Scorpions cover is child porn

[eLucid]

"A Swedish paedophile has been jailed for storing a million indecent images, but avoids sentencing over an album cover by German rock legends Scorpions which the court found constituted child porn."

 

 

Link to the article

 

http://www.thelocal.se/20150807/record-cover-was-child-porn-says-swedish-court

 

The album cover in question - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer

 

I think it's blatant child porn. What are your opinions?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jerakl]

BLATANT AF

[EarthboundHero]

If this is child porn then so is the anime that removes little girls nipples to be able to show them naked.

[DigitalHermit]

Toddlers and Tiaras is child porn...

 

Old paintings featuring nudes of underage people are child porn...

 

everything can be child porn (according to Philippine law on child porn)...

 

(but yeah, the cover may loosely be considered as child porn , however this comes under questioning on which came first, the law on child porn that the man is charged with or the existence of the album in question (there is a clause in our local law about the precedence of a previously non-offending action/object)) (note: I am not a lawyer, I just happen to deal with laws governing contents of works published or unpublished, in various formats)

[eLucid]

If this is child porn then so is the anime that removes little girls nipples to be able to show them naked.

 

That analogy doesn't quite work, sorry. Thanks for trying.

[Jerakl]

If this is child porn then so is the anime that removes little girls nipples to be able to show them naked.

 

I thought all chinese cartoons were child porn?????

[dadasmithywinkle]

This would be, too. It's just an album cover. Calm your tits. 

 

[Volbet]

Well, I'm in trouble....

 

No, I don't consider it child porn. The girl is in no way sexualized in the picture. Just becuase she is naked, it doens't mean it's porn.

There are a lot of examples of pictures featuring nude children that aren't considered child pornography. One example is the cover of Nevermind by Nirvana.

The most famous example would probably be the painting of Marie-Louise O'Murphy (Which I don't think I should link), the 14 year old mistress of King Louie XV of France.

[Michael McAllister]

Just checked and the album does not appear to be on Spotify.  Possibly related to this?

[Salty]

yuck

[Virus__]

Oh yeah that album cover. I remember that kicked up some fuss again a few years ago then it went away, heh.

[EarthboundHero]

I thought all chinese cartoons were child porn?????

They are.

 

That analogy doesn't quite work, sorry. Thanks for trying.

How? It's the same thing. If not worse, considering in most of the anime's that do that, the children are sexualized. The girl on the cover isn't sexualized, thus it isn't porn. They removed anything sexual from the girl. 

[SImoHayha]

They are.

 

How? It's the same thing. If not worse, considering in most of the anime's that do that, the children are sexualized. The girl on the cover isn't sexualized, thus it isn't porn. They removed anything sexual from the girl. 

? How most anime I watch the children aren't sexualized.  But cute and adorable

 

I think you mean characters that have child like characteristics which is a loli.

[EarthboundHero]

? How most anime I watch the children aren't sexualized.  But cute and adorable

 

I think you mean characters that have child like characteristics which is a loli.

My friend watches anime that has naked children that are definitely sexualized. My point being, if that isn't seen as child porn, this shouldn't be.

[DigitalHermit]

They are.

 

How? It's the same thing. If not worse, considering in most of the anime's that do that, the children are sexualized. The girl on the cover isn't sexualized, thus it isn't porn. They removed anything sexual from the girl. 

 

There is a difference in that there is no real person being harmed or exploited in the creation of it (the voice actresses also think of it as just another job, if the characters are voiced). (Hence the reasoning behind the legality of its publication and distribution in Japan, there is however, strict regulation in its distribution such that explicit covers must be covered with a piece of paper and the shelf copies be sealed. ID checks are also done in order to keep the material from being purchased by those below the age of consent.)

 

Edit:

What people find sexual is also very loose... Say someone has a fetish for hands, does that mean that we should count pictures of hands as pornographic?

[Snadzies]

It is times like this where I have to use the "I know it when I see it" argument and in this case I'd say, to me, that Scorpions cover is closer to porn than art.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it

 

The Nirvana cover never felt like porn to me, though.

The younger age, the pose that does not seem like it could ever be mistake as a sexual one and the fairly blatant statements the image is trying to make pushes it pretty safely into the artistic side to me.

[SImoHayha]

My friend watches anime that has naked children that are definitely sexualized. My point being, if that isn't seen as child porn, this shouldn't be.

Well you should say some Anime. Not most. Not all anime is bad or sexualized with female characters. There are always bad eggs in a bunch and good eggs as well, people just focus on the bad eggs.

[EarthboundHero]

There is a difference in that there is no real person being harmed or exploited in the creation of it (the voice actresses also think of it as just another job, if the characters are voiced). (Hence the reasoning behind the legality of its publication and distribution in Japan, there is however, strict regulation in its distribution such that explicit covers must be covered with a piece of paper and the shelf copies be sealed. ID checks are also done in order to keep the material from being purchased by those below the age of consent.)

I don't see how the child here is being harmed or exploited, nor do I think the anime is porn. I'm 99% sure they had the child's parents permission for the cover and covered/removed anything that can be sexualized. I think the album cover is art, as is the anime. And neither should be considered porn since no one is commiting in sexual acts. But if one is considered porn, in my opinion they both should be.

Well you should say some Anime. Not most. Not all anime is bad or sexualized with female characters. There are always bad eggs in a bunch and good eggs as well, people just focus on the bad eggs.

I said most anime's that do that, as in most anime's that have naked children. 

[eLucid]

After reading more about the cover in question, it appears that the little girl was a model at the time.

 

This is just weird and creepy.

[DigitalHermit]

I don't see how the child here is being harmed or exploited, nor do I think the anime is porn. I'm 99% sure they had the child's parents permission for the cover and covered/removed anything that can be sexualized. I think the album cover is art, as is the anime. And neither should be considered porn since no one is commiting in sexual acts. But if one is considered porn, in my opinion they both should be.

 

I said most anime's that do that, as in most anime's that have naked children. 

 

Again I stress the point that on one hand you have material dealing with real people in the real world, on the other you have a work purely fictional created by staff comprising of people beyond the age of consent...

 

I do agree that there should be less regulation on freedom of expression limited to there being no exploitation or abuse in the process of the creation of said expression...

[burnttoastnice]

Oh yeah that album cover. I remember that kicked up some fuss again a few years ago then it went away, heh.

BLATANT AF

 

dafuq? look how long this has been around for and federal agents want to bring this up again? so something that was completely fine several years ago is now considered child porn?

 

 

for starters, it's not even pornography.

 

[Jerakl]

dafuq? look how long this has been around for and federal agents want to bring this up again? so something that was completely fine several years ago is now considered child porn?

 

 

Because we must follow what others say. That's how to be a good goyim.

 

 

tbh I would never have called that "fine". But I don't listen to their music so I don't really gaf

[Virus__]

dafuq? look how long this has been around for and federal agents want to bring this up again? so something that was completely fine several years ago is now considered child porn?

for starters, it's not even pornography.

People are stupid. The album artwork has been around close to 40 years years, yet I see people complaining about it/kicking up a huge fuss over it every few years, and from memory there's an alternate cover for the album anyway..

[Virus__]

scorpions-virgin-killer-2-tm.jpg The G cover.

Yeah that's the one i'm thinking of. It's the only one I remember really seeing.

[eLucid]

-snip-

 

She's not just naked, she's in a hypersexualised pose, and attached the tag of "virgin" in virgin killer. For the people bringing up the nirvana album cover, the nirvana cover is a baby swimming in a pool; it has no sexual overtones at all.

 

Honestly, I think some people just argue for the sake of arguing.