I notice the site has recently taken steps to combat intolerance in the form of art. At first I resisted, because I'm a bit of a free speech hard-liner, and I believed the onus was always on the end user to block offensive content via the blacklist. But after considerable reflection and soul-searching, I've shifted my stance. I now realize we as a site haven't done enough to promote empathy and inclusivity. We've been callous toward the death and suffering of real people. I believe we can do better.

It doesn't seem fair to me that posts like post #378180 and post #1113157 stand while posts like post #2282749 and post #2209048 are sensibly taken down. Shouldn't images mocking the 9/11 terror attacks be removed too for similar reasons of promoting national hatred and mocking the mass murder of real people? Not to mention the fact there are first responders still suffering chronic health conditions as a result of their heroic efforts.

What about posts like post #1530076 where the murder is rendered in graphic detail? These were real people too, and this assassination marked the beginning of large-scale suffering in the form of a world war.

And what about posts like post #172039? That's not even a dog-whistle; it's blatantly pushing Jewish conspiracy theories and contempt for the lgbt community. See this Wikipedia article for more information.

I researched post #2222571, but I only really found one source that explained the meaning of it. What it said was troubling, but I'm unsure of the legitimacy of the source. Regardless, it's clearly propaganda promoting violence against Japanese and/or people of Japanese descent.

And what about religious hatred? This falls under ethnic hatred, correct? Then why are images like post #90923 and post #400658 tolerated? One compares Muslims to chimps while the other mocks the death of the founder of Christianity. Though I'm not so sure if glorification of Jesus' death should be censored in general as that's a central tenet of the faith. For religious posts, there needs to be room to criticize ideas, so long as the art isn't bigoted against religious groups as people.

There are clear inconsistencies regarding what is sanctioned content that need addressing. Equal protection should be granted to all from messages of racial, ethnic, or national intolerance. No one's suffering or death should be glorified or made a mockery of.

Am I wrong in my thinking? What are your thoughts? I want everyone to weigh in. Should the uploading guidelines be amended to reflect (1) a policy of tolerance for all peoples and (2) a policy of compassion with regard to the suffering and death of real, people and animals? Should these also be included as flagging reasons? To clarify (2), I mean real, specific people and animals. For example, if someone posts a graphic drawing of a well-known, real instance of an animal being tortured, shouldn't that be grounds for removal?

I leave you with this. Consider the following and perhaps look upon the 9/11 posts with new eyes: https://youtu.be/HT5FTrIZN-E

Thank you.

I've mentioned to my friends that there are posts with anthrofied Columbine shooters and at least one post that has an actual photo of 9/11. As in, literally the moment hundreds of real people died, on camera, uploaded to the site, not an edgy maymay drawing. There's also at least one post showing Muhammad as a pig.

You're better off finding more recent examples though, since old posts almost never get removed unless the artist wants them to be. This stuff still happens all the time though. You don't have to look far to find disrespect for people's race, gender, religion, and making fun of real events where people died.

I would not really be so annoyed if these things were all held to the same standard. I mean, to me, ideally, we'd let this site continue to take the good with the bad and everyone would just have to deal with the existence of posts that show things they don't like as we've all done with little incident for the past 10 years. Helps that we have that handy blacklist feature. If not, it had better go both ways. I see the current enforcement as the worst of both worlds. It is not a universal standard being applied- it mostly seems like it's being done on a whim.

Information should not be deleted because it hurts someone's feelings. The death of anyone is no reason to censor, be it you, me or someone else. The destruction of the columbine mass shooting basement tapes upsets me more than the mass shooting itself. I do not promote murder, but those recordings were an important piece of history and something important for psychiatric research. Forgeting will not bring back the dead. Glorifiying, deprecating and mocking anything must be a right given to everyone. Wanting to forget something is okay as long as you do not force others to forget.

fenrick said:
It is not a universal standard being applied- it mostly seems like it's being done on a whim.

Actually it's more of a.... creation of a standard, as well as the evolution of one. These are difficult times we're in, and this is an especially sore spot in modern history. Give us some time to work on this.

For many of us, we have pretty strong feelings about these things--There have been a few deleted posts recently that made me storm away from my computer and go snuggle my cats for a while. We're not callus unfeeling beings. It's easy to make the wrong choices when we're angry, or after a bad day. That's why change can sometimes take time.

The George Floyd images were deleted first, and then we discussed why. What was it that we were objecting to other than *gestures emphatically and makes angry sounds* All this. We're still working on our exact wording on what we are saying is against our rules.

We've recently (a month or two ago) adjusted some of stances on racist images too--several were deleted quietly. We're still working on that too.

That's not to say I'm shutting down conversation here or anything... I'm just saying... give us some time to keep working on this. We're all human--and angry--too. Please talk to us about how you'd want the rules to be worded, and what you'd like them to cover. Keep in mind that it's easy to say something like "nothing that references racist stuff" or "nothing about peopel dying" but them you get into the long ambiguous area where 2 zebras having sex with a blue pony can be racism, or how the whole 'death and gore' sides of the site can also get caught up in the 'no dying' stuff. So it's important to think about where you put every single fence post, so to speak.

Talk to us. We're listening. :)

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." — Evelyn Beatrice Hall

post #2282749 should not have been deleted.

spankweasel said:
At first I resisted, because I'm a bit of a free speech hard-liner

#NotAnymore, just saying.

spankweasel said:
I now realize we as a site haven't done enough to promote empathy and inclusivity. We've been callous toward the death and suffering of real people. I believe we can do better.

That sounds like a bunch of stuff that is not particularly needed in a furry porn site (aka "anthro/furry art archive"). The site is quite inclusive, you just connect to the server and do your thing. We can "do better" by sticking to a free speech ❄️🍑 hard-liner stance as often as possible, even if it means some people get offended by it enough to quit the site (because the bestiality, cub, rape, snuff, and vore did not touch their callous hearts, it was the racism and current events that did it).

spankweasel said:
I researched post #2222571, but I only really found one source that explained the meaning of it. What it said was troubling, but I'm unsure of the legitimacy of the source. Regardless, it's clearly propaganda promoting violence against Japanese and/or people of Japanese descent.

Looks like WW2 Allied propaganda. The kind of art that can be found in museums.

spankweasel said:
Should the uploading guidelines be amended to reflect (1) a policy of tolerance for all peoples and (2) a policy of compassion with regard to the suffering and death of real, people and animals? Should these also be included as flagging reasons? To clarify (2), I mean real, specific people and animals. For example, if someone posts a graphic drawing of a well-known, real instance of an animal being tortured, shouldn't that be grounds for removal?

I can think of at least one infamous non-racist image that could be nuked under a policy against using real people. Also, I'm surprised that we don't have any Cecil the Lion images.

spankweasel said:
I leave you with this. Consider the following and perhaps look upon the 9/11 posts with new eyes: https://youtu.be/HT5FTrIZN-E

Delete all edgy 9/11 posts. That post has been up 6 years, 8 months, and 22 days too long. Send 9/11 and 9/11 first responders down the memory hole.

snowwolf said:
The George Floyd images were deleted first, and then we discussed why. What was it that we were objecting to other than *gestures emphatically and makes angry sounds* All this. We're still working on our exact wording on what we are saying is against our rules.

We've recently (a month or two ago) adjusted some of stances on racist images too--several were deleted quietly. We're still working on that too.

That's not to say I'm shutting down conversation here or anything... I'm just saying... give us some time to keep working on this. We're all human--and angry--too. Please talk to us about how you'd want the rules to be worded, and what you'd like them to cover. Keep in mind that it's easy to say something like "nothing that references racist stuff" or "nothing about peopel dying" but them you get into the long ambiguous area where 2 zebras having sex with a blue pony can be racism, or how the whole 'death and gore' sides of the site can also get caught up in the 'no dying' stuff. So it's important to think about where you put every single fence post, so to speak.

Talk to us. We're listening. :)

I doubt this currently unwritten policy will improve the site in the long run. Obviously, the writing is on the wall and new restrictions are coming no matter what I say. I can only suggest that the policy be narrowly tailored to delete only the most obvious of bait. Maybe unknown artist images, sourced from imageboards, with themes of racial or political division. Or only allow the known artist to upload the image, so they get to take some of the heat.

felix_nermix said:
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." — Evelyn Beatrice Hall

You don't have the right to unmolested free speech here or pretty much anywhere on the internet, so you aren't going to get far with these epic quotes. Instead, consider that we didn't "need" to remove these kinds of images just a couple of years ago, even though there have always been users that have complained about certain images that offended them. What changed, and should e621 really change with it?

