Sign In

Close
Forgot your password? No account yet?

BANNED: Back to the Future is Child Porn. by Dreamkeepers

Yesterday, Deviantart deleted a reference turnaround from our account, and proceeded to erase Dreamkeepers fanart by other creators.

No vital organs have been penetrated, my blood loss appears to be minimal. I've contacted FEMA, and expect a disaster relief task force to arrive at any moment- let's just pray they can tunnel through the salt deposits in time.

Though minor, this event is a good enough reason to articulate my thoughts on artistic expression, and it's valid limitations:

There aren't any.

There. Mission accomplished, let's pack it up. Is there really anyone out there declaring that lines on paper should be banned if they form the wrong shape? ...Yes? Oh. Marvelous.

Most people intuitively get artistic freedom, but it was eye-opening seeing equivocations stray in on twitter.

"Surely," some postulated, "there is a gray area here."

If you draw the lines light enough, then yes, you can get gray.

Now, are platforms entitled to have their own policies, to curate what content they deem acceptable for consumption?

Yes.

And we can point out when those policies are wrongheaded, so let us commence.

Here's a true statement:

Lines on paper hurt nobody. Artists should be free to depict anything, and audiences free to see whatever they want in fiction.

Nobody is out there re-enacting Clockwork Orange and forcing strangers to view art against their will. Provided users can add relevant filters and avoid the stuff they wish to avoid, there is no reason to crack down on 'bad' art, no matter how sinful or problematic it may be.

Critics are still free to decry content they dislike, and explain their rationale. Sometimes appalling work can trigger discussions of value. But when content is banned from the get-go by misguided policies, even critics are deprived of an opportunity to enumerate their perspective.

And something being decreed "offensive" is a non-starter for any serious thinker. An ever-expanding sphere of aggressive sensitivity is not a sufficient justification for circumscribing the freedoms and rights of artists.

Anyone with cartoon-related PTSD has the power to adjust settings on their accounts, and create their own online safe space- but they should not have the power to impose those preferences on everyone else.

Those trying to argue that fiction somehow translates into real-world harm must surmount a formidable body of scientific literature indicating otherwise. Rise in shoot-em-up video games? Look at that, drop in violent crime statistics. How curious.

Why not blame fiction? Anything to avoid acknowledging the existence of personal responsibility.

The stray killer who plays video games is strikingly similar to the stray killer who eats breakfast in the morning- that is to say, responsible for their actions. Unless they cannot distinguish fiction from reality, in which case the relevant factor is mental illness.

At no point is it plausible to point at a drawing and declare, "There, that's the cause of it all."

The moralizers were wrong to burn comics in the 1950's, wrong to demonize D&D, wrong to blame real-world violence on Doom, and they were wrong to claim gaming was generating a sexism tsunami.

But I'm sure the next moral panic will be right on the money.

Killing people is wrong- isn't it wrong to make a game of it? Robbing banks is unethical- should we discourage heist movies? Underage sex is illegal- who could possibly condone depictions of it?

Society at large seems fine with depictions of murder, children, and even murdered children, so:

Let's cut straight to that unforgivable example, the place where people go weak in the knees, where logic squirms away under the threat of social crucifixion- CHILD PORN.

Few topics demonstrate the ugly results of fuzzy thinking with greater clarity. So let's be clear.

There is a vast galaxy of difference between lines on paper, and the abuse of a vulnerable, thinking, feeling human being. The two are not merely different by degree- they are utterly, qualitatively distinct from one another. They will never be even close to the same thing.

Doodling lines on paper violates nobody's rights. Any debater seeking to score points by conflating that with real-life abuse is welcome to exit the conversation now, because it does neither artists nor survivors any favors to dabble in intellectual dishonesty.

So, we are talking about cartoons here- artistic fabrications, works of fiction. And hey, why stop at the evil du-jour of child porn? Let's go all out- strap yourself in.

