How far is too far when it comes to art?

Can he be sued for this?

not a shad fan but

you'd think Fantasy =/= Reality would make sense to most people

>>2935952
Some furry artist got a cease and desist order from Dreamworks a while back for drawing Spirt: Stallion of the Cimarron porn so it's a possibility.

>>2935944
art can't go too far, pornography can though

Damn. I hope Dafne didn't see that shit.

Is this guy on the sex offender's register yet?

How many shad threads have there been the last 7 days?

Why do retards keep spamming threads about Shadman's tweets?

Fuck off you nob. No one here cares.

>>2935954
I don't think that really applies when real children are involved. If X23 were some anime character no one would give a shit, but X 23 is a character portrayed by a real girl's face and body. Drawing porn of her is basically drawing porn of a real child, which is pretty fucked up.

>>2935954
its still fucked up when its intended to be the likeness of a real little girl.. i dont care if he draws some fucking cartoon character loli from a tv show but if i was that kids dad id probably wanna sue the shit out of him too.

File: C9EUmL5UwAAP5K0.jpg_large.jpg (28KB, 557x157px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 557x157px

Here's the picture from the tweet.

>>2935980
>>2935987
Did the "All persons fictitious" disclaimer not work?

>>2935988
>pornographic anime cartoon images
I like to think a board of coffeed-up lawyers sat in a dimly lit office until 4am, debating whether shadman's oirn is anime or not, ultimately reaching this definition.

>>2935944
he should stick to drawing fictional characters

>>2935977
>Why do retards keep spamming threads about Shadman's tweets?
It's the same faggot from /co/, /ic/, /trash/, and /v/. I fucking DESPISE Shadman, but can this guy go at least one day without attention-whoring on multiple boards? Goddamn, this is beyond pathetic, fuck off already. It's not clever, interesting, or funny; move on already.

>>2935960
dr:comet? is that why hes offline?

>>2935977
what? this is a free board.you cant just ban a particular topic not related to artists.let him make his threads and you make your threads

>>2936036
Nah. I was referring to Klaus Doberman.

>>2935988
took them long enough to find it

>>2936031
OP here. I'm actually from a Logan thread on /tv/. Some pedo was talking about the little girl and some other guy posted the screenshot of the twitter post. I had no idea that artists could be sued for sexual depictions of characters. I used to want to git gud and knew all about Shadman so I thought I'd see /ic/'s opinion.

>>2936044
im more her for the freedom of speech topic. you should be able to draw porn fan art. but drawing real people is something else tho

>>2935970
watching porn is not allowed when your under 18. dont worry

File: 1453032467233.png (22KB, 627x597px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 627x597px

>>2936052
I was watching porn at 11 years old.

keemstar deserves it though

>>2936055
yes but no one would go ahead and show her that.

>>2936055
You're either lying or a criminal. Either way, I don't much care for your actions.

>>2936062
he could also be a lying criminal

>>2936055
the dude is like 30 in that picture not middle aged lol

File: Screenshot_2017-04-10-20-57-07-1.png (157KB, 1440x845px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 1440x845px

>>2936070
Heh, nothing personal kid

>>2936055
My dad let me watch hentai vhs tapes at 8 years old.

>>2936079
while you were sitting on his lap?

>>2935988
>>2935952
>>2935954
If a beginner draws the same topic I don't think he can be sued for it. I mean, it'd be a drawing with symbol eyes and all that bad shit that if it weren't for the name nobody could think it's the real person.

If shad's being sued is because he's good enough to mimic reality that he's gotten into legal consequences. If he makes the character blond or redhead or something, and say that the similarity is casual, would it be ok?

File: dk comparison.jpg (170KB, 1440x789px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 1440x789px

>>2936096
It doesn't even look like the real actress.

>>2936107
That birthmark on the cheek. Thats where he fucked up now

>>2936107
yeah they're at least 10% different

>>2935973
Why should he? He never goes out

>>2936080
yes, he went to sleep on the H scenes

>>2936107
Shad man is surprisingly accurate. That chin, that nose, those eyebrows. Smooth. Must have taken a ton of life drawing classes.

