I actually have a lot of thoughts about this one, judging by what's going on here and some of the replies here but I would prefer posting it here. Though some of this is really a reaction to some replies and this one thing that happened on Ink Bunny that is semi on topic but not entirally. Sorry my comment is a little sloppy today.
I personally do believe this one user is reacting to this a bit too far and I do believe our anger should be toward I guess whatever forced E6 to do this, and not the owner of E6 alone. If I was running a website wanting to allow specific content but a law would get me into trouble if I allowed it, then I would have to avoid allowing it because I don't want to get into trouble. It's not meant to personally appeal to the furry Twitter crazies who wants to treat innocent furries like criminals over purely fictional content.
As for some cases of free speech (in a bit of reaction to a certain discussion), I actually am a bit mixed on this because I firmly do have a strong stance against banning any lawful debate in appropriate spaces in society in general, no matter how controversial it may seem because blame should always go to the perpetrator (including any criminal complicit) who took illegal inspiration from it. As I don't really want to live in a world where reasonible debate should ever be banned in certain areas because of fear, and to be strict, even if a speech that is legal to say but super wrong with no way to morally defend it, wanting something horrible legal, I would always prefer lawfully combating it with protected speech back as some absolute free speech advocates would probably say. I guess one personal reason why I care about this is because I worry we could ban good speech with clear good context because of fear. I hope it doesn't go there one day even though it actually did a little already maybe.
Also I actually went ahead and looked up what this guy was talking about involving Ink Bunny purging some people, and I believe I found what the person was talking about within a news archive but I was surprised to noticed the ban included people for merely admitting or saying they have the condition (even if they were clear on just wanting help and being against going after children) just because of a far fetching fear of the wrong people contacting them. I found this to be the kind of fear I was worrying about being an example of fear against speech that isn't the same as promoting it where the context makes it clear that it doesn't tolerate the bad stuff. I also find it hypocritical because I feel like the clear context example is even less risky than how some fictional cub content can lure the wrong kind of people in alone, especially with how that happens with anthro and some zoophiles, because in both cases some of these people does have extended preferences that could lead to lesser realistic fiction thus luring or so-called "aiding" in those including some that do want to hurt living beings. What is the answer to this however? Properly dealing with the bad apples (people who actually want to do the wrong crap for example) separately rather than ban all of certain fiction entirally. With this, I feel like this can also be said with lawful debate that might be controversial but isn't meant to even defend wrong doing.
Maybe the owner isn't morally against what they banned to some extent and was nothing more than a personal dealt with the site alone, especially since the same site I think bans certain human drawings which sucks for those who like certain human x anthro art but like it's just his personal website, but still I worry in terms of moral debate. I hope we don't go after or "cancel" furries who say they believe in rehabilitation over punishment because of some others fear of bad apples abusing that, those who say they worry they have the condition but said they want proper help, or debating against non-self defense violence for example I think.
Also going back more on topic. There is no evidence that I know of that pure fiction is a causation of people doing crime even if it's true that some people who liked pure fictional lolicon did crime. Take this one cub artist who actually did hurt real children for example, does that prove the art caused the person to offend? Nope because the person was already a pedophile or had certain other mental problems before likely. Heck I argued that if the person didn't have access to fiction in the first place, the person would probably go after real children sooner. Maybe it's bad if the fiction was destracting the person in wrong areas but again that seems like a separate situation.
There is also the "normalization" fear but I believe appropriate education is key to this...
I actually have a lot of thoughts about this one, judging by what's going on here and some of the replies here but I would prefer posting it here. Though some of this is really a reaction to some replies and this one thing that happened on Ink Bunny that is semi on topic but not entirally. Sorry my comment is a little sloppy today.
I personally do believe this one user is reacting to this a bit too far and I do believe our anger should be toward I guess whatever forced E6 to do this, and not the owner of E6 alone. If I was running a website wanting to allow specific content but a law would get me into trouble if I allowed it, then I would have to avoid allowing it because I don't want to get into trouble. It's not meant to personally appeal to the furry Twitter crazies who wants to treat innocent furries like criminals over purely fictional content.
As for some cases of free speech (in a bit of reaction to a certain discussion), I actually am a bit mixed on this because I firmly do have a strong stance against banning any lawful debate in appropriate spaces in society in general, no matter how controversial it may seem because blame should always go to the perpetrator (including any criminal complicit) who took illegal inspiration from it. As I don't really want to live in a world where reasonible debate should ever be banned in certain areas because of fear, and to be strict, even if a speech that is legal to say but super wrong with no way to morally defend it, wanting something horrible legal, I would always prefer lawfully combating it with protected speech back as some absolute free speech advocates would probably say. I guess one personal reason why I care about this is because I worry we could ban good speech with clear good context because of fear. I hope it doesn't go there one day even though it actually did a little already maybe.
Also I actually went ahead and looked up what this guy was talking about involving Ink Bunny purging some people, and I believe I found what the person was talking about within a news archive but I was surprised to noticed the ban included people for merely admitting or saying they have the condition (even if they were clear on just wanting help and being against going after children) just because of a far fetching fear of the wrong people contacting them. I found this to be the kind of fear I was worrying about being an example of fear against speech that isn't the same as promoting it where the context makes it clear that it doesn't tolerate the bad stuff. I also find it hypocritical because I feel like the clear context example is even less risky than how some fictional cub content can lure the wrong kind of people in alone, especially with how that happens with anthro and some zoophiles, because in both cases some of these people does have extended preferences that could lead to lesser realistic fiction thus luring or so-called "aiding" in those including some that do want to hurt living beings. What is the answer to this however? Properly dealing with the bad apples (people who actually want to do the wrong crap for example) separately rather than ban all of certain fiction entirally. With this, I feel like this can also be said with lawful debate that might be controversial but isn't meant to even defend wrong doing.
Maybe the owner isn't morally against what they banned to some extent and was nothing more than a personal dealt with the site alone, especially since the same site I think bans certain human drawings which sucks for those who like certain human x anthro art but like it's just his personal website, but still I worry in terms of moral debate. I hope we don't go after or "cancel" furries who say they believe in rehabilitation over punishment because of some others fear of bad apples abusing that, those who say they worry they have the condition but said they want proper help, or debating against non-self defense violence for example I think.
Also going back more on topic. There is no evidence that I know of that pure fiction is a causation of people doing crime even if it's true that some people who liked pure fictional lolicon did crime. Take this one cub artist who actually did hurt real children for example, does that prove the art caused the person to offend? Nope because the person was already a pedophile or had certain other mental problems before likely. Heck I argued that if the person didn't have access to fiction in the first place, the person would probably go after real children sooner. Maybe it's bad if the fiction was destracting the person in wrong areas but again that seems like a separate situation.
There is also the "normalization" fear but I believe appropriate education is key to this...