Literotica's rule is that that they allow "supernatural beasts", like werewolves. I don't personally see furries (as depicted in science fiction) as supernatural. If they allow them in combination with humans in sexual situations, it's their call. From what you say they use pre-moderation. We do not, due to submission volume.
If you're concerned for Blackpaw.de, I suggest informing them yourself. Again, I'm going by the text of the law, which specifies acts between "human beings" (Menschen) and "animals" (Tieren). I believe furries to be the latter, although I am not aware of any German legal cases specifically addressing the topic.
As you say, Omaha the Cat Dancer was seized in both Canada and New Zealand under charges of obscenity relating to depiction of bestiality. The charges were eventually thrown out. Critically, Omaha does not include humans, although the depiction is closer to human than most furry works. It is unclear to me whether the decision rested on a lack of animals, a lack of humans, or a more nuanced decision as to the artistic nature of the work. Regardless, much furry work involves more feral-looking animals, and if we had to make a choice between them and humans, we would choose the former in a heartbeat.
We are going to have to disagree on the applicability of the laws. It is possible that our rules exclude some work which is likely not to have a significant legal risk, but we feel the cost of moderating such work outweighs the benefit. Inkbunny's staff and users live worldwide; not all are subject to the freedoms of the United States, and we are not willing to expose them to the risk of criminal prosecution for the sake of a minority of work – which, you have shown, already has a host.
Our Philosophy relates to our willingness to allow unusual or extreme themes in work and in journals, subject to the limits of the law. A good (though mild) example would be the topic of interspecies marriage raised by your work. Others that spring to mind include rape, underage characters, diaper-fur/scat/urophilia-related content, slavery and snuff.
As for "views and ideas", a lead competitor forbids "comments, journals, statements or posting material which is racist, bigoted, defamatory, otherwise offensive towards any particular sexuality, philosophy, religion, illegal gambling (raffles, games of chance) or content alluding to illegal activity or child pornography". Conversely, we provide a great degree of freedom for discussions related to drug use, politics, religion and the like. [Defamation is not permitted, because it is against the law.]
Literotica's rule is that that they allow "supernatural beasts", like werewolves. I don't personally see furries (as depicted in science fiction) as supernatural. If they allow them in combination with humans in sexual situations, it's their call. From what you say they use pre-moderation. We do not, due to submission volume.
If you're concerned for Blackpaw.de, I suggest informing them yourself. Again, I'm going by the text of the law, which specifies acts between "human beings" (Menschen) and "animals" (Tieren). I believe furries to be the latter, although I am not aware of any German legal cases specifically addressing the topic.
As you say, Omaha the Cat Dancer was seized in both Canada and New Zealand under charges of obscenity relating to depiction of bestiality. The charges were eventually thrown out. Critically, Omaha does not include humans, although the depiction is closer to human than most furry works. It is unclear to me whether the decision rested on a lack of animals, a lack of humans, or a more nuanced decision as to the artistic nature of the work. Regardless, much furry work involves more feral-looking animals, and if we had to make a choice between them and humans, we would choose the former in a heartbeat.
We are going to have to disagree on the applicability of the laws. It is possible that our rules exclude some work which is likely not to have a significant legal risk, but we feel the cost of moderating such work outweighs the benefit. Inkbunny's staff and users live worldwide; not all are subject to the freedoms of the United States, and we are not willing to expose them to the risk of criminal prosecution for the sake of a minority of work – which, you have shown, already has a host.
Our Philosophy relates to our willingness to allow unusual or extreme themes in work and in journals, subject to the limits of the law. A good (though mild) example would be the topic of interspecies marriage raised by your work. Others that spring to mind include rape, underage characters, diaper-fur/scat/urophilia-related content, slavery and snuff.
As for "views and ideas", a lead competitor forbids "comments, journals, statements or posting material which is racist, bigoted, defamatory, otherwise offensive towards any particular sexuality, philosophy, religion, illegal gambling (raffles, games of chance) or content alluding to illegal activity or child pornography". Conversely, we provide a great degree of freedom for discussions related to drug use, politics, religion and the like. [Defamation is not permitted, because it is against the law.]