We are going to have to disagree on the applicability of the laws. After all, you allow discussions tied to religion? Even in a controversial or potentially offensive fashion? You do know Germany has blasphemy laws that were used as recently as 2006?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#France (See 'An addition to the Public Health Code was passed on the 31 December 1970, which punishes the "positive presentation of drugs" and the "incitement to their consumption" with up to five years in prison and fines up to €76,000.')
I'm sorry, but this whole argument really doesn't ring particularly true to me. If you're that concerned about sticking to the letter of the law, the only legal precedent known, Omaha, puts furries in the clear. They're not tied to bestiality. Period. The closest literary equivalent in common use would be in the form of werewolf erotica. Which is extremely, extremely common. And, in the recent debacle with PayPal's censorship of erotica, if you ran across that, Bestiality was a specific issue.
As you've said, it's unclear to you on what basis the decision to avoid classifying Omaha as a work of bestiality was based on. But what _is_ clear is that it is not a work of bestiality. As the only furry work I know of having been tried out in a court of law as a work of bestiality, I think it's a safe assumption to assume that _any_ anthropomorphic work is not a work of bestiality.
And besides which, even if it were, and you seem to have missed this point, literary and artistic depictions of bestiality tend to be legal.
And then to: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#StGBengl_000P..., and more specifically the definitions for section 184 of the German legal code at 184g, http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#StGBengl_000P... - 'sexual acts and activities shall only be those which are of some relevance in relation to the protected legal interest in question;' This only seems to be waived in the case of child pornography and child pornography alone, http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#StGBengl_000P... - '(2) Whosoever undertakes to obtain possession for another of child pornography reproducing an actual or realistic activity shall incur the same penalty.' The use 'actual or realistic' is brought up specifically here, but not in the previous section. (Apparently 'written material' is intended to apply to everything. Definition was somewhere else in all that. And, granted, I'm basing this on a translated version.)
In short, looks safe to me. But if Inkbunny is so concerned about avoiding prosecution, if it's reasonable to worry about German law, surely it's reasonable to worry about Belarusian law?
How about Malta? The Ukraine? China? I'm just running down that list.
I think it's kind of two-faced to say that because my story _might_ be illegal in Germany, but by every standard I can come up with, it shouldn't appear on Inkbunny, but even though a large chunk of the site's content is _entirely_ illegal in China or Belarus, that's just fine.
You'll happily wade into the firing line for pornography involving rape, underaged characters, etcetera, which is almost certainly of interest to a number of authorities around the world given all those simulated child pornography hullaballos, but not for depictions of humans and furries engaged in sexual intercourse, be it quite vanilla, or be it rape?
Could you explain why, and how, a story about a human being screwing her husband, a furry, is going to open the site up to unacceptable legal risk, wheras pornography involving rape, underaged characters, scatalogical pursuits, or snuff, will not?
How is this fair? I may be able to find hosting for the material elsewhere, but that's not the point. The point is, this work, and works like it, are excluded from inclusion in Inkbunny. And Inkbunny has itself branded as an inclusive community, and I don't think that's fair to exclude these works and themes when my work, and the works being excluded, _do not pose a legal risk._
Why are human beings unacceptable in sexualized contexts? Why would you have to 'choose' between feral-looking animals and humans? Why is this entirely conjectured threat of bestiality, which is as far as I can tell groundless given that I (and apparently you) cannot provide an example of some furry work actually being listed as obscene/illegal by a court somewhere, being used to exclude works like mine?
How is that inclusive? Why do you have to exclude sexualized humans to be 'inclusive'? I just do not understand this, and it's been driving me crazy for years. My material _is_ subject to the limits of the law, and is to the best of my knowledge and understanding accepted by the law, as is, to the best of my knowledge, any material involving human beings, at least in those countries where any kind of pornography is allowed at all.
We are going to have to disagree on the applicability of the laws. After all, you allow discussions tied to religion? Even in a controversial or potentially offensive fashion? You do know Germany has blasphemy laws that were used as recently as 2006?
http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#StGBengl_000P166
And you allow discussions related to drug use?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#France (See 'An addition to the Public Health Code was passed on the 31 December 1970, which punishes the "positive presentation of drugs" and the "incitement to their consumption" with up to five years in prison and fines up to €76,000.')
