And if furry porn were illegal would you still be a part of the fandom? Would the fandom be destroyed?
No, because it would just recede back out of view. Sexuality is part of being human. Societies have had and continue to have all sorts of rules repressing sexual behaviors in certain circumstances (no sex before marriage, no sex between people on opposite sides of 18 years of age, etc.), but people keep on fucking as they wish, the consequences be damned.
Because the fandom is composed of people (sorry therians), in this way sexuality is necessarily part of the fandom. It's not involved in all activities, but it exists because it must. And it certainly is not an acceptable situation if whether or not someone is prosecuted for clearly bullshit crimes is up to the whim of a prosecutor or district attorney! In the case of the dude serving time due to manga, which is what prompted this whole dog and pony show (lolz) on FA in the first place, he stupidly pled guilty. There were extensive pro bono legal resources and enough case law in his favor that taking the less risky path was not the right call.
Or am I getting this mixed up with some other recent event? Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
No, because it would just recede back out of view. Sexuality is part of being human. Societies have had and continue to have all sorts of rules repressing sexual behaviors in certain circumstances (no sex before marriage, no sex between people on opposite sides of 18 years of age, etc.), but people keep on fucking as they wish, the consequences be damned.
Because the fandom is composed of people (sorry therians), in this way sexuality is necessarily part of the fandom. It's not involved in all activities, but it exists because it must. And it certainly is not an acceptable situation if whether or not someone is prosecuted for clearly bullshit crimes is up to the whim of a prosecutor or district attorney! In the case of the dude serving time due to manga, which is what prompted this whole dog and pony show (lolz) on FA in the first place, he stupidly pled guilty. There were extensive pro bono legal resources and enough case law in his favor that taking the less risky path was not the right call.
Or am I getting this mixed up with some other recent event? Someone correct me if I'm wrong.