Wikipedia child image censored

Discussion in 'Other Discussions' started by DinoFlintstone, Dec 7, 2008.

  1. DinoFlintstone

    DinoFlintstone "There can be only one!"

    I just did a Google Search thinking since many people complained, it can't be that bad... ... ...

    ... bloody hell, it is that bad. I can't belive the Scorpions would do that. :thumbdown:

    Well done to the ISP's!!!
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2008

  2. Wade8813

    Wade8813 Registered Member

    Yeah, that's bad.

    I think this is where the US law that allows it for scientific/artistic/political/literary value is nonsense. Would anybody miss it if the album had never had that artwork? Of course not. And even if it was art on the level of the Mona Lisa, I don't think it excuses the use of child pornography.
  3. Merc

    Merc Certified Shitlord V.I.P. Lifetime

    Oh boy, not this crap again.

    I guess I'm in the minority when I don't see this as a major issue or at least as big a deal as some people made it out to be. Her privates are not seen and it's not like she's getting ganbanged. I think this speaks volumes as to the level of shame people are taught about their bodies and it's kind of scary in all honesty.
  4. Tucker

    Tucker Lion Rampant

    The photograph itself is no more lewd or pornographic than the one on the cover of Nirvana's Nevermind, which met with little, if any, public protestation or censorship upon its release. Had I seen this image in an coffee table art book I might not have given it a thought. What I do find disturbing, though, is the manner in which the picture is presented: the 'cracked glass' overlay makes a focal point of the girl's genitalia, evoking the subtextual spectre of pathological sexual violence toward children and, juxtaposed with the ambiguously interpretable motto "Virgin Killer," the material becomes not art at all but something much more prurient and altogether uncelebratory of the unclothed human form.

    Would I have censored it? Probably not. The image is legal, by current American decency standards. But that doesn't mean that I think it holds any redeeming value as artwork. This is definitely not something I consider to have been conceived in good and responsible judgment and I damn sure wouldn't have it up on my wall. I agree with former Scorpions guitarist Uli Jon Roth, who later said that the 1976 album cover "was done in the worst possible taste."
  5. Kazmarov

    Kazmarov For a Free Scotland

    Whether or not it is inappropriate is irrelevant. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, has a duty to report history as it happened- to censor this is to censor history. Sure it may be just an album cover, but there are plenty of aspects of more integral history that most people would find disgusting.
  6. Tucker

    Tucker Lion Rampant

    Would you want pictures in their entries about child pornography and sexual torture, assuming those pages existed? I'm 100% sure the answer is no, and I'm not saying that the "Virgin Killer" cover is either of those things, but by an extension of your logic Wiki would be censoring a part of history by omitting such pictures. The issue of legality aside, I think that their 'duty' to provide unfiltered information is overshadowed by their moral obligation to not publish material that is generally considered to be offensive. While, as I've said, I might not have made the same decision as Wiki did in this case, I can nonetheless very easily see why they would pull the picture after having received a complaint. It's a grey area and they're simply erring on the side of caution.
  7. Wade8813

    Wade8813 Registered Member

    It's not about being ashamed of her body. If she was an adult, I might not want it easily accessible by little kids, but I'd see no reason to block it entirely. But she's a little kid.

    While Nirvana's album shows more, our society has decided that it's okay for babies to be naked.

    And like you said, the cracked glass imagery, plus the not so subtle title, all add to the problem.

    It's possible to report history without including pictures. Many conquering armies raped and pillaged, yet I haven't seen any Wikipedia images of a rape.

    At a minimum, Wikipedia could have an alert letting people know what they're going to be seeing, and that it might be objectionable.
  8. ysabel

    ysabel /ˈɪzəˌbɛl/ pink 5

    What's ironic is that I'm sure more British users who were once unaware of the cover will go looking at the "famous" blocked picture now using another website. Will they block all other websites where you can find this picture?
  9. Bananas

    Bananas Endangered Species

    My ISP has not blocked the page or the image! I've seen it before anyway in an all time list of worst Album covers and I'll be honest and say I do not see the image as pornogrphic, degrading or offending.

    If she was an adult(or a baby) it would not be considered pornograhic or offensive. Take for example the "Two Virgins" John and Yoko album cover, they are grown adults and you can see a lot lot more, is that album pornographic. Does the boandary of what is pornographic or offending change because it is a child. Would that not be wrong of us to force an opinion of sexual depiction "just" because it is a minor of a certain age? Is that not hypocritical to the cause of concern by those who see it in that manner.
    Why does a picture of a naked child have to be automaticaly linked with connotations of child abuse?

    Wade, there are plenty of graphic and disturbing images on wikipedia, If you want to see one do a search for "Phan Thi Kim Phuc".
  10. DinoFlintstone

    DinoFlintstone "There can be only one!"

    I wonder if being a parent affects how disgusted one might feel.

Share This Page