Censorship is a very slippery slope. You censor one thing, people will ask "why not this". This post in its self is a good example of the slippery slope.
The moment e621 begins selectively censoring specific posts is when e621 is no longer a furry art archive, and is instead a furry art gallery. Some can argue that this is already the case.

Archives archive everything, even if you disagree with it. Doesn't mean you endorse it, or support it. There are a hella lot of posts I would say "delete because it is just designed to cause arguing and bickering", but to do so would be selectively censoring.

e621 doesn't archive everything here anyway (namely commercial content, webcomics beyond 5 posts, and posts from artists & character owners who request their removal)

strikerman said:
e621 doesn't archive everything here anyway (namely commercial content, webcomics beyond 5 posts, and posts from artists & character owners who request their removal)

Those policies can be easily justified. They prevent e621 from becoming a complete piracy haven that might need to be relocated to some other country, reduce the amount of DMCAs that need to be handled, and keep the site in better standing with artists.

They absolutely make the site less useful as an art archive, but that's the tradeoff that was made.

The new policy would attempt to prevent people from getting upset enough to engage in flamewars, quit in disgust, or retaliate against the site.

These are difficult times, but that's all the more reason to hold fast to our principles and rule of law. Like Fenrick said, it does seem like site actions have taken a turn toward rule by whim and maybe even mob demand in one case. The mind demands order, especially on this site where we're tasked with organization. If someone finds the best version of some content that meets the uploading guidelines, tags and posts it, and then comes back to find it was deleted for a made-up reason, I'm sure it makes him question the durability of the rest of his uploads and the integrity of the system as a whole. "Is all the money I've been putting into my account phony?" It is if we don't respect its value.

Seeing an admin reply here is comforting. I was afraid the thread would be locked immediately. This is an important conversation we're having. Please don't lock this thread. Last time I discussed censorship in the forums, I accused the OP of being deceitful. I don't know for certain if that was the reason, but the thread was locked soon after. I apologized, and that individual forgave me. I will try to be more civil from now on. We need good faith engagement on both sides.

Okay, so when you censor based on artistic message or intention, it's like opening Pandora's box. You've just made your job way harder. Harder, but not impossible. We just need to set some ground rules. What I laid out in the OP is vague, but I think it's a good starting point.

We all need to realize that the battle for freedom of artistic expression within the current uploading guidelines has been lost. I am still a free speech hard-liner, but this site has decided to take a different approach. As I do not own this site nor have any real power here, I have to roll with the punches. We all have to adapt. Or leave. I figure if we lost with regard to one liberal principle (the most important one, the one spelled out in the site's mission statement), perhaps we can still salvage equal protection and rule of law.

It's sad that this site has forgotten its edgy, chan culture roots and wants to adopt the pc standards of the major social media sites. But that's life! It was bound to happen eventually as the site grew. Let's put our heads together and try to come up with a workable solution. "Fair censorship."

spankweasel said:
"Fair censorship."

That is an oxymoron in the context of this site.

I have more words on this general issue than it's worth posting.
I mostly just want to say I'm fine with getting rid of genuinely malicious content but I'd rather administration didn't dip into the everything is problematic regardless of intent and context pot.

Because nobody bothers reading and I certainly didn't this thread:
Just because I defend artwork, doesn't mean I defend it's goals or that the real life events weren't horrible. I cannot even imagine how hard times this is for many in US even after seeing many real life videos from protests.

All I'm going to say is that I was on personal level extremely highly againts deletion of these posts.
This is from basis that we already host similar content which we do have the power to exclude from non-registered users and external search engines (including the already mentioned post #378180, log out and try to see it) and that we also host subjectively far worse content which we tell users to simply blacklist or GTFO.

There is still difference in this case compared to others, as that it portrays one specific real life persons death over fully fictional content or overall tragic event, at which point it could be read as part of our rules where we disallow targeting people.
But I do still feel extremely uneasy that site that's supposed to host furry related artwork is denying furry artwork, simply because of subject matter artist wanted to portray.

I know it's tasteless and could even be described as being wrong, still I feel like artwork provoking reaction is what it's supposed to do to begin with, it doesn't have to be arousal or happiness all the time. It can also be disgust and anger, maybe it's outlet for artist to cope with what has happened or simply a troll trying to get some attention.

I'm just not interested in having another discussion where everyone is shouting and no one is listening. Here's what I have to say:

One -- "It's a free country; I can do whatever I want" is logic that five-year-olds use when they want to behave badly without consequences. There have always been limitations on our rights, including free speech. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater (that's an actual Supreme Court case) under the First Amendment, and you can't own a tank under the Second Amendment. As it's commonly stated, your right to swing your fist ends at the next person's nose.

Two -- While "the contents of an image can't hurt someone," the ideas it popularizes can.

Three -- Even when you're allowed to say something, that doesn't always mean you should. You affirm you're an adult when you get an account here. Part of being an adult is anticipating the consequences of your actions, the harm your actions can have on others, and when not to take those actions.

Four -- We all do racist, sexist, ableist, ageist, and phobic things to some degree. People who know that and do it deliberately are assholes.

That's all for now.

I've elaborated on the reasoning behind the removal of post #2209048 here, so if anyone wishes to know why for that particular post the answer is there.
As for post #2282749 it was deleted due to the fact that it quite distinctly and directly is drawn from images of the final minutes of George Floyd, and is harassment of them as a person.
We count it as harassment because the artist made it pretty clear it's meant to be insulting to them as a person, and as a means to stir drama. It's not fictional characters in fictional situations with coincidental simmilarities, it's literally made in the likeness of that situation.

That is also likely the point we're going to adding to the rules soon. Artwork that is made with the intention of harassing (distinct) people or their likeness will be off-limit. However, it will most likely stop at people as a singular and not be extended fully to all groups unless it's especially egregious.
Also of note is that this will likely have the implication that things become more tolerable as distance is added, both in content and time.
To elaborate: In content would mean the further away it is from what actually happened, for example art of planes banging the twin towers with massive dicks while stick men are flying off is an incredible abstract of what actually happened, it's in poor taste but it's not the same level of poor taste as picking out a singular, named person and drawing their imminent death in detail, then sexualizing that.
In time would be the further away something has been at the creation of the piece the more likely it is it's no longer as egregious either. The picture of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria getting assassinated by some fursona guided Gavrilo Princip is both pretty far away in time in a way that likely nobody left alive has actually met them, and the fact that there's a fursona guiding him, which likely didn't happen in real life.
Religion or other fictional things won't be affected by this, we've no intention of giving protection to thought constructs, regardless of which form those take. However, if it spills over into insulting or harassing a distinct group that would be a different shoe.

On a more unofficial note (was little more than a thought I had while researching satire and how other, more official places deal with it) I'm considering if we want to enforce standards on satire. Two of the big tenets of satire is that it only ever punches upwards towards the current rulers and never kicks down on those who are not rulers, and that it must be true. Using two rather objective criteria like that would make it pretty straight forward to find out whether something counts as satire and has merit outside of the artistic presentation, or if it's just loaded diatribe trying to be funny. But as said, I'm not sure if those are the best criteria we can use, or if we should refine them, or maybe find some of our own.
I'm very much interested in keeping as much content as possible available on e621, even if some of the content doesn't sit right with a lot of people, but I absolutely don't see a lot of value in keeping art whose purpose is to harass or insult people, we are under no obligation to give insults or harassment a platform, even if someone put in the time and effort to make it artsy.

notmenotyou said:
I've elaborated on the reasoning behind the removal of post #2209048 here

Thank you for explaining your decision to censor this post. e621 gets a lot of flak for its inconsistent moderation, so this transparency is a step in the right direction.

notmenotyou said:
post #2282749 it was deleted because it is harassment of them as a person.

George Floyd was murdered by Derek Chauvin in one of the many, many examples of police brutality against black Americans. He is dead. You cannot harass or threaten him. Because he is dead. Your application of this rule does not make sense and does not help George Floyd or the BLM cause.

notmenotyou said:
Artwork that is made with the intention of harassing (distinct) people or their likeness will be off-limit.

Seriously? You’re going to censor art “harassing” the likenesses of Hitler or Muhammad? Most religions’ prophets are historical figures, not thought constructs. post #143470 is “ insulting to Jesus as a person and meant to stir drama”. But e621 would be failing in its mission to be an archive if you were to delete controversial art like that. You should rethink your stance.

notmenotyou said:
this will likely have the implication that things become more tolerable as distance is added, both in content and time

Even with the added context of your personal interpretation of this addendum, it is too vague to be useful. It will be applied inconsistently, which is precisely what e621 moderation is commonly criticized for.

notmenotyou said:
I'm considering if we want to enforce standards on satire.

