Topic: REPEAL TEXAS ANTI-CUB LAW

Texas Senate Bill Sb-20 aims to make all nsfw art featuring characters under 18 (drawings, paintings, cartoons, animation, and ai images) illegal with up to 5 years of prison time and a record for downloading, transmitting, storing, or creating it if you live in the state of Texas! Going into effect in September

if you are against a bunch of moldy old limp-dicks dictating to artists what they can and cannot draw, and even worse what drawings they can and cannot see, then please SHARE and if possible SIGN this petition

- https://www.change.org/p/repeal-texas-senate-bill-sb-20-protect-kids-from-al-abuse-not-art-and-freedom
- https://www.change.org/p/repeal-texas-senate-bill-sb-20-protect-kids-from-al-abuse-not-art-and-freedom
- https://www.change.org/p/repeal-texas-senate-bill-sb-20-protect-kids-from-al-abuse-not-art-and-freedom

it doesn't matter whether you like Cub or not, the point is that we must NEVER let a worthless mass of totalitarian vermin dictate what DRAWINGS we are allowed to create or see

very colorful language

@jhudson

i could make it a lot more colorful than that, but this was the best i could do for now xD

bogdanurs said:
Texas Senate Bill Sb-20 aims to make all nsfw art featuring characters under 18 (drawings, paintings, cartoons, animation, and ai images) illegal with up to 5 years of prison time and a record for downloading, transmitting, storing, or creating it if you live in the state of Texas! Going into effect in September

if you are against a bunch of moldy old limp-dicks dictating to artists what they can and cannot draw, and even worse what drawings they can and cannot see, then please SHARE and if possible SIGN this petition

- https://www.change.org/p/repeal-texas-senate-bill-sb-20-protect-kids-from-al-abuse-not-art-and-freedom
- https://www.change.org/p/repeal-texas-senate-bill-sb-20-protect-kids-from-al-abuse-not-art-and-freedom
- https://www.change.org/p/repeal-texas-senate-bill-sb-20-protect-kids-from-al-abuse-not-art-and-freedom

it doesn't matter whether you like Cub or not, the point is that we must NEVER let a worthless mass of totalitarian vermin dictate what DRAWINGS we are allowed to create or see

BTW a law with almost exact wording was struck down by the Supreme Court years ago, lel

mklxiv said:
BTW a law with almost exact wording was struck down by the Supreme Court years ago, lel

Then this is probably directly intended to challenge that ruling.

nah

bogdanurs said:
@jhudson

i could make it a lot more colorful than that, but this was the best i could do for now xD

fyi @'ing does nothing here ;p

Can't wait for the "leopards eating people's faces" moment when the people here supporting this realize laws like this could easily get twisted in the same way the young tag is often applied to chibi characters here

I heard something about people in texas being worried this could apply to any fictional depiction. like say anime/manga. One Piece for instance if this law is interpreted a certain way since it also includes violence against underage characters in art iirc.I doubt it'd go that far but it is worrying.

That being said, while this is bad anyway you think about it... its not that terrible? after all cub art is technically illegal in canada and I know of several canadian artists who have drawn cub at one point or another that been doing it for decades yet not a single thing happened to them. only exception to that is people who also were investigated for "the real thing" (ick) from what I remember hearing. same with several other places too yet inkbunny is pretty active in those places without much of a issue.

kathyohneke said:
I heard something about people in texas being worried this could apply to any fictional depiction. like say anime/manga. One Piece for instance if this law is interpreted a certain way since it also includes violence against underage characters in art iirc.I doubt it'd go that far but it is worrying.

That being said, while this is bad anyway you think about it... its not that terrible? after all cub art is technically illegal in canada and I know of several canadian artists who have drawn cub at one point or another that been doing it for decades yet not a single thing happened to them. only exception to that is people who also were investigated for "the real thing" (ick) from what I remember hearing. same with several other places too yet inkbunny is pretty active in those places without much of a issue.

Hey mate, have you been paying attention to how censorship is already ACTIVELY being abused?

Not really sure I understand what exactly they're trying to get rid of, but signed with a comment anyways. Was it wise of me to sign and comment against a law I don't really understand? I dunno. All I know is "censorship bad".

votp said:
Hey mate, have you been paying attention to how censorship is already ACTIVELY being abused?

oh Im well aware. Im also well aware that a lot of censorship isnt... actively enforced despite politician desires. Simply put, it takes a lot of resources to track stuff down. resources that are better spent tracking actual CSAM than drawings.

Is this terrible and worrying? yes. but I can really see this not causing the trouble people think. Still signed the petition though.

crocogator said:
Not really sure I understand what exactly they're trying to get rid of, but signed with a comment anyways. Was it wise of me to sign and comment against a law I don't really understand? I dunno. All I know is "censorship bad".

Basically its a bill intended to get rid of realistic AI underaged human art but worded in such a way that its far too broad.

mklxiv said:
BTW a law with almost exact wording was struck down by the Supreme Court years ago, lel

oh yes i heard about that one lol, back in the 1990s i think it was

big up SCOTUS, let's hope they catch wind of this soon! :)

bogdanurs said:
oh yes i heard about that one lol, back in the 1990s i think it was

big up SCOTUS, let's hope they catch wind of this soon! :)

also one in the mid 2000s too. buuuuut it may not be a good idea to let this get to the supreme court. they havent exactly been agreeing with their past iterations lately. what with striking down a lawsuit by the FSC against texas/paxton saying age verification laws arnt against free speech when they previously said it was. they may change a previous ruling again and make the country worse for free speech again. making this texas law a whole country law.

kathyohneke said:
also one in the mid 2000s too. buuuuut it may not be a good idea to let this get to the supreme court. they havent exactly been agreeing with their past iterations lately. what with striking down a lawsuit by the FSC against texas/paxton saying age verification laws arnt against free speech when they previously said it was. they may change a previous ruling again and make the country worse for free speech again. making this texas law a whole country law.

