the part about that being in reference to Virginia, and not the UK

*gets his swimsuit out to go sliding down the slope*

The whole "physical characteristics shown are not those of a child" part could technically make cub art illegal as well, despite the subject matter not being human children, as furry children could be deemed as just having different physical characteristics.

Exactly, Red. I'll wait for this law to be struck down in the courts as being too ambiguous before I really start to worry. Every law that censors artwork of any kind is challenged by the artists, free speech groups, and the ACLU, especially if it affects American companies and/or interests. Once we see how this all plays out, then I'll really show how concerned I can get.

Until then, *tosses out the /tinfoilhats* just enjoy yourself.

I meant underage as in not physically develoed- I dont know the details of what the "whole" fetish entails but I do know the fact of "screwing children is bad" is a rimitive fact.

Totally agreed- I dont understand why people defend it, but I am prepared to counter any antithesis. >:3

yeah, its japanese for little boy and little girl, or something like that, and lolicon is porn involving underaged girls, and shotacon is porn involving underaged boy, you can have clean loli and shota art, without the porn involved, just as you can have clean cub art, just clearing things up on that, I am sure people can still upload clean art of fantasy sub human children thats clean, such as neko's and stuff like that to FA, of course, uploading nothing but subhumans in general defeats the purpose of having an FA, if your just wanting to post elves, nekos and halflings, then your better off on DA anyways and should not even be here, cause last time I checked, FA does not mean FantasyAffinity, it means FurAffinity and people who draw nothing but elves and neko's and nothing of furries should migrate to one of the other art sites.

I hope the laws on UK don't make a total censor of this site.

Interesting development.

Just what exactly is Shota and Loli?

Shota - (mostly) sexual depiction of underage boys
Loli - (mostly) sexual depiction of underage girls

I say mostly, because shota and loli complex (as dubbed by Japanese fanbase), can be just a fascination with youthful looking characters.

I see

please tell me gore is safe

The UK already banned "violent" BDSM porn years ago. They don't give a shit about personal freedom of expression. And yes, all the arguments used against cub porn now were used against violent porn then. Same shit different day. And yet I'll bet you a hundred bucks the people screaming to ban cub porn fucking fap their hands raw to bondage porn. They'll be next.

They don't give a shit about personal freedom of expression

Y'know, it is possible to debate this subject without insulting the whole of the UK in one fell swoop. At the very least, I hope you've lived here as long as I have to be able to make this judgement.

They as in your UK government who seems to spend all their time videotaping you with CCTV cameras and restricting what you can and can't look at while violent crime runs rampant.

And the USA, of course, doesn't restrict anyone on anything and has no violent crime at all.

Way to put words in my mouth.

Im kinda sick of seeing Americans on this journal speaking with such 'authority' on how life in the UK is when they've never been here. Several comments in this journal have been so achingly ignorant.

Well, you seem to think that all Americans do nothing but play with their guns and shoot each other all day so its mutual pal. BTW - I'm not even American.

where did I ever say that? Quotes please.

<rant>Ok you two, break it up, Ziggy, Cargo Weasil was refering to the govrenment, not the people as a whole, and Cargoweasil, I can see where ziggy could get offended by what you said, because you didn't exactly specify that you ment the governemtn, and both of you should stop putting vile words in eachothers mouths, because Ziggy never said anything about americans doing nothing but play with their guns and shoot eachother, I may be canadian, but I just so happen to be friends with quite a few american furs, and I would know for a fact that they are not the steriotypical gun toting rednecks you see on the idiot box, you may see a few steriotypical rednecks here and there in the north, and a good deal of them down south, but not everyone in the states are like that, and no I am not saying either of you said that, I was pointing out the fact that that ziggy or no one for that matter even said that, the only one who implied that it was mentioned was you Cargo, I want the both of you to stop arguing and think before you post. Not to mention that the drama this is spawning is beginning to grate on my ass nerves, the finger pointing, the bawwing, the stereotyping, the never ending whining, this all needs to just stop, like come on, wheres is the balls this fandom seems to boast about having? because when I yank down the pants of the furry fandom, all I see are these tiny little shriveled raisin thingies that look like they are about to fall off at any given time, accompanied by what looks like a small noodle, which turns out to be a micro penis, wheres the big furry balls of doom we say we have? we need to grow up, grow our balls, grow our dicks and start acting mature about this. </endrant>

And the question is... what about chibi art? It doesn't specify how realistic it has to be, because that can all be decided on jury.

*nod* They generally just use the art in addition to any evidence to seek a harder penalty, which deep down, I imagine is all the UK law will do. Nobody gives a shit if you have a hard drive full of art, but if you have the real shit, they'll use it against you for a double whammy.

that sounds a bit like the miller obscenity test in the US to be fair.

if it is brought up against a jury of one's peers, there is hope that it's not going to be some giant clusterfuck. yes, i hate pedo-porn but on a case by case basis i think it could be handled in a slightly fairer manner than just a blanket ban on the UK's side.

Exactly. The blanket nature of this law is extremely troublesome.