File: Deathly_stare.gif (879KB, 540x210px) Image search: [Google]

879KB, 540x210px

>>2936112
>>2936107
And he posted this gif on the same page. What a fucking retard. That's a great way to blow away any plausible deniability. No wonder the lawyers came after him.

>>2936107
Right looks a little asian. Like little mulan

This presents an interesting legal question. What if he drew some totally new pictures of this kid engaged in behaviors her lawyers didn't want her depicted in, but didn't sign them, and then just released them anonymously? Still obviously his style and everything, but not traceable back to him? Could he still be sued?

This is why I feel like freedom of expression has to be absolute. Too many weird questions like this when you start telling people what they can and can't draw. If I were Shadman, I'd seriously do a whole comic about her and then dump it online anonymously, just to fuck with them.

File: 6575.jpg (28KB, 324x291px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 324x291px

>>2936176
Call the character Kafne Deen.

>>2936176
>Could he still be sued?
Probably. His art style is pretty distinguishable and he's done a comic in the past already. But even if they didn't trace it back to him they would still get it removed and the uploader might face legal consequences.
>This is why I feel like freedom of expression has to be absolute.
It is absolute. You are not allowed to draw child porn of real people. Just cause they don't know that Shad did it doesn't mean it's allowed all of a sudden. I agree with you that there shouldn't be that many limits put on art but a line has to be drawn if you're making porn of real underage kids. Loli's are fine but porn of real kids is too much.

File: BEYONCE_superbowl.jpg (37KB, 455x634px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 455x634px

>>2936193

>they would still get it removed

can't remove stuff from the Internet

>and the uploader might face legal consequences. pic related

put them on a flash drive, take them to an Internet cafe, upload them there. Or use Tor or something. Really easy to upload something anonymously.

>It is absolute. You are not allowed to draw child porn of real people.

these are contradictory statements.

> Loli's are fine but porn of real kids is too much.

That's an opinion and it's fine and all, but it's the same as saying "red is a better color than green." Not true, just a feeling you have. I say that drawing porn of real kids is fine, because nobody is harmed by lines on paper. Legally, you can't stop people from drawing things, and a government big and brash enough to try is much more dangerous than any artist.

>>2936202

put the "pic related" in the greentext accidentally. that's a picture of beyonce that her lawyers have been trying to remove from the internet since forever. they call it the "streisand effect" after barbara streisand tried to remove some unflattering picture from the Internet. doesn't work.

>>2936204
There's a guy named bishop who made a MUCH WORSE drawing of this kid. I wonder if they're getting hit by C&D orders. Pretty gross tbqh.

>>2936117
Maybe he doesn't need to go out because he already has a bunch of kids tied up in his basement.

>>2936210
his mom's basement*

>>2936096

But anon he really isnt gud.

Still a pedo piece of shit though.

>>2936202
>these are contradictory statements.
how so?

>>2936237

sorry, too obvious to explain. if I have to spell it out to you, you're sort of not interesting to talk to.

>>2936246
T. Can't defend his ideas

>>2936204
>trying to remove a photo of yourself, a public figure of your own free will, taken at a public event you yourself organized and possibly recorded and televised is equivalent to trying to remove depictions of a child actor being raped produced against their will and used to create personal profit for the creator
/ic/ - copyright and law

>>2936202
>That's an opinion and it's fine and all, but it's the same as saying "red is a better color than green."

No, it's not an opinion, it's the law you fucking idiot. That's why Shad immediately complied with her lawyers, took that shit down and ceased to work on it, because he knows they DO have a case in court here that he wouldn't win and he does not want to face those legal ramifications.

>>2935969
but nowadays everything is art so is pornography

>>2936355
nah, only art is art. people can call whatever they like art, but only art is actually art.

so just to be sure
if i post a r34 of that actress on here, will a van come for me?
not amerifag and im way better at drawing than shad by the way

>>2936382
loli is already an extremely touchy subject and its legal status varies a lot between states

you can only imagine that loli based on a real, actual minor would be even more touchy

>>2936395
>yfw australia (or was it new zealand) literally declared the simpsons to be real people in a cartoon "cp" case

>>2936395
In my opinion if someone wants to draw loli the should stick to fiction drawing actual porn of a real life minor without their will is crossing the line

>>2936119
No, he had his friend do the sketch for that image, which is why she resembles the actress more. I thought he was getting better at capturing likenesses too, but no, he's still shit at it.

