Yes, you can, here, let me bitch slap you with reality... http://rule34.paheal.net/post/view/1215493 Ask yourself...why are *WE* removing material that Papheal *ALLOWS* and is not in any way touched by any law enforcement agency on the planet? Again, it's a PERSONAL CHOICE...and again, go ask Zaiger, he's the one who said just that (or I can probably go and look up the precise quote if you like). You basically have ZERO understanding of child porn laws. Child porn isn't about the picture it's about the INTENTION and CONTEXT, which, by the by, have to be PROVEN in a court of law. Meaning, even if you do get busted for supposed child pornography the prosecution still has to prove the INTENTION and CONTEXT of the material in a court of law.
That's some pretty retarded logic. I know a guy who sells crack. It must be legal. Here's a better idea. Not host the pictures in the first place so you never have to defend yourself in court.
You're missing the point. Absolute anarchy DOES NOT WORK. If ED were absolute anarchy every single article could be spammed the fuck over with "kittens"...in fact the entire site could be nothing BUT that. The reason we remove blatant/mass child porn is so that ED is not TAKEN OVER by pedophiles who want to change the focus and intention of the site. The site is supposed to be about documenting LULZ/drama, Internet "things", satire/parody and the like. THAT is the FOCUS of the site...we're removing the child porn because in many instances it's blocking out that focus, not because we're "censoring" anything. We're actually PRESERVING the free speech as it's related to the FOCUS of the site. Otherwise ALL of the satire/parody/drama could just be shit all over with nothing but child pornography.
And is that guy blatantly selling said crack right out in the open freely advertising his personal information and the fact that he's doing it? Yeah...didn't think so. Like I said...you don't understand child porn laws. They are *NOT* "black and white"...it's not even ~remotely~ that simple. Especially when you start bringing the whole "it's ~artistic~" shit into it. That's why you can even find seemingly blatant child porn plastered all over DeviantArt...because it's done under the "it's art" label. Again, the CONTEXT is key...not the picture itself, but what it's being USED FOR and the INTENTION. If you're a pedophile, I hate to break this to ya, but even having a Sears fucking catalog is, by definition, child pornography...in the hands of a pedophile.
When you have an entire gallery dedicated to Rule 34 of the Dora the Explorer, that throws artistic intent out the window. Thankfully, CPVA is a bit tied up with their honeypot tor nodes to give a fuck about ED or Paheal. You can harbor a moral obligation all you want, but don't expect me to coincide with that. I'm doing this for my own reasons.
But have you deleted any "child porn" or have you just deleted cartoons? Those cartoons are a part of "internet things" are they not? Why not just delete or move the pictures that have nothing to do with the article? I understand that lolicon has fuck all to do with the article on football or basket or bla bla bla but if you find them in an article about lolicon I don't understand why you should delete them. Put black boxes on them or something. It's not "fun" to read about XXX and his obsession with lolicon and see no pictures of his work. And no, I'm not a fan of lolicon or children so don't go down that road.
Well as long as your own reasons coincide with Zaiger's wishes there's really no problem. My own reasons are to blatantly fuck over pedos, which probably isn't Zaiger's direct intention, but as it coincides with his wishes there's not really a problem. And yes, when an article is blatantly taken over with nudie pictures of children in sexual situations it becomes very much impossible to try and pass it off as "art", "satire", "shock" or otherwise. That's the same reason we don't allow "blatant attack articles", because it becomes harder and harder to try and "defend" such articles under parody/satire when they become so obviously entrenched in defamation/libel/slander/harassment.
Uh...we're not doing that though... https://encyclopediadramatica.es/YaoiGoddessKeale ...there's two pictures of blatant "sick fuckery" on her article that SHE drew which are being left intact. I *DID* however remove those images from the general Kingdom Hearts article. If you're a pedophile it's effectively inconvenient to go "randomly searching" through ED to find such material, that's why it's being kept off of main article entries but being left on article subjects who create the shit (although in some instances Blockatiel and other forms are used to obscure their sick fuckery).
Zig once told me regarding lolicon to just get rid of anything dipicting sexual acts. I don't know if he was right and don't want to get into this argument. Just wanted to point it out.
Okay, Rule34 is done, just need to remove the codes. I think I burned out about a dozen. I didn't take out any of the uber bizzare/freaky/shock stuff like this: https://encyclopediadramatica.es/File:Idontevenknowwheretobegin.gif ==EDIT== Gonna wait for my head to stop hurting though first, unless someone else wants to take out teh codes for me.
Oh uh...Rule34 needs to be redone though...namely the FIRST gallery...some asshat is using it to SPAM their fucking art. I mean, it's good art and all, but still, it looks like a freakin advertisement/personal page for them. And there's lot of OTHER good art that could be put in there to drown it out.
Nope, I was directly adressing those of the moral highground, not you... It's ...it's...beautiful But...I browse Ed regularly, and I don't find CP assaulting my senses, almost never And I see the list of the pages that have been "cleaned", for example: Not4Chan, Pedobear, Michel Jackson, Toddlercon (this one cracked me up...how in the fucking fuck are u gonna have a page about toddlercon without cartoon CP?...hahaha, oh, wow) etc etc...and, what can I say? I find at least half of them deserving to include CP just for the relevance of the issue on the subject... So the epicness of your tale is quickly fading, I'm afraid I much prefer your narrative of a handful of post ago: The not-so-silent guardian, the watchful protector surrounded by impenetrable walls of text who beats the perverts into a pulp with his chubby but swift fingers Way better that the Champion of Freedom Who Protects Us From the Phantom Menace...u really don't give the type, man
Here I'll help, the oldest of the characters in this is a 10 year old for fucks sake, who uploaded this shit? Goodbyeeee childhood! https://encyclopediadramatica.es/File:Dotsloli2a.jpg
I don't think anyone is too concerned about imaginary...uh...whatever the hell those are supposed to be... "WHAT ARE YOU!?" -Dr. Otto Scratchansniff Mostly stuff that just that looks very, very human and very, very child-like. I usually use the "glance test". If you can tell with just a glance that it looks really, really the fuck wrong (child porn), then it should go. If it's all weird ass alien/furry/Picasso/bizarre ass imaginary character shit it's not really very pressing. Even if your anthro furry skunk-taur hybrid lemur-fox with purple spots is only "8 years old" in your fictional, Bizzaro universe...uh...yeah...it's not something a real pedophile would be fapping off to. A furry pedo maybe, but uh...well, you best call the ASPCA on that one cause that's kinda outta our department.
They still look an awful lot like little kids, it may be just me, but I don't want to see anthropomorphic infants having sex while browsing ED, besides it's not like they're really animal like, they look like kids with clown faces and tails. It's disturbing, to say the least.
I think maybe you just got online last week...seriously. You've obviously never seen *REAL* child porn if you think ~that~ image is in any way "disturbing". Compared to the images I ~actually~ removed that thing looks like innocent kittens and puppies by comparison. I'm not a real furry so I guess I can't say for certain, but seriously, if you could manage to get yer rocks off on uber shitty level Animaniacs porn that looks like the crayon scribblings of a retarded 4th grader...yeaaaaah...good luck with that! It's a bit "shocking" and maybe "ruining your childhood", but it's not something we need to worry about attracting real pedophiles.
Wakko is 7. Dot is 4. Yakko is undefined but who gives a fuck. Flushed. If you're gonna do this shit, do it right.