I'd like to address Rakuen Growlithe's point about "non-existent crimes."
Reality has nothing to do with morality, at least according to most Western philosophy (and a lot of Western religion, as well). "Unreal" fictions can cause "real" emotions, even when the person experiencing the emotions knows the fiction is unreal. The go to Greek philosopher is Plato; he theorized that our ideas of reality are the only "true" reality. Of course, whether you follow Plato depends on whether you're an "idealist" or "materialist," in the philosophical sense. It's also important for certain religions. Jesus Christ seems be a fan of Plato; in the Gospel of Matthew he talks about "committing adultery in your heart." Personally, I believe this line was implicit in the "woman in the red dress" scenes of The Matrix (which is basically Plato's "Parable of the Cave: The Movie" with slow motion machine gun fights). But I'm rambling, the point about bringing up Jesus and all, if you buy his whole "son of God" schtick, is that someone* is prepared to punish "non-existent crimes."
But there is an interesting point in bringing up violent video games, which brings up the question, if "non-existent crimes" are still, by some arguments, "crimes" (or, really, "immoral acts." Let's not conflate legality with morality.), then why stop at just cub porn? Well, it's a question of choice, really. First of all, FurAffinity is an "American" site (if you can give it a nationality); Americans almost stereotypically prefer their artistic depictions of immoral acts violent rather than sexual (a common criticism of American culture, even though, as R.G. pointed out, an unfair one since, really, what's the difference?). But, besides arbitrary cultural norms, there's a really very furry specific reason to avoid "cub" porn. Pedophilia is a "crime" of consent; children can't consent. Neither can animals. See the problem? Basically, furry avoids being bestiality only in that the "anthropomorphic" qualities of the characters allow them to give consent in a human fashion. If real human children can't give consent, than anthropomorphic animal children can't either. So, they are off limits. Copping out and saying cub porn is "not real" opens up furry to accusations of bestiality, if only "non-existent" bestiality. But we've already covered that.
Basically, its censorship, no argument, but, then again, it is cub porn, not cub art. It's right there in the headline. I am totally begging the question here, but porn is such a loose term, I'm allowed to define it how I want. Porn is not art. It has no lasting moral value after it is, well, used. This is why video game players are so insistent (whether they no it or not) that video games are art (when arguing with Roger Ebert, who I swear doesn't really care and is just trolling them), because art has moral worth in and of itself that may counteract depictions of immorality in said artwork. If someone can give a good argument that what is being banned here is in fact art, I'm all ears. But if not, Congress ain't doing it, and there are good reasons to avoid it.
*The someone I'm talking about here is obviously Santa Claus.
I'd like to address Rakuen Growlithe's point about "non-existent crimes."
Reality has nothing to do with morality, at least according to most Western philosophy (and a lot of Western religion, as well). "Unreal" fictions can cause "real" emotions, even when the person experiencing the emotions knows the fiction is unreal. The go to Greek philosopher is Plato; he theorized that our ideas of reality are the only "true" reality. Of course, whether you follow Plato depends on whether you're an "idealist" or "materialist," in the philosophical sense. It's also important for certain religions. Jesus Christ seems be a fan of Plato; in the Gospel of Matthew he talks about "committing adultery in your heart." Personally, I believe this line was implicit in the "woman in the red dress" scenes of The Matrix (which is basically Plato's "Parable of the Cave: The Movie" with slow motion machine gun fights). But I'm rambling, the point about bringing up Jesus and all, if you buy his whole "son of God" schtick, is that someone* is prepared to punish "non-existent crimes."
But there is an interesting point in bringing up violent video games, which brings up the question, if "non-existent crimes" are still, by some arguments, "crimes" (or, really, "immoral acts." Let's not conflate legality with morality.), then why stop at just cub porn? Well, it's a question of choice, really. First of all, FurAffinity is an "American" site (if you can give it a nationality); Americans almost stereotypically prefer their artistic depictions of immoral acts violent rather than sexual (a common criticism of American culture, even though, as R.G. pointed out, an unfair one since, really, what's the difference?). But, besides arbitrary cultural norms, there's a really very furry specific reason to avoid "cub" porn. Pedophilia is a "crime" of consent; children can't consent. Neither can animals. See the problem? Basically, furry avoids being bestiality only in that the "anthropomorphic" qualities of the characters allow them to give consent in a human fashion. If real human children can't give consent, than anthropomorphic animal children can't either. So, they are off limits. Copping out and saying cub porn is "not real" opens up furry to accusations of bestiality, if only "non-existent" bestiality. But we've already covered that.
Basically, its censorship, no argument, but, then again, it is cub porn, not cub art. It's right there in the headline. I am totally begging the question here, but porn is such a loose term, I'm allowed to define it how I want. Porn is not art. It has no lasting moral value after it is, well, used. This is why video game players are so insistent (whether they no it or not) that video games are art (when arguing with Roger Ebert, who I swear doesn't really care and is just trolling them), because art has moral worth in and of itself that may counteract depictions of immorality in said artwork. If someone can give a good argument that what is being banned here is in fact art, I'm all ears. But if not, Congress ain't doing it, and there are good reasons to avoid it.
*The someone I'm talking about here is obviously Santa Claus.