Virgin Killer moral dilemma?

[michael scuffil]

I gather that the cover of Scorpions' album Virgin Killer has been censored out of Wikipedia in the UK.

For those who don't know it, it depicts a pre-pubescent girl (of about 10/11) in an overtly sexual pose, her pubes obscured by a bullet hole in an otherwise invisible pane of glass. It is not a holiday snapshot of a toddler in a paddling pool.

The rationale behind the censorship is that if pornographic images of children can't be shown, they won't be produced (some hope!). It could, I think, be at least reasonably argued that this image is pornographic. However, it has been in the public domain for more than 30 years, and the girl in question is now in her 40s. This raises the question: should old images be subject to the same restraints as new ones, given that sensibilities were different then? The idea after all is not to deprive paedophiles of harmless pleasure, but to protect children from exploitation.

[CHAZ]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... cerns.html

Tricky subject certainly...reminds me of those United Colours of Bennetton ads in the 80s and all the scandal around those too...

Food for thought and a jurisprudence case arises...

[Jo]

This has been debated at length on another email list I'm on. It's not been comprehensively censored in the UK; it appears to depend on which ISP you use. I am on Pipex and can see the image both on the main Wiki page and also when clicking on the image to enlarge it. Some of my friends could see it on the main page but couldn't click on it, and others couldn't see it at all.

We all agreed that the Internet Watch Foundation's action has been entirely counter-productive, since a bunch of us have been exposed to the image when, under normal circumstances, we would have been unlikely to encounter it at all.

I'm not even sure the image is illegal - if you look at the IWF website (iwf.org.uk) it's debatable whether it falls within the remit. There is actually a statement about the whole furore on the website.

Child porn and abuse is obviously abhorrent but I don't think this was porn (though I didn't particularly like it), and I also abhor censorship.

[J.R.]

A very thorny subject.

The answer has to lie in the definition of pornography.

To my mind, it's all in the eye of the beholder. If someone gets perverse pleasure in these sorts of pictures, then Yes - It's wrong.

It can also be suggested that this is art, and beautiful art at that. If there were direct sexual connotations, then again, Yes - It's pornography.

My view is that there is nothing wrong in naked beauty.

How about pictures of beheadings and the like ? Or does that fall into the category of sadism ? To me, that is pornography.

[Misterbee]

JR summed ikt up perfectly "its in the eye of the beholder". I would only add that as a descerning adult I have a choice in what I look at, be it printed media or tv etc. Therefore my default position is either not too look at it or switch off! I can be my own censor I don't need an anonymous third party (usually the state) controling what I can or can not look at. For me the moral dilemma is "am I in control of me?"

[dinahcat]

I haven't seen the picture I am glad to say but if I was in any doubt I would ask myself this. Would I like my 10 year old daughter to pose like that? Hmmmmmmmm difficult. On balance .. er.. no.

[michael scuffil]

The answer has to lie in the definition of pornography.

To my mind, it's all in the eye of the beholder.

With respect, m'lud, I beg to differ. It's not a question of whether the picture is pornographic or not, but whether you should get a girl of this age to pose like this at all (and incidentally, make money from the image). I don't think the picture is pornographic, but it is overtly sexual, something which the girl couldn't have understood when it was taken. I think this is mis-use of a child's body.
However it all happened 33 years ago, and no one is going to be hurt by this image now. It's the same sort of problem as selling ivory from naturally dead elephants: no elephant will be harmed as a result, but it opens a loophole for poachers (or mutatis mutandis child-pornographers) to pass something new off as old.

That this particular affair was handled with gross ineptitude goes without saying.