It wouldn't make the Texas law country-wide, it would just give other states the go-ahead to enact similar laws.

regsmutt said:
It wouldn't make the Texas law country-wide, it would just give other states the go-ahead to enact similar laws.

what I mean if it makes it to the supreme court, and the supreme court decides this kind of art is illegal now and no longer protected by free speech, then its automatically the same for every state.

kathyohneke said:
what I mean if it makes it to the supreme court, and the supreme court decides this kind of art is illegal now and no longer protected by free speech, then its automatically the same for every state.

No, that's not how that works. "It is not protected by free speech" means that states (and smaller-scale things like counties and cities) are free to make laws restricting it.
To use an example- the ruling of Roe v Wade made it so that laws prohibiting abortion could not be enforced. When it was overturned, abortion was no longer protected. It did not become universally illegal, but laws prohibiting it could now be passed.

_{I am not discussing or debating abortion, I am using it as an example of how supreme court rulings like this work.}

regsmutt said:
No, that's not how that works. "It is not protected by free speech" means that states (and smaller-scale things like counties and cities) are free to make laws restricting it.

It depends on how it's worded. Obscenity laws already make displays of "obscene" material illegal, and we've gotten by with The Miller Test to say most adult-oriented artwork falls under freedom of speech/expression, so absent any compelling state interest, such stuff is protected by the constitution. However, if the Supreme Court rules that more types of fictional artwork isn't protected and is obscene, preexisting obscenity laws would come into play with no new laws needed.

in any case, the point is that if you are FOR artistic freedom (yours or anyone else's) then you MUST stand against this puritanical legislation

you don't have to actually like Cub to understand that we CANNOT let those disgusting politicians dictate what we can and cannot draw

in a civilized society you can draw absolutely ANYTHING no matter how offensive it is to anyone looking at it

and that's what this is all about in the end, they just want to ban artwork that they find offensive

so let's SHARE and if possible SIGN these petitions at every given opportunity :)

crocogator said:
Not really sure I understand what exactly they're trying to get rid of, but signed with a comment anyways. Was it wise of me to sign and comment against a law I don't really understand? I dunno. All I know is "censorship bad".

good job Crocogator, and "censorship bad" is right :)

The bill is passed sadly.

idanilo said:
Unfortunately... I have to agree because, in the same way to apply when a pedo download real cp, drawing characters under 18-years-old is still child porn. It might encouraging them to abuse sexually children in real life. That's why this is so bad allowing artworks like that be available for pedos, even if these artworks are fictional. Sorry.

the violent videogames argument.

idanilo said:
Unfortunately... I have to agree because, in the same way to apply when a pedo download real cp, drawing characters under 18-years-old is still child porn. It might encouraging them to abuse sexually children in real life. That's why this is so bad allowing artworks like that be available for pedos, even if these artworks are fictional. Sorry.

This is the exact same line of logic historically used during the Satanic Panic or "Violence in Video Games" craze. It's never held up to scrutiny and rather, the opposite has been found to be true. You won't find a correlation here, either - people can distinguish fiction from reality, and don't need your help.

https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2019-02-13-violent-video-games-found-not-be-associated-adolescent-aggression
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563224002097#sec3
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797619829688

"Those who give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" - Big Benjamin

idanilo said:
Unfortunately... I have to agree because, in the same way to apply when a pedo download real cp, drawing characters under 18-years-old is still child porn. It might encouraging them to abuse sexually children in real life. That's why this is so bad allowing artworks like that be available for pedos, even if these artworks are fictional. Sorry.

Does watching Saw make you want to kidnap and torture people?
Does reading Blood Meridian make you want to scalp Native Americans?
Does playing COD make you want to commit war crimes?

Fiction. Does not. Equal. Reality.

[citation needed]

idanilo said:
Unfortunately... I have to agree because, in the same way to apply when a pedo download real cp, drawing characters under 18-years-old is still child porn. It might encouraging them to abuse sexually children in real life. That's why this is so bad allowing artworks like that be available for pedos, even if these artworks are fictional. Sorry.

You're free to be factually wrong.

Are people who kill NPCs in GTA murderers? No. Because it's fake. They are not going to go out and murk a real person.
Are people who kill other players in PvP games murders? No. Because it's fake. Again; They won't go game over a living person. Or we'd have over 215 million murders from GTA V sales alone.
Are people who draw gore or snuff more likely to kill someone? ROFL! No! BECAUSE IT'S FUCKING FAKE! IT'S. A. DRAWING!

But of course the people who hate cub hard need to whitchunt and claim cub art = RL CSAM.
Because crusading against innocent artists making content you dislike is easier than fighting actual evil people, because you can do it from your computer chair & still feel like you're morally right. Even though you're not.

People who look at cub art are not more likely to make or look at CSAM. Because, unlike you apparently, people who look at art know it's not real & no one was harmed in the making.

Won't someone think of the pixels?! Rofl.

fuzzy_kobold said:
You're free to be factually wrong.

Are people who kill NPCs in GTA murderers? No. Because it's fake. They are not going to go out and murk a real person.
Are people who kill other players in PvP games murders? No. Because it's fake. Again; They won't go game over a living person. Or we'd have over 215 million murders from GTA V sales alone.
Are people who draw gore or snuff more likely to kill someone? ROFL! No! BECAUSE IT'S FUCKING FAKE! IT'S. A. DRAWING!

But of course the people who hate cub hard need to whitchunt and claim cub art = RL CSAM.
Because crusading against innocent artists making content you dislike is easier than fighting actual evil people, because you can do it from your computer chair & still feel like you're morally right. Even though you're not.

People who look at cub art are not more likely to make or look at CSAM. Because, unlike you apparently, people who look at art know it's not real & no one was harmed in the making.

