FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ 1 edit |
FFH5
Premium Member
2008-Dec-9 5:17 pm
But Amazon.com knuckled under and removed the pic» AmazonThe 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 |
Re: But Amazon.com knuckled under and removed the picHighly 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? | |
|
| | FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
FFH5
Premium Member
2008-Dec-9 5:44 pm
Re: But Amazon.com knuckled under and removed the picsaid 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. | |
|
| | | 2 edits
1 recommendation |
Re: But Amazon.com knuckled under and removed the picBut 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
1 recommendation |
to FFH5
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. | |
|
| | | |
to FFH5
said by FFH5: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. | |
|
| | | | FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
FFH5
Premium Member
2008-Dec-10 8:12 am
Re: But Amazon.com knuckled under and removed the picsaid by james16:said by FFH5: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. | |
|
| | | | | 2 edits |
Re: But Amazon.com knuckled under and removed the picsaid by FFH5:I don't agree. 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. | |
|
|
Freedom of Speech or Shutup by force?Next up... Dollar stores across this planet shut down due to selling statues of naked children .... Cherubs.
The debate is, It may be out there, but why should the ISP control what you see? The feds are always busy monitoring websites, as many sites owners have noticed in their log files.... If the Feds won't stop it,,,Making massive Black Lists also will stop legitimate artwork from a time when nudity was not shunned as EVIL.. And the government dropping off Pedophiles under bridges does not help either.. | |
|
| |
Re: Freedom of Speech or Shutup by force?said by zalternate:Next up... Dollar stores across this planet shut down due to selling statues of naked children .... Cherubs. LMAO. Thx for reminding everyone of this conveniently overlooked fact. If you didn't, then I would have. The only objective any government could have for Internet censoring has nada to do with the standard but it's for the children bullshit war cry and everything to do with censorship for the sake of censorship itself, thereby proving that age old maxim of the more power government usurps for itself, the more it wants. | |
|
| TechyDad Premium Member join:2001-07-13 USA |
to zalternate
Good point on the cherubs. That got me to thinking. During my recent trip to Charleston, South Carolina, I saw a statue of 5 barely dressed kids. Obviously, they were meant to be cherubs (or something similar). Was that child porn? I took a photo of that statue. Does that mean I'm guilty of possessing child porn now? I even had that photo printed in a photo book (for my friend whose wedding brought me to Charleston). Does that mean I'm guilty of distributing child porn? Here's the photo (now maybe all of you are guilty of viewing child porn):
For the record, I don't think any reasonable person would call this child porn, but you never know where some people will draw the line. Child Porn has, like terrorism, become an excuse for people in power to get things passed that wouldn't have a chance otherwise. Yes, child porn is bad and should be stopped. However, many people seem to lose all rational thought when child porn is brought up. Mention "child porn" and they suddenly will support draconian legislation that does little to stop child porn and does plenty to reduce our freedoms.
| |
|
| | |
Capt Renaud
Anon
2008-Dec-10 11:33 am
Re: Freedom of Speech or Shutup by force?I'm shocked!! » www.manneken-pis.com/intro.htmlEvery tourist who snaps a photo of this is carrying kiddie porn into the USA. ----------------- This whole thing reminds me vaguely of the rationale the Nazi's used for destroying 'degenerate' art - paintings by Impressionists and Cubists and indeed anyone they detested. | |
|
Doctor FourMy other vehicle is a TARDIS Premium Member join:2000-09-05 Dallas, TX |
The Streisand Effect againTrying to censor something like this only led to it becoming more widespread. This was just like the attempts at censoring the AACS processing key (the one that began with 09-f9...)
The IWF even admitted themselves that they were wrong. It is not often that organizations which claim to control or regulate what happens online have a sudden outbreak of common sense.
