First you claimed it falls foul of laws about sexual depictions of 'persons', it doesn't. That's not illegal.
Then you claimed it falls foul of laws about sexual depictions of bestiality. It doesn't. It's not bestiality, so far as I or my publishers are aware, regardless of the fact you seem intent on painting my work as bestiality, nor is it illegal.
Now you're saying a work about consenting adults opens the site to prosecution for child pornography?
You said, 'We are confident of our position, on the basis that we are not depicting real or imagined persons as defined by law. Work featuring humans opens up cans of worms that we do not wish to get involved with.'
How are you confident of that position? Have you cleared this with one of the anti-child pornography organizations? IWF, ASACP? Is that really a defence that's going to hold up, when the basis of the furry fandom, according to http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Furry_fandom, is 'Members of the furry fandom, known as furry fans, furfans, furries, or furs, particularly enjoy media that includes fictional anthropomorphic animal characters with human personalities and characteristics.' At what point is the defence that the works don't depict 'persons' under the law eroded by the simple fact that every element of anthropomorphising an animal character is to make them more closely resemble a human or 'person', by attributing them human or 'person'-like personalities and characteristics?
And, I would very much like a straight answer on this one, are you seriously implying that the Inkbunny's philosophy, which I will cherry-pick for useful quotes to fortify my argument, saying 'We consider freedom of artistic expression as a top priority. ' and 'Inkbunny encourages a community where people of all different interests can co-exist. The community attitude is one of acceptance of the widest possible range of views and ideas, as long as they do not encourage hate and intolerance. ' and 'It is not everyone else's responsibility to prevent you from seeing what you don't want to see. We provide tools such as ratings and keyword blocking to help you filter out content you do not want to see. ', has been designed to protect works of underaged pornography at the exclusion of other works of artistic expression, whether or not they make up part of the wide range of views and ideas in the furry fandom on the basis that a human laying with a furry is not of interest to the people you are seeking to serve, when your attitude to those self-same people is to tell them to use the filters to get rid of what they don't want to see?
Seriously?
Is the material that shapes Inkbunny's policy works of artistic expression of interest to the furry fandom, or is it an attempt to dodge laws against child pornography?
Because the site, the ACP, the inkbunny philosophy, all blatantly claim it's artistic expression. But when confronted with an issue of artistic expression the site's just not interested and offers its condolences, apparently with 'a regret for its artistic or literary merit', when that is the very thing Inkbunny claims to be protecting and striving to uplift.
And you might not be the person, but this is certainly the place. Inkbunny has no public forum I can find, and Flayrah's positioned as a location for public news and discussion. And I have asked the admins directly about this.
And, when I asked about this issue in 2010 via a support ticket on Inkbunny, the response was:
'Hi!
Sadly the rule is strict for now. Humans are allowed in written work as long as there are no sexual scenes depicted with humans.
Humans are banned in all other forms on the site.
We are trying to negotiate with other payment providers so we can be less restrictive. For now we have to follow agreements we have with them.
It totally sucks and we're going to do our best to change things as soon as we can!
For now there is http://lulu.com for small runs of printed material, which isn't idea I know. We'll try to make the site more useful to you soon hopefully!
Starling'
So is this an issue of Payment providers, of entirely legal pornography about people, of bestiality that I contend doesn't qualify, of child pornography, what?
I would like to be part of 'a community that is open, vibrant and growing.' I would like to use a site by admins who 'consider freedom of artistic expression as a top priority.'
I am really angry now. Apparently my work dealing with an exploration of the intimate relationships between humans and furries isn't worthy of protection and inclusion in the dialogue of creative arts taking place at Inkbunny.
I don't see how Inkbunny can position itself as 'open, vibrant, and growing' or honeslty say they 'consider freedom of artistic expression as a top priority' when there's 'no particular interest among the staff to change the current state of affairs'.
You're telling me, flat out, that you're not interested in considering _my_ freedom of artistic expression. You're willing to sacrifice humans/furs in favour of underaged sexuality. And you're not interested in finding a way to broaden what the site can accept.
If that's the case I can only say that I don't think the 'Inkbunny Philosophy' is an honest expression of what the site's about. And that makes me angry, because it's a site with a lot of good ideas behind its design.
Okay, hold on.