Please make this a separate thread.

notmenotyou said:
we are under no obligation to give insults or harassment a platform, even if someone put in the time and effort to make it artsy

You’re not. It’s your site, and you can censor any posts you want to. But I feel strongly that these decisions should be made at the level of the individual user, not the moderation team. If you see something like post #2282749, downvote it, decry it, blacklist where possible, and move on.

notmenotyou said:
As for post #2282749 it was deleted due to the fact that it quite distinctly and directly is drawn from images of the final minutes of George Floyd, and is harassment of them as a person. We count it as harassment because the artist made it pretty clear it's meant to be insulting to them as a person, and as a means to stir drama. It's not fictional characters in fictional situations with coincidental simmilarities, it's literally made in the likeness of that situation.

But Nick Wilde and Judy Hopps are fictional characters. It's parody. But more importantly, it's impossible to harass someone who's dead. For the same reason, I won't care what happens to my body when I'm dead. There will be no "I" to care. Do with it what you please, whatever amuses you or suits your purpose. Just let the doctors take my organs first, and don't let my family or friends find out my body was desecrated. Do it for them not me.

So really, you're protecting the extant victims of the George Floyd tragedy. His family and friends. What makes the extant victims of 9/11 or the Columbine massacre undeserving of equal protection?

notmenotyou said:
Also of note is that this will likely have the implication that things become more tolerable as distance is added, both in content and time.

I myself commented on the post saying it was too soon. But what does that mean in practice? Does it mean given enough time you will reverse the decision? There were two versions of that image posted. What if you deleted the WIP on the grounds of too soon, and a couple years later, the finished work was posted? Do you approve it because it's been long enough, or does it get taken down for consistency? It's sloppy to take time into account like that. Wasn't that the reason we stopped allowing paid Patreon content after a certain period of time?

As far as distance in terms of context, what about post #556764? I think this is the one Fenrick mentioned. That's an actual photo of the planes crashing into the twin towers with Nyan Cat shopped on top. If that's acceptable, then what's stopping someone from doing the same with Holocaust photos for example?

notmenotyou said:
Two of the big tenets of satire is that it only ever punches upwards towards the current rulers and never kicks down on those who are not rulers, and that it must be true.

What if it just appears to be punching down but is actually self-deprecating humor? Interpreting the message of art can be tricky business. Sometimes it's hard to tell how many layers of irony the artist is on or which character we're meant to sympathize with. Some people might get it, but others will become enraged because they didn't peel back enough layers. Also, it's important to keep in mind that it's impossible to evaluate the truth value of a value judgement. If someone likes [thing] but doesn't like [other thing], who's to say their preferences are wrong?

There need to be clearly defined, objective guidelines on this, and it seems that's in the works. Good fences make good neighbors, as SnowWolf alluded to. Please keep us abreast of developments. This is important to me.

tl;dr thats never going to happen

Just to be clear, post #81045 will be deleted when the anti-harassment rule goes into effect, right? Unlike George Floyd and the examples ponii gave, the person this character represents is still alive. So all posts criticizing Dragoneer will have to go.

To clarify another point, let's examine the reasoning provided for why post #2278572 was deleted. We've gone from "Let's just not" to "Glorification and thoughtless use of a real person's death" to "Harassing a dead person". Forgive me if I have doubts regarding the admins' ability to impartially assess the truth value of satire.

spankweasel said:
"Harassing a dead person".

Are you and @poniii really so naive as to think that when a person's been murdered, no one can be hurt by continuing to disrespect and dishonor them post mortem?

Of course a piece of art with controversial content can hurt people. But it can’t hurt someone who’s dead. So, obviously, it does not constitute harassment. That’s why, as I said, NotMeNotYou’s invocation of the anti-harassment rule to justify the censoring of post #2282749 does not make sense. This is not the stated purpose of that rule.

If you want them to start censoring art that “disrespects or dishonors” people then, like I said, that’s the moderators’ prerogative. But anyone with any understanding of art will tell you that this is contrary to the goal of an archive. Perhaps you’d prefer that e621 were a gallery of inoffensive art only. No art that features racism, snuff, bestiality, rape, or cub. Because believe me, art like that can hurt people. Or you could just blacklist and move on.

I appreciate you deleting the portion of your comment that was unnecessarily rude.

poniii said:
Of course a piece of art with controversial content can hurt people. But it can’t hurt someone who’s dead. So, obviously, it does not constitute harassment. That’s why, as I said, NotMeNotYou’s invocation of the anti-harassment rule to justify the censoring of post #2282749 does not make sense.

That argument is so pedantic as to entirely (and I think intentionally) dismiss the point he was making. You've created a straw-man argument.

ccoyote said:
That argument is so pedantic as to entirely (and I think intentionally) dismiss the point he was making.

I wouldn't say so. Words mean things, and claiming to be removing something because it harasses a real-life person (a reasonable stance) is rather different than removing something because it upsets people who are grieving someone's death.

Not to say it is or isn't reasonable to remove drawings depicting the death of a real person in a manner meant to mock them while people are still grieving, but when it comes to rules, you don't want to go down the road of having terms so loosely interpreted that it can be applied so broadly.

ccoyote said:
That argument is so pedantic as to entirely (and I think intentionally) dismiss the point he was making. You've created a straw-man argument.

It seems like you don’t understand what a straw man is. NotMeNotYou said post #2282749 was deleted because it is harassment. I’ve explained quite clearly why it is not harassment and does not violate the anti-harassment rule. Therefore, their use of this rule to delete the post is simply incorrect.

I’m using quotes and definitions. If dismissing logical arguments as pedantry makes you feel better then feel free, but please refrain from posting comments just to muddy the waters of this thread.

poniii said:
It seems like you don’t understand what a straw man is. NotMeNotYou said post #2282749 was deleted because it is harassment. I’ve explained quite clearly why it is not harassment and does not violate the anti-harassment rule. Therefore, their use of this rule to delete the post is simply incorrect.

I’m using quotes and definitions. If dismissing logical arguments as pedantry makes you feel better then feel free, but please refrain from posting comments just to muddy the waters of this thread.

If you'd like to use quotes and definitions, the definition of pedantry is excessive concern with minor details and rules. And that is exactly what you've done. Then you've turned around and stacked one logical fallacy atop another with a use of ad hominem.

And this is exactly how these discussions go every single time someone gets in a snit over a perceived assault on his personal interpretation of freedom of speech on a furry art site.

Someday, I shall learn not to join these useless bouts of bloviating and self-aggrandizement. Gods know they'll never end.

ccoyote said:
pedantry is excessive concern with minor details and rules.

Right. And neither the deletion of the post nor the anti-harassment rule are minor. They are the topic at hand, and discussing them logically and specifically is not pedantry.

ccoyote said:
Then you’ve turned around and stacked one logical fallacy atop another with a use of ad hominem.

It seems like you don’t understand what ad hominem is either. Pointing out that you don’t know what a straw man is is not a personal attack, and I addressed your accusation by recapping my argument, not insulting you.

poniii said:
Right. And neither the deletion of the post nor the anti-harassment rule are minor. They are the topic at hand, and discussing them logically and specifically is not pedantry.

It seems like you don’t understand what ad hominem is either. Pointing out that you don’t know what a straw man is is not a personal attack, and I addressed your accusation by recapping my argument, not insulting you.

No, CCoyote is right, your entire argument is designed to miss the point of the topic at hand and misdirect from what's being discussed.

How so? Both my argument and my interpretation of the topic at hand are clearly outlined in my two previous comments.

poniii said:
George Floyd was murdered by Derek Chauvin in one of the many, many examples of police brutality against black Americans. He is dead. You cannot harass or threaten him. Because he is dead. Your application of this rule does not make sense and does not help George Floyd or the BLM cause.

I'll be perfectly honest I did not expect the counter argument that we should just sit down and let other people harass or insult freshly deceased people, or let other people use their likeness or the circumstances of their death to intentionally cause disruptions.
The reason why we're applying the harassment rule here, and protect someone who is dead, is precisely because they're dead. At least in Germany our constitution's the very sentence of first article is "Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority." While this is for law, and we're not a state authority, I find this is a perfect principle by which to live, just as great as Mr Roger's "Be excellent to each other". I also believe this is a great principle to apply here, to ensure the person in question is still treated with dignity. Even if they can't defend themselves anymore, even if they're dead.

poniii said:
Seriously? You’re going to censor art “harassing” the likenesses of Hitler or Muhammad? Most religions’ prophets are historical figures, not thought constructs. post #143470 is “ insulting to Jesus as a person and meant to stir drama”. But e621 would be failing in its mission to be an archive if you were to delete controversial art like that. You should rethink your stance.

