pavlovasugar

[pavlovasugar]

"harassment is bad, but its okay if they-"

nope🚨 wrong 🚨 incorrect buzzer sfx🚨 harassment is Never a good thing

[pavlovasugar]

STOP THREATENING TO TAKE AND BURN BOOKS BITCHES

THEY COULD BE THE MOST BADLY WRITTEN, AWFUL QUALITY, MOST CRINGE SHIT YOU EVER SEE

THEY COULD BE 99% SMUT WITH NO STORY DARK ROMANCE BOOKS

IT DOES NOT MATTER

BURNING BOOKS IT BAD

REMOVING BOOKS FROM THE LIBRARY BECAUSE YOU FIND THEM WEIRD/DISGUSTING/CRINGE IS BAD

IDK IF IT'S ICEBREAKER OR LOLITA OR THE OTHER SHIT PEOPLE GET SO WORKED UP ABOUT

BOOK BURNING AND BOOK BANNING IS BAD

[pavlovasugar]

comparing someone who is against gaining sexual gratification from romanticized depicitions of incest, beastiality, and pedophilia to a group of people who killed MILLIONS of jewish, gay, and nonwhite people is fucking deplorable. you are not oppressed just because its illegal in the US to draw children getting raped.

♡ this is how oppression starts. this is how genocides start. censorship is the catalyst of a dictatorship and if you cant see that, your part of it.

[pavlovasugar]

Shotapussy shotapussy shotapussy shotapussy shotapussy shotapussy shotapussy shotapussy shotapussy shotapussy shotapussy shotapussy shotapussy shotapussy shotapussy shotapussy shotapussy shotapussy shotapussy shotapussy shotapussy shotapussy shotapussy shotapussy

[pavlovasugar]

OURAN FAN WHO'S ALSO A PROSHIPPER??o((>ω< ))o TELL ME TELL ME, WHO'S YOUR FAVE HOST AND WHY??*^____^*

(ur also now on my stalking list, loves uuu)(. ❛ ᴗ ❛.)

HELL YEAHH!!!

IT’S HONEY BECAUSE NGHHHH SHOTAS ARE THE BEST AND HE’S SO CUTEEE

[pavlovasugar]

donald trump will die on july 20th 2025 at 1pm pacific standard time

[pavlovasugar]

murder but sexual style

murder but sexual style

[pavlovasugar]

your opinion on does kidzbop count as censorship?

you know, this has been sitting in my inbox for nearly 4 years and I still don't have an answer

[pavlovasugar]

Reminder, non selfshipping antis aren't your friends

[pavlovasugar]

Dark Fiction Is Protected Speech. Online Harassment Isn’t.

There’s a rising trend online: people using extreme, hateful language to attack others for liking or creating dark fiction— stories that explore taboo or disturbing themes. One message recently sent to a fan of dark fiction read:

Let’s break down why this kind of language is not just offensive — it may actually be illegal under U.S. law. And why, by contrast, dark fiction itself is constitutionally protected.

When You Become the Monster You Claim to Fight

1. Calling Someone a Criminal Over Fiction Is a Crime

Falsely accusing someone of supporting child abuse or rape is not “calling them out.”

It’s defamation per se a category of libel where the accusation is so serious, the harm is assumed.

U.S. law protects reputation from false statements about criminal activity.

If someone can be reasonably identified (even anonymously), and the claim is false, it may be grounds for a lawsuit.

Legal Reference:

Gertz v. Welch, 418 U.S. 323 (1974) – Private citizens only need to prove negligence.

New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) – Public figures must show actual malice.

False claims of criminal acts = automatically defamatory.

If you say someone “encourages rape” based on their reading list? That’s not activism. It’s libel.

2. Threats Disguised as Justice Are Still Threats

“I’m the #1 pedophile killer” is not rhetoric. It’s not metaphor.

It’s a true threat, a form of unprotected speech under the First Amendment.

Pair that with slurs, personal targeting, and incitement? You’re not helping victims you’re becoming the abuser.

What the Law Says:

18 U.S. Code § 2261A – Cyberstalking and online threats

Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003) – Threats intended to intimidate can be punished

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) – Inciting imminent lawless action is not protected

3. Hate Speech Doesn’t Make You the Hero

The ableist slur used in that message “retards” isn’t just tasteless. It’s a weapon.

It’s the kind of language that, in any other setting, a school, a job, a courtroom, would be grounds for disciplinary action, legal liability, or both.

It’s not “just words.” It’s targeted degradation. And it’s not protected if it becomes part of a pattern of harassment or intimidation.