>>2935944
Pedophile 'art' might be too far

Shad is a sick fuck. The faster he gets thrown in prison, the better. It's kind of funny that he said he got cucked by their lawyers though.

>>2936395
I don't know why people still continue to lie about this stuff. State laws on this matter don't matter a single bit, they're not enforceable.

Was the image taken down?

>>2936795
It's off his website but it's still all over the internet. I feel kinda bad for the girl but that's what you sign up for when you star in a huge movie.

>>2936799
its rule34 and it mostly affects the mainstream shows and movies

>>2936799
lmao negro her parents sign her up for this sorta shit
her parents are making money of off her and some creepy shitty artist pedo draws porn of her
honestly, she has no fault in any of this. its just a little fucking kid man.

>>2936982
Yeah you're right. It's her parent's deal. I didn't mean to make it sound like she was at fault for anything. It's probably humiliating if her classmates bring that shit up. It's a crappy situation.

>>2936992
i mean if i was a hollywood star i could overlook this in my class

>>2935944
Never.

Retarded laws can make illegal every picture they want, but that doesn't invalidate its artistic merits.

>>2937154
I don't think there's much artistic merit in a badly drawn painting of a little girl getting railed by reavers.

>>2935944
shadman and chtkghk8 are both pedos but chtkghk8 admits it

>>2936333
>No, it's not an opinion, it's the law you fucking idiot.

There are all sorts of dumb laws. Google "dumb laws" some time. And laws and opinions are not mutually exclusive concepts, you mouth-breathing invertebrate.

>>2936062
>You're either lying

Nah I was looking at porn too. But back when I was eleven almost twenty years ago it wasn't as easy as just going to /gif/ or opening a tab and going to RedTube.

We had to steal porn magazines from adults. And then when we actually got a reliable internet connection around 1999-2000 there were things like hentai school and web rings and shit.

It's probably not the same way of consuming porn that you're thinking of today when shit eating midget trannies getting fucked by dogs is a Google search away. It would be like sneaking off on a Saturday afternoon over to my best friend's house to read a porn mag or watch a VHS for like 30 minutes.

>>2937252
the subject matter is irrelevant

when you criticize his begginer anatomy mistakes, or his poor rendering, it is /ic/ related

when you cry about the themes that he feel passionate about, or his sexual fetishes, is not an art critique

>>2937667
>when you cry about the themes that he feel passionate about,
You mean him thinking about how to draw a real child performing sexual acts.

>>2936176
>if I were Shadman, I'd seriously do a whole comic about her and then dump it online anonymously

But we hate shad remember we want him to make less stuff anyway with his patreon getting axed in half there's he can't afford to make content that can't be on his site.

>>2937462
>chtkghk8

What kinda name is that? It reminds me of how I slap my keyboard when naming files I can't be bothered to name.

>>2938004
he changed his name. you might know him

>>2937973
i dont hate him tho. he may go too far but no one cares enough tho. when it comes to porn art hes on top

>>2937462
chtkghk8 is a good guy tho. he drew my oc and many others. and hes famous for his other alias

>>2938200
What's his other alias?

>>2938212
Minus8 but I'm still confused as to what posessed him to create that first alias

>>2938252
I just saw his tumblr post. What the fuck.

File: image.png (421KB, 900x667px) Image search: [Google]

421KB, 900x667px

>>2938253
>>2938252
Sorry I should have warned you. I haven't checked his stuff in years after finding out he's into traps and kids. Which kinda sucks because I kinda liked his art style.

File: 1379206112258.png (87KB, 297x333px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 297x333px

Why would people draw shit of other people's shit when they could make their own shit?

This way you'll face no copyright issues.

>>2938346
So they can get their dick hard to little kids that are actually real. That's why the lawyers stepped in. Pretty fucked up.

>>2938358
who told to draw x-23 from the movie, why not from the comics?
She's a fictional character, no harm done there, and even so, if it was a drawing of the actress, who gives a shit, they're just drawings... it's like you people actually want thought crimes to be a thing and punishable, same for pure fantasy.

