File talk:Virgin Killer.jpg

Also see Wikipedia Signpost 12 May 2008

This image has been flagged as child pornography by the UK's Internet Watch Foundation

Virgin Killer and Image:Virgin Killer.jpg have been flagged as child pornography by the UK's Internet Watch Foundation. As a result of this, they are inaccessible through many major UK ISPs. The technical measures necessitated in order to put this sort of barrier in place have negatively impacted Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects by forcing all traffic from these ISPs through a handful of IP addresses, making it harder to deal with vandalism and causing problems for many legitimate users if the addresses are blocked. Attempts to access this article through these ISPs return blank pages, fake 404 errors, or something similar. More information may be found at WP:AN#Major UK ISPs reduced to using 2 IP addresses. -- Gurch (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

That certainly does not make it a candidate for speedy deletion. Send it to IfD again if you wish but I'm not sure we need another shitstorm over this. If anything the action to take is to contact the UK's Internet Watch Foundation and solve the problem there. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 17:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Debate the issue all you like, but this isn't complex: the fact remains that either you remove the offending image or the IWF will continue to block access to the page for as long as it takes to get the message through to Wikipedia admin that child pornography appearing on an album cover is still child pornography whether anybody has been arrested for it or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by P14nic997 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It is wikipedians as a whole and not admins in particular who will decide whether we continue retaining the image, and being an admin does not mean someone supports its being here. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

This is what I get when I try to access Image:Virgin Killer.jpg, but not Virgin Killer through Demon Internet:

Access Denied (403)

We have blocked this page because, according to the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF), it contains indecent images of children or pointers to them; you could be breaking UK law if you viewed the page.

What To Do

If you were directed to this site by an email or another site, then you should consider reporting the email or site to the Internet Watch Foundation. Visit their web site (http://www.iwf.org.uk) for details about how to do this.

This blocking service is provided solely for the protection of our customers. We have not recorded that you attempted to visit this site, nor will we be taking any further action. You can find more information about the IWF list of URLs to block here: http://www.iwf.org.uk/public/page.148.htm.

Demon is a brand of THUS plc

-- Arwel Parry _(talk) 22:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, anyone can walk into a record store and buy this image in the UK today: it's on the back of the deluxe boxed set. Seems like it's just a filtering cockup and not any genuine deceleration of "child porn" status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.150.202 (talk) 10:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not just a filtering cockup. Look here for a full discussion. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 11:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Keeping this mildly child porno image is not worth the trouble. I would rather have those ISPs back than this creepy picture. --Tocino 17:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Then you give the ISPs the right to remove whatever they want from the internet. There's a lot more at stake here than this particular image. pipatron (talk) 17:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm copy-pasting comments I made at the page I linked to above.

I just want to say one thing. That image was the cover of a record album that was released in 1976. That was 32 years ago. It's been continuously available for purchase since then. And in the intervening 32 years NO ONE has been prosecuted, charged, arraigned, accused or indicted in any court anywhere ever for having anything to do with child pornography because of the production, distribution, possession or use of that album cover. Not in the US. Not in the UK. Not in Europe. Nowhere. It is plainly, obviously, beyond any semblance of reason and without question a load of idiotic nonsense to suggest that there is anything illegal about that image. Do the folks who think it's child pornography honestly believe that they can see something in that image that no court or law enforcement agency ANYWHERE has seen in 32 years? Of all the issues and all the controversies I've seen on Wikipedia, by far the greatest volume of moronic commentary has been produced regarding this image. The only issue worth discussing here is how to get the nanny-staters in the UK to come to their senses. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to shed a tear if this leads to more mildly pornographic images that have slipped through the cracks being removed from WP. Like has been said, this image is avaliable on Google. If people want to see it they can. It's not worthy of being on an encyclopedia as our British friends have pointed out however. --Tocino 18:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It is quite worth it, as it is an image that accurately depicts what the album cover was when it was released. To remove it would be a simplistic whitewashing of history, all to satisfy some prudish advocacy group. It isn't the fault of the Wikipedia that some UK users may be denied access; it is the fault of whoever it is that is doing the denying. Tarc (talk) 18:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It's WP's fault for hosting pornographic images no matter the reason for hosting. A paragraph or two about the controversial cover would be enough for the reader. After all I am sure the band who produced the album would rather the focus be about the songs instead of the picture on the cover. --Tocino 18:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not pornographic; that is, it's not designed to inspire lust in the onlooker. Whatever The Scorpions want, one of the major issues about this album--and one that apparently is continuing--is that cover.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Well in my opinion a picture of a nude minor with the title "Virgin Killer" is pornographic in nature. --Tocino 19:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion holds no relevance, where there is Wikipedia policy and guideline to the contrary. IF you have issue with policies of WP:NOTCENSORED and such, then take them up at the appropriate location. Tarc (talk) 19:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Please don't belittle others. This is a community project. All opinions are valued. WP is not a collection of child porn so WP:NOTCENSORED has nothing to do with this. --Tocino 19:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

No, not all opinions are valued. Wikipedia tries to be as objective as possible, and objectively this images has never been the object of a court suit, and it's not designed to inspire lust in the onlooker (a major definition of pornographic). Moreover, WP is not a collection of album covers, but that doesn't mean that we don't use them on pages.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, all opinions are valued. And a nude minor with the title "Virgin Killer" is a pornographic image whether you like it or not. --Tocino 20:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Oh, thank you for the "because I said so" argument, Tocino. Congratulations, now we're all going to admit your flawless powers of discernment have given you the ability to see child pornography where no court has seen it for the past 32 years. Sorry, all, Tocino has obviously bested us and we have to be quiet and go home now.

