Don't Recommend SoFurry
You maybe think why I don't recommend the website called SoFurry. It's due to this Reason: SoFurry has Updated there AUP regarding Child Characters in the artwork. The details are the following: SoFurry is updating the AUP with regards to permissible content. We used to forbid "realistic depictions of human underage characters", especially in explicit situations. This is changing to the following:
"Artwork containing depictions of child characters, human or otherwise, placed in sexual situations are not allowed. All submissions that have child characters depicted should fall under the All Ages content level."
This change pertains artwork first and foremost. Photography is already covered by the AUP and no photos of underage people are permitted. Stories are not subject to any specific change, though we reserve the right to refuse to host any story that we deem damaging to the site.
The reason for this alteration is a changed legal landscape, not necessarily by changes of US law, but by how it is interpreted and acted upon. This change has been gradual over the past few years and while we firmly believe in artistic freedom and user choice to decide what they want to see or not see (with SF having been the first furry site to introduce site-wide personal tag block lists), we have to balance it with the need to comply with this evolving interpretation of the law.
Here someone comments from Forum Post from the Website called Toon pimps about this. At the same time, I will correct spelling mistakes and grammar mistakes made by me, the person who made the Forum Post
I found this Forum on Toon Pimp's Palace Forum. Want to share this Forum with you: Oh, boy, you know... YiffStar used to be one of my first portals into the furry fandom, and it wasn't like I was a huge proponent of cub porn, since I, like, wasn't really big on it back then, but you like what you like. I can't tell ya if they had the cubs back then, but as far as I knew SoFurry, (what YiffStar turned into) they were the only furry art site that allowed furry cubs in pornographic (i.e. "simulated" or "drawn") situations, alongside InkBunny. Well, Toumal (Admin) is a dumbass that can't deal with possible liability from his day job employers if he's ever questioned about his site activity, even though he's allowed the cubs for years on end. He claims today's landscape has changed in terms of changing laws and legality, but we have no sources or citations of people that have been legit arrested overdrawn furry cubs in sexual situations. First off, they're goddamned cartoons, and second, they ain't real! But if anyone can actually cite these arrests that have taken place over it, we're all ears. For now, though, this is truly the reason TP has his own site, here. Lots of soy and bullshit being flung around, recently.
EDIT: Okay, easy, easy case to make here. Real quick summary, or TLDR. Toumal changed the Acceptable Use Policy on May 11, 2018, on a whim because he didn't want to prove his dumbass friend, Kiroki Bluepaw wrong that cubs weren't allowed. Kiroki was having a shitty Millennial conversation with a hipster who thought his third eye was open, and that's what leads to cubs being banned. UNBELIEVABLE. With admins like those, who needs actual friends, amirite?
I truly think this person is correct in many ways. I have near heard of someone being legit arrested overdrawn furry cubs in sexual situations. I will never understand why furry cubs in sexual situations are not allowed on websites?. There are two websites I know that accept Furry Cubs in Sexual Situations Inkbunny and E621. SoFurry basically has a bullcrap story and back-stabber people make that content.
I found this comment saying that: The Supreme Court of the United States of America has already ruled that drawn characters can't be said to have any actual age because they are fictional. as such, they can't be classified as child porn. What's more, some adults look underage. On the Post called SoFurry Article called AUP update regarding child characters in artwork, and Privacy policy updates. It's related to the ideas The legal treatment of simulated child pornography in the United States requires an understanding of the components of that phrase: pornography, child, and simulated. United States law treats these as separate concepts.
In the United States, pornography is considered a form of personal expression, and thus governed by the First Amendment to the Constitution. Pornography is generally protected speech, unless it is obscene, as the Supreme Court of the United States held in 1973 in Miller v. California.
In 2002, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition that the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA) was facially invalid in prohibiting virtual or cartoon child pornography. The basis for the ruling was that the CPPA made unlawful some forms of protected First Amendment speech, banning depictions of sex between children even if not obscene and not involving real child victims. Under New York v. Ferber, if the depiction is of real child abuse or a real child victim, as a result of photographing a live performance, for instance, then it is not protected speech. Under Miller v. California, obscene speech is likewise excluded from First Amendment protection. The CPPA made all virtual child sex depictions illegal without regard to whether the speech was protected or not, so that part of the statute was struck down as facially invalid.
The Bottom-Line: I don't recommend SoFurry. It claims the reason for this alteration is a changed legal landscape, not necessarily by changes of US law, but by how it is interpreted and acted upon. But don't have any source of this info.