>>2938362
It looks just like the actress. Somebody above posted a comparison. It's gross and humiliating. At least wait till they're 16 or something.

>>2938200
You're not on the good side if you draw smut...
>>2938362
It's all a matter of potential,I guess. Like encouraging messed up stuff. YOU might have enough distance with your work's topic but some people from your fanbase don't...

>>2938278
yea he was a fucking good artist but his sexual needs fucked him up. now i understand why he deletes his shit every time. korea would fucking kill him

>>2938253
yea we all were like April fools when he posted that but turns out he likes kids in That way.
shad is a special kind of person. i love his work and think its nice but truth be told some of the shit he post is fucking creepy.

File: 1485396673255.jpg (24KB, 347x323px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 347x323px

>>2938381
Like that 12 year old girl from youtube he drew fellating a microphone.

>>2938362
It's tasteless and kind of sick. I couldn't care less about fictional characters but making an exact likeness to a real child is really trying to test boundaries, not at all surprising he's getting sued. She can afford it.

I mean weren't the drawings depicting her getting gangraped and pissed on? The fuck else do you expect to happen.

>>2938387
I don't think there's any evidence Dafne Keen's lawyers are suing him. I think they are just demanding he remove all the stuff with her in it. Which seems pretty gracious on their part.

>>2938390
That is gracious actually. The pics are already out there but as long as he doesn't make anymore he won't get served. Not bad for the Shad.

>>2938387
>>2938390
You play with fire, prepare to get burned... And it applies to all NSFW artists!

>>2938386
lt corbis?
it wasnt even NSFW

>>2938390
I'm glad they're doing that much. Imagine finding those images or mention of those images when you're older, but that your parents did nothing to stop them? It's ENTIRELY different to drawing a fictional character. Keen is doing the right thing.
I wonder if he'll talk to his daughter when she's older about it though or just leave her to find out herself. Such a weird situation.

>>2936079
>>2936055
This isn't about how individuals inevitably watch porn at a young age, you idiots

>>2938375
You can draw porn and be a decent human.what? is there a bad site like the sith lords of artists?. Your art does not define you as a person. And ckhck8 does great work. His shygal is awesome and he makes great animation.

>>2938417
Stupid neet, try getting a job and showing it to your employer

>>2938417
It was sexually suggestive and showed a little girl blowing a phallic microphone. That's not NSFW to you?

>>2938431
Yeah I'm not usually one to white night, but I feel pretty bad for her. I always assumed they never see this shit but apparently I was wrong. I'd be pissed if I was her dad.

And yes, I realize she's famous and it's probably worth people drawing porn of her. Still, it has to be embarrassing.

>>2938444
I meant *white knight.

>>2935944

Was it in bad taste? subjective, but yeah

Did it have artistic merit? Not much, really

Did it look like the real girl? Nah, it was heavily stilyzed anime shit

Should it be censored? OF COURSE NOT. Nobody got hurt by it, you retards.

>>2938556
t. Shad

>>2938572
He's not wrong though.

>>2938556
i swear the internet definition of 'censored' gets broader every day.

>>2938556
>Did it look like the real girl? Nah, it was heavily stilyzed anime shit
You're wrong because it was enough for Lawyers to step in.
And he has a style so that's how he makes real children look, No one goes loomis when they have a style.

>>2938556
t. Pedophile

>>2938705

He is coerced by the US legal system to remove it, quit being pedantic.

>>2938751
Didn't shad sort a set himself up for that though?
Like I thought he posted a pic of the girl next to the pic?

I honestly didn't notice the resemblance until someone pointed it out in the thread. I mean shad isn't exactly known for being able to draw well enough for that.

>>2938809
it's not pedantic, it's an important distinction, one is >muh rights, and one is a little girl asking that her image (which she owns) not be used in pornography

if this is censorship like every law involving intellectual property is, and that's dumb

>>2936096
>shadman
>good

He's another hack porn artist who found his niche and makes six figures from degenerate neets.

>>2938814
He posted a gif of the girl on the page with the porn. He has no defense if it came up in court. I'd sue his ass if I were her father.

>>2938814
And shad didn't draw the second group of pictures. His buddy drew the face and he did everything else

>>2938822

Censorship refers to the federally enforced suppression of information, regardless of how justified their motive may be. You're dense.