I'm sorry, but this whole argument really doesn't ring particularly true to me. If you're that concerned about sticking to the letter of the law, the only legal precedent known, Omaha, puts furries in the clear. They're not tied to bestiality. Period. The closest literary equivalent in common use would be in the form of werewolf erotica. Which is extremely, extremely common. And, in the recent debacle with PayPal's censorship of erotica, if you ran across that, Bestiality was a specific issue.
As you've said, it's unclear to you on what basis the decision to avoid classifying Omaha as a work of bestiality was based on. But what _is_ clear is that it is not a work of bestiality. As the only furry work I know of having been tried out in a court of law as a work of bestiality, I think it's a safe assumption to assume that _any_ anthropomorphic work is not a work of bestiality.
And besides which, even if it were, and you seem to have missed this point, literary and artistic depictions of bestiality tend to be legal.
I refer you again to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_the_law#Pornography_laws
And then to: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#StGBengl_000P..., and more specifically the definitions for section 184 of the German legal code at 184g, http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#StGBengl_000P... - 'sexual acts and activities shall only be those which are of some relevance in relation to the protected legal interest in question;' This only seems to be waived in the case of child pornography and child pornography alone, http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#StGBengl_000P... - '(2) Whosoever undertakes to obtain possession for another of child pornography reproducing an actual or realistic activity shall incur the same penalty.' The use 'actual or realistic' is brought up specifically here, but not in the previous section. (Apparently 'written material' is intended to apply to everything. Definition was somewhere else in all that. And, granted, I'm basing this on a translated version.)
In short, looks safe to me. But if Inkbunny is so concerned about avoiding prosecution, if it's reasonable to worry about German law, surely it's reasonable to worry about Belarusian law?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pornography_laws_by_country#Belarus
How about Malta? The Ukraine? China? I'm just running down that list.
I think it's kind of two-faced to say that because my story _might_ be illegal in Germany, but by every standard I can come up with, it shouldn't appear on Inkbunny, but even though a large chunk of the site's content is _entirely_ illegal in China or Belarus, that's just fine.
You'll happily wade into the firing line for pornography involving rape, underaged characters, etcetera, which is almost certainly of interest to a number of authorities around the world given all those simulated child pornography hullaballos, but not for depictions of humans and furries engaged in sexual intercourse, be it quite vanilla, or be it rape?
Could you explain why, and how, a story about a human being screwing her husband, a furry, is going to open the site up to unacceptable legal risk, wheras pornography involving rape, underaged characters, scatalogical pursuits, or snuff, will not?
How is this fair? I may be able to find hosting for the material elsewhere, but that's not the point. The point is, this work, and works like it, are excluded from inclusion in Inkbunny. And Inkbunny has itself branded as an inclusive community, and I don't think that's fair to exclude these works and themes when my work, and the works being excluded, _do not pose a legal risk._
Why are human beings unacceptable in sexualized contexts? Why would you have to 'choose' between feral-looking animals and humans? Why is this entirely conjectured threat of bestiality, which is as far as I can tell groundless given that I (and apparently you) cannot provide an example of some furry work actually being listed as obscene/illegal by a court somewhere, being used to exclude works like mine?
How is that inclusive? Why do you have to exclude sexualized humans to be 'inclusive'? I just do not understand this, and it's been driving me crazy for years. My material _is_ subject to the limits of the law, and is to the best of my knowledge and understanding accepted by the law, as is, to the best of my knowledge, any material involving human beings, at least in those countries where any kind of pornography is allowed at all.
Anyway. The Anita Blake books are rather renown for sex with werewolves, and they're available in Germany, along with Heat #6, though via Amazon.de rather than Blackpaw.de. --> http://www.amazon.de/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1/275-1837632-0646360?__mk_de_DE=%C5M%C5Z%...
(Omaha's available in Germany, too. http://www.amazon.de/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?__mk_de_DE=%C3%85M%C3%85Z%C3%95%C3%91&ur... )