Underage nymphs copulating with infants on the Ark of the Covenant while promoting racism and shitting cephalopods onto the Bible, Atlas Shrugged, and Das Kapital all at the same time- in full Nazi regalia, while shooting gorillas and screaming the praises of the Wild Thornberrys. For the purposes of this conversation we'll shorten this depiction to 'The Worst.'

Am I really suggesting that platforms allow The Worst?

Yes.

Now, I am not defending The Worst. How could I, it's literally The Worst!

I hope we can all recognize that supporting the right to free expression does not entail approving of what everyone does with it. I'm not defending The Worst, but I am standing for the right of someone to depict it in fiction. Because even The Worst is just marks on paper- or pages in a book, or harmless light from a screen.

So let's say, for the sake of argument, that a platform can successfully police The Worst from their site. After all, 'artistic freedom' is so abstract. But art depicting kids in sexual situations? Come on, realistically we shouldn't allow that, it's just wrong! Why should we permit immoral imagination? If we don't like it, then nobody should have the option, right?

Let's take a look at an excerpt from DeviantArt's policy.

"..Artworks using completely original fictional characters which appear to be minors or children shown nude or placed into sexual situations ... nor may they be depicted in any erotic manner or in any sexually provocative scene or manner of dress."

That seems reasonable.

Unless you think about it for longer than ten seconds.

Mature, complex stories grapple with the darkest regions of human nature. These works can sometimes fulfill the highest purposes of fiction.

So what if a comic wanted to explore the grim world of underage human trafficking, and still be on DeviantArt?

This policy would ban it.

Hard-hitting, truthful art need not apply.

And even lighthearted, family friendly fare doesn't pass muster. Marty McFly of Back to the Future is seventeen- underage- and placed in a series of erotic, provocative sexual situations- with his own mother.

Underage child in a sexual, erotically suggestive situation? Back to the Future is child porn, according to DeviantArt's policy. Buster Bunny with no pants? Unacceptable nudity.

If a comic depicts a kid with a water balloon, and that just so happens to be the private kink of some mod who pops a boner? Well then shame on that artist, they shouldn't have drawn a child in an erotic situation.

But surely mods will be reasonable when deciding how to apply their powers- they wouldn't violate the spirit of the rule to strike down innocuous content.

Like, oh, a reference sheet.

If you really believe that anonymous unaccountable censors will always refrain from vindictive abuses of power, well, bless your heart.

Perceptions of double-standards and capricious moderation are one of the most corrosive threats to the long-term health of any social platform- just look at the 2014-2016 stock value devastation of twitter. Users do not like the feeling that a platform is picking winners and losers.

And, of all things, fiction does not need to be policed.

But what about liability? Platforms have to censor The Worst, or they could risk legal problems. For all I know, this excuse might even be true- but I'm not a lawyer. I'm an artist, so I'm going to stand for creative freedom. If bad laws are impairing the ability of platforms to operate, they should grow a spine and work to change those laws- rather than caving and dumping artistic limitations on a young generation of developing creators.

If the law or pious payment processors or rampaging puritans are the problem, then let's clarify that and deal with it directly- rather than using it as an excuse to stop talking.

And in fact, the moment a platform draws a line- where this art is acceptable, and this art is banned- they create a cataclysmic headache for themselves.

Now they have to police their entire universe of content- they strike the absurd posture of adopting responsibility for what every one of their users creates and shares. This is like the telephone company taking responsibility for threatening phone calls, and tasking themselves with monitoring all conversations to remove the wrong bits in real-time.

And once they begin censoring 'bad' content, it constitutes tacit approval of everything they don't remove.

Enable mature results and search using a few colorful terms on Deviantart, check out some of the sick shit they approve of.

Even if they're making the Wild Thornberrys, I'll stand for the creative freedom of everyone. And art platforms can step on that freedom if they choose- but that doesn't mean we have to shut up and like it.

We should allow people the creative freedom to depict even horrible things in fiction- sometimes that's the best way they have of coping with those thoughts or experiences. After all, if it really is some hideous sin, what better place for it than fiction? Sometimes it can even help others struggling across the same emotional landscape.