As for Australia's impending content filtering, they are going to find it futile. | |
|
Desdinova Premium Member join:2003-01-26 Gaithersburg, MD
1 recommendation |
Hmmm...Reminds me of a cartoon from the National Lampoon: a guy walks into a porn store and asks the owner, "Got any pictures of twelve year-old girls in their underwear?" and the owner says, "Nah. Try the Sears catalog." | |
|
| spamd Premium Member join:2001-04-22 Cherry Valley, IL |
spamd
Premium Member
2008-Dec-9 9:53 pm
Re: Hmmm...said by Desdinova:Reminds me of a cartoon from the National Lampoon: a guy walks into a porn store and asks the owner, "Got any pictures of twelve year-old girls in their underwear?" and the owner says, "Nah. Try the Sears catalog." LMAO.. I was going to say something like. News Flash... "The CEO of JCPenny has been arrested this morning under aligations of child pornography charges. Andrew Cuomo states that the JCPenny's catalog has evidence of children in their underwear in slightly suggestive poses. News @ 10!!" | |
|
|
sickofeuros
Anon
2008-Dec-9 7:57 pm
michelangelo was a child porn promoterAh I see so this is what all the snobby internet control freak nonsense was about?
I wonder if any of those people running the ban everything dept have taken a stroll through the sistine chapel lately? or maybe just about any catholic church throughout europe and especially snobby ol england? All those naked people on the ceiling of the chapel painted by michelangelo been there for how many centuries now? LOL if anyone wanted to throw something new at the catholic church related to child abuse or whatver else you wanna call it, here it is courtesy of the stuck up and stuck on themselves euro internet monitoring dept. | |
|
| |
Re: michelangelo was a child porn promoterThat's truly sad. Go after artists but not the priests who actually commit crimes! | |
|
fatnesssubtle
join:2000-11-17 fishing |
child pornography | |
|
| spamd Premium Member join:2001-04-22 Cherry Valley, IL |
spamd
Premium Member
2008-Dec-9 11:57 pm
Re: child pornographyCareful that photo right there just might make Cuomo a NY state senator. | |
|
| | seederjed Premium Member join:2005-02-28 Norcross, GA |
seederjed
Premium Member
2008-Dec-10 12:32 am
Re: child pornographyOnce again nobody mentions the cover of Nirvana's "Nevermind" album. | |
|
| | | |
Re: child pornographysaid by seederjed:Once again nobody mentions the cover of Nirvana's "Nevermind" album. It's not a sexual pose at all though, it doesn't even need to be justified as art. It's the sort of photograph that you would find in any family's house, just open up a photo album of their kids as babies. | |
|
| | | | TechyDad Premium Member join:2001-07-13 USA |
TechyDad
Premium Member
2008-Dec-10 12:22 pm
Re: child pornographyI seem to recall a recent case where a grandmother was arrested on child pornography charges because a photo printing clerk saw photos of nude kids (her grandchildren) in the photos she was getting printed. I've taken more than my share of bath time photos of my kids, would this mean I have child porn on my computer? After some Googling, I found an article about it complete with one of the photos in question: » www.popphoto.com/popular ··· ife.html | |
|
| | | | | |
james16
Member
2008-Dec-10 10:38 pm
Re: child pornographyThat link does contain a couple cases where I think the person in question was stupid to take the pictures, but for the most part that is a quite terrifying article. | |
|
| |
to fatness
Don't laugh-this isn't funny!Considering that Australia has already decided that drawings are also kiddie porn, this might truly BE considered child porn in Australia!
When I see these piss poor decisions, I begin to wonder WHO HAS the dirty minds to FIND drawings such as this to be pornography! | |
|
| | 1 edit |
Re: Don't laugh-this isn't funny!said by qworster:Considering that Australia has already decided that drawings are also kiddie porn... Actually, the judge decided that fictional characters are in fact "persons". I'd love to see their voters lists... maybe Mickey Mouse and Roger Rabbit will cast a vote. Justice Adams ruled the word "person" included imaginary or fictional characters and that an unrealistic representation of a figure did not preclude that figure from being a "person".
| |
|
| | | jtudor MVM join:2002-12-07 Morganton, NC |
jtudor
MVM
2008-Dec-10 8:33 am
Re: Don't laugh-this isn't funny!Didn't Donald Duck already get banned somewhere because he never wears pants? | |
|
| | | | |
Re: Don't laugh-this isn't funny!I think Mickey Mouse was convicted of something in some middle eastern country, I remember someone condemning him to beheading. | |
|
|
|