The UK sucks why pick on such a small thing when we got the economy failing and also fighting in other countries ect ect typical goverment I hate the UK throught why was I burn into such a disgrace of a country

So let me clarify, this law can punish you if you even LOOK at it. Not just Downloading?

Because I thought if you downloaded Loli, or downloaded Shota or whatever else, then it's a crime. But simply looking at it can land you in jail?

Even if you look at it.

Alright, there are a lot of hypotheticals I would normally ask, but apparently the law is very vague, and thereby is used by however means they deem I suppose.

Yep. It's very, VERY vague, and even worse, they don't even know how to enforce it yet.

Enforcing is one problem, but is it clear on how much penalty is carried behind the law? 1 year prision and a fine? or?

i think so far the one constant in the punishment would be having to register as a sex-offender.

I just got a really nasty idea that someone who makes a habit of slipping viral content into online-ads would create such an ad that linked to a site containing shota and lolli images, so that whenever someone was on a site with ads, they would be FORCED because of the ads to download the blatantly illegal images. And as a secondary effect, it would notify Interpol of the transgression, swamping the system with alerts of people viewing illegal smut. It would have a two-fold use by 1) turning everyone in the EU into a criminal requiring that they become a registered sex offender, and 2) it would overwhelm Interpol with emails regarding people looking at this recently banned artwork, and tie up their systems for week/months.

So deliberately misguiding links can now get you in a lot of trouble, huh?

*click on falstaff.jpg* *image that loads is loli guro* ".... OH MY GOD THAT'S NOT FALSTAFF!!!"

And then the UK internet police come and bust you for looking at something that wasn't what you actually wanted to look at.

Well played, lawmakers.

No. Go read the law. There are provisions that account for intent.

Even still, honestly I don't understand the need to punish people for -looking- at things, regardless of what it is that's being looked at. Looking doesn't hurt anyone. If anyone needs to be punished it's individuals who cause harm to other individuals in real life, and there are *already* laws in place for those people. Fantasy is not reality and should never be treated as such nor punishable by law - except where the expression of those fantasies hurts another person in real life (such as the creation of snuff films).

Just my two cents, really.

You won't be punished for looking.
You'll be punished for wilful possession.

Seriously, they're not going to track down people who saw a cubporn thumbnail or loaded up one image. As mentioned, there are rules. Intent must be present, it must be possessed for an unreasonable amount of time, etc.

IE: If someone shows you cubporn and you close it the moment you realise what it is, you are not liable. If, however, you view it, save it, etc., you're fucked.

It still doesn't make any sense why it's bad to possess something that

A) No one was harmed in the creation of it
B) No real-life events, people, or places are depicted
C) Is used instead of going out and hurting someone real


...I mean seriously, that's sort of like saying that all shooter-type video games are now illegal because of the graphic depiction of murder, and by installing them on your computer you're guilty of possessing snuff. I know *plenty* of people who get angry and fire up Counterstrike instead of getting drunk and starting barfights, because it satisfies the need for violence [u]without actually hurting anyone[/b].

The same applies (or SHOULD apply) to the possession of fantasy art. Of all subject matters.

I know. It is stupid. And when it is eventually challenged, it probably won't stand against said arguments.

"If a fictional depiction of one illegal act is punishable, why aren't others? Depicting murder, rape, violence, et cetera, should thus all be illegal in movies, video games, and so on."

Yeah... the whole, Who Gets To Decide What's Okay question... and clearly the people who are doing the deciding on THAT matter aren't doing a very good job of defining any solid moral or ethical rule sets that aren't completely based on some arbitrary interpretation of religious scripture (because, if I remember correctly, that's where most of society's "moral fiber" is derived from) instead of actual studies of human behavior.

This all goes into the New World Order/Illuminati/Police State thing going on right now in the world. It's all bullshit

Pseudo-photograph? That's a new one with me. I envision a realistic fine art rendering of the subject when I read that phrase.

As far as the ISP (who will be logging the traffic) is concerned, your computer did download the file, it stored a local cache as it rebuilt the image in your temp. If someone should decide to track you down for it. there would have at one point and time, been a copy of it on your drive. Intentional or not.

Which is one reason these laws are so ******* absurd. One redirection and your screwed. Though forensics can prove whether it was intentional or not. This should only apply to convicted child offenders.

Go read it.
There are provisions that work off your intent. If you intended to download child porn, you're fucked. If it was not intentional, and rectified promptly, you aren't liable. IE: A thumbnail appeared during browsing, someone send you a misleading link, etc.

You still get booked in on the process of going to court to defend yourself, at that point you are still put on the police national database, so even if you proved you did not do anything wrong, you are still victimised and penalised for even being acused...

In which case they are required, by law, to correct their error. But you don't need to go to court.
And you don't randomly get charged for something big like this unless they can damn well prove it.
Again, there are measures in place, and they're not going to waste everyone's time and money over pathetic shite like "OMG! YOU HAD A THUMBNAIL!"

