GreenReaper (

greenreaper) wrote,
2008-01-12 23:51:00

Mood: tired

Furries != minors, but . . .

Recently there's been a bit of a fuss (now apparently deleted) about whether certain areas of furry artwork might legally be classified as obscene depictions of abuse of minors, as has been asserted for lolicon/shota. There's a lot of background to this area, like this interesting reading about the protected speech status of virtual child pornography.

The fuss isn't really necessary, though, as it comes down to simple definitions set by US law:
* A person (or child/individual) is a member of the species homo sapiens
* A minor is a person under 18 years of age
* Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children involve the depiction of minors, or those who appear to be minors

If it doesn't appear to be¹ homo sapiens, it's not legally a person,² and so not a minor.

That said, it's still possible for the work to be obscene (a word with particular meaning), but only in the sense that any art can be obscene by passing the Miller test. Unlike the law above, simple possession of obscene material is legal, but you can still get in trouble for distributing, importing or transporting it - including over the net.

Now, whether or not such material should be specifically specifically outlawed, regardless of obscenity . . . personally I side with the courts - who view it as freedom of expression without a victim - but I can understand why it squicks a lot of people, and why (in this case) a convention might have issues with it. However, they seem to have only had problems with the legal risk, so it'll be interesting to see how it works out.

¹Where the intended meaning of "appear to be" is "virtually indistinguishable from"
²Yes, a company can also be a person . . . but it can't have sex.

Post a new comment
Error
We will log you in after post

We will log you in after post

We will log you in after post

We will log you in after post

We will log you in after post

Anonymously

switch

LiveJournal

Facebook

Twitter

OpenId

Google

MailRu

VKontakte

Anonymously

Insert Bold

Insert Italic

Insert Underline

Insert Strikethrough

Insert Link

Insert LJ User

Insert Photo

Insert Video

Your reply will be screened

Your IP address will be recorded
Help
44 comments

timmy_boingo

January 13 2008, 07:34:21 UTC 4 years ago

US law yes, but what about state law?
Don't some states, like California, have more restrictive regulations?

As far as the 'obsenity' goes, it's my impression that the Third Circuit Court of Appeals decision(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_of_America_v._Extreme_Associates) gives serious leeway regarding 'community standards' and, probably, cub stuff violates that. Again, it seems like a state thing.

greenreaper

January 13 2008, 07:43:30 UTC 4 years ago

Well, it's a First Amendment issue, so there are constitutional limits on the laws that may be passed at either the state or federal level.

However, community standards are indeed state things. Whether any particular work would meet them is another matter. It would have to be judged "patently obscene" (and not merely pornographic) by a local jury, which is quite a high barrier. I don't know enough about it to give specific examples, though - you could find them on Wikipedia and elsewhere.

greenreaper

January 13 2008, 07:45:35 UTC 4 years ago

"Patently offensive", even. Getting late. :-)

timmy_boingo

January 13 2008, 07:56:39 UTC 4 years ago

It's 2am where I am.

timmy_boingo

January 13 2008, 07:51:02 UTC 4 years ago

It's a high barrier, but I think it would pretty blasted easy for a jury made up of religious, working-class protective fathers to young daughters to jump over it.

greenreaper

January 13 2008, 08:04:42 UTC 4 years ago

Wow. They still *have* those? I thought they went out of style in the '80s. Up here it's all hippy good-feeling singles (around Ann Arbor) and depressed single mothers (around Detroit).

floofyscorp

January 13 2008, 07:40:51 UTC 4 years ago

not to be a goon here, but loli is loli whether the subject is human or an anthropomorphic rubberised bat-chicken-walrus, and just as creepy/sickening. I don't have a problem with furry porn(my housemate draws it for commissions, even!), but paedophile bait is still paedophile bait.

I know laws have to set things in stone, but really. you can generally tell when you look at an image if it's meant to be loli or not, and all the ruleslawyering in the world won't make it otherwise :/

floofyscorp

January 13 2008, 07:43:22 UTC 4 years ago

and now to be a goon:

;3

greenreaper

January 13 2008, 08:01:54 UTC 4 years ago

Eh, her nose is way too big. Besides, redheads aren't really my type . . .

invaderluca

January 13 2008, 17:08:58 UTC 4 years ago

if you're gonna be a goon, then I'll /b/tard in return.

One on the right, mai waifu.

timmy_boingo

January 13 2008, 07:56:13 UTC 4 years ago

Yeah, we can talk about the letter of the laws all we want, but the rule is "I know it when I see it".

A jury will know child pornography when they it.

greenreaper

January 13 2008, 08:00:33 UTC 4 years ago

Well, naturally! The question of what is legal or not is different from the question of what it's actually meant to be.

Still, the difference is there for a reason - as the Supreme Court points out, the creation and distribution of virtual child porn may be disapproved of, but it doesn't tend to hurt anyone (at least directly), while real child porn definitely does.

greenreaper

January 13 2008, 08:54:50 UTC 4 years ago

Oh, and as for the stone part . . . not really. "The Law" changes surprisingly fast, sometimes. This can be both good and bad, of course . . . a fair number of laws made in the US in the last few years were what I would consider "less than ideal" in all sorts of ways. :-p

timmy_boingo

January 13 2008, 07:43:42 UTC 4 years ago

252 comments on jery's page. It looks like a lot of people's toes are being stepped on.