Won't someone think of the pixels?! Rofl.

I got curious and took a look at their favorites. Moral licensing much? You should too. I can only assume they're speaking of themselves, in which case their claims have a much more worrying connotation.

idanilo said:
Unfortunately... I have to agree because, in the same way to apply when a pedo download real cp, drawing characters under 18-years-old is still child porn. It might encouraging them to abuse sexually children in real life. That's why this is so bad allowing artworks like that be available for pedos, even if these artworks are fictional. Sorry.

I hypothesize there are roughly three types that like cub/loli/shota: the "cartoon-philes" (at the lack of a better term) that are attracted to cute cartoon characters specifically BECAUSE they are fictional, the "age regressionists" (at the lack of a better term) that like to imagine BEING the young character, and actual MAPs. The last group exists, but it's like the violent video game argument. Porn isn't a magic brainwashing tool that's making them do bad things, and removing it feels extra unfair to the first two groups. Does its widely available accessibility increase the odds of real life sexual abuse? Alphamule already beat me to saying it, but it's exactly what I would've said: [citation needed].

Yes, I know this thread is about Texas law, which I think is more an "anime in general" concern than a "porn" concern from what I've heard people say about it, so I'm contributing to derailing this thread, but whatever...

idanilo said:
Unfortunately... I have to agree because, in the same way to apply when a pedo download real cp, drawing characters under 18-years-old is still child porn. It might encouraging them to abuse sexually children in real life. That's why this is so bad allowing artworks like that be available for pedos, even if these artworks are fictional. Sorry.

I don't buy that it would encourage people to abuse children in real life on its own. A lot of extreme porn exists because it allows for exploration of things that would be dangerous, deadly, and/or unethical.

idanilo said:
However.. games is completely different, No, I'm not here because I hate cub, I'm here AGAINST FUCKING PREDATORS, I'm fucking mad in the fact that I saw many preds on e6 declaring that themselves feel attraction like if it "okay" to do this when is NOT! Bro, I know that it's just a fucking drawing contents, I agree with you, but you know that I hate when existing predators visiting e6 right?

I'm a adult rn, I know what it worng and right I'm 19y I've growth up, I have maturity enough to know that, but it's not mean that I have to agree pedos visiting e6. I'm so tired to explain what is obviously. There's so many cases of kids been traumatized for been sexually abused so I had to shut up??

There's are many artists that they like drawing cub/Loli/shota contents because some of these artists have been experiencing a trauma once time of life. This is why these contents existed. If they not, what CSAM is it? I don't understand why you guys are refuted my argument even if it is valid.. seriously..

Games are not different.
Shit, games are more 'hands on' than art. So arguing that games influence people more than art would make more sense. It would still be wrong, but it would make MORE sense than 'Art encourages CSAM but interactive games don't encourage violence'.

And no one said you have to agree with pedos coming to e6. We're just pointing out that your 'cub art = pedophilia gateway' argument is bullshit. It has no basis in fact and nothing to back it up. IN fact, every study into art or video games = real things has shown the exact opposite to be true. So you are factually incorrect with your take that cub art encourages people to find the real thing.
It's nothing but witchhunts and dogwhistles based on bullshit and a complete lack of real science.

Hell, I'm pretty sure I once saw a mod post that stated 'When we find someone is a MAP; We ban them and report them to the appropriate authorities'.

I'll say it again: Cub art is not CSAM. It's not real. It does not lead people to finding or making CSAM.
And you can say your argument is valid all you want; ACTUAL RESEARCH has proven you wrong. You saying otherwise does not magically make you correct.

Also, you are not an adult who knows about the world if you are 19. I was 19 once, and so were all my friends. It's the age where people think they know everything because they know very little.

idanilo said:
However.. games is completely different, No, I'm not here because I hate cub, I'm here AGAINST FUCKING PREDATORS, I'm fucking mad in the fact that I saw many preds on e6 declaring that themselves feel attraction like if it "okay" to do this when is NOT! Bro, I know that it's just a fucking drawing contents, I agree with you, but you know that I hate when existing predators visiting e6 right?

I'm a adult rn, I know what it worng and right I'm 19y I've growth up, I have maturity enough to know that, but it's not mean that I have to agree pedos visiting e6. I'm so tired to explain what is obviously. There's so many cases of kids been traumatized for been sexually abused so I had to shut up??

There's are many artists that they like drawing cub/Loli/shota contents because some of these artists have been experiencing a trauma once time of life. This is why these contents existed. If they not, what CSAM is it? I don't understand why you guys are refuted my argument even if it is valid.. seriously..

All I'm hearing is "I'm right you're all wrong"
The site takes a very strong stance against pedophiles, they are banned on sight without appeal. I should know, I pushed for and helped with that cleanup.
Fictional content is not real. Does liking bestiality or feral content mean someone wants to have sex with real animals? If yes, where do you draw the line? If feral animals count, why not anthros? If no, why not? Why does liking one set of pixels on a screen make you a pedophile, yet the other set doesn't make you a zoophile?

fuzzy_kobold said:
'When we find someone is a MAP; We ban them and report them to the appropriate authorities'.

Ban yes, there's a strict zero tolerance policy
Report, often no, there's often very little if anything that law enforcement agencies would care about unless someone admits to actually assaulting real children, or expresses interest in doing so

idanilo said:
About video games, this is completely different because it's just a fantasy visual that you can play these games and have fun but we are talking about CSAM, this is completely different. Indeed, are you guys Comparing videos games with CSAM?? Seriously?? LOLOSLSLSOSLSLOSOS

I don't understand what pass on your head cuz, in the fact y'all guys do it, yeah, it's a weak argument.

