InkBunny

This article is a stub. You can help by expanding it.

Inkbunny /fɜr fægətri/ is a furry art community that provides professional services for douches and faggots to showcase the faecal spatters and smearings they call artwork, comics, stories, music and animu. They can share their disease freely and unprotected, or try and trick some poor, dumb bastard into actually paying for such garbage. There is nearly nothing interesting about the site. It's more of the same disgusting pictures of anthropomorphic dogs or foxes or wtf those are supposed to be. However, they have a brand-new wiki to vandalize. With any luck, some über-awesome troll will vandalize the fuck out of the wiki and post some screenshots.

Inkbunnies on ED

Chibiicap

Chibiicrap or Chiniifat, wtf one prefers to call her/it, is an overweight, dramawhore, furfag, cheap piece of walking excrement. See Article

How they manage to get away with posting child pornography (spoiler alert, loopholes).

In their own words:

Inkbunny's position is that laws covering depictions of children or minors define them as persons under the age of X - and furthermore, that a "person" for the purpose of these laws is inevitably a human being, or (in some jurisdictions) very close to it. Thus, "cub porn" cannot be "child porn", as it does not involve a child, in the legal definition of the term.

This is particularly well-supported in the USA, which has gone to the trouble of defining "person" as a member "of the species homo sapiens": http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8

In other countries, it is also commonly held that non-human animals do not have the same status as humans - hence, you can imprison them, eat them, etc. Having sex with them may be forbidden; but that's because a human is involved, or because it harms an actual animal. We do not forbid animals to have sex with other animals.

In accordance with this, Inkbunny does not permit submissions to depict human beings in sexual situations, or to show their genitals or arousal. This prohibition also renders bestiality laws inapplicable.

In the UK, the law covers material which appears to be of a person, even though one or more elements are not of a person. Parliamentary discussion of this indicated that it was focused on the addition of ears or antennae to otherwise human characters, and so our policy includes "neko" characters and others which are essentially human.

We do not forbid members from promoting such depictions for the benefit of those who wish to see them and feel they are legally safe to do so; but for the sake of those who don't, images on Inkbunny must not contain such depictions. Promotional submissions should have keywords applied permitting members to avoid them through our blocking system.

Fur Affinity's decision to forbid "cub" art was made on commercial grounds, not legal grounds: http://www.flayrah.com/3346/fur-affinity-loses-alertpay-account-bans-cub-porn They may now be using legal grounds to justify the removal of such images; if so, we believe they are mistaken.

On a related topic, Softpaw Magazine, which was dedicated for such material, was for several years openly printed in Canada and imported into the USA without issues: http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Softpaw_Magazine

Inkbunny's main server is currently located in the Netherlands. A summary of Dutch child pornography laws can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography_laws_in_the_Netherlands

I am not aware of a definition of "person" in their criminal code, but their civil code includes the statement that "No servitude of persons, of whatever nature or however described, is tolerated": http://www.dutchcivillaw.com/civilcodebook01.htm It seems unlikely that zoos (of which there are many in the Netherlands) would be possible if this were held to apply to species other than humans.

As the Netherlands is in the European Union, the case law in Sweden may also be relevant, in which a man possessing non-realistic manga images was ultimately found not guilty of possessing child pornography: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_cartoon_pornography_depicting_minors#Sweden

Should the matter arise, we would vigorously defend our position, as we believe there is no public interest served in forbidding the depictions of fictional non-human characters in sexual situations.

We have never been contacted by any law enforcement on this topic - or any other. We suspect most prosecutors have their hands full dealing with images and instances of actual child abuse, which we do not host or support.

Conner Lupindo Hemming

The article is undergoing an edit war and has yet to reach Æ satisfactory lulz levels, but it can be summarized that Hemming is a crybaby furfag who, in his mind, is the rock-star progeny of Billie Joe Armstrong raping a wild canid. He was in an internet flame war with Draconas, who was kind enough to share some some of his excerpts. Hopefully, someone out there returns some of the funnier shit to the page. Read the article, or just the pictures

Adam Wan

Adam Wan is a known sexual predator who makes furry porn and sculptures that induce nausea on sight. Much of his work is so lousy and disgusting that it is safe to say that one should remove all sharp objects from the near vicinity, lest one shall gouge his, her, or wtfe's eyes out. See the article for moar lulz.

	“	Adam has a tendency to be involved in drama, mostly revolving around his tendency to be a narcissist with unwarranted self-importance, and his easy trollability when people point out that he's not that good, and that it's unlikely he could ever succeed outside of drawing furry smut	„
	— æ contributor

Gengar-for-ever

Another run-of-the-mill sonicfag who has not only earned herself an ED article, but also a LiveJournal page and some others dedicated to making fun of her, her art, and her white knighting boyfriend. There are some pretty funny screencaps and hideous furfag, so-called art.