Wikipedia page censored in the UK

Wikipedia page censored in the UK

www.guardian.co.uk

The Internet Watch Foundation has propelled the UK into the forefront of the Internet censorship debate by blacklisting an image on Wikipedia as "a potentially illegal indecent image of a child under the age of 18." You may already have this one. It's a 1976 Scorpions album cover

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
news.bbc.co.uk

This picture has been around for 32 years , theres even an interview with the women who was in the picture , how as a girl she had her parents consent and everyone was happy ; but apparantly not the UK ISP`s.


Its the first time they have openly censored material on the internet , and surely is a sign of things to come.

www.guardian.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

This is stupid
Next they will censor one of nirvanas covers for having a child on it

This is just getting humorous. The fascists are stumbling over themselves to find anything to manufacture social outrage while bringing to life their savage masculine wet dreams of total control.

All of you parents out there that took a picture of your kid in the bath, watch out. You're in possession of child porn. Stop being a threat to society and an all-around evil person that needs to be saved and turn yourselves in. The State will take great care of their new slav...I mean, your children.




[edit on 12/8/08 by NovusOrdoMundi]

Originally posted by Runningtobabylon
This is stupid
Next they will censor one of nirvanas covers for having a child on it

Yeah! Smells Like Teen Spirit is gone, I tell ya. It has to be, doesn't it? Surely?

I'd post it here, but the way things are going, I'd likely offend someone.

Haven't seen the Scorpions picture, but surely it can't be much more "pornagraphic" than that one...

[edit on 8/12/08 by NuclearPaul]

Ok so we now have Simpson porn cartoons in Australia banned.
And Album covers in the UK banned.
Whats it going to be next?
How far will these sick evil degenerates go?
Im not much liking this world anymore.
Something has to be done before every single right we have has gone, and is dictated by these psychopaths into a privilege that they decide.

Originally posted by AgentOrangeJuice
Whats it going to be next?

They may need to crackdown on those emergency room shows on channels like the Discovery Channel that show the delivery rooms. If the female babies don't have a blanket over them, we may be looking at a total decay of society as we know it...

...and the terrorists will win.



[edit on 12/8/08 by NovusOrdoMundi]

The whole thing reminds me of this sketch

Ya know.. seriously.. basic psychology here for the elites of the world...

people who obsess over something have the biggest tendancies to be addicted to them.


These people are obsessed over child nudity. They despise it. Basic psych would show that they have an unhealthy obsession with looking at it, and want it eradicated to prevent them from "sinning".


It's that way with the porn industry, homosexuality, drug use, you name it. Those who are the most vehement against it are likely doing it themselves, more than anyone else would lol

I don't know if I'd put drug use into that category. I'm really against my kids doing meth. I've never done it and I can honestly say I'm not tempted to do it. But I don't obsess over it though so maybe you're right.

I do agree with the child porn obsessives though. I'm against child porn, but there's some people that are absolutely chomping at the bit over it. They spend their days and nights on the search for it to make sure it's eradicated. They're absolutely the ones who expose themselves the most to that kind of thing, as well as the children around them. I honestly would NOT let my children ever be around people like that... ever.

Originally posted by Jomina
Ya know.. seriously.. basic psychology here for the elites of the world...

people who obsess over something have the biggest tendancies to be addicted to them.


These people are obsessed over child nudity. They despise it. Basic psych would show that they have an unhealthy obsession with looking at it, and want it eradicated to prevent them from "sinning".


It's that way with the porn industry, homosexuality, drug use, you name it. Those who are the most vehement against it are likely doing it themselves, more than anyone else would lol

Originally posted by Jomina
These people are obsessed over child nudity. They despise it.

Not quite. These people have the biggest stash of child porn on the planet thanks to agencies like the FBI. They get off to it.

These people make laws to protect themselves. In some form or another, they break the laws they write.

They're not junkies, but they run and sell the drugs. They don't directly murder people, but they start wars and engage in genocide. They don't download child porn, they have their puppet agencies round it up for them as "evidence".

Have any of you seen the image?

It depicts a fully nude prepubescent girl in a sexually suggestive pose with her legs spread open and 'cracked glass' covering up the most intimate areas of her vagina, although her nipples are not edited. Then the album name was 'Virgin Killer.'

Sorry but this is one image I'm happy to see censored. This goes far beyond parents taking pictures of their children in the bath or Nirvana's 'pool baby.'

Hello?

I can't wait for these censor addicts to jump out of their skin when those CGI full length porn movies start showing up on the internet. The porn guys have figured out that they don't have to pay the actors nor worry about health issues or the problems of legal ramifications due to slavery issues in some countries! Since there is no victimology other than what might be considered the viewers as victims they are going to have to actualy find a perfect answer to the age old question. Just what is pornography?

