Fek says he cannot keep people from creating real small characters and this is the reason why RackNET is a concern. While in no game people can be kept from modding, the official position of the creators to no support such material is a must.
What we need is at least a statement by Fek himself how he want to alleviate these concerns.
#Furry rack 2 free#
R2ck will be free later making it easy for trolls and haters to stage an influx of such material into RackNET to shed a bad name on the fandom. I don't want to see a possible media backlash for the fandom should this game be topic in any court case.
R2ck is probably in the top tier of most successful patreons ever and it is a furry game. You might even call such court cases "the law gone mad", but do you want to risk to be run over by it? If you just skip over cases and texts on the laws you will quickly get the impression that it is a very unsecure area. Even if parts of the PROTECT Act are ruled unconstitutional about the first amendmend I doubt any lawyer will defend against it.
#Furry rack 2 code#
Code § 1466A - Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children" section C says: "It is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exist." "įrom Wikipedia " Currently, such depictions are in a legal grey area due to parts of the PROTECT Act being ruled unconstitutional on a federal level however, laws regulating lolicon and shotacon differs between states several states have laws that explicitly prohibit cartoon pornography and similar depictions (such as video games in the state of New Jersey), while others usually have only vague laws on such content in some states, such as California, such depictions specifically do not fall under state child pornography laws, while the state of Utah explicitly bans it. " His appeal to reverse his conviction was denied by the courts. This part of his conviction and his sentencing was based on his violation of the 2003 PROTECT (Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today) Act. Sadly, you are wrong, this is by far not a safe bet and too much of a risk for anyone:įrom the intro of an ALA article: " On March 10, 2006, Dwight Whorley was sentenced to twenty years in federal prison on child pornography charges. Whorley, a man with a history of receiving and sending child pornography via email, and who has previously served time in federal prisons for those offences, was convicted among other charges of using a public computer at a Virginia Employment Commission office on March 30, 2004, to receive twenty Japanese cartoons that showed seemingly minor (younger than eighteen) females engaged in sexual intercourse with males seeming older than eighteen.
0 kommentar(er)