Hitler and Muhammad were both public figures during their lifetimes, and are currently dead for 80 years or more. Also, that depiction of Jesus is white with blonde hair, you'll have to explain to me how that's the likeness of someone that was born in Bethlehem 2,000 years ago.
The point of this is that the expectations are different for private people brought into the spotlight against their own will (George Floyd didn't ask to be elevated into a martyr) and people who decided to put themselves as leader of a significant group of people during their lives. This distinction is definitely we should have in writing in rules, however, so thank you for that.

poniii said:
Even with the added context of your personal interpretation of this addendum, it is too vague to be useful. It will be applied inconsistently, which is precisely what e621 moderation is commonly criticized for.

Everything that rule that isn't from mathematics is "inconsistently applied". We're humans, not perfect abstracts, hence this is going to be expected. We will strive to be as consistent as possible, and likely refine the criteria as we're going to encounter things that force us to apply the rules, but the matter of the fact remains that both of these criteria are used all the time for similar situations in real life.
When does grave robbery become archeology? When enough time has passed that no more living relatives are found to the people unearthed.
When is violence in video games acceptable to a teenage audience and doesn't require the mature rating? When it's abstract enough to not perfectly mirror reality.

poniii said:
Please make this a separate thread.

It will be made a separate thread if it becomes more than an idle thought at 1:30AM in the morning. I'm not willing to make threads just because I had a brain fart that I'd like to explore more.

poniii said:
You’re not. It’s your site, and you can censor any posts you want to. But I feel strongly that these decisions should be made at the level of the individual user, not the moderation team. If you see something like post #2282749, downvote it, decry it, blacklist where possible, and move on.

We're already enforcing much more "censorship" in the name of relevancy, quality, and DNP entries. Applying the rules for conduct of our users to submissions at best closes a loophole where harassment and insults could be taken into art form and be given a free pass.

spankweasel said:
But Nick Wilde and Judy Hopps are fictional characters. It's parody. But more importantly, it's impossible to harass someone who's dead.

It's neither "an imitation of the style of a particular writer, artist, or genre with deliberate exaggeration for comic effect" nor a "a humorously exaggerated imitation", it's the exact moments of George Floyd's death replaced with furries and then have the victim make a face like they're enjoying the treatment. You're going to have to explain to me how that fits any definition of a parody, because I don't see either exaggeration nor humor, only a tone deaf depiction of femdom / police & gangster roleplay.

spankweasel said:
For the same reason, I won't care what happens to my body when I'm dead. There will be no "I" to care. Do with it what you please, whatever amuses you or suits your purpose. Just let the doctors take my organs first, and don't let my family or friends find out my body was desecrated. Do it for them not me.

Duly noted, with your consent given we'll gladly make an exception for any art that involves you.

spankweasel said:
So really, you're protecting the extant victims of the George Floyd tragedy. His family and friends. What makes the extant victims of 9/11 or the Columbine massacre undeserving of equal protection?

If there is any art in the same vein as that George Floyd image on the site we'll gladly delete it. Right this moment I'm not aware of any like that, though with more than 2 million submissions I am simply unable to have seen and judged every image.
If you bring us examples we'll gladly judge them.

spankweasel said:
I myself commented on the post saying it was too soon. But what does that mean in practice? Does it mean given enough time you will reverse the decision? There were two versions of that image posted. What if you deleted the WIP on the grounds of too soon, and a couple years later, the finished work was posted? Do you approve it because it's been long enough, or does it get taken down for consistency? It's sloppy to take time into account like that. Wasn't that the reason we stopped allowing paid Patreon content after a certain period of time?

Apples and oranges, paid content had its 2 year statute removed because it was arbitrarily done and took the matter out of the hands of the actual creators of the pieces. It was also in many cases illegal distribution of copyrighted material, something that could bite come back and bite us legally if there was someone motivated enough.
As for your actual question, I'm not certain where I'd put the statue of limitations for that. Even 5 years definitely feels to short for that, I'd have to look if there are other places out there that have precedences, or if they disallow similar forever / until it falls out of living memory.

spankweasel said:
As far as distance in terms of context, what about post #556764? I think this is the one Fenrick mentioned. That's an actual photo of the planes crashing into the twin towers with Nyan Cat shopped on top. If that's acceptable, then what's stopping someone from doing the same with Holocaust photos for example?

That wouldn't get approved today because it's a really lazy edit, never even mind the photo being used. When we put the rule into writing I'll probably delete that one, and similar ones using photos like that, too.

spankweasel said:
What if it just appears to be punching down but is actually self-deprecating humor? Interpreting the message of art can be tricky business. Sometimes it's hard to tell how many layers of irony the artist is on or which character we're meant to sympathize with. Some people might get it, but others will become enraged because they didn't peel back enough layers. Also, it's important to keep in mind that it's impossible to evaluate the truth value of a value judgement. If someone likes [thing] but doesn't like [other thing], who's to say their preferences are wrong?

That is a good question, and the same question that actually made me look into what makes and breaks satire. Particularly post #90923 at face value seems to be making light of the fact that calling a person a chimp is acceptable humor, but it's not acceptable against a group of people. How far down do the layers go? Do the layers stop at "person is acting like a chimp because they put their foot in their mouth every other press conference" or does it go down all the way too "I want to denounce brown people with their backwards religion and like them to the animals they are"? In the case of that particular artist the answer is likely the latter because their private page is certainly telling the story of someone who is far deep down the alt-right.
So, in such cases we might have to rely on external evidence provided by the person behind the picture. If they're constantly pushing alt right propaganda in their other pieces chances are good the piece in question is aimed at the same audience, and thus wishes to present that particular in-joke.

spankweasel said:
There need to be clearly defined, objective guidelines on this, and it seems that's in the works. Good fences make good neighbors, as SnowWolf alluded to. Please keep us abreast of developments. This is important to me.

Definitely. While the outset of us not wanting to be assholes to others is the exact same motivation as it was behind banning paid content forever, we can't just apply the same tool to this iteration of the problem. We're going to need a much, much finer hammer than the sledge hammer we were able to use for paid content.

spankweasel said:
Just to be clear, post #81045 will be deleted when the anti-harassment rule goes into effect, right? Unlike George Floyd and the examples ponii gave, the person this character represents is still alive. So all posts criticizing Dragoneer will have to go.

To clarify another point, let's examine the reasoning provided for why post #2278572 was deleted. We've gone from "Let's just not" to "Glorification and thoughtless use of a real person's death" to "Harassing a dead person". Forgive me if I have doubts regarding the admins' ability to impartially assess the truth value of satire.

Dragoneer is alive, in good health, knows we exist, and has asked for deletions of their work between the submission of that image and me writing this text today. If they want it deleted we will gladly delete it. Until then we have reason to assume they're okay with it being here.

The deletion reason for post #2278572 was "Let's just not" to get it out of the feed and thus lessen the drama it would cause while we'd be discussing how and why exactly things like that shouldn't be here. Again, we were kind of blindsided by people being this tactless on purpose.

notmenotyou said:
Dragoneer is alive, in good health,

truly the worst thing of all this

spankweasel said:
To clarify another point, let's examine the reasoning provided for why post #2278572 was deleted. We've gone from "Let's just not" to "Glorification and thoughtless use of a real person's death" to "Harassing a dead person". Forgive me if I have doubts regarding the admins' ability to impartially assess the truth value of satire.

Howdy. I'm just going to speak for myself about that "Let's just not."

I understand how the initial deletion reason gives the impression that it was done impulsively. I do try to be methodical about what I do and say here, so I wouldn't have worded it the way I did if it wasn't at least partially impulsive.

Without going into detail about staff channel stuff, there was a gap of time between me acknowledging the post and deciding to pull the trigger on it. My initial impression was that, regardless of any satirical value, it was going to cause a massive shitstorm no matter what action we took. The decision was made with that in mind, knowing that that was not exactly why it had to go, but that it had to go regardless, even though we hadn't reached a consensus on it yet.

So I let the rest of the team know that I had deleted it and we all had a nice chat over tea and biscuits.

Besides all that, my mind's jumping in a lot of different directions right now. Whether or not conversations and actions that spark from a piece, however tasteless, are what define it as art. Our roles and responsibilities in shaping our communities, for good or bad. The recognition that these are extraordinary circumstances we're going through right now, a litmus test that has laid us all bare for everyone else to see and judge, however fairly or unfairly. Issues of sincerity, the difference between what we say and what we do. Virtue signaling. Holier than thou attitudes. Public relations. Professionalism. Propaganda. Free speech. Satire.

Lots of fancy words that might make us feel better about ourselves when we use them. Feel better than someone else. Feel like we are the informed ones, they are the misinformed or uninformed. Maybe feel like we're accomplishing something with all of this.