I did read it. And no it doesn't protect you. It just looks like it does.

Yeah, you're speaking to a law clerk and court reporter. Your may THINK it doesn't, but it factually does.

No it doesn't. It doesn't take back all the legal documents processed on you, it doesn't take back your the number of times your name is printed in newspaper/magazine/websites, and it doesn't take back you go on a freaking watch list every time you go through an airport/customs station. It merely keeps you from spending time in jail and getting fined. It still fries your reputation in the public's eye. So please, try again.

Uh, no. It doesn't.
Because such cases have publication bans, and reversal requires all charges and associated to be dropped. And your name can't go on any list until the charges are proven, not when you're charged.

You sir/maam, have your head too far into a book.

Yea, hes right. There are many instances of rape cases where the person was being falsely charged. They get fired from work for the allegation, coworkers tell people and those people tell people (which in some industries makes finding new work impossible). Then later when the truth is revealed the job is still gone, the friends forgive but what of the friends friends and so on? Damage is more than just "legal" deep. Imagine all this kind of crap for pencil marks on paper.

so are we to assume that any acquittals that occur get the full case and everything removed from record, like it was never there? A full, thorough background check would not show the case, investigation, or anything else unless it was internally generated from the police's sealed, hidden case records?

This is a drawing of a 13yo's cock: 8--

YOUR GOIN TO JAIL NOW SON

Since Canada and UK now have these laws, expect your politicians to get it passed here as well. It's mostly already in effect at the borders under importation laws for the US also.

Hence why the rules are being amended now...

Sorry I forgot to express my utmost HATE of censorship. I also forgot to mention how fucked up this world is that we ignore the actual issues, and blame everything on anything we don't agree with. People in power will always abuse that power. I'm pro American, but fuck this shit.

Amen. Throughout all this, I can't help but think that somewhere, right now, someone is actually raping a child in real life, yet here we all are focusing on the particulars of fantasy art.

They wouldn't dare...because then we can point to that famous sculpture that shows two guys raping a woman and say, "Then you got to get rid of that too."

I've never heard of a sculpture like that?

This: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ra.....e_Sabine_Women

Umm. You do know that back then rape meant to uproot and take right? One man is stealing a woman to be his wife (a roman) and the other is the father of the woman who he fought off but did not kill to get her.

No sexual violation was involved - please read the wiki article you pointed to.

Hmm, must have remembered wrong. I must have been thinking of something else. It's been 3 years since I took art class...

What, you've never heard of Michelangelo's Rapist?

Different kinda rape.

http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/...../#cid:11071131

I wonder what they are trying to push that they are bringing most of the free speech groups

fffff.. theres a lot more issues the UK government need to deal with rather than this >_<

Entire fucking country is over run by Daleks, and this is the shit they focus on?

*Spoiler Alert*

It's okay. The Crucible blew up.

However, Miss Ginger Hotness really has some needs that could do with satisfying. Mmgiggedy.

-_- i know

i havnt a clue who to vote for this year..i dont like any of the parties so far - all are fake bastards
wish we had an obama to vote for :P

That would apply to pretty much any government.

and they say the Nazzi's lost......

Wut? D:?

Hello Police state and goodbye freedoms

Yes, precisely, and this is why they try to literally RUSH through contraversial issues in order to get them passed.

Figures. Why can't art ever just be art? People need outlets, better it comes from fantasy art than oh, I don't know, real acts -_-
Feh I say. But w/e, do whatever needs done to comply with Word of the Powers that Be.

A sad day for freedom of speech. Not from you but these ridiculous laws.

I didn't have much of an intention of leaving in the first place, all extents of safety acknowledged.

Though it's not like I browse outside of private mode, anyway.

Uhh, can't your ISP report you? Even in privacy mode, the ISP knows what you are doing.

Aye, true, though there's proxies and whatnot that people may-well use.

I don't know to be honest. If I literally *have* to cease using FA, it'll be a big downer, but nothing too serious. 'Tis just the Internet, after-all.

Me personally, if I was over there, I wouldn't change anything. I'd still look at and save the pictures I view. :3 I wouldn't really care about the law cause I know that no kids are being harmed. :P

You don't have to cease using it. Just don't look at cub porn. Problem solved.
Even if you accidentally see something, the law has provisions about intent of possession. If you didn't intend to, you're fun as long as you don't do something stupid like save it. :\

Cheers bra! Now get on this SL shit, im tired of seeing it even tho the rules were set. :C

Rules aren't active. We've come up with a solution to protect legit SL artists and general screenshots.

Although I guess it doesn't really affect me... yet, I can't help but believe this new law will actually encourage pedophiles to rape real children, as they can't get their daily dose of loli on the net anymore.

I can't wait to see the statistics in a few years!

Oh, you won't see the statistics. Why would the government ever admit to their blundering? Especially when it leads to an increase of crimes against children?

You know, I've always been very curious what causes a person to develop pedophilic tendencies, and if it can be prevented, or effectively treated early on. It's funny, I still have no idea. Does anyone? Hmm......