I know that just cub fictional artworks, it's okay but.. THERE'S A FUCKING PREDATORS WATCHING THIS SHIT!! That why a lot of pedophiles are getting banned permanently banned here on e6 bc they declared themselves that they are pedos. Yes, I know, I saw these shit comments that themselves had made it, but Is that why I have to shut up? Imagine in the fact they feel attraction by kids, they visit e621 website, they discover cubs contents and jerk off seeing child been fucked by adult?? This is a fucking seriously problem..

cub porn is definitionally not CSAM, there's no child, there's no abuse, there's not even any sex. it's all just pigments on a page, pixels on a screen, there's functionally no difference between it and depictions of violence or any other crime in any other media. conflating consumers of cub stuff with child molesters is no different with conflating players of any violent videogames with murderers.

are there people who would try to use the medium in order to normalize disgusting behavior? yes. but also, *gestures towards YouTube Minecraft, animation, etc. creators who groomed children*. the issue isn't with the medium, it's with individuals.

idanilo said:
I'm not here because I hate cub contents, I'm here for ALL victims of abuse sexual, it's not a joke, I'm not joking!There's so many cases of folks getting arrested for possessed CSAM in real life and most of these preds had raped sexually these poor kids, it's a seriously problem right? and it's mean that I'm wrong with that? I had to shut the fuck up and agree with it???? Wtf??

you're tilting at windmills, my dude. your conflation of cub with real actual _physical_ child abuse does nothing to help any past, current, or future victims of abuse. all it does is push people who would never _never_ commit an act of abuse away.

creating a black market for stuff that hurts no one just makes it more difficult for that black market stuff from saying something when they see something, in fear that they'll be labled the same. exactly the opposite of what we want.

we should be empowering those who would be whistleblowers for actual abuse, not criminalising them.

idanilo said:
<stuff>

In what way does fictional cub artwork even comes close to falling under the legal definitions of real-life CP or CSAM? There are no humans even involved, actual or simulated.

If there are supposed "predators" roaming the site and expressing intent or interest in sexually abusing real-life people, then they should be reported and the admins will ban them.
There is no place here or anywhere for people who can't differentiate between a human and an artwork.

fuzzy_kobold said:
Because crusading against innocent artists making content you dislike is easier than fighting actual evil people, because you can do it from your computer chair & still feel like you're morally right. Even though you're not.

It's not just easier; it's safer, too. After all, who's more likely to hurt you when confronted, artists and their fans or an actual evil person?

idanilo said:
I'm a adult rn, I know what it worng and right I'm 19y I've growth up, I have maturity enough to know that...

Physically, yes, you are grown up. Mentally and emotionally? The moment you stop maturing in those ways is the moment you get dementia if you're unlucky, shuffle off this mortal coil if you're lucky.

If you're going to make the argument of "I've grown up, so I know what's right and wrong," then remember that most of the rest of us are older than you. We, too, have grown up. We, too, know what's right and wrong. We've been at this longer than you have. Yet, we disagree with the stance that fiction equals reality. We've gone through the same stage you have and have concluded that fiction and reality are two different things and shouldn't be confused with each other.

I don't understand why you guys are refuted my argument even if it is valid.. seriously..

We refute your argument because our experience has shown us that it's invalid. By refuting it, we're not saying you're stupid or immature. On the contrary, by refuting your argument as we have, we believe you're intelligent and capable of at least understanding the flaws in your argument.

idanilo said:
I know that just cub fictional artworks, it's okay but.. THERE'S A FUCKING PREDATORS WATCHING THIS SHIT!! That why a lot of pedophiles are getting banned permanently banned here on e6 bc they declared themselves that they are pedos. Yes, I know, I saw these shit comments that themselves had made it, but Is that why I have to shut up? Imagine in the fact they feel attraction by kids, they visit e621 website, they discover cubs contents and jerk off seeing child been fucked by adult?? This is a fucking seriously problem..

So let's entertain this for a minute. A pedophile finds cub art and jerks off to it. Okay, that's nasty, but is anyone actually hurt by this? If so, who and in what way?

clawstripe said:
It's not just easier; it's safer, too. After all, who's more likely to hurt you when confronted, artists and their fans or an actual evil person?

Physically, yes, you are grown up. Mentally and emotionally? The moment you stop maturing in those ways is the moment you get dementia if you're unlucky, shuffle off this mortal coil if you're lucky.

If you're going to make the argument of "I've grown up, so I know what's right and wrong," then remember that most of the rest of us are older than you. We, too, have grown up. We, too, know what's right and wrong. We've been at this longer than you have. Yet, we disagree with the stance that fiction equals reality. We've gone through the same stage you have and have concluded that fiction and reality are two different things and shouldn't be confused with each other.

We refute your argument because our experience has shown us that it's invalid. By refuting it, we're not saying you're stupid or immature. On the contrary, by refuting your argument as we have, we believe you're intelligent and capable of at least understanding the flaws in your argument.

thank you Janitor for standing up for artistic freedom, even if it's for stuff you don't personally like :)

for this you deserve the utmost respect and gratitude

---
also thanks to everyone else who is on the side of freedom!

if it weren't for people like you with minds like yours, slavery would never have been abolished

so thank you all! :)

Can we even do anything about it if we don’t live in Texas?

titanusoptronix said:
Can we even do anything about it if we don’t live in Texas?

I signed the petition in the OP despite not being in Texas. But, I mean, didn't the law go into effect today? I'm not sure we can do anything now. But, you can still sign that petition if you want.

Rule 34 banned all explicit shota/loli/cub content, I don't understand why we can't too, especially with the walls closing in like this.

If this law sticks like I think it will, it's very likely to spread to other states and is it really worth it getting in trouble over this?

smuglytherat said:
Rule 34 banned all explicit shota/loli/cub content, I don't understand why we can't too, especially with the walls closing in like this.