I'm tired. I'm so tired of this lack of even attempting to communicate with "the other side," clearly and tactfully. Even when I do try talk to my dad, I just get shot down by this idea that I was influenced by someone else, that I'm too dumb to check facts, know sources, be aware of someone trying to manipulate me. I'm dismissed by the idea that, even though I'm closer to my 30s now, I'm too young and inexperienced to understand how the world works, so I should just stay out of it. All the while, his favorite news channel is blaring in the background, every day and every night. So talking feels pointless. Typing this post feels pointless. How dare I try to push my agenda using my position on this site, right? Let's disregard the merit of whatever I say entirely because of that.

We've been spoiled rotten by anonymity and algorithms and picking and choosing who/what we let into our lives. There is a desperation to cling onto whatever validation we find, to conform, lest we lose it. Cancel culture has been saturated with pettiness, to the point that it feels ridiculous whenever it's brought up, even for protests against actions with verifiable evidence.

Anyways.

You're right not to trust us entirely. We're human like you. Every authority figure is human like you. Without accountability and transparency, you cannot expect everyone to act impartially 100% of the time. It would be nice to believe that all authority figures are impartial and fair, that anyone who is punished must have deserved it in some way. It's comforting. Things happen for a reason, all the time, every time. What a nice world we'd be living in if that were true.

How about you just keep these sort of “controversial” posts up, but blacklist the posts on all users by default. Then you have to manually deactivate the “controversial” tag on your blacklist to view it. Those who want to see it do, those who don’t never will. Kind of like how new users start with a couple niche tags in their blacklists.

Maybe an option box to select when uploading of a post of what could be considered “controversial” that would automatically hide it behind a thumbnail like the old [blacklisted] one for all users unless they have deselected this option?

filthy_defranko said:
How about you just keep these sort of “controversial” posts up, but blacklist the posts on all users by default. Then you have to manually deactivate the “controversial” tag on your blacklist to view it. Those who want to see it do, those who don’t never will. Kind of like how new users start with a couple niche tags in their blacklists.

Maybe an option box to select when uploading of a post of what could be considered “controversial” that would automatically hide it behind a thumbnail like the old [blacklisted] one for all users unless they have deselected this option?

I can't help but think that people will argue about what constitutes "controversial", which posts would warrant the tag, etc. At that point it's kicking the can down the road.

strikerman said:
I can't help but think that people will argue about what constitutes "controversial", which posts would warrant the tag, etc. At that point it's kicking the can down the road.

I don’t really think the issue that people are arguing over is whether or not something is offensive/controversial, but whether or not said material should be on the site. I feel like it’d be easy enough to boil the “controversial posts” label down to current events, racially oriented content, religion, politics, etc. You know, the kinda stuff that’d give you records for discussing it in the comments/forums based on site rules.

notmenotyou said:
I'll be perfectly honest I did not expect the counter argument that we should just sit down and let other people harass or insult freshly deceased people, or let other people use their likeness or the circumstances of their death to intentionally cause disruptions.
The reason why we're applying the harassment rule here, and protect someone who is dead, is precisely because they're dead. At least in Germany our constitution's the very sentence of first article is "Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority." While this is for law, and we're not a state authority, I find this is a perfect principle by which to live, just as great as Mr Roger's "Be excellent to each other". I also believe this is a great principle to apply here, to ensure the person in question is still treated with dignity. Even if they can't defend themselves anymore, even if they're dead.

No, there is an important distinction to make here. You are confusing harassment with mocking the memory of the dead. They're completely different. In the same vein, rape and necrophilia are legally distinct. Rape hurts and traumatizes the victim. Necrophilia in and of itself is just gross, but the dead body does not suffer as a result.

George Floyd does not need your protection. Unfortunately, it's too late for that now. George Floyd is no more. It's impossible to harass a nonexistent person. You can make a rule about mocking the memory of the dead, just don't call it harassment.

notmenotyou said:
It's neither "an imitation of the style of a particular writer, artist, or genre with deliberate exaggeration for comic effect" nor a "a humorously exaggerated imitation", it's the exact moments of George Floyd's death replaced with furries and then have the victim make a face like they're enjoying the treatment. You're going to have to explain to me how that fits any definition of a parody, because I don't see either exaggeration nor humor, only a tone deaf depiction of femdom / police & gangster roleplay.

I'm unfamiliar with the artist, but scrolling through his twitter gives the impression of an alt-right provocateur. Honestly, when I first saw the image I thought it was poking fun at Zootopia, not George Floyd. So much Zootopia porn on here, it's easy to forget the source material is an innocent Disney movie. A cartoon that explains racism in a gentle way for kids. I thought the humor was supposed to lie in the juxtaposition of pure-hearted Disney characters with the harsh truths of racism in the real police force. You know, like the kind of dark humor in It's Always Sunny in Philidelphia. This episode in particular goes to a dark place when Charlie, who has been turned into a black child, gets shot by police, who mistakenly believe he's holding a gun. It's revealed at the end that it was all a dream of Old Black Man. The episode was exploring what it means to be black in America, even the tragic aspects, but with a humorous tone. It wasn't making fun of black children being shot, and I didn't think George Floyd was the butt of the joke in the Zootopia drawing. It wasn't saying he deserved to die. But perhaps I was too charitable in my interpretation of that drawing. I try to give people the benefit of doubt.

notmenotyou said:
Duly noted, with your consent given we'll gladly make an exception for any art that involves you.

Did someone say free art? Ha! The point I was getting at is how do you get consent to make art of a dead person? Do they have to give it before they die? George Floyd didn't give consent to have the video of his horrific murder uploaded to YouTube, but it's there. That video offends a lot of people, as it should. That's the point. That's why there's a content warning. Maybe the idea of an extreme content warning is a good idea for here too. Maybe Filthy DeFranko in onto something, and such content should be hidden by default but still kept on the site.

notmenotyou said:
If there is any art in the same vein as that George Floyd image on the site we'll gladly delete it. Right this moment I'm not aware of any like that, though with more than 2 million submissions I am simply unable to have seen and judged every image.
If you bring us examples we'll gladly judge them.

You haven't made clear what real justification you're using to remove that image, so it's impossible to know which images qualify. post #400658, post #378180, post #1530076, and post #1113157 listed in the OP all qualify under the reason stated on the Floyd image itself. But you keep moving the goalpost. I found post #2046787 after Fenrick mentioned Columbine. In it, the two Columbine shooters are depicted standing next to the severed head of one of their victims. Do we have to know which victim specifically? Do we have to look up crime scene photos for identification? Isn't it bad enough to know the victims' deaths are being glorified without having to know which one in particular? What you seem to be arguing is that if enough people are killed or maimed, it doesn't count because no one particular person is being singled out. How many victims does it take to make it acceptable? If there's a murder involving just two victims, does it suddenly become acceptable to draw and post because neither one is being singled out?

notmenotyou said:
Apples and oranges, paid content had its 2 year statute removed because it was arbitrarily done and took the matter out of the hands of the actual creators of the pieces. It was also in many cases illegal distribution of copyrighted material, something that could bite come back and bite us legally if there was someone motivated enough.
As for your actual question, I'm not certain where I'd put the statue of limitations for that. Even 5 years definitely feels to short for that, I'd have to look if there are other places out there that have precedences, or if they disallow similar forever / until it falls out of living memory.

What sorts of sites are you looking to for guidance?

knotty_curls said:
Howdy. I'm just going to speak for myself about that "Let's just not."

I understand how the initial deletion reason gives the impression that it was done impulsively. I do try to be methodical about what I do and say here, so I wouldn't have worded it the way I did if it wasn't at least partially impulsive.

Without going into detail about staff channel stuff, there was a gap of time between me acknowledging the post and deciding to pull the trigger on it. My initial impression was that, regardless of any satirical value, it was going to cause a massive shitstorm no matter what action we took. The decision was made with that in mind, knowing that that was not exactly why it had to go, but that it had to go regardless, even though we hadn't reached a consensus on it yet.

So I let the rest of the team know that I had deleted it and we all had a nice chat over tea and biscuits.

Besides all that, my mind's jumping in a lot of different directions right now. Whether or not conversations and actions that spark from a piece, however tasteless, are what define it as art. Our roles and responsibilities in shaping our communities, for good or bad. The recognition that these are extraordinary circumstances we're going through right now, a litmus test that has laid us all bare for everyone else to see and judge, however fairly or unfairly. Issues of sincerity, the difference between what we say and what we do. Virtue signaling. Holier than thou attitudes. Public relations. Professionalism. Propaganda. Free speech. Satire.

