Uploaded by Niggoslav_Krawczyk 
599x618 JPG 103 kB
Interested in advertising on Derpibooru? Click here for information!
Help fund the $15 daily operational cost of Derpibooru - support us financially!
Description
No description provided.
Help fund the $15 daily operational cost of Derpibooru - support us financially!
No description provided.
Encyclopedia dramatica doesn’t give out home addresses. All they give is a name and birth which is public knowledge. They have E.D. pages for anyone and everyone that has been note worthy. If I sat on Tumblr and Twitter spouting the same bigotry that she did, you’d be damn certain there’d be a page about me.
I have still yet to find anything of someone wishing harm on her. I have spouted hatred on her, but that was mostly just venting anger for her bragging about taking down Molestia, but I’ve never wished harm on her.
Plus; If she was innocent of anything, then why did she purge her entire blog to start over? She wouldn’t have had to unless there was something on there that could have sent her to prison.
ED doxxed her. I dunno, that’s gotta count for something.
Note that I’m aware they fall well outside the fanbase (to an extent; there’s some overlap), but it’s still a pretty shitty thing to do.
Because She never produced any real harassment other then stories to loose that you’d have a easier time telling people the sky is green. Show me actual prove of harassment that she’s gotten. I’ve gone out of my way to show how she’s effect other. You could at least do the same.
False dichotomy is false.
She shouldn’t be harrassed. She also shouldn’t harass others.
Explain to me where I’m being hypocritical or wrong.
So starting a blog, harassing people, and spamming a company to remove one art blog because they didn’t like it is not censorship?
She told her fans to spam Hasbro with this. How is this NOT CENSORSHIP?!
Also; you people always bring up that “She shouldn’t have been harassed” like that’s a viable excuse. She has harassed so many and the only think people have done was told her how wrong she is, but being a pathological liar and professional victim, any thing that isn’t totally agreeing with her is harassment. Know that you are trying to defend someone who has stolen money from people, harasses people, and is generally unlikeable monster.
And maybe she’s very well guilty of those faults.
But the image accused her of “censoring art,” which by any sensible definition, she did not not do. That is what we’re responding to here.
If PinkiePony did indeed harass people, then that’s horrible, it should be condemned, and I’ll be right there with you in disapproving of her for it. But in regards to DWM specifically, she did not “censor art.” The fact that she did an unrelated bad thing doesn’t mean she did this specific bad thing.
Of course, if she harassed people (which is still awful), it still wouldn’t condone harassing her back. (Though most people harassed her for the DWM stuff, not for other reasons; Neither would be justifiable though. Harassment’s wrong, period.)
Read This and this too
and tell me again she did nothing wrong. It also doesn’t help that you would quote from a bloated bigot with less backbone then an ameba.
Exhibited A
Exhibited B
if Pinkiepony did anything, it was tattle to Hasbro. And tattling ceases to be a crime once you pass the age of six.
In the eyes of most sensible, well adjusted people, Pinkie did nothing wrong. No genuine crimes or moral transgressions were committed. She used her free speech exactly as she was entitled to and had neither the power nor the influence to get anything censored in any meaningful way.
But of course, a lot of people crying foul aren’t sensible, well adjusted people. They’re people with fucked up priorities who use the term “SJW” without irony. Who don’t understand censorship, copyright law, or freedom of speech despite screaming those same terms at the top of their voice.
“Ivan we’ve been over this. The internet doesn’t know what words mean,” - Bob Chipman.
Sarkeesian is an even stranger example, because she was never trying to get anything removed or banned. She just said, “Hey, these things happen too much in games. Maybe this other thing should happen more often instead,” and people went completely apeshit, branding her the Jack Thompson of feminism.
Like, it’s fine to disagree with her views, but the crazy death/rape threats in response were absolutely wrong. And yes, much to their detriment, they only made her more known and more popular.
A lot of the comments below are arguing what trademark and copyright law SHOULD be, and ignoring what it IS in the given situation. Hasbro caught wind. Hasbro filed a trademark complaint. Tumblr deleted the blog.
One could argue that Pinkiepony was the reason they caught wind in the first place, but I would argue it’s like Anita Sarkeesian: She was only popular and only caught all this attention BECAUSE people were aggressively trying to shut her up.
It makes sense to prevent people from earning money by selling others’ work. But fan work that doesn’t make a profit is incapable of threatening a copyright. The primary thing copyright law should do is prevent ideas from being stolen, but to use an idea to make something of your own and distribute it for free does not damage the creator’s ownership or make their works less valid, especially if proper credit is given.
