1 edit | But Amazon.com knuckled under and removed the pic »Amazon
The threat alone will accomplish the intent in most cases.
Of course, Wikipedia isn't off the hook yet. Any number of US prosecutors could decide to pursue this case anyway. |
|
2 edits | Highly doubtful. This has been going around for the better part of 30 years now and it being a album cover, it is widely known. If both governments didn't do anything about it then, why expect them to do anything about it now? |
|
|
|
| said by Nightshade:Highly doubtful. This has been going around for the better part of 30 years now and it being a album cover, it is widely known. If both governments didn't do anything about it then, why expect them to do anything about it now? But it hadn't reached widespread notice in the press like it has now. Some prosecutor looking to get re-elected in a conservative district could see this as an opportunity to garner votes - no matter what his chances of succeeding in court are.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? |
|
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
2 edits | But it hadn't reached widespread notice in the press like it has now. Some prosecutor looking to get re-elected in a conservative district could see this as an opportunity to garner votes - no matter what his chances of succeeding in court are. Eh, no. It's a shitty album cover buried in an encyclopedic entry. The only people interested in banning it are batshit insane. |
|
2 edits | reply to fAcEtIOUs
So what you're saying is someone might pull a Cuomo? Hmm....Yeah I can see that.
I always expect anything goes on what incumbents will do to get re-elected. It's like all common sense and decency goes out the window all for the sake of votes. |
|
 james
join:2001-02-26
CWCville USA | reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:But it hadn't reached widespread notice in the press like it has now. Obviously you haven't read the article. It was controversial when released and replacement covers were released. Furthermore it's one of the FEW examples of naked children that is unquestionably protected on artistic grounds. |
|
| said by james:said by fAcEtIOUs:But it hadn't reached widespread notice in the press like it has now. Obviously you haven't read the article. It was controversial when released and replacement covers were released. Furthermore it's one of the FEW examples of naked children that is unquestionably protected on artistic grounds. I don't agree. And when it was released the anti-child porn laws were barely being considered. Anti-porn laws have chgd drastically since the original album was released.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? |
|
james
join:2001-02-26
CWCville USA
2 edits | Well, I do suppose you're right in a sense, it's not really "unquestionable" by any means, otherwise you wouldn't be questioning it. My point is that a similar photograph of an adult could easily be accepted as art, and could hardly be considered be pornography.
While I hate those idiotic "artists" who do retarded things and call it "art", this photograph isn't the sort of thing child porn laws were meant to stop, in fact child porn laws aren't even about the pictures at all, they're about protecting children from abuse. Think about this: The amount of money and court time that has gone into prosecuting people for "grey area" child porn (ie cartoons or this album cover) could easily have been used to catch one of the people who actually makes REAL child porn, where a kid is engaging in very real sexual activity. Sometimes it's hard to imagine, but yes, there really is stuff that horrible being made and exchanged, and it's stupid shit like this that's taking resources away from catching those people. |
|