It's my original character, x-24. She's 18 but looks 12

>>2935970
Man, when I was a kid I'd love to have porn of me. Have you never even seen the whole furry community? The economy there is based of of drawings of people's self-inserts.

>>2939083
when i was 10 i was fapping at least twice a day and thinking on women 7x24. but girls are different, and delicate, and should be isolated from everything of sexual nature until they're mature enough to comprenhend.

>>2939084
t. Freud

File: IMG_3738.jpg (84KB, 880x587px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 880x587px

>>2935944
What about Art displays?

>>2939091
How the fuck

>>2939092
I know right, I work with People for The Ethical Treatment of Giants and we believe that the poaching, skinning, and displaying of Giants' corpses needs to stop

>>2938865
What "information" is this? That Shad's a pedophile with gangrape/urophilic/abuse fantasies? Fuck off with that.

>>2939084
This is true. When girls are exposed to sexual stuff at a young age they end up being whores.

>>2939083
What furries do is way different.
Also they are sexualy mature people, and they do that stuff consensually.

File: stirnerrrrrrr.jpg (5KB, 200x175px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 200x175px

>all this people trying to spook art

As the other anon already stated nobody is harmed by lines on paper (or pixels on a screen)
Fuck off with this "what is law is what is right" bullshit

>>2940304
found the Pedo.

>>2940304
yeah lots of stuff is like that, rape for example, it's just putting a dick inside someone and waggling it about a bit, what real harm does it cause? none, i'm glad at least someone on the board understands

>>2940624
>Pedo
Even worse, it's leftypol.

>>2940654
It can cause diseases you retard

>>2937495
that's all fine and dandy but having real children being drawned getting gangbanged and such is definetly not a matter of fucking opinion.
You pedos are the worst. if I was a father of such a child I'd break your fucking hands you won't be able to hold a pencil anymore, let alone draw.

At least he can draw, it's not like other people do his work for him.

>>2940756
He actually didn't draw the picture of Laura. His buddy did it since Shad is shit at faces.

>>2940654
Rape is objectively wrong, drawings that looks like a person is just that, a harmless drawing. Just because a fat fuck passed a law based on his subjective perception of what is right, it doesn't make it right. History shows the record.

>>2940660
Nah, Stirner posting is universal, fuck leftypol

>>2940673
>is definetly not a matter of fucking opinion.
It definetly is

>>2940846
People used to marry girls when they first went through puberty. That's 12 to 15. History agrees with you but we have to abide by the rule of law as it exists now. That law clearly doesn't allow you to draw what Shad drew. I completely understand your position though.

>>2940846
>Stirner posting is universal
It is a universal indicator that the poster is leftypol
>fuck leftypol
You can't hide what's inside, pinko.
>>2940673
He's not a pedo, he's a subjectivist down to an autistic level. You can't argue with these people. All he wants to do is deconstruct everything for no purpose and to no end.

File: Balthus, The guitar lesson.jpg (163KB, 1058x1216px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 1058x1216px

>>2940304
THIS.

you wouldn't expect, /ic/ of all places to acquiesce so easily to art censorship.

then again, /ic/ is retarded at mostly everything

ITT: pedos

>>2940877
Yeah shit sucks, generaly I would go full don't thread on me, but pedo lust is just not worth it

>>2940883
>You can't hide what's inside, pinko
no u

>>2936052
ahahahaHAHAHAHAAahaaHAAAA

>>2940885

I advocate for freedom of expression but drawing such things serves very little artistic merit, it's very obviously just pornography, and when dealing with pornography or even depicting someones person you're possibly harming their image in a slanderous way. I personally give no shits about fictional underage characters, or whatever other deviancy, but shad was drawing a film character depicted by a minor, and capturing her likeness for porn. Plus this isn't the first time he's drawn NSFW art of underage girls either. Speaks a lot for his character as well.

>>2941032
>I advocate for freedom of expression until it hurts my feelings.

>>2941032
You don't advocate for freedom of expression, you advocate for just so much expression and then anything else is haram

>>2941052
>>2941157
The modern definition of freedom is the freedom to be as depraved as you want however and wherever you want.
All you care about are your cummies.