But seriously, folks, Tocino obviously has the right to his opinion and the rest of us have the right to regard that opinion as trivial, sophomoric foolishness. So, in that sense, yes, all opinions are welcome. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no need for this kind of sarcastic reply. --Tocino 20:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing pornographic in the image at all. Nudity is not pornography. DoubleBlue (talk) 20:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Child nudity, especially in a suggestive manner like this alblum cover, certainly qualifies as pornography. --Tocino 20:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Legally - No it does not (see comments at end) --83.105.91.203 (talk) 12:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

You consider the artwork pornographic, Tocino? What an embarrassing thing for you to admit. That's very brave of you. Creepy, but brave. I give you respect for your candor. 76.104.45.99 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC).

Tocino, It is only pornographic in your opinion. Please don't be so presumptuous to think that your opinion necessarily extends to others, as I can cheerfully assure you that it does not. If it offends your sensibilities, simply follow the instructions. Case closed. Tarc (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Well done, IWF, the insistence of a minority of editors to retain this image can only harm the project, but like they care. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

If there is a lurking majority of editors who do not support retention of the image, as you are implying, then they are very welcome to assert themselves. — An Sealgair (talk) 04:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It is the IWF and the ISPs who use the service that is to blame. DoubleBlue (talk) 20:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Well that entirely depends on one's perspective. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The voyeuristic community always prevails on discussions like these. It's easy to promote child porn when you are living anonymously. --Tocino 20:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

That sort of libel should be self-reverted. DoubleBlue (talk) 20:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure, SqueakBox, except for the fact that a majority of editors wish to see it retained, rather than your false assertion that it is a minority. You lost in the previous IfD debate, I remember fondly, and beating this dead horse again simply isn't going to go anywhere. Tarc (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Err it is not me who has brought the subject up and I referred to wikipedia editors as a whole not those who voted on this one ifd. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The beating of the deadhorse is where the voyeuristic community constantly shouts WP:NOTCENSORED!!!! to get their way. It's been used so much as an excuse that it hardly has any meaning anymore. Perhaps we should ask what Jimbo Wales thinks. --Tocino 20:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

If you persist in labeling those who hold an opinion different than yours as "voyeurs" and such, then you can expect to have your behavior reviewed by the appropriate user conduct boards. As for Mr. Wales, perhaps a reading of WP:JIMBO will do you some good. Tarc (talk) 20:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Trying to escalate this would not be helpful, Tarc. God knows this image, which completely violates our BLP policy, has done enough damage already. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

What?!? You're invoking BLP, despite the fact that it's well-sourced, notable, and the person pictured finds it unobjectionable? What's next, invoking BLP on Barak Obama because it calls him a Democrat?--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

If necessary I will escalate as I see fit. Wanting to retain this image (which is not a BLP violation, you lost on that angle in the last IfD) does not mean I or anyone else is a voyeur of naked children. Those characterizations will stop. Tarc (talk) 21:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm with BT (live in London) and I can see the image as of 3.20am this morning. To my suprise, I came to the page to not see it if you know what I mean. (Sorry if I've done this wrong I don't edit/talk a lot.) AliJDB (talk) 03:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be limited to the ISPs listed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/2008 IWF action#Affected IP Addresses. --Amalthea 04:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

If this is child porn, then what is the verdict on Nirvana's Nevermind album?! 144.32.126.11 (talk) 09:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys. I work for a company in the UK which contracts to the police to forensically process computers in child protection cases. I have training and experience on classifying images (for police prosecution). Finally I also work as a private defence consultant (IEC 1004 cleared) on similar matters. I can tell you now that this image is *not* classified as CP (the IWF are mislead somewhere along the line). The image would be classed (on the UK Copine scale) as "Relevant" - which means alone would not allow for a conviction on CP charges but it indicative of intent. Viewing images like this in a non-sexual context (such as this article) or as *part of the arts* (music cover) is not classed as an offence.

Further more: the original image is NOT CP because it is covered by "for artistic purposes" (whereby the image makes a statement as part of a work of artistic merit) - it is extremely possible that the photograph of the cover is similarly classed. Plus I also believe there is a little used classification of "for informational merit" where the image can be justified as educational or informational (for example a text book on human development etc.).

Summary: this image is legally not a problem :)

I realise my credentials mean very little posting as an anon and w/o any specific proof - but if further contact is necessary then I will pass on contact info to senior WP figures for further discussion. Any other forensic analyst will tell you the same though --83.105.91.203 (talk) 12:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand what my own opinion is worth as an internet anonymous poster. But to my understanding this discussion is not about a certain Scorpions cover art. It is about who can censor wikipedia (and/or the internet) without any trial. I don't want private third parties to censor my internet connection. And I believe that this is worth fighting even if it is a new milestone in the Scorpions article shitstorm. If someone believes that it really is CP, then prove it in court. Anything else is moronic and pointless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.37.240.34 (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Crossing a line?

