FurAffinity.Net Rule and Law

So I want to talk about this Rule and Law on the Website FurAffinity.Net.

Here is the Rule/Law:

1) Content Involving Minors

Content featuring minors is prohibited when sexual activity is present. Minors cannot be in the presence of nudity, though exceptions may be made for non-sexual depictions of birth and breastfeeding. Minors are real or fictional humanoids with a childlike body or younger than 18 years old, and any adolescent animals.

In other words…Submissions involving sexual situations cannot contain characters under 18 or adolescent animals. Minors cannot be around nudity unless it’s a non-sexual depiction of birth.

This Rule and Law has been around since: Dragonner says those words: FA does not permit content containing minors involved in sexual situations. This applies to humans (Loli, Shota) or otherwise human-like characters (i.e. Cub) who are, without question, under the general legal age (18). Due to AlertPay (Their Funding) dropping them, citing mature cub art as the reason. Artists were given 21 days to clean their galleries, and cub artists were given protection from harassment. As for the Artists did not clean their galleries that content is gone forever. Because we all know when a website does this toward you:

Kiss your ass goodbye and like your content. I found out that Some people alike saw the cub porn removal as a positive aspect for FA, some of whom even praised Dragoneer for the decision). If you want my opinion. It’s Grade A example not following this: 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.

Furaffinity Told me Believe in Artists Freedom. Let this face summed up how I feel about that:

Basically Don’t believe in Artists Freedom at all. Over don’t follow the United States Supreme Court ideas that Drawn Characters, fictional don’t actual-ages. So in many ways this Rule and Law is bullcrap if you want my two cents on that.