If this law sticks like I think it will, it's very likely to spread to other states and is it really worth it getting in trouble over this?

yes.

mklxiv said:
BTW a law with almost exact wording was struck down by the Supreme Court years ago, lel

That doesn't actually mean anything considering the Supreme Court is pretty much always going to fall behind the conservative majority in 6-3 decisions, and I have no reason to doubt that unless you can actually cite your source showing that the conservative justices ruled on the side of freedom of speech

Seriously guys, you can't bring up cases like this and then not cite them

dba_afish said:
yes.

I'm not contesting that this law in particular is too broad and draconian. Characters do not have ages, especially in the realm of fantasy where anything can happen, and it's nothing short of a waste of taxpayer money to have to explain this before a judge and jury when the 1st amendment should've made laws like this not even up for discussion in the first place (but as we know, Republicans only care about free speech so far as them being able to use the N-word without getting fired, anything else doesn't count). Could it be successfully challenged and overturned, potentially but we're in uncharted waters as far as the law in the US goes and I don't trust any judge to uphold the constitution in any regard, therefore I don't think anyone should rely on the process to fix anything.

I'm also just saying that I can't comprehend the more blatant examples of cub are worth defending anymore considering it's already in a moral grey area and the law is starting to reflect that in a way that'll turn it into a straight up felony with jail time at this point. I'm not suggesting we ban it because I personally hate it (even though I do), I'm suggesting we ban it because I don't think we're in a place right now to even defend it, and the consequences could escalate towards a total nsfw art ban, using cub as an example of why.

This isn't even to mention the fact that copycat laws are likely to pop up especially in the wake of age verification laws, and considering how loaded the language of these bills are, it's unlikely anyone would stick their necks out for them.

smuglytherat said:
Rule 34 banned all explicit shota/loli/cub content, I don't understand why we can't too, especially with the walls closing in like this.

If this law sticks like I think it will, it's very likely to spread to other states and is it really worth it getting in trouble over this?

Why should we comply in advance?
Besides that, these laws are how the door gets opened for more censorship.

The idea of sexualizing minors, even fictional ones, especially for porn is icky. Defending that form of creative expression opens people up to accusations that they are defending predators, if not predators themselves. So nobody defends it.

Now the question of 'does this sexualize minors?' does not have a black and white answer. A book I was assigned in high school described teenagers experiencing sexual attraction. Is that sexualizing minors? How about Lolita or The Kite Runner? How about It? How about a show like Riverdale or Clone High? South Park? Health books like The Care and Keeping of You or It's Perfectly Normal? Where do you draw the line and how?

And that's assuming that this law is written and will be enforced and interpreted with good intentions by normal people.

regsmutt said:
Why should we comply in advance?
Besides that, these laws are how the door gets opened for more censorship.

The idea of sexualizing minors, even fictional ones, especially for porn is icky. Defending that form of creative expression opens people up to accusations that they are defending predators, if not predators themselves. So nobody defends it.

Now the question of 'does this sexualize minors?' does not have a black and white answer. A book I was assigned in high school described teenagers experiencing sexual attraction. Is that sexualizing minors? How about Lolita or The Kite Runner? How about It? How about a show like Riverdale or Clone High? South Park? Health books like The Care and Keeping of You or It's Perfectly Normal? Where do you draw the line and how?

And that's assuming that this law is written and will be enforced and interpreted with good intentions by normal people.

I've said my piece, I don't disagree that this law is a slippery slope and will be used by bad actors to censor anything they don't like, the GOP is fascist cult at this point after all and the democrats are a bunch of impotent jerkoffs who aren't willing to stand up for the American people, so there's no doubt in my mind they they'll do whatever they can to silence us.

From a strategic point of view though, I'd rather not feed the narratives they spread about us by chosing cub to be the hill we die on

smuglytherat said:
I've said my piece, I don't disagree that this law is a slippery slope and will be used by bad actors to censor anything they don't like, the GOP is fascist cult at this point after all and the democrats are a bunch of impotent jerkoffs who aren't willing to stand up for the American people, so there's no doubt in my mind they they'll do whatever they can to silence us.

From a strategic point of view though, I'd rather not feed the narratives they spread about us by chosing cub to be the hill we die on

I don't understand. We're on a site with 3D renders of dog & horse bestiality. We allow depictions of rape & violence. We have like a dozen hills we could choose to die on.

Patreon already prohibits depictions of animal genitalia as part of their t&c. There was that whole itch.io thing with respect to illustrated sexual violence. We should preemptively ban that content?

I don't get the fixation with cub art - it's at least as "ethically" and "legally" questionable as other stuff on here.

smuglytherat said:

I'm also just saying that I can't comprehend the more blatant examples of cub are worth defending anymore considering it's already in a moral grey area

No it's not. Unless you don't like it.

smuglytherat said:
I'm not suggesting we ban it because I personally hate it (even though I do), I'm suggesting we ban it because I don't think we're in a place right now to even defend it, and the consequences could escalate towards a total nsfw art ban, using cub as an example of why.

So it's not that you hate it. But that you hate it, so you won't mind if it's banned.

Oh, and for extra HypocritePoints(tm); You have bestiality in your favorites.
Naughty, naughty! Real bestiality is illegal, so I guess we should not defend your right to have harmless art of it? If cub art is so bad because of real abusers and 'morals', then bestiality should be as well!
That's not a hill worth dying on for someone, so make the art illegal.
This would include taurs, since they are quadruped on the lower half.

Liking fat furs normalizes unhealthy body weights. So it should be removed before people get unhealthy body weights!
Oh, and there are people who view scat as disgusting. So all scat art should go. As should watersports.
And there are people who think anal is evil. So say good bye to that!
Oh! And rape is morally wrong. No one would disagree with that, so all non-con art is illegal.
Murder is wrong. No one would argue. No more snuff art.

Do you see where I'm going with this?
Someone, somewhere, will ALWAYS point at some subsection of the furry fandom and find something 'morally wrong'.
You just picked something you already admitted you hate, so you don't care if the people who like it lose it. Because their loss is your moral brownie points.

oneohthrix said:
I don't get the fixation with cub art - it's at least as "ethically" and "legally" questionable as other stuff on here.

