FA+
Shop
Free Max Rabbit's Porn!
13 years ago
General
(If you think I meant 'Free Porn', then you mistook the context and should be ashamed :p)
I was going though artists I watch recently when I came across this journal.
http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/4269129/
In essence, Max's art was taken from him due to 'obscenity laws' and suspicion of Bestiality. I could go on forever how the TSA is a band of paranoid thugs, but I would like to concentrate my rant towards the so called depiction of obscenity and bestiality.
First off, I hate the legal definition of 'depiction'. I can understand if someone get's busted for actual photos of children, that's evidence a real and serious crime has been committed, but fictional pictures of fictional beings are a universe apart from photography of pedophilia. Fictional people are fictional, there is no one to defend and no one to protect. Fictional species are fictional, there is no objective criteria to determine the sentience of a fictional being. In a nutshell, Max's art harms no one other than the frail tastes of people who should have never seen them in the first place.
There is this whole 'bestiality' issue as well. I'm not going on a rant about Zoo, but I want to talk about the context behind it. If we are going to treat fictional beings as subject to 'obscenity laws', then let's consider their full implications. The level of maturity within a house pet or farm animal is debatable, their ability to learn or mastery of human adult concepts makes for a pretty nasty debate that devolves into flame wars. Anthros' on the other hand, are typically depicted as having every feature of human intelligence available. To consider them inferior would be *ahem* specious and tantamount to the dehumanization of African Americans on basis of skin color. (Assuming the level of sentience is a valid factor in consent). Of course, there can't be a debate on if Anthropomorphic being are sentient enough to be considered equal to humanity because *they do not exist*. All laws applying to them and fictional things like them are moot and pointless, even if referencing real-world things.
What I'm saying is simple. A legal definition of 'depiction' should only apply to photographs of actual living beings. If there is an real living and breathing victim out there, then we have an objective basis for some sort of crime. What we have in this case is a dizzying load of conceptual problems treated as if they already exist and were already decided on. Somewhere out there, your dreams have been though a kangaroo court, and the thought police has found you guilty.
I was going though artists I watch recently when I came across this journal.
http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/4269129/
In essence, Max's art was taken from him due to 'obscenity laws' and suspicion of Bestiality. I could go on forever how the TSA is a band of paranoid thugs, but I would like to concentrate my rant towards the so called depiction of obscenity and bestiality.
First off, I hate the legal definition of 'depiction'. I can understand if someone get's busted for actual photos of children, that's evidence a real and serious crime has been committed, but fictional pictures of fictional beings are a universe apart from photography of pedophilia. Fictional people are fictional, there is no one to defend and no one to protect. Fictional species are fictional, there is no objective criteria to determine the sentience of a fictional being. In a nutshell, Max's art harms no one other than the frail tastes of people who should have never seen them in the first place.
There is this whole 'bestiality' issue as well. I'm not going on a rant about Zoo, but I want to talk about the context behind it. If we are going to treat fictional beings as subject to 'obscenity laws', then let's consider their full implications. The level of maturity within a house pet or farm animal is debatable, their ability to learn or mastery of human adult concepts makes for a pretty nasty debate that devolves into flame wars. Anthros' on the other hand, are typically depicted as having every feature of human intelligence available. To consider them inferior would be *ahem* specious and tantamount to the dehumanization of African Americans on basis of skin color. (Assuming the level of sentience is a valid factor in consent). Of course, there can't be a debate on if Anthropomorphic being are sentient enough to be considered equal to humanity because *they do not exist*. All laws applying to them and fictional things like them are moot and pointless, even if referencing real-world things.
What I'm saying is simple. A legal definition of 'depiction' should only apply to photographs of actual living beings. If there is an real living and breathing victim out there, then we have an objective basis for some sort of crime. What we have in this case is a dizzying load of conceptual problems treated as if they already exist and were already decided on. Somewhere out there, your dreams have been though a kangaroo court, and the thought police has found you guilty.
I feel sorry for Max cause it would upset me too
Having read the Criminal Code of Canada section 163, I think I know what the boarder guard was thinking.
Section 163(8) states that anything obscene can be "a dominant characteristic of the publication is the undue exploitation of sex, or the combination of sex and at least one of crime, horror, cruelty or violence".
So who ever is doing your review has to decide if Furry cartoon art counts as a obscene by the above definition. Does Furry + Sex equal crime? That is the question at hand, and I am sure they will compare it to Anime which has a tone of this same stuff, but because furry is cartooned Animals, many see the ANIMAL part and not the CARTOON part.
Please note, that Skunkworks is/was banned in Canada as obscene material. I found this out when I tried to buy a copy and the seller could not send it to Canada because it was illegal here. Now this was back in the late 90s, and I had already found a few issues at some of the comic books stores in Vancouver. They might use this as precedent, if the person who does the review of your material is thorough and knows what to look for.
Its the problem with going to conventions. The funny thing is, I have a few naughty sketchbooks on hand too, and I have been searched going into the US, and not once did they think anything I had drawn in my books by various artists was obscene.. But I know coming back into Canada they are far more stringent about these things. Sometimes I think they do it for the fines that can be handed out...
=^.,.^=