My work is about consenting adults.
First you claimed it falls foul of laws about sexual depictions of 'persons', it doesn't. That's not illegal.
Then you claimed it falls foul of laws about sexual depictions of bestiality. It doesn't. It's not bestiality, so far as I or my publishers are aware, regardless of the fact you seem intent on painting my work as bestiality, nor is it illegal.
Now you're saying a work about consenting adults opens the site to prosecution for child pornography?
You said, 'We are confident of our position, on the basis that we are not depicting real or imagined persons as defined by law. Work featuring humans opens up cans of worms that we do not wish to get involved with.'
How are you confident of that position? Have you cleared this with one of the anti-child pornography organizations? IWF, ASACP? Is that really a defence that's going to hold up, when the basis of the furry fandom, according to http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Furry_fandom, is 'Members of the furry fandom, known as furry fans, furfans, furries, or furs, particularly enjoy media that includes fictional anthropomorphic animal characters with human personalities and characteristics.' At what point is the defence that the works don't depict 'persons' under the law eroded by the simple fact that every element of anthropomorphising an animal character is to make them more closely resemble a human or 'person', by attributing them human or 'person'-like personalities and characteristics?
And, I would very much like a straight answer on this one, are you seriously implying that the Inkbunny's philosophy, which I will cherry-pick for useful quotes to fortify my argument, saying 'We consider freedom of artistic expression as a top priority. ' and 'Inkbunny encourages a community where people of all different interests can co-exist. The community attitude is one of acceptance of the widest possible range of views and ideas, as long as they do not encourage hate and intolerance. ' and 'It is not everyone else's responsibility to prevent you from seeing what you don't want to see. We provide tools such as ratings and keyword blocking to help you filter out content you do not want to see. ', has been designed to protect works of underaged pornography at the exclusion of other works of artistic expression, whether or not they make up part of the wide range of views and ideas in the furry fandom on the basis that a human laying with a furry is not of interest to the people you are seeking to serve, when your attitude to those self-same people is to tell them to use the filters to get rid of what they don't want to see?
Seriously?
Is the material that shapes Inkbunny's policy works of artistic expression of interest to the furry fandom, or is it an attempt to dodge laws against child pornography?
Because the site, the ACP, the inkbunny philosophy, all blatantly claim it's artistic expression. But when confronted with an issue of artistic expression the site's just not interested and offers its condolences, apparently with 'a regret for its artistic or literary merit', when that is the very thing Inkbunny claims to be protecting and striving to uplift.
And you might not be the person, but this is certainly the place. Inkbunny has no public forum I can find, and Flayrah's positioned as a location for public news and discussion. And I have asked the admins directly about this.
And, when I asked about this issue in 2010 via a support ticket on Inkbunny, the response was:
'Hi!
Sadly the rule is strict for now. Humans are allowed in written work as long as there are no sexual scenes depicted with humans.
Humans are banned in all other forms on the site.
We are trying to negotiate with other payment providers so we can be less restrictive. For now we have to follow agreements we have with them.
It totally sucks and we're going to do our best to change things as soon as we can!
For now there is http://lulu.com for small runs of printed material, which isn't idea I know. We'll try to make the site more useful to you soon hopefully!
Starling'
So is this an issue of Payment providers, of entirely legal pornography about people, of bestiality that I contend doesn't qualify, of child pornography, what?
I would like to be part of 'a community that is open, vibrant and growing.' I would like to use a site by admins who 'consider freedom of artistic expression as a top priority.'
I am really angry now. Apparently my work dealing with an exploration of the intimate relationships between humans and furries isn't worthy of protection and inclusion in the dialogue of creative arts taking place at Inkbunny.
I don't see how Inkbunny can position itself as 'open, vibrant, and growing' or honeslty say they 'consider freedom of artistic expression as a top priority' when there's 'no particular interest among the staff to change the current state of affairs'.
You're telling me, flat out, that you're not interested in considering _my_ freedom of artistic expression. You're willing to sacrifice humans/furs in favour of underaged sexuality. And you're not interested in finding a way to broaden what the site can accept.
If that's the case I can only say that I don't think the 'Inkbunny Philosophy' is an honest expression of what the site's about. And that makes me angry, because it's a site with a lot of good ideas behind its design.