Here’s how the law sees it:

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act protect people from disability-based harassment in schools, workplaces, and federally funded programs.

Some states (like California, New York, Washington) extend these protections to online spaces, especially where speech contributes to a hostile environment.

Even outside the courtroom, most platforms (Tumblr, Twitter/X, Discord, etc.) list ableist slurs under their hate speech and harassment policies. Using them can result in bans or suspensions.

The Fiction Isn’t Dangerous — Your Fear Is

1. Disturbing Stories Aren’t Dangerous— Misreading Them Is

Dark fiction dives into the shadows, it explores violence, abuse, trauma, and other difficult realities. But to confuse exploration with endorsement is to miss the entire point.

Liking or creating stories about taboo subjects doesn’t mean someone condones those acts in real life. It means they’re grappling with complex ideas and emotions through art.

Imagine banning classics like Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov or American Psycho by Bret Easton Ellis because they depict criminal acts. That’s exactly what censorship driven by misunderstanding looks like.

Legal Perspective: Fiction is a protected form of expression under the First Amendment, even if it unsettles or offends.

2. The Constitution Protects Art You Don’t Like

The First Amendment doesn’t just protect nice speech, it protects speech that shocks, disturbs, or disgusts.

Artistic expression, including dark or controversial fiction, is safeguarded unless it falls into very narrow exceptions:

Obscenity: Rarely applies, under the strict Miller Test

True threats and incitement: Only punished if likely to cause immediate harm

Child pornography involving real minors: Always illegal and not protected

A crucial distinction often misunderstood is between actual child pornography and fictional depictions of minors.

But fictional depictions that are clearly not real—no matter how dark—are protected. This was affirmed in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002), which struck down laws that criminalized virtual child pornography or fictional depictions that don’t involve real children.

[pavlovasugar]

"You can't ship that it's a proship!" I'm gonna cough on you. and at least get the term right bozo💔

[pavlovasugar]

Upset at how this failed to upload a few days ago…second times the charm ig 💔

[pavlovasugar]

i’m so sorry to everyone who actually has to hear my voice on a day to day basis (my mom) (i sound like a dying cat)

[pavlovasugar]

i just saw a lovely mutual of mine reblog a really anti post… it said sm like “when fiction does not affect reality, people see people in their life turn their back to them because they make PEDOPHILIA AND INCEST their whole personality.”

wow… WOW that's a lot. first of all, we only say that fiction does not affect reality to antis because they are fucking stupid, and can’t handle nuance. they wouldn’t understand if we told them “fiction affects reality ONLY if you let it”—that’s more than three words, they wouldn’t be able to process it.

second of all—I guess by incest and pedophilia they meant lolicon and shipping some fucking stencest or whadewer. one thing I feel obligated to mention: people who, ACCORDING TO THEIR WORDS AND THEIR WORDS ONLY, care about victims so much downplay sexual trauma that real people actually struggle with, reducing it to just a perverted genre of Japanese manhua or whatever. that is… something. definitely something.

second of all, dear antis… most of the time when a person meets judgment of their interests from people around them, they stop sharing. even if some freak didn’t stop after your little lecture on how you’re so much more morally superior than them—you can use your speaking words 💖 it’s ok to tell people what you’re into and what you aren’t into 💝

antis LOVE so much to talk about how random people on the street would kill darkshippers for even mentioning their ships, while they themselves are freaking out that, in real life, there are no bios with labels, and no 20-page-long DNI lists. there’s just communication. fucking communication. with words.

last but not least, I know antis are so far removed from the concept of between-human interaction, and base their friendships on moral superiority—and in some very extreme cases will drop years-long friendships over two ships they find disgusting—but the truth is... lolisho fans and darkshippers don’t want to talk to you. because anything you ever talk about is how fucking hot you are for burning “unpure” books, thereby endangering queer media. that’s not what they’re into.

unpure, morally unsuperior people actually have interest in engaging with content they LIKE and finding people who are INTO that content like they are. not just in fandom to police shit.

darkshippers will not miss you. lolikons will not cry themselves to sleep because you’re not calling them very real, very serious diagnoses over some “impure” fiction.

do antis even know how interests work anymore, or don’t they?

i write all that just because i really, really love that mutual and that reblog pissed me the fuck off.

[pavlovasugar]

" shipping incest is not a good coping mechanism!! " oh its not a coping mechanism im just a pervert

[pavlovasugar]

Do antis also think that anyone who has fun on the bumper car ride at a theme park is a maniac driver who wants to cause a twenty car pileup in real life?

[pavlovasugar]

can antis not use nazi terms for ONE FUCKING SECOND