Virgin Killer aka LOL EVRY1 FOX123 IZ BK LOL

[Daggers]

Shocking, isn't it?

I am referring to the fact that some anonymous body I never knew existed and I never voted for is dictating to my ISP what sites I can and can not view.

I don't need ****ing protecting from life, no matter how grubby it may be around the edges. I don't want some other willy puller making my mind up for me.

Wikipedia falls foul of British censors

British internet providers have blocked access to parts of Wikipedia after accusations that the site was carrying "potentially illegal" images of child pornography.

Reports from users suggest that Virgin Media, O2's Be internet service and others have blocked access to at least one Wikipedia article after it was placed on a blacklist by the Internet Watch Foundation, Britain's de facto online watchdog.

The offending article, about German rock group The Scorpions' 1976 album Virgin Killers, included an image of the record's controversial cover - which featured a young naked girl with her genitals obscured by a crack in the camera lens.

The image caused controversy when the album was first released, and was eventually replaced in most countries – including the UK and United States - by a shot of the band. However, the original album cover is still on sale in the UK as part of a double album deluxe boxed set.

Instead of seeing the article itself, blocked users receive a fake message saying that the page could not be found.

In a statement, the IWF said that the organisation had received a report claiming the page was pornographic through its website, and that after a review the decision was made that the page was "potentially illegal".

"As with all child abuse reports received by our Hotline analysts, the image was assessed according to the UK Sentencing Guidelines Council," it said.

"The content was considered to be a potentially illegal indecent image of a child under the age of 18… and the specific URL was then added to the list."

The page itself has been the subject of hot debate among Wikipedia editors, some of whom objected to its use. However, after discussion the website's administrators determined that the original cover image would remain.

The IWF – a self-regulated body that effectively operates as Britain's online watchdog – runs the blacklist, largely focusing on images of child abuse.

The censoring system which uses the blacklist, known as Cleanfeed, was first launched by BT in 2004, but is now used by most of Britain's main internet providers.

However, the system has not been without its critics. In 2005 researchers at the University of Cambridge discovered that Cleanfeed could easily be reverse-engineered to reveal a full list of all the sites containing illegal content – turning it into what lead researcher Richard Clayton called "an oracle to efficiently locate illegal websites".

The proposed implementation of a similar system in Australia, also called Cleanfeed, has caused consternation among civil rights campaigners. They are concerned that the scheme – which plans to blacklist any "inappropriate" content, not just images of child abuse, and will be enforced for all Australian internet users – represents a dangerous limitation on freedom of speech.

Electronic Frontiers Australia, an online campaign group, has previously attacked the "creeping scope" of the plans, calling it "unprecedented interference in our communications infrastructure".

article

[stez]

Shocking, isn't it?

I am referring to the fact that some anonymous body I never knew existed and I never voted for is dictating to my ISP what sites I can and can not view.

I don't need ****ing protecting from life, no matter how grubby it may be around the edges. I don't want some other willy puller making my mind up for me.

article

are we allowed to see that one by blind faith?

[Daggers]

are we allowed to see that one by blind faith?

It seems that you are allowed to see half a girl on the Guardian website, the whole girls in record shops, book stores and on The Scorpions website and no girl on Wikipedia.

I don't think anyone would argue that the original image is totally tasteless, a real low in album cover art, but seeing as it has been in the public domain since 1976 it seems mental to now ban a Wiki page.

[Fox You Forest]

I'll finish reading it later, I'm struggling to get past "potentially illegal".

[Daggers]

I'll finish reading it later, I'm struggling to get past "potentially illegal".

It's good my ISP is blocking it then. I could have potentially seen a potentially illegal image with potentially disastrous repercussions.

[Master Fox]

FREE THE PEADOS

[Sir Fynwy]

I'm pleased to hear that there is someone out there making decisions for me, really helpful of them, I can stop worrying and let them get on with it.

[Zingari]

Shocking, isn't it?

I am referring to the fact that some anonymous body I never knew existed and I never voted for is dictating to my ISP what sites I can and can not view.

I don't need ****ing protecting from life, no matter how grubby it may be around the edges. I don't want some other willy puller making my mind up for me.

article

unless i'm missing something , these decisions are not being made for your benefit and protection (or that of any other grown man or woman )

[Daggers]

unless i'm missing something , these decisions are not being made for your benefit and protection (or that of any other grown man or woman )

Then maybe you could share your mighty insight.

On whose behalf is this denial of service being made?

[Zingari]

Then maybe you could share your mighty insight.

On whose behalf is this denial of service being made?