Because self-hating furries love to say 'I may be a degenerate, but at least I don't like <insert any kink they don't like>'. So I'm better than every other furry.'
It allows them to feel morally superior in spite of their own kinks.

oneohthrix said:
I don't understand. We're on a site with 3D renders of dog & horse bestiality. We allow depictions of rape & violence. We have like a dozen hills we could choose to die on.

Patreon already prohibits depictions of animal genitalia as part of their t&c. There was that whole itch.io thing with respect to illustrated sexual violence. We should preemptively ban that content?

I don't get the fixation with cub art - it's at least as "ethically" and "legally" questionable as other stuff on here.

My only response to that is that the other things you mentioned aren't generally talked about in the courts or by lawmakers so it's not really relevant.

Though yes, the whole Mastercard thing should be quashed as illegal overreach by payment processors

fuzzy_kobold said:
No it's not. Unless you don't like it.

So it's not that you hate it. But that you hate it, so you won't mind if it's banned.

Oh, and for extra HypocritePoints(tm); You have bestiality in your favorites.
Naughty, naughty! Real bestiality is illegal, so I guess we should not defend your right to have harmless art of it? If cub art is so bad because of real abusers and 'morals', then bestiality should be as well!
That's not a hill worth dying on for someone, so make the art illegal.
This would include taurs, since they are quadruped on the lower half.

Liking fat furs normalizes unhealthy body weights. So it should be removed before people get unhealthy body weights!
Oh, and there are people who view scat as disgusting. So all scat art should go. As should watersports.
And there are people who think anal is evil. So say good bye to that!
Oh! And rape is morally wrong. No one would disagree with that, so all non-con art is illegal.
Murder is wrong. No one would argue. No more snuff art.

Do you see where I'm going with this?
Someone, somewhere, will ALWAYS point at some subsection of the furry fandom and find something 'morally wrong'.
You just picked something you already admitted you hate, so you don't care if the people who like it lose it. Because their loss is your moral brownie points.

Because self-hating furries love to say 'I may be a degenerate, but at least I don't like <insert any kink they don't like>'. So I'm better than every other furry.'
It allows them to feel morally superior in spite of their own kinks.

You're deliberately ignoring what I'm saying and making it personal.

I only mentioned that I hate cub to wear my bias on my sleeve, but also to point out that my suggestion of banning it has nothing to do with my bias and comes more from a place of believing it's easier to protect the community by banning it

It's also worth mentioning that shota and loli content is not exclusive to the furry community so I'm not just talking about us, the law is broad and encompasses all art, potentially even educational material.

I'm not really here to talk about morals or ethics, only what is or isn't legal, and how we should be proactive about it in order to protect the community and it's users.

If you think the whole of nsfw content in general is worth sinking generally over cub, I can't convince you otherwise, but just know that I wouldn't be here suggesting a cub ban if I didn't believe it was the smart decision going forward

Edit since I forgot to address it: me mentioning cub it's morally Grey was me trying to point out that it's hard to defend when talking to normies which like or not, are the majority of voters, lawmakers, judges, ect. I wasn't suggesting the fact that it is morally grey was a reason to ban it since it's not.

smuglytherat said:
You're deliberately ignoring what I'm saying and making it personal.

I feel my reply was very impersonal.

smuglytherat said:
I only mentioned that I hate cub to wear my bias on my sleeve, but also to point out that my suggestion of banning it has nothing to do with my bias and comes more from a place of believing it's easier to protect the community by banning it

And as I pointed out; If it's not cub art, the normies will freak out over scat, guro, watersports, snuff, anal, multi cocks, obese furs, taurs, nipple mouths, vomit, zoo...The list goes on and on.
Oh, and you pointing out 'how easy' it is when you admit to a bias does not mean you're not being biased.
'I hate cub. Therefore the entire community would be better served if this thing I don't want to see in the first place was purged. Too bad for those who like it. Morals, and all that.'
Replace 'cub' in that quote with literally any other kink and some furry, somewhere, has said it.

smuglytherat said:
It's also worth mentioning that shota and loli content is not exclusive to the furry community so I'm not just talking about us, the law is broad and encompasses all art, potentially even educational material.

That's because republicans want everyone to be sexually ignorant on top of their anti-abortion views, so they can control what everyone consumes as media & re-oppress women.

smuglytherat said:
I'm not really here to talk about morals or ethics, only what is or isn't legal, and how we should be proactive about it in order to protect the community and it's users.

Ah yes, let's 'protect the community' by banning content you already admitted you won't mind if it disappears. Because screw them for liking something you hate, huh?
Then we have to 'protect the community' by removing the NEXT thing normies hate.
And the next.
And the next.
And the next.
And the next.
And the next.
And the next.
And the next.

smuglytherat said:
If you think the whole of nsfw content in general is worth sinking generally over cub, I can't convince you otherwise, but just know that I wouldn't be here suggesting a cub ban if I didn't believe it was the smart decision going forward

Ah yes. All of the furry fandom will sink because of *checks notes* this one kink you admitted you hate, so it should be removed.
But not because you hate it. No. it's for the good of everyone if cub is banned.
It's just a coincidence that it's a kink you don't like. So you'd be fine with something you DO like being next on the chopping block, yeah?

smuglytherat said:
Edit since I forgot to address it: me mentioning cub it's morally Grey was me trying to point out that it's hard to defend when talking to normies which like or not, are the majority of voters, lawmakers, judges, ect. I wasn't suggesting the fact that it is morally grey was a reason to ban it since it's not.

The normies who hate the fandom, hate it in total.
Kowtowing to them piecemeal won't appease them.
They won't stop at cub. Because they hate a majority of furry kinks, or the fandom in general.