>>2940654
lines on paper = rape
wew

>>2935944
anything Shadbase do is too far

>>2938823
I honestly dislike what he draws but I admire the man... he found a way to make money with his art... is it weird? yes. should he get shit for it? I think so, a little bit. should he be arrested? maybe... but if he can hold off the borderline cp stuff he would be making a honest living...

File: 1490926557028.gif (1MB, 480x358px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 480x358px

>hurr durr lines on paper can't hurt you
>who is Thomas Nast
>who is William Tweed
Art is available to a much larger audience than worded media, as art goes past language barriers and educational barriers. Any autist can see that a picture looks like someone. They can then associate the person in the image with the image's content. You literally have to be brain dead in order to not automatically do this. If you want to advocate this degeneracy, try a better excuse than
>b-but pictures can't hurt you

>>2941157
Freedom is anarchy, most people that say they advocate for freedom dont really mean freedom... anarchy sucks

>>2940846
Drawings of real persons can't be harmless?
How would you react if shadman drew you next to your family members in an incestual setting?...

In fact, every anon in this thread defending shadman should think about it : if you were at this kid's place & saw this, how would you feel,huh? If you were at her parents place, how would you feel?

>>2941219
This anon gets it.
>No one's made any pictures of me, therefore pictures cant hurt anyone!
>I don't have an image to maintain, therefore no one does!
They're either idiots who actually believe this or pedophiles who desperately deny it.

>>2935944
Whatever the fuck my life is, that's taking it too far.

Being watched 24/7 for the last 30 years of my fucking life as if it were a performance art is just an awful thing to do to someone.

>>2941211
Please continue your explanation until you get to the 'hurting' part. I cant quite make the connection myself.

>>2940883
He IS a pedo, he fucking admitted to geting off on his drawings.

Every accomplished porn artist actualy draw their preference at large.

>>2941052
>>2941157

basically this >>2941213

I have no issue with peoples feelings getting hurt, but there's a difference between hurting someones feelings with artistic expression, EVEN pornographic, and depicting someone sexually who lacks the means to truly defend themselves, like a kid. It affects their image and literally serves no purpose but to say I want to fuck this real person, which is fine, but not to kids, they lack the ability in most cases to defend their character properly. It damages your character just as equally to depict a real child in such an act so why the fuck would you want to put something like that out there unless you actually wanted to do said act? It's really disturbing. Draw lolis fucking all you want, idc, but keep actual children as far and separated from that idea as possible or you're seriously crossing the line, and asking for actual trouble. Plus like above, a systems not truly free, you abusing your expression in such a way can affect other peoples freedom.

>>2941259
I was talking about the annoying leftypol retard, not shad.

ITT: people conflating porn fakes and libel in order to win their argument.
This guy is a pedo and should be executed for that. It has nothing to do with him drawing porn fakes though.

>>2941231
Thanks man : it's all about having common sense...

If you insult someone who doesn't find drawings (cartoony or not) of real little girls harmless, the problem is on your side...

Anyway, the best thing I do in order to prevent these issues is simple : just stay SFW.
Nothing to hide from future potential employers, nothing to hide from your family, nothing to be ashamed of.

>>2941254
You could try reading past the first line.

>>2941282
I did, but as I said, I cant make the connection myself. Cmon help me out here.

>>2941052
>>2941157
>muh child porn is freedom of speech

>>2935944
theres no such thing as too far

>>2941285
The general public forms conclusions without basis. They assume the worst because researching would take far more effort than they are willing to spare. In this case, the worst would be assuming the actor was a part of an event portrayed in the image. This can result in this actor not getting jobs because directors are afraid of public backlash. Now her job, which I'm assuming she enjoys, is at best less profitable and at worst unavailable.

File: x23.jpg (24KB, 382x364px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 382x364px

>>2935944
kek. shit looks nothing like a human being, let alone a particular human being

>>2941281
you sir, is wise

>>2941357
it looks like a charicature of a human being I could be wrong, but I believe there lies the problem

>>2941357
Good thing he put a real picture of the actress next to it to show his intent of drawing her getting fucked. This child molester should have stuck to the one from the comic.

