FA+
Shop
Private companies and Freedom of Speech.
15 years ago
To establish this first off. I love freedom of speech, I believe everyone should be able to speak their minds about whatever, I believe that this covers the written, printed, drawn, painted, photographed, filmed, other format 'word' as well. I believe that anyone who is critical of such and defames anyone or anything has the right to speak such and be heard. This goes hand in hand with the right of anyone to say anything they wish.
If you want to spout race-baiting hatred or attack someone's faith. Then have at it, just don't get pissed off when it get done to you. Because when you or anyone else gets mad about your beliefs and faith, artwork, etc is being attacked, just remember what you said about the person that is now attacking you. Fair is Fair.
That is what I believe at my very core, it is idealized and noble but ultimately it's also crap. It's crap because it doesn't work that way.
This goes to the recent announcement here on FA about the removal of Adult-level hardcore porn involving minors of any type. This was done only for the reasoning of being able to have a place to host the website and archive. It was a business choice. Granted it was strong arm tactics on a hosting service but still a business choice.
The environment that surrounds anything that would be dealing with less than legal aged individual whether or not they are human is in an odd shady gray area. I can understand why a hosting service would not want such associated with their name. On a legal stand point it can be argued that its art and thusly protected by the first amendment. It is a form of expression. I know this and understand it as such.
Do I like the idea of >5 yo children being brutally raped or .12 yo's being fingered or otherwise? No. Not in the slightest do I like the thought of it. But is it that person have right to draw a 3yo. skunk boy/girl being screwed up the butt while sucking off some other random guy? Yes. He/she does because it is expression.
Can a private company or collective censor expression willfully? Yes and no.
Yes: Because once the property becomes accessible to the private company or entity, it is up to them to decide if and how such can be displayed. It still belongs to the person who drew it, wrote it, whatever. But the place they upload it to has right to say "Not here you don't."
No: Because within the borders of the United States of America and out laying territories and other supporting countries. Freedom of expression is a right granted to speak and say as one wishes, within the bounds of what is legal and does not lead to or incite violence towards others or in anyway promotes social/political destruction.
That having been said:
Do I like what cub porn? No. It pains me to think about children being exploited in such ways.
Do I support the right for a person to draw such? Yes, if for no other reason than a whim of fancy could be cast that says. 'Anyone that only has writings for uploads, you're work will be removed because people want pictures, learn to draw.'
Quite the conflict, but it is my thoughts and opinion on the matter. As for it being removed, I care less if it goes or stays. I don't look at it. But I wold much rather have a free service to come to and look at art that I may enjoy, read things that I cannot find elsewhere, that is hosted by a company that made one stipulation. Than suffer the chains of obscurity and pay for what would quickly become a dead zone.
If you want to spout race-baiting hatred or attack someone's faith. Then have at it, just don't get pissed off when it get done to you. Because when you or anyone else gets mad about your beliefs and faith, artwork, etc is being attacked, just remember what you said about the person that is now attacking you. Fair is Fair.
That is what I believe at my very core, it is idealized and noble but ultimately it's also crap. It's crap because it doesn't work that way.
This goes to the recent announcement here on FA about the removal of Adult-level hardcore porn involving minors of any type. This was done only for the reasoning of being able to have a place to host the website and archive. It was a business choice. Granted it was strong arm tactics on a hosting service but still a business choice.
The environment that surrounds anything that would be dealing with less than legal aged individual whether or not they are human is in an odd shady gray area. I can understand why a hosting service would not want such associated with their name. On a legal stand point it can be argued that its art and thusly protected by the first amendment. It is a form of expression. I know this and understand it as such.
Do I like the idea of >5 yo children being brutally raped or .12 yo's being fingered or otherwise? No. Not in the slightest do I like the thought of it. But is it that person have right to draw a 3yo. skunk boy/girl being screwed up the butt while sucking off some other random guy? Yes. He/she does because it is expression.
Can a private company or collective censor expression willfully? Yes and no.
Yes: Because once the property becomes accessible to the private company or entity, it is up to them to decide if and how such can be displayed. It still belongs to the person who drew it, wrote it, whatever. But the place they upload it to has right to say "Not here you don't."
No: Because within the borders of the United States of America and out laying territories and other supporting countries. Freedom of expression is a right granted to speak and say as one wishes, within the bounds of what is legal and does not lead to or incite violence towards others or in anyway promotes social/political destruction.
That having been said:
Do I like what cub porn? No. It pains me to think about children being exploited in such ways.
Do I support the right for a person to draw such? Yes, if for no other reason than a whim of fancy could be cast that says. 'Anyone that only has writings for uploads, you're work will be removed because people want pictures, learn to draw.'
Quite the conflict, but it is my thoughts and opinion on the matter. As for it being removed, I care less if it goes or stays. I don't look at it. But I wold much rather have a free service to come to and look at art that I may enjoy, read things that I cannot find elsewhere, that is hosted by a company that made one stipulation. Than suffer the chains of obscurity and pay for what would quickly become a dead zone.