So why don't we just disband the furry fandom, to make the furry hating normies & sexually repressed puritans happy?
It's clearly the smart thing to do. 🙄

The fact that you have a bias against cub makes your suggestion of 'just remove it' suspect.
Because it earns you moral brownie points wit the 'normies' without sacrificing something that YOU like.

You're basically saying "I'm perfectly fine sacrificing someone else's kink to make the normies happy."
So what happens when a normie says they hate fatfurs? That's in your faves.
Or zoo? That's also in your faves.
Or anal! The bible says sodomy is bad, after all!
Will you say 'Ok! It's for the good of the furry community if I never see that content again!'?

smuglytherat said:
I've said my piece, I don't disagree that this law is a slippery slope and will be used by bad actors to censor anything they don't like, the GOP is fascist cult at this point after all and the democrats are a bunch of impotent jerkoffs who aren't willing to stand up for the American people, so there's no doubt in my mind they they'll do whatever they can to silence us.

From a strategic point of view though, I'd rather not feed the narratives they spread about us by chosing cub to be the hill we die on

While I understand the logic of choosing your battles, but outside of concerns for personal safety, there isn't sense in obeying laws that don't currently exist yet. It marks you as a target that is easily bullied and pressured into breaking and making compromises.

smuglytherat said:
I'm not really here to talk about morals or ethics, only what is or isn't legal, and how we should be proactive about it in order to protect the community and it's users.

the cub community is part of our community we should stand up for the artistic expression of all members of the community and fight to last moments. no one should be considered expendable. bending the knee and exiling a portion of our community does not "protect" it, it sacrifices some of our members to try to appease the beast; but the beast cannot be appeased, it's goal is to destroy or control all artistic expression until it's all gone or is all in service to it.

fuzzy_kobold said:

Ah yes. All of the furry fandom will sink because of *checks notes* this one kink you admitted you hate, so it should be removed.
But not because you hate it. No. it's for the good of everyone if cub is banned.
It's just a coincidence that it's a kink you don't like. So you'd be fine with something you DO like being next on the chopping block, yeah?

I'm not going to respond to the rest of what you said because you're still making it personal, and you're clearly not listening but I'll just say this.

There's a lot of kinks I personally hate and I've got a pretty long blacklist, but I'd never suggest banning those other ones.

My suggestion isn't based on my personal opinion about cub, it's all a matter of pragmatism.

From here on out I will not respond to you.

regsmutt said:
While I understand the logic of choosing your battles, but outside of concerns for personal safety, there isn't sense in obeying laws that don't currently exist yet. It marks you as a target that is easily bullied and pressured into breaking and making compromises.

You've got a point there, thank you for being level headed and counterarguing my actual points.

I suppose it might by hypocritical of me to suggest that after I called democrats a bunch of impotent weaklings who let Republicans violate the constitution and then whine that there's nothing they can do.

smuglytherat said:
I'm not going to respond to the rest of what you said because you're still making it personal, and you're clearly not listening but I'll just say this.

There's a lot of kinks I personally hate and I've got a pretty long blacklist, but I'd never suggest banning those other ones.

My suggestion isn't based on my personal opinion about cub, it's all a matter of pragmatism.

From here on out I will not respond to you.

Ah, since you can't refute what I said; You will make up an excuse to ignore it and act like you're taking the high road instead of what you're really doing: Brushing my points under the rug because I am making valid arguments.
Have fun with that. But ignoring my points does not refute them.

smuglytherat said:
My suggestion isn't based on my personal opinion about cub, it's all a matter of pragmatism.

And how is cub somehow magically more pragmatic to b an than scat, watersports, snuff, torture, mutilation, necrophilia, zoophilia, etc. etc.?
What makes THAT the cut-off line for the normies?

Answer:
Nothing. It's just content you don't mind sacrificing to say "See? We're not that bad!" You know, until the puritans then turn towards the next thing they hate.
And then the next.
And the next.
And the next.
And the next.
And the next.

You don't appease the people looking to silence artistic expression, because they won't be happy until everything they hate is illegal.
They won't stop at just one thing. Ever.
They won't look at cub art being made illegal and say 'Ok! Pack it in boys! We've done what we wanted!'

So have fun advocating throwing a subsection of furries under the bus to make the small-minded puritans happy for all of 3 seconds.

I will paraphrase a poem I know by heart because my extended family is Jewish:
"First they came for the Cub-Furries, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Cub-Furry. Then they came for the Zoo-Furries, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Zoo-Furry. Then they came for the Taurs, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Taur. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me".

I mangled it, but the sentiment is there: YOU. CANNOT. APPEASE. PEOPLE. LOOKING. TO. CENSOR. PEOPLE.
The original poem serves as a warning that inaction in the face of injustice allows it to grow until it affects everyone.

You can pretend to morally-high-road me to ignore my points. But that's because you can't say I'm wrong.

Keeping the fandom weird keeps corporations away. I may not like certain content such as scat, but it does scare the corps away, so I have no qualms with it.
Also you censor one thing and it proves to people that they can censor stuff, so they'll want to censor even more because now they know they can.
That's all I'll say on the subject.

It's all fun and games until people notice some of their Miles Prower smut are missing...

Also it's a good idea for planning to move out of Texas, doesn't seem to be good state for perverts.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire

What was it that character Cool Hand Joe said about people with bad attitudes? Some irony, considering the context of the scene in the movie, but yeah. Some people talking won't work. It's like appeasing a shark while you're losing your arm.

alphamule said:
What was it that character Cool Hand Joe said about people with bad attitudes? Some irony, considering the context of the scene in the movie, but yeah. Some people talking won't work. It's like appeasing a shark while you're losing your arm.