That’s about the ONLY thing I will agree with on IP; coming down on people directly PROFITING using your IP.
I refuse to acknowledge or defend their “right”, as it suppresses artistic freedom for the gain of a company. If they were to take down works from which someone was making a profit off of their intellectual property, perhaps I would agree, but even that is a slippery slope. And even if I didn’t object to this system in itself, I would deny the right of people like Pinkiepony to use it as their own personal attack dog to point at any works they don’t approve of.
@Background Pony #590B
As you can probably work out from the above paragraph, I do in fact view this as an assault on freedoms which people should be granted, as functionally equivalent to censorship, and will continue to treat it as such. Call this perspective extreme if you like, but I will continue to hold it regardless of your opinion.
Oh, I understand what “intellectual property” means. I just don’t give a shit about it.
Also; there’s another putz on tumblr using the EXACT SAME EXCUSE as her. The “My sister found Molestia porn on Google.” story, so I was immediately skeptic. The best part how butthurt he got when questioned about the actual story.
No idea. I’m not familiar with the drama you’re referring to, but I assume it’s equivalent to reporting it to Hasbro legal.
Let me put it this way. I don’t deny that the OP has a legitimate bone to pick with pinkiepony. What she did was at least a dick move, but it amounts to social misbehavior, not anyhing so dramatic as CENSORSHIP.
The OP’s closing statement, “I’m completely against the censorship of art,” indicates that they’re not simply upset about the situation at hand, but consider it some kind of assault on the freedom of the human spirit.
I get the impression you don’t understand what “intellectual property” means. Twilight Sparkle belongs to Hasbro. If you post pictures of her, it is entirely within Hasbro’s rights to make you take it down.
Note, I didn’t say they can make you stop drawing her. Nobody can stop you from drawing whatever you like, but displaying it is another matter.
And yes, if Hasbro got a wild hair to wipe out all adult material, they have that right. In fact, they can also shut down all fanart entirely. It’d be a dick move that would most likely alienate a great number of their fans, but they could.
Granted, that’s speaking of legal, not moral. But if you’re going to argue for the morality of porning up a kids’ show, I think you’re on the wrong end of that debate.
I want to be thoroughly clear. This is not a matter of suppressing ideas. You can bandy about the idea of cute cartoon ponies having sex all day long. But as soon as you draw Twilight or Fluttershy or Celestia, you’re playing in their sandbox, and it’s at their forebearance that you’re not asked to leave.
You have me confused with another BP. I’m not the one who called you (or anyone else) a moron. Pay attention to our numbers.
So, you’d support the complete destruction of all fan-made adult content? If you think it was right to take down Molestia, then you think every porn artist in this fandom (in any fandom) is a perfectly legitimate target. You are a perfect example of what’s being talked about.
The suppression of ideas that people disagree with; there is no simpler definition of censorship.
Are you seriously suggesting that Pinkiepony’s actions were justifiable?
I’m not really nitpicking the specific use of the word ‘censorship’. I’m objecting to the intent behind the use of the word, which is why I called the OP a moron.
pinkiepony helped in the removal of something that everyone involved agrees was objectionable. No matter your feelings on rape humor, it was an adult comic based on a property that the artist didn’t own. The phrase ‘censoring art’ is deliberately chosen to be inflammatory and to imply that there’s something draconian about the owner of a property demanding that others respect their property.
Censorship of any kind – real censorship – is a very real problem in oppressive nations like China or North Korea. I feel that it cheapens the word to apply it when someone isn’t allowed to post porn of their favorite cartoon.
Now, you may read this and conclude that I don’t like porn. That would be a mistaken assumption. I have a filter dedicated exclusively to R34 material. But, at the same time, I don’t begrudge Hasbro the right, both legal and moral, to keep a leash on this stuff.
“a moron who doesn’t know what censorship means”.
Nitpicking is pointing out minor flaws. Attacking is going after a person’s character, intelligence, or some other personal aspect. Had you said “that’s not what censorship means” and left out the moron part, that would have been a nitpick. Just like what I’m doing right now.
My “attack?”
You seem to be confusing the word “attack” with “nitpick,” which is closer to what I was doing.
Your attack on the writer of this confession is both unwarranted and inaccurate. Whatever the result, Pinkiepony’s intention was to abuse an established system to get rid of what she didn’t like. Had she been given the option, censorship is exactly what she would have used, and she went for the closest possible thing immediately. She censored art in all but name, which if you ask me means there is no difference significant enough to matter.