Lots of fancy words that might make us feel better about ourselves when we use them. Feel better than someone else. Feel like we are the informed ones, they are the misinformed or uninformed. Maybe feel like we're accomplishing something with all of this.

I'm tired. I'm so tired of this lack of even attempting to communicate with "the other side," clearly and tactfully. Even when I do try talk to my dad, I just get shot down by this idea that I was influenced by someone else, that I'm too dumb to check facts, know sources, be aware of someone trying to manipulate me. I'm dismissed by the idea that, even though I'm closer to my 30s now, I'm too young and inexperienced to understand how the world works, so I should just stay out of it. All the while, his favorite news channel is blaring in the background, every day and every night. So talking feels pointless. Typing this post feels pointless. How dare I try to push my agenda using my position on this site, right? Let's disregard the merit of whatever I say entirely because of that.

We've been spoiled rotten by anonymity and algorithms and picking and choosing who/what we let into our lives. There is a desperation to cling onto whatever validation we find, to conform, lest we lose it. Cancel culture has been saturated with pettiness, to the point that it feels ridiculous whenever it's brought up, even for protests against actions with verifiable evidence.

Anyways.

You're right not to trust us entirely. We're human like you. Every authority figure is human like you. Without accountability and transparency, you cannot expect everyone to act impartially 100% of the time. It would be nice to believe that all authority figures are impartial and fair, that anyone who is punished must have deserved it in some way. It's comforting. Things happen for a reason, all the time, every time. What a nice world we'd be living in if that were true.

Hello there! Let me start off by saying I'm not trying to judge or shame anyone. Not you, not the artist of that image. I'm just trying to understand where the line is and how decisions like this are made. What are the rules? I understand the clock was ticking, the downvotes and outrage were pouring in, and the art itself was poking at a sore spot. It was really the goal post shift from "Glorification and thoughtless use of a real person's death" to "harassment" I was taking issue with, because harassment of Floyd as the reason for deletion doesn't even begin to make sense. The former reason on the other hand, makes perfect sense, and should be applied consistently to the images I listed too. That's the real reason the 9/11 images and the Floyd image are so offensive. The images make light of real people being murdered. Has nothing to do with harassment.

Anyway, I think the most important point you hit upon is that both sides indeed should to be communicating. The idea that we can't convince the other side to make positive changes or even soften their stances is unrealistically pessimistic. I draw inspiration from individuals like Daryl Davis. He convinced 200 Klansmen to give up their robes through patience, friendship, and open and honest dialogue. He diligently researched the ideologies of the Klan, so he would be armed with knowledge. He had the courage to stare unflinchingly into the abyss and come out stronger - to become a hero. This is the true power of free expression. People coming together under a shared interest (Blues in the case of Davis and the Klansman mentioned in the NPR article) and learning to accept each other's differences. This is how we defeat hate, not with zero-tolerance stances on messages that make us uncomfortable. If Daryl Davis took that approach, the world would be at a great loss.

Thank you, admins. Thank you, janitors. Thank you, everyone who strives to make this site a better place. I want what's best for the site just as much as you.

spankweasel said:
No, there is an important distinction to make here. You are confusing harassment with mocking the memory of the dead. They're completely different. In the same vein, rape and necrophilia are legally distinct. Rape hurts and traumatizes the victim. Necrophilia in and of itself is just gross, but the dead body does not suffer as a result.

George Floyd does not need your protection. Unfortunately, it's too late for that now. George Floyd is no more. It's impossible to harass a nonexistent person. You can make a rule about mocking the memory of the dead, just don't call it harassment.

Is it really, truly necessary to split those kinds of hairs?

strikerman said:
Is it really, truly necessary to split those kinds of hairs?

No, it's not.

spankweasel said:
No, there is an important distinction to make here. You are confusing harassment with mocking the memory of the dead. They're completely different. In the same vein, rape and necrophilia are legally distinct. Rape hurts and traumatizes the victim. Necrophilia in and of itself is just gross, but the dead body does not suffer as a result.

George Floyd does not need your protection. Unfortunately, it's too late for that now. George Floyd is no more. It's impossible to harass a nonexistent person. You can make a rule about mocking the memory of the dead, just don't call it harassment.

Dude, this is a really horrible look and a bad argument. Honestly, at this point, I think you're just talking to hear the sound of your own voice. Put the shovel down and stop digging yourself in deeper. God knows there are more important things happening in the world than your personal interpretation of what constitutes harassment and what belongs on someone else's furry art archive. If it's that important to you, go get a law degree.

I think my biggest question for the administration right now is should we anticipate some drastic rule changes on what's allowable when the Section 230 protections inevitably pop out of existence?

spankweasel said:
It was really the goal post shift from "Glorification and thoughtless use of a real person's death" to "harassment" I was taking issue with, because harassment of Floyd as the reason for deletion doesn't even begin to make sense.

I'm getting the impression it's more that in the case of George Floyd the victim role is a distinct identity group, and that satirical recreations of that can tend toward spawning from or encouraging prejudicial viewpoints targeting that identity group.
Victims of something like 9/11 or Columbine are both less clearly-defined and less immediately relevant to the perpetration of those crimes.

But that's just a current personal impression on what makes these things different. You could definitely make a case that all three should be examined to the same degree regardless of how widespread the specific criminals' supporterbases are. There is a social issue to talk about behind all three of these things that absolutely should be talked about, but talking on the internet might be about to get a whole lot messier and I don't blame the administration for hedging their bets right now of all times as long as they're not enjoying it too much ;)

strikerman said:
Is it really, truly necessary to split those kinds of hairs?

Considering that such hair-splitting is required to determine exactly which posts need to be censored? Yes, it's vital, otherwise the censoring becomes arbitrary.

'course, I'd prefer no censorship myself. But since that can of worms has been opened, it needs to be sorted out into workable rules. Once you start censoring, it becomes difficult to draw a line for where to stop.

genjar said:
Considering that such hair-splitting is required to determine exactly which posts need to be censored? Yes, it's vital, otherwise the censoring becomes arbitrary.

'course, I'd prefer no censorship myself. But since that can of worms has been opened, it needs to be sorted out into workable rules. Once you start censoring, it becomes difficult to draw a line for where to stop.

Maybe if this were an actual court of law with important, real-life consequences for people and their civil rights, sure. But it's not, not even for the artists.

I made the mistake of reading this thread directly before going to sleep and this one portion is bugging me. I'll be replying to the rest tomorrow, but I feel I need to clarify this asap.

spankweasel said:
No, there is an important distinction to make here. You are confusing harassment with mocking the memory of the dead. They're completely different. In the same vein, rape and necrophilia are legally distinct. Rape hurts and traumatizes the victim. Necrophilia in and of itself is just gross, but the dead body does not suffer as a result.

George Floyd does not need your protection. Unfortunately, it's too late for that now. George Floyd is no more. It's impossible to harass a nonexistent person. You can make a rule about mocking the memory of the dead, just don't call it harassment.

The distinction you're trying to push for is entirely irrelevant and will be summarily ignored in the context of our rules. Our rules are not following the legal definitions of words as used by the US law code, we're using the common people definitions of words. As I've said above we knowingly and wilfully are applying harassment rules to this case, and similar future and possible past cases, as if the person were still alive. It does not matter that "he doesn't need our protection anymore", he gets it without asking because that's the proper thing to do.

There's a reason Germany, with it's stated goal to preserve the dignity of every person at all points, also grants the same exact protections postmortem. As it should be in every civilized place on this planet. In Germany making a picture of a person that freshly died during an accident can lead to up to 2 years in jail, not because it's mocking the memory of the dead or upsets close family members of the dead person, but because the deceased person still has a right to not be photographed by some random dude with a camera, the same right the person had while alive.

Whether you want to call it having dignity or showing common decency, this is exactly what we're doing, and we're not going to bow to legalese in our usage of rules.

Again, I'll be replying to the rest tomorrow, either as edit to this post if nobody else replies, or in a new reply.

"notmenotyou":
In Germany making a picture of a person that freshly died during an accident can lead to up to 2 years in jail, not because it's mocking the memory of the dead or upsets close family members of the dead person, but because the deceased person still has a right to not be photographed by some random dude with a camera, the same right the person had while alive.

Wait, so in Germany, you are protected against being filmed or photographed without your expressly written consent, even in public?

filthy_defranko said:
Wait, so in Germany, you are protected against being filmed or photographed without your expressly written consent, even in public?

In France too, technically.

notmenotyou said:
I made the mistake of reading this thread directly before going to sleep and this one portion is bugging me. I'll be replying to the rest tomorrow, but I feel I need to clarify this asap.