>>2941308
This

>>2941311
That's the best you have? At least try to appeal to pedohysteria and "think of the children"

>>2941357
Pretty sure Fox lawyers are interested in protecting their brand (because SEX is evil), no the little actress' interests.

>>2941396
found the pedo

>>2941396
>sex is evil
lol she was getting raped beaten and pissed on
that is pretty evil

>>2941406
it was a drawing. the young actress wasn't being really attacked in the movie either.

need to learn to distinguish reality from fantasy, you psycho creep.

>>2941431
You're the creep. She has a right to sue if her likeness is being used as porn. That's it. End of story.

>>2941459
> She has a right to sue if her likeness is being used as porn.
[citation needed], one dealing with a case in her or the artist's state specifically.

>>2941476

>person who actually understands law

>>2941459

>person pretending to understand law

>>2941493
>filthy pedophile

>>2941219

just because something makes you squeamish doesn't mean it should be illegal, you retarded SJW cunt.

imagine: with 7 billion humans on the planet, chances are that a competent porn artist is going to have a hard time drawing a character that doesn't bear a striking resemblance to a real person, who could turn around and sue the artist because "their" likeness is being used. By your logic, all porn drawings would thus be potentially illegal.

You can't criminalize drawings. You fucking obtuse faggots. Use your goddamn atrophied brains.

>>2941494

>emotionally incontinent mouth-breather

>>2941501
He put a gif of Dafne Keen right next to the porn you fucking retard.

>>2941503
don't forget that 11 or 12year old you tube child.

>>2941503

.0.
><
.^.
[..]

That crude ascii drawing is actually underaged Daphne Keen portrayed in the nude. Is that illegal? Can her lawyers sue me? Where's the line that delineates how good a drawing has to be before it's illegal?

You're totally lost in the realm of feelz. You have nothing solid; just arbitrary rules you're making up based on how you feel. That's not how law works, unless you're in some tin-pot dictatorship.

>>2941501

>You can't criminalize drawings

Obviously you can. That's what happened. Did you read the thread? Can you?

It is pedophiliac material. It is very much intended to be for people who are aroused by prepubescent human beings.

Which his artwork is. There is no dancing around that fact.

The drawing in question was very, very, very much intended to resemble, specifically for the purposes of sexualization, a minor.

>>2941511
You just completely ignored what you replied to because there's no justification for it.

>>2940673
>You pedos are the worst. if I was a father of such a child I'd break your fucking hands you won't be able to hold a pencil anymore, let alone draw.


Imbecile. Not everyone who disagrees with you about this is a pedophile. What kind of a simple, unsophisticated mind can't entertain the notion that maybe some people see this as an issue of freedom of expression? The fundamental premise of freedom of expression since the concept was invented was that it was the most vile expression that must be protected.

If artists aren't free to draw child porn, than neither are the free to draw anything else. they're only free to the extent that what they draw doesn't make people uncomfortable, which is no freedom at all. it's at the borders of freedom of expression that the battle for it is fought, and you are on the wrong side. (because you're a moron)

>>2941396
Ah, I see. You're just a contrarian fuck. Here (You) go.

>>2941512

>Did you read the thread? Can you?
>The drawing in question was very, very, very much intended to resemble, specifically for the purposes of sexualization, a minor.

Except nobody's arguing that, you dumbfuck. You're the last person who should be commenting on people's reading comprehension. Nobody said he didn't draw a child actress getting raped or whatever. I doubt anyone said that it's not a disgusting drawing. I'm saying that disgusting drawings must be legal (which they are, at least in the U.S. btw).

too dumb to argue with. next.

the people in this thread arguing for Shadman's execution and the banning of underaged line drawings being depicted having symbolic sex don't understand the issue.

Shadman was issued a cease and desist not because he drew a minor having sex. That is legal (in real countries like America). He got in trouble for essentially copyright infringement. If he drew whatshername fully clothed playing checkers, he could have been issued the same C&D for copyright infringement, but her lawyers just probably wouldn't have bothered.

Whole argument is retarded.

>>2941541
There's a reason these people are artists and not lawyers.

>>2941512
just to clarify for the umpth time: pedos/hebes are not psychos

pedos doesn't require any psychologycal treatment whatsoever

psychos only deserve to be executed for the greatest benefit to mankind

>ITT: bitter artists take a break from enviously hating on shad to defending him because they want to justify jerking off to loli.
Nothing trumps the cummies.