Zindo

Please correct me if im wrong here people but you lot are complaining about the censoring of naked 14 - 15 year old girl in what could be described as a seductive position.

This picture should never have been allowed circulate in the first place. What kind of a sick bastard decided to put that on their album sleeve?

There is a massive difference between this and the 'Nevermind' album

I was about to jump on the 'damn censorship' bandwagon and slam this decision, then I took a look at the wikipedia entry and the photo.

Whilst I don't believe in censorship per se, (what you resist persists and making something taboo only makes it more desirable etc), I do have a comment on the pic....

WTF were the parents of this young pre-pubescent girl thinking? This is soft porn. What kind of mum and dad would want a naked and sexually suggestive photo of their pre-teen presented to the entire world, with the words 'virgin killer' splashed across it?

I guess they were fans of the band. No doubt as mindless as the music or they just lost a lot of brain cells at the concerts /provocation

Wikipedia says:

The image represents a version of a controversial and notable album cover which is essential to illustrate the nature of the controversy.

???

Nah, it's just an excuse to post a pic of kiddy porn. Even if it's not, that's the way it will be used by some. Euuugh. Do a google image search and it looks like some idiots have even taken the photo and enlarged it - wonder why they would do that.

If that were my daughter, I'd be taking a good hard long look in the mirror and asking myself how I f'd up so badly.

/rant /prude

This was already posted yesterday, as you can see here.

Originally posted by Dermo
There is a massive difference between this and the 'Nevermind' album

Why? Because one is a girl and one is a boy?

I can't stand the double standard. Somehow pornography displaying girls is worse than pornography displaying boys.

Originally posted by Dermo

This picture should never have been allowed circulate in the first place. What kind of a sick bastard decided to put that on their album sleeve?

A record company exec, apparently.

We didn't actually have the idea. It was the record company. The record company guys were like, 'Even if we have to go to jail, there's no question that we'll release that.' On the song 'Virgin Killer', time is the virgin killer. But then, when we had to do the interviews about it, we said 'Look, listen to the lyrics and then you'll know what we're talking about. We're using this only to get attention. That's what we do.' Even the girl, when we met her fifteen years later, had no problem with the cover. Growing up in Europe, sexuality, of course not with children, was very normal. The lyrics really say it all. Time is the virgin killer. A kid comes into the world very naive, they lose that naiveness and then go into this life losing all of this getting into trouble. That was the basic idea about all of it.

That's from the wikipedia entry. Shenker also said that it makes him cringe to look at it these days, for what it's worth.

I remember seeing it for sale, back in the early 80s - and no one seemed to think it was a big deal, at least not big enough to hide it behind the counter or sell it in a plain brown wrapper.

If anything, I think the image is more comparable to the album "Blind Faith" by Blind Faith. I own two copies of that one, one being on CD, and the other on original vinyl. I'm sure that would get me into trouble with the law in some places, and get me ignored as just another music fan in others. Odd how that works.

www.bbc.co.uk...

As many people are pointing out:

* The IWF only *think* it *might* be illegal
* The image is 32 years old
* At the time of publication as cover art, no-one prosecuted over it in any country
* It is available everywhere else EXCEPT on Wikipedia
* Some of the ISPs are selling this very album, with that cover art! Hypocracy at its finest.

The scary part is that the IWF are a non-profit organization. It comprises of just 7, unelected, unaccountable people, yet they can single-handedly decide (after ONE complaint!), to not only censor an ENTIRE COUNTRY, but to DEEM IT ILLEGAL WITHOUT DUE PROCESS???

If they consider it to be illegal, let's have a test case. If not, this is the final piece of the beginning of "1984", and seeing how far they can push censorship, and thus control.

Something many people are unaware of is that your thoughts of the world are moulded by what you read in the press, etc.. Control all the media, and you have u;timate mind control. You can get the masses thinking what you want them to think by carefully exposing them to certain events in the way you want them exposing. It is the tool of tyranny and dictatorships the world over, as history has shown time and again.

The bigger issue IMHO is not whether this image is illegal or not (they certainly took long enough to decide to rule on it), but the implications of the censorship currently in force. Where does this rocky road end?

[edit on 8-12-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
Why? Because one is a girl and one is a boy?

I can't stand the double standard. Somehow pornography displaying girls is worse than pornography displaying boys.

What?

Peado's don't usually want to have sex with 4 month old baby boys.

The thought of some sicko cracking one off to a pic of a naked 14 year old on an album cover is enough to make me angry.

There is no double standard here. Having a pic of a naked 4 month old boy is not sick (weird i will admit) but if that boy is 5, 10 or 15.. that is sick.

If you can't see that, then I don't know what else to say to you.