The distinction you're trying to push for is entirely irrelevant and will be summarily ignored in the context of our rules. Our rules are not following the legal definitions of words as used by the US law code, we're using the common people definitions of words. As I've said above we knowingly and wilfully are applying harassment rules to this case, and similar future and possible past cases, as if the person were still alive. It does not matter that "he doesn't need our protection anymore", he gets it without asking because that's the proper thing to do.

There's a reason Germany, with it's stated goal to preserve the dignity of every person at all points, also grants the same exact protections postmortem. As it should be in every civilized place on this planet. In Germany making a picture of a person that freshly died during an accident can lead to up to 2 years in jail, not because it's mocking the memory of the dead or upsets close family members of the dead person, but because the deceased person still has a right to not be photographed by some random dude with a camera, the same right the person had while alive.

Whether you want to call it having dignity or showing common decency, this is exactly what we're doing, and we're not going to bow to legalese in our usage of rules.

Again, I'll be replying to the rest tomorrow, either as edit to this post if nobody else replies, or in a new reply.

Sorta disappointed you didn't address the rest of my post like you said you would. Did you even read the rest?

If you don't want to host art based on photos of real people dying, I agree. Just for different reasons. The point is the word harass doesn't mean what you think it means. This isn't legalese; it's common English parlance. If someone shoos away kids poking at a dead body with sticks, she would never say, "Stop harassing him!" Not if she knows he's dead. If you want the rules to be clear and comprehensible, you need to specify that neither harassing art nor art that mocks the memory of the dead will be tolerated. Or maybe something to the effect of, "Art that denigrates the deaths of real people will not be tolerated". That sounds better. Because as the rules currently stand:

The idea is to prevent a member from being uncomfortable in the forums or on the site.

This is the stated purpose for the harassment rule. It is plain to see how this would give the wrong impression that the rule does not apply to the dead.

Speaking of civility, if we're protecting the dead from harassing images, shouldn't we also extend that same protection to the living too? You know, the people who might actually benefit from such protection? (This has been my argument all along.) Why is it okay to harass 9/11 and Columbine victims? Survivors of these traumatic events could in theory make their way here and see such images as post #1008828, post #1972409, post #170544, post #556764, post #2046787. Might even trigger their ptsd, especially those images that tastelessly use actual photos from 9/11. How are you respecting human dignity by hosting those sorts of images?

Also, if human dignity extends beyond death, how far beyond? Apparently, the dignity of Jesus and Archduke Franz Ferdinand has expired. How long until it becomes okay to poke fun at or glorify someone's death? You said 5 years seems too short. This needs to be specified in the rules if we are to have a consistent stance with regard to the posts denigrating the deaths of individuals that you've already deemed acceptable.

Holocaust denial is also illegal in Germany. If someone posts art that tries to convince the viewer the Holocaust is a hoax, would that be taken down?

I've seen a particularly tasteless image floating around (not on here) of an anthro in Nazi uniform shopped in front of an actual Holocaust photo. You would delete such an image without a second thought, right? As should be the case for images that denigrate the deaths of any peoples. As should be the case for those 9/11 images that use real photos in particular. Because it's wrong to mock the deaths of Jews in the Holocaust, and it's wrong to mock the deaths of Americans in the WTC.

Really, I think there should be a rule that states, "Art that denigrates the deaths of real individuals will not be tolerated. Nonhuman animals are also protected as individuals under this provision." Ideally, extreme suffering such as torture should also be included,

Art that denigrates the deaths or traumatic suffering of real individuals will not be tolerated. Nonhuman animals are also protected as individuals under this provision.

What do you think? I think such a rule covers all the bases - protecting the dignity of life as well as honoring the dead. We would still need to add in the stipulation that this protection expires after a certain period of time after death.

Also, I came across this post #2076226. In this image, Randy Stair, the perpetrator of this shooting, is depicted as an anthro blowing his brains out. That is how the real Randy Stair concluded the shooting, and this all happened in 2017. post #2071368 is another school shooting from 2019. Similar to the last image glorifying the perpetrator's suicide.

I could probably find more examples if I tried. I feel like I'm just scratching the tip of an iceberg. The point is the site is being very selective with regard to protecting the dignity of the dead, because such protections didn't exist on here in the past. But now that we're doing this, we need to do it consistently. Many of the posts I've linked in this thread warrant removal on these grounds.

As an aside, if such a law as the German one you mentioned was in effect in America, we would only have eyewitness testimony of George Floyd's death. No one would have been allowed to film it. Eyewitness testimony is far less compelling than video evidence, so the officers responsible would have probably gotten off scot-free. Of course, such a law is part of a broader legal framework in Germany that may have prevented the murder in the first place. Maybe it's worth discussing these cultural differences. Americans have a different perception of death than the rest of the world. I think Americans are generally more desensitized to death, because reasons. But if we pursue this line of discussion, it should be a topic for another thread.

spankweasel said:
Sorta disappointed you didn't address the rest of my post like you said you would. Did you even read the rest?

If you don't want to host art based on photos of real people dying, I agree. Just for different reasons. The point is the word harass doesn't mean what you think it means. This isn't legalese; it's common English parlance. If someone shoos away kids poking at a dead body with sticks, she would never say, "Stop harassing him!" Not if she knows he's dead. If you want the rules to be clear and comprehensible, you need to specify that neither harassing art nor art that mocks the memory of the dead will be tolerated. Or maybe something to the effect of, "Art that denigrates the deaths of real people will not be tolerated". That sounds better.

You're quibbling about a single word like this is a legal document. As much as you seem to disagree, I would argue that a lot of people (myself included) have no issue with how that word's used.

🤦‍♂️

strikerman said:
You're quibbling about a single word like this is a legal document. As much as you seem to disagree, I would argue that a lot of people (myself included) have no issue with how that word's used.

The entire spirit of the rule resides in the meaning of that one word. To reiterate,

The idea is to prevent a member from being uncomfortable in the forums or on the site.

It doesn't matter if you don't have an issue with how the word is used, because you know from this thread how it's being used. The point is anyone else who hasn't seen this thread, including most people on this site, will not know how the word is being used. If the admins are rewriting the uploading guidelines and basing them off of the rules, don't you think the new guidelines should be clear? That's the whole point of this thread. What changes would you like to see?

spankweasel said:
The entire spirit of the rule resides in the meaning of that one word.

Herein lies the fundamental disconnect of your argument and what people are trying to tell you that you're refusing to hear: no, it does not.

spankweasel said:
It doesn't matter if you don't have an issue with how the word is used, because you know from this thread how it's being used. The point is anyone else who hasn't seen this thread, including most people on this site, will not know how the word is being used.

I made a point of saying "a lot of people", and yes, if the word "harass" is used in this context, a lot of people will understand it without any problems.

ccoyote said:
Herein lies the fundamental disconnect of your argument and what people are trying to tell you that you're refusing to hear: no, it does not.

I would appreciate very clear and concise wording in the rules. Without it, people can misinterpret them. They should not leave ambiguity that necessitates the creation of forum threads like this. Spankweasel is not alone in this misunderstanding, all they want is for the rules to be clear. Changing the rules to clear this up is not a world ending event that must be prevented. The rules should change to suit the users' and site's needs.

filthy_defranko said:
How about you just keep these sort of “controversial” posts up, but blacklist the posts on all users by default. Then you have to manually deactivate the “controversial” tag on your blacklist to view it. Those who want to see it do, those who don’t never will. Kind of like how new users start with a couple niche tags in their blacklists.

I think adding politics or some new controversial tag to the default blacklist is a good idea. It could remove the posts from the public eye while allowing a discussion if they are within site guidelines. Then, deleting a post is not the only way to prevent "a massive shitstorm".

magnuseffect said:
I think my biggest question for the administration right now is should we anticipate some drastic rule changes on what's allowable when the Section 230 protections inevitably pop out of existence?

I think e621 might already be classified as a publisher because every post is manually approved by a human. But this is something that deserves its own thread.

Firstly, I really appreciate your desire to protect people and promote positive change. That is commendable.

So, the idea of this site having any consistency at all when it comes to what is allowed never really pans out in practice from what I’ve seen. Let’s be real: a BIG selling point of this site to a lot of people is that it allows cartoon depictions of fictional furry children being molested and raped. If that doesn’t offend a lot of people and fictionally depict/draw inspiration from something that hurts real people in the real world, I don’t know what does.

I tend to be on the “I’ll blacklist it even if I think it’s sick as long as no one is being harmed” side of things, this being an art site and all. However, I do understand sites imposing their own standards on offensive content. BUT...this is e621, a rather odd place to start drawing lines on what art is offensive. And, also, look, there are a lot of good mods here, but sometimes what some mods decide is and is not allowed seems to be comprised of whatever they feel like that day.