My favorite comment exchange: "Please don't confuse babyfurs with cub art fans. Babyfur is entirely non-sexual and based around regressing to a younger form in some way. While I'm sure there are babyfurs into erotic cub art and erotic cub art fans who are babyfurs, the two groups are wholly separate."

~ followed by "Nothing in the fandom is non-sexual".

I remember reading somewhere someone's argument that there really is no such thing as "a furry" or "a typical furry", there's just a very wide, diverse collection of people with one personal interest in common.

greenreaper

January 13 2008, 08:13:20 UTC 4 years ago

A lot of people care about the principles - and fear that if they don't express concern, they might be next ("First they came for the babyfurs . . .")

I'm sure some babyfur activity is entirely non-sexual. Same for cubs, or balloonies, or rubberfurs; or heck, furries in general. Saying that it all is, well, that's probably unrealistic. Neither stereotypes nor the public image each group would like you to believe is entirely accurate.

timmy_boingo

January 13 2008, 08:20:09 UTC 4 years ago

Yes, the "First they came for the babyfurs" thing. It's hilarious.

Reading the whole babyfur debate reminds me of the gun control debate on 'Free Republic' or 'Hot Air' or 'Michelle Malkins blog'.

Person A: "I support the second amendment. But, come on, what's wrong with keeping the mentally ill and convicted felons from owning firearms? And why would you ever want to own something like an Uzi?"

Person B: "First, they will take away those people's guns. And then we'll set down a slippery slope of repression until the UN's stormtroopers come barging through your door and force you aboard their Black Helicopters."

timmy_boingo

4 years ago

link
Collapse
Expand
New comment

greenreaper

4 years ago

link
Collapse
Expand
New comment

greenreaper

January 13 2008, 08:17:25 UTC 4 years ago

A: A furry is a fan of anthropomorphic animals. :-)

(thanks,

gusto_gummi . . .)

timmy_boingo

January 13 2008, 08:27:54 UTC 4 years ago

Yup.

The 'fan' part varies= there's creative writers, people with stuffed animals, people who love the movies, people who daydream, people who draw, and people who decide act like foxes in the wild and share polyamorus mates.

It's nice to have an open mix ;)

January 13 2008, 10:24:46 UTC 4 years ago

The problem I have with obscenity laws is that it basically forces the government to make a judgement on the cultural value of a piece of work, when they really are in no position to do so. This is particularly made lucid by the Miller test. For example, a humorous work could be declared obscene or not depending on whether the judge has a sense of humor. Of course, they'll claim their sense of humor has nothing to do with it, but there's no way for them to ensure that it doesn't.

greenreaper

January 13 2008, 10:26:53 UTC 4 years ago

I think that's why such things tend to be decided by juries. If they're being arbitrary, then at least it should average out. Doesn't always work out that way, though.

winged_panda

January 13 2008, 11:22:41 UTC 4 years ago

Bleah, I didn't know about this. And thus prejudice starts =P

timmy_boingo

January 13 2008, 23:39:30 UTC 4 years ago

Are you being sarcastic, or do you think that anti-cub-porn = prejudice?

winged_panda

January 14 2008, 01:57:31 UTC 4 years ago

Yes I do. Because I believe if they're going to do that, they need to ban all the other sick porn people sell, period :P So it is prejudice towards one form of it.

greenreaper

January 14 2008, 02:02:12 UTC 4 years ago

In all fairness, it and any other work could be banned if it is judged to be obscene. However, as far as I know, no court has found this or any other furry work to be obscene.

winged_panda

4 years ago

link
Collapse
Expand
New comment

timmy_boingo

4 years ago

link
Collapse
Expand
New comment

winged_panda

4 years ago

link
Collapse
Expand
New comment

timmy_boingo

4 years ago

link
Collapse
Expand
New comment

greenreaper

4 years ago

link
Collapse
Expand
New comment

timmy_boingo

4 years ago

link
Collapse
Expand
New comment

greenreaper

4 years ago

link
Collapse
Expand
New comment

timmy_boingo

4 years ago

link
Collapse
Expand
New comment

timmy_boingo

4 years ago

link
Collapse
Expand
New comment

greenreaper

January 14 2008, 02:00:29 UTC 4 years ago

Well, prejudice is commonly understood to be "unreasonable attitude that is unusually resistant to rational influence". So let's try . . .

*Is it reasonable to ban material that harms no-one and creates no victims by its production, unlike depictions of actual child abuse?
*Do you think that fictional material encourages actual child abuse - and if so, do you have any proof of that?
*Do you think that fictional material decreases actual child abuse? Consider how many people would risk being prosecuted for actual child abuse if they or their their customers would be satisfied with fiction.
*Do you merely dislike the idea that people fantasize about having sex with those under the age of majority - or about having sex with others while being under the age of majority themselves?
*Is the above any worse than people fantasizing about having sex with non-humans - or having sex with others while being non-human themselves?

winged_panda

4 years ago

link
Collapse
Expand
New comment

greenreaper

4 years ago

link
Collapse
Expand
New comment

timmy_boingo

4 years ago

link
Collapse
Expand
New comment

greenreaper

4 years ago

link
Collapse
Expand
New comment

timmy_boingo

4 years ago

link
Collapse
Expand
New comment

timmy_boingo

4 years ago

link
Collapse
Expand
New comment

greenreaper

4 years ago

link
Collapse
Expand
New comment

timmy_boingo

4 years ago

link
Collapse
Expand
New comment

Post a new comment
44 comments

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login or password? OpenID Google Mail.Ru VKontakte
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…