In re solarhedonist on Avatars [Link]
/t/post/79000069873/solarhedonist-regarding-all-the-talk-of
((I don’t agree… It shouldn’t be that hard to figure out. /Especially/ in the stated case where Lauren has /already said/ she doesn’t like it. You don’t get any simpler than “No”.
“I want to draw Lauren Faust’s pony being fucked in the ass” should really trigger a thought of “Gee I wonder if she’d be upset about that”.
Saying “Eh, fuck her I’ll do what I want” shows the person to be an inconsiderate asshole.
Asking her if she cares about porn of her character is the only correct approach. And if she says no, the only correct approach is to /not do it/. If you go forward anyway, you are directly violating the will of the character’s owner, and in this case the will of the character herself since Fausticorn /is/ Lauren Faust for all intent and purpose.
If it never, ever even occurs to someone that doing this might upset another human being in the first place, well, that’s a sign of being a sociopath.
It is /seriously/ that simple. Questions of morality don’t have to be complex. They’re usually only complicated by people who want to do wrong and feel justified about it anyway.
I don’t play that game. Wrong is wrong. Period. Trying to justify wrong acts is just being wrong /and/ too cowardly to admit that you know you’re wrong and just don’t care.))
A similar question could be asked of clop: I wonder if Hasbro/DHX will appreciate this…
Rule 34 almost always implies disrespect for a character’s creator, because most of the time they don’t appreciate pornographic depictions of them. Of course, Lauren Faust and other creators definitely shouldn’t be harassed with it, but beyond that it isn’t really that simple. But that doesn’t mean we don’t take these sorts of things into consideration.
If you didn’t see my other post, there are personality rights to consider when it comes to real people (but I’m not sure if this goes for avatars). So that would make the case for real people (and potentially alternative personas, at least morally, if not legally). But I just took issue with the statement: You do not do things that could creep out, upset or otherwise harm another human being without asking them first. This, I think, is overly broad, which is why I originally said the issue was oversimplified.