I appreciate your desire to treat people fairly. I really do. I just don’t see how such a standard would work here.

So it begins...

notmenotyou said:
Again, I'll be replying to the rest tomorrow, either as edit to this post if nobody else replies, or in a new reply.

It has been a week and I was wondering if we could have an update on this issue. Posts brought up in this thread remain active on the site and I would like to know how this ruling will apply in the future.

I'm adding my two cents.

Yeah, nah fam. This is an archive site. If there isn't any copyright reason preventing an image to be uploaded, and it's drawn with decent fidelity, it should always be approved, no matter how offensive or in bad taste it is.

Cherry-picking posts to approve and to delete is not ok. Hiding behind the guise that it's attacking a specific person is not a good defense. If making fun of the death of an individual will get a post canned, then how does making fun of the death of 3000 people fare any better?

Yes, of course, I certainly am talking about 69-11.

If I posted 69-11 today, assuming it wouldn't get taken down for 'not furry' or 'bad art', would it get taken down for making fun of a the deaths of 3000 people? Or, is it just because the event happened so long ago that it no longer matters?

If that's the case, how long will it be before posts involving George Floyd are approved? Six months? A year? Five years? What happened to the posts that have already been deleted? Will they be visible again once that threshold has been passed?

My point with these questions should be obvious: why aren't posts about 9-11 banned, but posts about George Floyd are? The site has decided to delete racist posts that have been on the site for years now. I'm not complaining; I'm no skinhead, and I hold no cards in posts that I don't care about. I do care about stuff like 69-11.

If I must blacklist the tag 9-11, then let everyone who gives a shit about his death blacklist George_Floyd_Death. A compromise is adding those two tags to the automatic blacklist for everyone, and if they want to see such art, they can toggle the blacklist on the side or remove it from their own blacklist. Give both events the same standard, and, if the standard is time, set an exact number of months in which off-color posts about tragic events are suddenly fair game again.

sputty said:
I'm adding my two cents.

Yeah, nah fam. This is an archive site. If there isn't any copyright reason preventing an image to be uploaded, and it's drawn with decent fidelity, it should always be approved, no matter how offensive or in bad taste it is.

Cherry-picking posts to approve and to delete is not ok. Hiding behind the guise that it's attacking a specific person is not a good defense. If making fun of the death of an individual will get a post canned, then how does making fun of the death of 3000 people fare any better?

Yes, of course, I certainly am talking about 69-11.

If I posted 69-11 today, assuming it wouldn't get taken down for 'not furry' or 'bad art', would it get taken down for making fun of a the deaths of 3000 people? Or, is it just because the event happened so long ago that it no longer matters?

If that's the case, how long will it be before posts involving George Floyd are approved? Six months? A year? Five years? What happened to the posts that have already been deleted? Will they be visible again once that threshold has been passed?

My point with these questions should be obvious: why aren't posts about 9-11 banned, but posts about George Floyd are? The site has decided to delete racist posts that have been on the site for years now. I'm not complaining; I'm no skinhead, and I hold no cards in posts that I don't care about. I do care about stuff like 69-11.

If I must blacklist the tag 9-11, then let everyone who gives a shit about his death blacklist George_Floyd_Death. A compromise is adding those two tags to the automatic blacklist for everyone, and if they want to see such art, they can toggle the blacklist on the side or remove it from their own blacklist. Give both events the same standard, and, if the standard is time, set an exact number of months in which off-color posts about tragic events are suddenly fair game again.

I think its because its because Floyd's death is still raw in people's minds. It'd be different if the art in question was making fun of Abraham Lincoln's death. Nobody would be getting upset over that.

thirtyeight said:
I think its because its because Floyd's death is still raw in people's minds. It'd be different if the art in question was making fun of Abraham Lincoln's death. Nobody would be getting upset over that.

Then my question still stands: what is the exact number of months that it will take before an off-color topic suddenly becomes fair game again? If such a subjective qualifier exists, then it should absolutely be completely quantified before it gets written as rule.

sputty said:
Yeah, nah fam. This is an archive site. If there isn't any copyright reason preventing an image to be uploaded, and it's drawn with decent fidelity, it should always be approved, no matter how offensive or in bad taste it is.

Are there any limits to that in the slightest? Not just in terms of offense, but for any reason at all (besides copyright/takedowns as you mentioned).

strikerman said:
Are there any limits to that in the slightest? Not just in terms of offense, but for any reason at all (besides copyright/takedowns as you mentioned).

There have never been a limit based on offensiveness to what you can and cannot post until as of this past month. The following reasons have been the only reasons I have ever seen:

The artist is on the avoid posting list (The artist requested to not have his art featured on this website, with or without certain conditions)
The post is paid content (Patreon or CD content, that kinda thing)
The post is irrelevant to the site (things that are not furry, things that are photographs, or things that are memes not explicitly drawn for the meme)
The post does not meet minimum quality standards (Made in MS Paint, sucks anatomically, has no effort, etc)
The post is an inferior/duplicate version of another post (Only the best posts firsts, firsts posts second)
The post is a low quality photograph of a drawing (The artistic quality might be present, but how it was captured and stored as a picture file was not optimal)
The post is a bad edit of an existing post (Think of slapping a poorly-made dick onto a pinup of a well-made girl to create a half-assed gynomorph character)
The post is a Screencap (like a print-screen capture of a video game)

I don't know how the sanctity of life suddenly makes a difference. It's a bad slippery slope. What's next? No skulls because it signifies a dead person's head post-mortem? No death at all? No violence? No sex? It doesn't make any sense, even with the reasons I've seen posted by the admins so far.

I've noticed a lot of high-profile commonly-referenced and public (if not high-profile) admins like Ratte now have "Former Staff" titles on their profiles. I haven't seen any posts detailing as to why they've stepped down (or fired?). If they stepped down in disagreement over this private ruling, I commend them.

sputty said:
Then my question still stands: what is the exact number of months that it will take before an off-color topic suddenly becomes fair game again? If such a subjective qualifier exists, then it should absolutely be completely quantified before it gets written as rule.

If I was going to suggest a time frame, I'd say two years. By that point, people will have moved on.

sputty said:
I don't know how the sanctity of life suddenly makes a difference. It's a bad slippery slope. What's next? No skulls because it signifies a dead person's head post-mortem? No death at all? No violence? No sex? It doesn't make any sense, even with the reasons I've seen posted by the admins so far.

I've noticed a lot of high-profile commonly-referenced and public (if not high-profile) admins like Ratte now have "Former Staff" titles on their profiles. I haven't seen any posts detailing as to why they've stepped down (or fired?). If they stepped down in disagreement over this private ruling, I commend them.

This is not a slippery slope situation, we do have a final say on if we want to allow something that supersedes the rules which we very rarely exercise our right to in favour of fairness to the uploading guildelines, anything we delete that should otherwise have been allowed by the rules we can give our good reasoning for, but special rare cases aside there isn't any change to content allowance. We aren't getting rid of death art, we're not banning skulls, nothing is changing. Again, this is not a slippery slope situation.

We've lost 3 good admins in the last few months. Ratte left because this was no longer fun. ImpidiDinkaDoo left because of life getting too much in the way. TheHuskyK9 left because they ran out of juice

millcore said:
This is not a slippery slope situation, we do have a final say on if we want to allow something that supersedes the rules which we very rarely exercise our right to in favour of fairness to the uploading guildelines, anything we delete that should otherwise have been allowed by the rules we can give our good reasoning for, but special rare cases aside there isn't any change to content allowance. We aren't getting rid of death art, we're not banning skulls, nothing is changing. Again, this is not a slippery slope situation.

We've lost 3 good admins in the last few months. Ratte left because this was no longer fun. ImpidiDinkaDoo left because of life getting too much in the way. TheHuskyK9 left because they ran out of juice

Well, I surely hope not. Thank you for your input.

Personally, though, an indescribable "good feeling" was lost for me here. Something about this place being an unfiltered and raw safe-haven for all forms of art made it special. It just felt good that this place archived every image, regardless of moral taste (so long as the image wasn't taken down by the copyright owner / artist). Where FA banned almost anything that wasn't adults diddling, and Inkbunny banned all depictions of a human in a sexual context, e621 accepted everything. I felt confident being able to find any image from a postable artist.

I just wonder, is this a nono topic forever?

What will have to change?

notmenotyou said:
In time would be the further away something has been at the creation of the piece the more likely it is it's no longer as egregious either.

If time is the factor here, how long will it have to be exactly before an off-color topic is fair game again? And, if time is the factor here, what will happen to the posts that have already been deleted? Will they be restored once the time limit ends?