The image clearly straddles the line between illegal porn and protected art. It has elements of both, which is probably what makes it so interesting.

That, and the album title, make it clearly provocative; it surely boosted album sales.

Whether the UK is right to block the page - or even our entire website is a related - if slightly different - matter.

There is the issue of "what is pornography?" and "should pornography have any limits?" along with "what are society's standards?" and "how should society promote its standards?" - I'll be watching to see whether Wikipedians can address any of these questions in depth. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

See related discussions linked at the top. I've read them, and it appears to boil down to a 3:1 split of "law" v. "some higher standard". Rklawton (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The image is in fact a painting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.48.133 (talk) 17:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Not, in fact, according to the article. Rklawton (talk) 18:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The album cover is art. Whether it's good, bad, or indifferent, art should not be censored. It's just that simple. If Wikipedia receives a court order from an appropriate jurisdiction demanding that the image be removed, it should be -- but not a moment before. 76.104.45.99 (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

But if art should not be censored, then artist could make child porn and call it 'art' and thus severely cross a line. Personally I think this image crosses a line but it's still an album cover and should therefore not be banned from Wikipedia, but that point has been made clearly in earlier discussions. I wonder why this would classify as porn, or why it would not, because the girl in the picture looks at the viewer? Because she exposes her body? I'll be watching this discussion too, see what comes out of it. Artgoyle (talk) 09:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it crosses a line: it is a picture of a girl in a sexually provocative pose. Then there is the glass effect and the album title. And since the IWF has now allowed the unblocking of the page, removing the current external censorship issue, there might be an opportunity to consider whether the image contributes to building an encyclopedia (the last IfD was closed after five minutes). I have my doubts. --Rumping (talk) 00:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You have your doubts that the cover of an album belongs on the page of the album? That a picture of a massively controversial piece of art belongs on a page that covers that controversy? It's very encyclopedic to have that picture here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I had no involvement in retaining the image or nominating it for deletion, but Wikipedia did not create the image. Wikipedia does not create anything. It only documents the world around it. Take your grievances up with the world, in this case, the record label that published the image, and let it be. — An Sealgair (talk) 05:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, some of the logic displayed here is startling. A child cannot consent to a sexual act and cannot consent to being photographed while naked. Its as simple as that. The argument about whether it is art being displayed is incredibly naieve, and obvious for its lack of understanding of art. If someone took a picture of a man being killed, all in the name of art, and perpetrated the murder, would this be acceptable? Its the same principle here. The child cannot consent to sexual exhibitionism as much as a man cannot consent to being murdered. 86.40.99.86 (talk) 01:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Statistics

Image:Virgin_Killer.jpg has been viewed 270173 times in 200812.
Virgin_Killer has been viewed 502751 times in 200812.
Not including direct accesses, blocked accesses and accesses via http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virgin_Killer and similar. --89.55.0.189 (talk) 00:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

This is this worldwide or just the UK? --Marianian (talk) 21:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It's just in the UK --97.96.166.65 (talk) 02:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The page view statistics are worldwide, excluding part of the UK because of the block, but for the english Wikipedia only (e.g., the german Wikipedia has 18364 accesses of de: Virgin Killer, although it's just a newly created, almost orphaned redirect without image). Current figures are 400134 for Image: Virgin Killer.jpg and 750056 for Virgin Killer. --89.55.38.63 (talk) 02:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Backed down

The IWF has backed down.--Simon Brown - Talk Contribs 21:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

A scewed sense of legitimacy

OK, lets get this straight: Wikipedia should host this image because it isn't illegal, therefore its okay. Does morality play no role? Does morality not dictate, to anyone with eyes, that this album cover is child pornography? Let me remind everyone that this cover depicts a naked child, with a crack running past her vagina.

I would like to suggest that this cover is not encyclopedia. Perhaps an article about the controversy would be, with arguments on both sides present, but right now, a lot of her advocates sound like NAMBLA representatives. A truly ludicrous argument based on a truly nihilistic approach to morality. Terrifying what wikipedia can come to when an overbearing buraucracy with no heart takes control. 86.40.99.86 (talk) 01:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

No, morality doesn't dictate that a picture of a nearly-naked girl is child pornography, even or especially if a crack has been strategically placed to keep her from being naked. Nudist camps are not routinely shut down as NAMBLA fronts, and a permissive attitude to nudity is found in many non-nihilistic sets of morality.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The significant difference is that 'nudist camps' comprise adults. A difference I think you are strategically ignoring.

The exhibition of a naked girl, when the girl cannot have the maturity to make such a decision (To allow herself to be photographed nude) is not immoral, its amoral. You don't seem to be able to take yourself away from the superficial (That its art (Which, in fact, it is not) so its okay) and transform the controversy into one of morality - that it is fundamentally wrong to take pictures of naked girls. 86.40.99.86 (talk) 03:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)