Of all places, art and fiction should be an arena of absolute freedom. The one place where we can create, where we can emote and express, where we can share...

Anything.

BANNED: Back to the Future is Child Porn.

Dreamkeepers

Journal Information

Views:
304
Comments:
10
Favorites:
2
Rating:
General

Comments

  • Link

    Deviantart is a scary, rude and very horrible place to post anything. I once got taken down for drawing an adult, read "A-D-U-L-T", Lisa Simpson in a martini glass while hundred upon hundreds of actual under age pics go on, plus the flooding of dick pics... Ugh.

  • Link

    While I agree that creators should create whatever they want, I do have a small grievance with artistic child porn being shared on the internet. A reference sheet? Nah, whatever. But blatant depictions of small children having sex... Well, this user put it best and I'm just going to share a link to a copy+paste of it I made for you to read when you have a moment.

    If you care at least. HERE

    Again, if someone wants to draw something, feel free, have at it, do it if it makes you happy... but I don't think everything needs to be shared. Not open and publicly.

    Just my $0.02

    • Link

      Faves this comment

      • Link

        <3

        • Link

          Good evening @FeyPheonix and @Vera- thank you for sharing your perspective on the subject, and especially the link to Deishido's document, "The Case Against Cubs." I've been looking for solid counter-arguments ever since I posted my article, and this one is by far the best! I would love to tackle it- thank you for sharing.

          First let me address your valid opinion, that not all art needs to be publicly shared- that is correct. But I do think everyone should have the right to share their art, especially on platforms built to serve that express purpose. That choice is the artist's to consider, not ours to impose.

          On to "The Case Against Cubs." I would advise other browsers to read the piece in full, so they can be sure I am attempting to represent it accurately. ( https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UREWaWLtMFO1ocaUbmFUdO34Gy64bjmAreOwDYpj8Xk/edit ) It is a thoughtful piece, and the two central assertions are worth considering:

          TCAC: "Easier access to pornography of minors allows abusers more opportunities to solicit children."
          TCAC: "Keep fictional kids out of pornography to help keep real kids out of pornography."

          These just sound right, don't they? On an intuitive level, it seems like banning art of child abuse would help discourage real abuse.

          But unfortunately for these assertions, studies demonstrate that they are exactly wrong:

          https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101130111326.htm
          https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-about-sex/200904/does-pornography-cause-social-harm
          http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/28803/title/Porn--Good-for-us-/
          http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/6656/is-the-increasing-availability-of-high-speed-internet-pornography-reducing-sex-c

          The relevant conclusion of the Science Daily study reads: "In addition, the study found that the incidence of child sex abuse has fallen since 1989, when child pornography became readily accessible -- a phenomenon also seen in Denmark and Japan."

          Other studies indicated surprising results:

          That while incidences of sex crimes were unchanged or reduced by high-speed internet access, the likelihood of victims to report those crimes was increased- possibly indicating that victims perceived reporting their abuse in a more favorable light.

          "The Case Against Cubs" article lays out a scenario wherein a child molester gets a child alone, and uses erotic furry cartoons to manipulate the child into sexual contact.

          But will constraining the artistic freedom of everyone on earth really change this scenario?

          The monster and the child are still in the same room. Or, if they've circumvented age limitations and existing online predator laws, the same chat room. And somehow, I don't think the Monster will throw up his hands and end his gruesome quest simply because he can't find Buster Bunny porn online.

          And if this guy is willing to molest a child in the first place, something tells me he might even be wicked enough to circumvent site policies and acquire those images anyway. Do we really imagine that someone sociopathic enough to abuse a child will stop at the holy barrier of site policy?

          Even if we can scrape together a non-hypothetical anecdote of some predator using art in this way, it's about as compelling as the case for banning hammers if some maniac uses them to commission a murder.