As a Content Creator: I was going to recommend this website but basically after reading this. I can confirm the website has Mix Messages about things. I like my website with something called Freedom of Expression. SoFurry destroys any sense of that.
"Artwork containing depictions of child characters, human or otherwise, placed in sexual situations are not allowed. All submissions that have child characters depicted should fall under the All Ages content level."
This change pertains artwork first and foremost. Photography is already covered by the AUP and no photos of underage people are permitted. Stories are not subject to any specific change, though we reserve the right to refuse to host any story that we deem damaging to the site.
The reason for this alteration is a changed legal landscape, not necessarily by changes of US law, but by how it is interpreted and acted upon. This change has been gradual over the past few years and while we firmly believe in artistic freedom and user choice to decide what they want to see or not see (with SF having been the first furry site to introduce site-wide personal tag block lists), we have to balance it with the need to comply with this evolving interpretation of the law.
Here someone comments from Forum Post from the Website called Toon pimps about this. At the same time, I will correct spelling mistakes and grammar mistakes made by me, the person who made the Forum Post
I found this Forum on Toon Pimp's Palace Forum. Want to share this Forum with you: Oh, boy, you know... YiffStar used to be one of my first portals into the furry fandom, and it wasn't like I was a huge proponent of cub porn, since I, like, wasn't really big on it back then, but you like what you like. I can't tell ya if they had the cubs back then, but as far as I knew SoFurry, (what YiffStar turned into) they were the only furry art site that allowed furry cubs in pornographic (i.e. "simulated" or "drawn") situations, alongside InkBunny. Well, Toumal (Admin) is a dumbass that can't deal with possible liability from his day job employers if he's ever questioned about his site activity, even though he's allowed the cubs for years on end. He claims today's landscape has changed in terms of changing laws and legality, but we have no sources or citations of people that have been legit arrested overdrawn furry cubs in sexual situations. First off, they're goddamned cartoons, and second, they ain't real! But if anyone can actually cite these arrests that have taken place over it, we're all ears. For now, though, this is truly the reason TP has his own site, here. Lots of soy and bullshit being flung around, recently.
EDIT: Okay, easy, easy case to make here. Real quick summary, or TLDR. Toumal changed the Acceptable Use Policy on May 11, 2018, on a whim because he didn't want to prove his dumbass friend, Kiroki Bluepaw wrong that cubs weren't allowed. Kiroki was having a shitty Millennial conversation with a hipster who thought his third eye was open, and that's what leads to cubs being banned. UNBELIEVABLE. With admins like those, who needs actual friends, amirite?
I truly think this person is correct in many ways. I have near heard of someone being legit arrested overdrawn furry cubs in sexual situations. I will never understand why furry cubs in sexual situations are not allowed on websites?. There are two websites I know that accept Furry Cubs in Sexual Situations Inkbunny and E621. SoFurry basically has a bullcrap story and back-stabber people make that content.
I found this comment saying that: The Supreme Court of the United States of America has already ruled that drawn characters can't be said to have any actual age because they are fictional. as such, they can't be classified as child porn. What's more, some adults look underage. On the Post called SoFurry Article called AUP update regarding child characters in artwork, and Privacy policy updates. It's related to the ideas The legal treatment of simulated child pornography in the United States requires an understanding of the components of that phrase: pornography, child, and simulated. United States law treats these as separate concepts.
In the United States, pornography is considered a form of personal expression, and thus governed by the First Amendment to the Constitution. Pornography is generally protected speech, unless it is obscene, as the Supreme Court of the United States held in 1973 in Miller v. California.
In 2002, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition that the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA) was facially invalid in prohibiting virtual or cartoon child pornography. The basis for the ruling was that the CPPA made unlawful some forms of protected First Amendment speech, banning depictions of sex between children even if not obscene and not involving real child victims. Under New York v. Ferber, if the depiction is of real child abuse or a real child victim, as a result of photographing a live performance, for instance, then it is not protected speech. Under Miller v. California, obscene speech is likewise excluded from First Amendment protection. The CPPA made all virtual child sex depictions illegal without regard to whether the speech was protected or not, so that part of the statute was struck down as facially invalid.
The Bottom-Line: I don't recommend SoFurry. It claims the reason for this alteration is a changed legal landscape, not necessarily by changes of US law, but by how it is interpreted and acted upon. But don't have any source of this info.
As a Content Creator: I was going to recommend this website but basically after reading this. I can confirm the website has Mix Messages about things. I like my website with something called Freedom of Expression. SoFurry destroys any sense of that.
Comments
Post a Comment