Good analogy, actually. Because even if that one shark is happy with your arm; There's then blood in the water & more sharks show up.

smuglytherat said:
That doesn't actually mean anything considering the Supreme Court is pretty much always going to fall behind the conservative majority in 6-3 decisions, and I have no reason to doubt that unless you can actually cite your source showing that the conservative justices ruled on the side of freedom of speech

Seriously guys, you can't bring up cases like this and then not cite them

With pleasure. The case in question is Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition from 2002 (bonus points: look at the name under Concurrence), and in case that sounds too old for you, here's another from last year that wrapped up in October against the state of Indiana where a person arrested over loli porn appealed as far as he could and won, Frank Aloysius Grecco, III v. State of Indiana which also never went to the Supreme Court for further discussion. So not only has this kind of law already been successfully challenged recently, it also never went to the Supreme Court again as they're too busy shitting on immigrants and transgender people and letting the president do whatever he wants with no oversight to take a case about cartoon porn.

mklxiv said:
With pleasure. The case in question is Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition from 2002 (bonus points: look at the name under Concurrence), and in case that sounds too old for you, here's another from last year that wrapped up in October against the state of Indiana where a person arrested over loli porn appealed as far as he could and won, Frank Aloysius Grecco, III v. State of Indiana which also never went to the Supreme Court for further discussion. So not only has this kind of law already been successfully challenged recently, it also never went to the Supreme Court again as they're too busy shitting on immigrants and transgender people and letting the president do whatever he wants with no oversight to take a case about cartoon porn.

Gods. I am NOT looking forward to when the Orange Lump's second term ends, and all his frothing zealots have to decide between actually being American, or keeping their fatass-in-chief in office past his two terms.

fuzzy_kobold said:
Gods. I am NOT looking forward to when the Orange Lump's second term ends, and all this frothing zealots have to decide between actually being American, or keeping their fatass-in-chief in office past his two terms.

Man, can you two chill and keep it on-topic?

votp said:
Man, can you two chill and keep it on-topic?

I don't think answering a question directly related to the thread is off-topic. I was asked to provide sources about a remark I made which was relevant to the thread and I did.

fuzzy_kobold said:
Gods. I am NOT looking forward to when the Orange Lump's second term ends, and all his frothing zealots have to decide between actually being American, or keeping their fatass-in-chief in office past his two terms.

Ok, I've been letting it sit for a while since you stopped pushing it after SmuglytheRat decided to let it go, but you seem to need an explicit warning; you need to calm down. We're trying to be less restrictive with political discussions, but this kind of talk is why we're leery of it.

I empathize with your frustration, but you need to express that in a more constructive, less rage baiting way, or you're asking for this thread to get locked.

I'd recommend all of you take heed. Keep it civil. Discussing politics only becomes a problem when you can't do so without inviting a flame war.

I dont know, seems pretty reasonable to get rid of porn depicting characters with the anatomical structure of 6 year olds, just my crazy opinion tho.

coffee_doggo said:
I dont know, seems pretty reasonable to get rid of porn depicting characters with the anatomical structure of 6 year olds, just my crazy opinion tho.

It's a drawing. It's not hurting anyone.
Don't want to see it? Use your blacklist. Also; You have a cub on your fave list.
You also have bestiality, which some people would claim encourages animal abuse.

So are you having fun trying to morally grandstand? :)

coffee_doggo said:
I dont know, seems pretty reasonable to get rid of porn depicting characters with the anatomical structure of 6 year olds, just my crazy opinion tho.

I don’t like cub art myself. But things like this can become a boiling frog situation. These laws get them a foot in the door to destroy any content they object to.

First it’s cub, then it’s feral, then it’s any furry art.
And any other fetish that is “immoral” or “incorrect”. Including lgbt content.

manitka said:
I don’t like cub art myself. But things like this can become a boiling frog situation. These laws get them a foot in the door to destroy any content they object to.

First it’s cub, then it’s feral, then it’s any furry art.
And any other fetish that is “immoral” or “incorrect”. Including lgbt content.

It always amuses me that people will morally grandstand about things they hate while never thinking it will happen to them. For some vague reason, whatever THEY like will somehow be safe.

My stance is that, as long as no people or animals or anything real was harmed in any way, shape, or form; It should not be censored. Because the people who want to censor <x> won't stop at just one thing. They will never be happy until everything they don't like is illegal. And high up on that list is, as you said, LGBTQIA+ content.

And even if someone likes content I don't; I'll fight tooth and claw for their right to fap to whatever they enjoy.

fuzzy_kobold said:
It always amuses me that people will morally grandstand about things they hate while never thinking it will happen to them. For some vague reason, whatever THEY like will somehow be safe.

My stance is that, as long as no people or animals or anything real was harmed in any way, shape, or form; It should not be censored. Because the people who want to censor <x> won't stop at just one thing. They will never be happy until everything they don't like is illegal. And high up on that list is, as you said, LGBTQIA+ content.

And even if someone likes content I don't; I'll fight tooth and claw for their right to fap to whatever they enjoy.

Exactly. I like some fucking weird shit, I’m not going to dog anybody’s fantasy, as long as it stays fantasy.

coffee_doggo said:
I dont know, seems pretty reasonable to get rid of porn depicting characters with the anatomical structure of 6 year olds, just my crazy opinion tho.

I hate making this argument because fear of "being next" really isn't the reason you should be supporting others' rights to freedom of speech, expression, and the like... but like, bro, your favs've got art depicting bestiality (often with harkness test falling ferals), incest, as well as rape and other non-consential acts; all that stuff has already been targeted recently on other platforms and had to be taken down... and, hell, if the powers that be had their way they'd probably depictions of all that gay sex in your favs illegal too, not to mention the fact that they don't view furries in general in too great a light.

but really, it shouldn't matter if it's people depicting their ageplay fantasies, their rape fantasies, whatever. art whose creation and existence has harmed no one, just like any other form of speech, should be something that's protected by anyone that has a functioning conscience.