          The best argument I could infer from this scenario, is that if a small child sees cartoon porn commonly, they will be more likely to think underage sex is normal.

          Where the hell are this kid's parents?

          If a sex predator has access to a child and is grooming them for abuse, their manipulation will not be magically disabled by some prudish site policy. If anything, throwing a veil of censorship over the topic will ensure the child has no awareness of what they are being exposed to, or how they should deal with it.

          Artistic freedom is not the lynchpin making abuse possible or more likely. In fact, the data indicates it makes abuse LESS likely.

          It would be fantastic if banning art could fix gruesome real-world problems- if we could simply throw a tarp over that entire subject, hide it from view, and magically those problems get better. But reality isn't that easy on us.

          Banning certain types of art not only infringes on the rights of every artist and every viewer in the world, it results in more abuse for more people.

          Even if it doesn't feel intuitive-

          Let's have less abuse, and more art.

          • Link

            There are sites that are well known for allowing child porn (IE: inkbunny) and the people who like it know to go there to get it. I think that is plenty enough.

            For your example, a sociopath that wants to molest children no matter what, no, restricting where they can find this art is not going to stop them. It's not going to stop someone that really wants to abuse children, either.

            The people that are grooming children for abuse are often people of authority or in a position to groom them, obviously. Caretakers, babysitters, teachers, etc. The online predators are highly restricted due to the social barriers constructed to protect them, certainly.

            Bottom line is, though, that I still don't believe it should be openly shared. If you want to see child porn, or share it, go ahead on over to the sites that allow it and leave other sites to their policies. I, for one, don't use sites that allow child porn because I don't want to see it, nor do I think every site should allow it.

            Seriously, I know that having a method to extinguish terrible feelings is good overall, but nobody is stopping them from creating or finding that content. Just restricting access to it. And again, I do think there are certain things that are silly to ban, such as a reference sheet or comical things. I've seen teen rated animes that have scenes where a boy is being picked on and their pants pulled down, revealing a comically drawn set of genitalia. Do I think that should be banned? No, not at all. Do I think an animation/painting of a baby/toddler/ten year old child being abused and raped by an adult who tricked them into thinking it was okay should be banned. Yes. Hell yes. Go put it on a site that allows that kind of content.

            At the end of the day, there are sites that allow ANYTHING already. If your grievance with a single site is that much of a problem for you, just... leave there, head on over to the other site, and have fun seeing anything and everything.

            • Link

              "If you want to see child porn, or share it, go ahead on over to the sites that allow it and leave other sites to their policies."

              I am leaving all sites to their respective policies.

              If you think your advice is in any way applicable to me, then you're fundamentally misunderstanding both the content and the intent of my article.

              A closer reading will reveal that, yes, I maintain sites can have policies prohibiting anything they choose- and I'm not even demanding any site make any particular change.

              What I am doing, is using this event as an opportunity to ruminate on those policies: Does infringing upon freedom in fiction result in any benefits, for anyone? Does it have detrimental effects upon the creation and sharing of important art? Does it make anyone safer?

              The answers appear to be no, yes, and no.

              I gather that you do not like these answers.

              The bedrock foundation of your position seems to be that depictions of The Worst are bad and cause real-world harm, and that this means policies banning it are acceptable for art sites. That position is thoroughly addressed by the writings above, not to mention the studies I cited. So reiterating that baseline position is not sufficient to alter my thinking.

              If you're simply here to share your feelings on the subject, that's absolutely fine, and I thank you for it- but I must confess, I'm less interested in how people feel about these ideas, and more interested in whether or not the ideas are correct.

              • Link

                You can't really put a correct or incorrect stamp on a moral issue, though. Raw data alone can't solve the problem. That is, of course, my opinion. Thank you for talking it out as a rational human being, though :3

                • Link

                  Sure thing! It was pleasant talking with you, and I hope you have an awesome evening. 8 )

  • Link

    Meh, only more reason for artists into developing their own websites rather than become utterly dependent upon commercial gallery hosts.