So, I'd heard contradictory things from various - that FA was allowing cub porn, that it was censoring it... so I looked it up:
Given [that furry art does not fall under the legal restrictions imposed towards pedophilia], we feel that it is in our best interest as a website not to censor cub-related art.
If, however, we feel that the any art uploaded to Fur Affinity is based off of a real child, or meant to represent a real child, we will take action against that user and report them to the proper authorities and pull their artwork. The administration behind Fur Affinity does not, and will not, ever support pedophilia. We will, however, choose and defend people's rights to freedom of expression and choice.
The original Terms of Service, which has been undergoing re-write, did prohibit posting of such artwork.
Therefore, this is actually a widening of policy to allow what was not previously allowed.
Anyway, I fail to see why people would be upset at the censorship restrictions that remain in place. Points:
(A) FA is covering its tail. Moral debate aside, you can't reasonably fault them for that.
(B) Most cub art does NOT "mean to represent a real child" or appear to be "based off a real child." I'm not in the cub community per se but I do know that a great many loli/shota fans dislike art that is too realistic. I'd like to explain why one depiction of certain subject material is OK, but another is not - but so far I'm at a loss.
Bottom line, most fans of this kind of art are not interested in real kids. (Ed.: Thank goodness.) And the art, such as I know it, reflects that.
(C) I seriously doubt there's a slippery slope here towards the banning of legitimate artwork (keeping in mind the perspective most people will have, which is that cub porn is hardly "legitimate art"...). If something has or will be banned under these terms that ought not to be, I'm curious to what it is.
Exactly how much cub art can be thought to represent or to be based off a real child? Honestly. The liklihood of FA censoring something under these terms that ought not to have been censored seems quite slim.
Well anyway, underage material is a hotbutton even for many folks who are into plenty of other socially unacceptable fetishes, so my intention is not to upset anyone. But I did think that it bore mentioning. I think FA's stance for people's rights to freedom of expression and choice is heartily commendable. Especially since, being a privately-owned site, they can technically enforce whatever rules they like (as once illustrated by the Squeaky Clean Furry Archive - for those who haven't been around that long, that's Yerf's old name).
I, for one, applaud them.