>>2941561
they sort of are, they must have issues understanding that they're hurting children or want to hurt children. or the alternative is that they just want to fuck children and dgaf if that hurts the kids, which is worse.

>>2941541
>the banning of underaged line drawings being depicted having symbolic sex don't understand the issue.
Your totally lost dude, no one wants to get rid of loli, PedoShad makes the mistake of using real children to profit. You seem to think every loli a Japo makes is based on some real life child. He's an asshole anyways stole that Statue girl shit from someone else and put his shit heads on it.

File: who-is-dafne-keen-meet-laura-logan-06.jpg (181KB, 815x1222px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 815x1222px

You fucking faggots. His drawing looks nothing like the actress. You're all blind as bats.

>>2941652
For fucks sake, Let me say this once more
IT DOES NOT MATTER IF SHAD MADE HER LOOK LIKE A FROG WITH A FIRECRACKER IN IT'S ASS, HE POSTED A PICTURE OF THE ACTRESS UNDERNEATH AND SAID IT WAS BASED OFF THE CHARACTER SHE PLAYS, HE IS LEGALLY FUCKED.
Whether or not it's a good or justifiable law in the first place is the argument here.

>>2941617


It's just amazing that basically one entire side of the debate here could be reduced to "if you don't think drawings of underaged characters having sex should be illegal you are a pedophile."

you are mentally deficient. I'm not even trying to be mean. You are just mentally very simple. I'm sure your art is bad too, though.

I don't like Shadman's art. I've barely seen any of it, desu. Child porn is gross and doesn't appeal to me. Actually, my favorite stuff in porn is women with body hair and preggo, which is probably as far from CP as it's thematically possible to be. But, when I put a pencil on a piece of paper and start moving it, there should not be any possible configuration of lines that I can make that would put me in prison. Doesn't matter if I draw CP or the prophet Mohamed or whatever. Lines on paper cannot be a crime.

>>2941662

>IT DOES NOT MATTER IF SHAD MADE HER LOOK LIKE A FROG WITH A FIRECRACKER IN IT'S ASS, HE POSTED A PICTURE OF THE ACTRESS UNDERNEATH AND SAID IT WAS BASED OFF THE CHARACTER SHE PLAYS, HE IS LEGALLY FUCKED.

You have absolutely no idea what you're blabbing about. The whole issue is that he's using her likeness, which she has proprietary rights to. See this post: >>2941511 Her lawyers can't sue me for that, because it's not her likeness. You don't understand the debate here because the fundamental concepts at play are beyond you.

>>2941683
>he's using her likeness
No shit? But how can they possibly prove that? Oh right because, as I fucking said, he posted a picture of her and said it was her character.That would be called in a court "proof of intent."
Not like he frequently draws pornographic images of other children or anything that would count as probable cause. Thanks for contributing less than nothing.
Also
>You are just mentally very simple. I'm sure your art is bad too, though.
Projecting much?

>>2941683
>could be reduced
i suppose if you don't mind being wrong you could reduce anything to anything lol

>>2941683
I don't think that loli is the same as CP.
I do think there needs to be a line drawn, though. Drawn real children and photo-realistic depictions of children (especially if they're shown being abused, tortured, mutilated, or otherwise) should be subject to legal action by families whose children have been drawn.
Sorry anon, I know you're a moral relativist and you're completely laissez faire about artwork and "creative expression", but I just disagree. Some things are just too heinous to be considered art, and aren't even intended to be art. They are obscene, and pornographic.
I would rather have economic freedom, freedom of association and freedom to pursue my own happiness without the burden of others. I don't see freedom as just the right to be a complete degenerate without consequence.

Anyways, shad is a pretty mediocre artist and the likeness is rudimentary at best. I don't think the government should go after him but I think he should be discouraged from drawing more stuff like this.

>>2941718
>Anyways, shad is a pretty mediocre artist and the likeness is rudimentary at best. I don't think the government should go after him but I think he should be discouraged from drawing more stuff like this.
Dis nigga gets it. Though it's not the government, it's Fox and lawyers.