A clarification...
Nov. 6th, 2006 12:38 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
wolfwings...my previous entry was badly worded in the last paragraph. I did not mean to imply that if you disagreed with me, I wanted to remove you as a friend. I respect differences of opinion with my friends, but I also understand that this type of issue may be sensitive enough that my viewpoints may make some people (for whatever reasons of their own) distrust me as a friend. Honestly, I don't believe I've changed any from what they knew of me before, to now, but I've simply clarified my stance on something.
I would also like to point out, that while all the art being discussed is something I have pretty much no desire to see (it's hard to accept such an arbitrary line like '18 years old' as a demarcation between old enough and too young, considering when I lost my virginity by choice, but as most 'cub' art is well under 12, I have absolutely no desire at all to see anything approaching PG-13, let along X-rated, involving 'cub' personas at all) but I do not believe trying to ban something vague like 'cub porn' is actually feasable in the first place. Just because something disgusts me, doesn't mean it's possible to word a fair and abuse-proof rule to prevent it's inclusion in an art archive. Note the 'fair' and 'abuse proof' requirements for such rules.
As an experiment, try to word a rule (as long and complicated as you want) that will ban all 'cub porn' from a furry art gallery, regardless of wildly varying style, skill level, and levels of anthropomorphization, without catching any art by mistake. At what level of anthro do you have to assume a creature abides by their 'basis critter' lifespan and development cycle, versus a more human one? In many cases, that would make any erotica featuring numerous species completely impossible under some arbitrary 'age limit' able to be reasonably argued (in some people's minds) as falling under that category. The wearing of 'baby fur' garb? There's people well into their 30's in real life that do that, so, again, that's not a valid seperator either. Let the admins pick and choose 'based on their feelings' perhaps? That causes nothing but claims of random censorship, and a chaotic mess of claims of abuse of both users reporting 'questionable' artwork, and admins that watch for those specific reports because they have a personal agenda. Even if some of the ideas above sound crazy to you, I've seen all of the above approaches argued before at least once for ways to 'ban' cub art, or other similair things.
I would also like to point out, that while all the art being discussed is something I have pretty much no desire to see (it's hard to accept such an arbitrary line like '18 years old' as a demarcation between old enough and too young, considering when I lost my virginity by choice, but as most 'cub' art is well under 12, I have absolutely no desire at all to see anything approaching PG-13, let along X-rated, involving 'cub' personas at all) but I do not believe trying to ban something vague like 'cub porn' is actually feasable in the first place. Just because something disgusts me, doesn't mean it's possible to word a fair and abuse-proof rule to prevent it's inclusion in an art archive. Note the 'fair' and 'abuse proof' requirements for such rules.
As an experiment, try to word a rule (as long and complicated as you want) that will ban all 'cub porn' from a furry art gallery, regardless of wildly varying style, skill level, and levels of anthropomorphization, without catching any art by mistake. At what level of anthro do you have to assume a creature abides by their 'basis critter' lifespan and development cycle, versus a more human one? In many cases, that would make any erotica featuring numerous species completely impossible under some arbitrary 'age limit' able to be reasonably argued (in some people's minds) as falling under that category. The wearing of 'baby fur' garb? There's people well into their 30's in real life that do that, so, again, that's not a valid seperator either. Let the admins pick and choose 'based on their feelings' perhaps? That causes nothing but claims of random censorship, and a chaotic mess of claims of abuse of both users reporting 'questionable' artwork, and admins that watch for those specific reports because they have a personal agenda. Even if some of the ideas above sound crazy to you, I've seen all of the above approaches argued before at least once for ways to 'ban' cub art, or other similair things.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-11-06 10:41 pm (UTC)This is the problem our legislators face every time they write a child pornography law. I don't envy anyone who has to vote on those laws, much less write them; even one iota in the wrong direction will ruin someone's life -- of the children or the artists -- and with three hundred million (and rising) people to legislate over, it's likely going to affect far more than one innocent if you get it wrong. And in the meantime, your caution is going to be used by your opposition to make you seem like you're 'soft on child abuse' or an 'enemy of free speech'...
I used to want to be a politician so I could save the world. Now I want to be a superhero so I could fly in, save the kids, and end the episode with a moral of the story and a happy ending wherever I go. =p