Brits block Wikipedia

[Berserk Berserker]

Over some Scorpions album cover

This is just ridiculous. In the US, it technically isn't obscene because it clearly does not "lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value" (as an art placed on the front of an album)

And I was one of the many people begging for it to be kept because of that and the whole "Wikipedia is not censored" thing.

GO CANADA

[Slash]

Haha, whiny people are so great.
It's not like it's bothering anyone, they're just whiny people who like to whine for the sake of whining.

[LuxenbergClock]

i like how they put the picture in the article, it's like they're trying to say something

[Poltergeist]

At least I can get to Wikipedia just fine so I can still look at child porn!

[TremcladClock]

In Britain it's customary to ban things with the absence of any immediate danger or social outcry. It gives old people, who don't know what the internet is, something else to talk to the bagging clerk about.

[GreyClock]

"Breasts."

[WreckingBallClock]

Pretty funny how that album cover isn't illegal or something.

[Heliopios]

They are aware the person on that cover is like, 40 now, right?

[FLOUNDERMAN_CLOCK]

Holy tapdancing christ how did that band not get sued for that cover.

[zl]

Holy tapdancing christ how did that band not get sued for that cover.

presumably people have at some points decided that a human can be naked without it being pornography

[FLOUNDERMAN_CLOCK]

presumably people have at some points decided that a human can be naked without it being pornography

Yeah but america is usually sorta strict about this.

[FluxCapacitorClock]

Yeah but america is usually sorta strict about this.

I know I was going to say if this exact thing happened with America in place of Britain the thread would be flooded with "welp, thats america for you" posts.






Furthermore, welp, that's Britain for you.

[buttplug]

They are aware the person on that cover is like, 40 now, right?

And this is the thing, because is it really endangering any children now? That is why that stuff is illegal. So it is harming anyone now?

The thing I really want to know is how they were able to get away with this when the album came out. I am guessing it wasn't illegal at the time. So would it be like grandfathered in or what?

presumably people have at some points decided that a human can be naked without it being pornography

But look at the cover, it does look pornographic. It is titled "Virgin Killer", with a crack on top of the girl's crotch. But at the same time it is an album cover, which is art. Either way it is shocking, I will give the band that.

I am divided on the matter.

[FLOUNDERMAN_CLOCK]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Child_pornography/Archive_3#This_article_needs_more_pictures

[buttplug]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Child_pornography/Archive_3#This_article_needs_more_pictures

Maybe we can ask the FBI to release some pictures, they have huge archives of child pornography. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 22:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha yeah fucking right

[Slash]

Yeah but america is usually sorta strict about this.

The concern for Wikimedia is for some images like an album cover from a 1976 record of the Scorpions titled 'Virgin Killer'. It displays an underage girl, posing nude, with a lens crack crossing over her genitals, but nothing blocking out her breasts. The girl appears to be around 10-years old. In the U.S. the band later replaced the image with one of the group.

I guess the band figured that out allready.

[YoYoClock]

I can still get to wikipedia. I am on Virgin, one of the biggest isp's here.

[FLOUNDERMAN_CLOCK]

I can still get to wikipedia. I am on Virgin, one of the biggest isp's here.

It's not a total block to wikipedia, they're restricting access to it. Some stuff is blocked some isn't.

[EtchASketchClock]

Whats there to be controversial?
They photoshop 1976'd the nipples out.

[hibiscus]

In the US, it technically isn't obscene because it clearly does not "lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value" (as an art placed on the front of an album)

I beg to differ.  I believe ANY depictions of a minor in an indecent situation is illegal.
Remember a certain Nirvana album?  I'm surprised it wasn't banned, even though it would be considered ex post facto now.