"Even if it does not ban anything (which is debatable), it still has the potential to." --- If it's debatable, then say so. Change the title of your article to include the words: "has the potential to effectively ban." That would be a good thing to do for starters. The problem is that all of this should have been done in the editor room, not brought live. Who's on your editorial staff? Who okays articles? I was surprised to find my article up so quickly considering that I've never written anything on the site before. "Who's Crassus? Why is he writing to us? What experience does he have?" There's no accountability, and that makes for a very low quality news source. It might as well just be a blog.
No one in legal circles has defined an fictional anthropomorphic character, the mention of such in written literature, nor the visual depiction of one, to be a "person." The furthest this debate has gone is in the realm of vetrinary medicine and law in regards to real animals, and even THAT has proven to be highly-debatable.
"Even if it does not ban anything (which is debatable), it still has the potential to." --- If it's debatable, then say so. Change the title of your article to include the words: "has the potential to effectively ban." That would be a good thing to do for starters. The problem is that all of this should have been done in the editor room, not brought live. Who's on your editorial staff? Who okays articles? I was surprised to find my article up so quickly considering that I've never written anything on the site before. "Who's Crassus? Why is he writing to us? What experience does he have?" There's no accountability, and that makes for a very low quality news source. It might as well just be a blog.
No one in legal circles has defined an fictional anthropomorphic character, the mention of such in written literature, nor the visual depiction of one, to be a "person." The furthest this debate has gone is in the realm of vetrinary medicine and law in regards to real animals, and even THAT has proven to be highly-debatable.