Attitudes towards explicit pictures of children have changed quite significantly in recent years as have attitudes towards many other things .

It was acceptable to tell racist jokes , it was acceptable to kill elephants just for ivory but no longer , and so even though racist jokes and ivory are still around for all that want to hear them or own them , broadstream society sees fit not to condone it by allowing it to be publicised easily

If this picture is made readily available to public viewing, then there would be very little hope of preventing photographs of naked children taken more recently to be published .

Can I also remind you that there is the issue of CONSENT - how can that be legitimately obtained from a 14 or 15 year old girl?

So in conclusion , it is for the benefit of other children who may not want their naked bodies to be broadcast on the internet that possibly may be the prime concern in this this case . Not your indignance at being denied it .

[DB11]

How is that illegal? It doesn't show anything indecent (well it would if she had tits)

[Daggers]

Attitudes towards explicit pictures of children have changed quite significantly in recent years as have attitudes towards many other things .

It was acceptable to tell racist jokes , it was acceptable to kill elephants just for ivory but no longer , and so even though racist jokes and ivory are still around for all that want to hear them or own them , broadstream society sees fit not to condone it by allowing it to be publicised easily

If this picture is made readily available to public viewing, then there would be very little hope of preventing photographs of naked children taken more recently to be published .

Can I also remind you that there is the issue of CONSENT - how can that be legitimately obtained from a 14 or 15 year old girl?

So in conclusion , it is for the benefit of other children who may not want their naked bodies to be broadcast on the internet that possibly may be the prime concern in this this case . Not your indignance at being denied it .

Good egg,

The 'girl' is now 40...and your knowledge of girls seems somewhat amiss if you believe she is 15 years old.

The record cover is widely available in record shops, online stores such as Amazon, the band's official site and numerous books dedicated to rock, album art and music in general. I guess you value Wikipedia more highly as a source of corrupting impressionable people.

Broadstream society (and by that I'm guessing you mean Daily Mail readers) are always banging on about your rights to hear Chubby Brown be an ignorant turd - and I'm pretty sure you yourself made a racist joke about Indian shopkeepers only this weekend. Broadstream society didn't do much to protect me from that. Neither have I seen broadstream society preventing me from seeing ivory.

Shit! I've just seen another piece!

Have you even looked at the album cover? This isn't an explicit image - I don't know if you've noticed but it doesn't even have nipples. If you find the image of a child with all references to sex removed 'explicit' then I think that says something about the way your mind works and you need to be addressing serious questions to yourself rather than jumping back on your high horse again in a hurry.

So, in conclusion, if you fancy making yourself aware of the salient facts appertaining to this matter I'd be delighted to debate this with you further but (as it stands at the moment) I don't fancy reading another Dear Editor of The Daily Mail letter.

[fox123]

I find it ironic that it's YOU who starts these 'close to the bone' provocative threads, yet you say to Zingari..

Have you even looked at the album cover? This isn't an explicit image - I don't know if you've noticed but it doesn't even have nipples. If you find the image of a child with all references to sex removed 'explicit' then I think that says something about the way your mind works and you need to be addressing serious questions to yourself rather than jumping back on your high horse again in a hurry.

I think it's you who needs to think about the way your mind works, for example. Your analysis of the picture reveals that there are no nipples, now what does that say about you? Examining the young girls body. You know what you have posted is going to (again) be close to the bone and gain that reaction, just for you to turn the post around onto someone else.

Seriously you need to stop creating these threads, I think you will notice that your 'Forum followers' haven't posted in these threads, because there really is no need for them.

Let's be realistic here, this is a Leicester City forum, for Leicester City fans. I am back because that is what I am. If you or anyone else don't like my responses to threads/posts like this then fine don't create them, and if you think I am getting on my high horse fine, it's just a shame a lot of you don't have the bollocks to have an opinion and challenge shite that is created like this.

[ozleicester]

Art Vs Porn one of the great debates of the 21st century.

Here in Australia we have seen a disastrous example of the overeaction that can occur, simply because a young person is photographed/painted naked. google Bill Henson

The naked human body does not immediately become a tool for sex, it can infact express a million different concepts, sadlythe religious right and the easily led will jump on baord any "kiddy porn" story and cloud the truth.

How many of you, reading this...have ever looked at an Anne Geddes baby calendar? In days gone by every single shop and work place had these horrifying images on public display.

grow up people..nudity does not immediatley become porn...nor does it mean you are a paedophile if you can appreciate art.

[stez]

Art Vs Porn one of the great debates of the 21st century.

Here in Australia we have seen a disastrous example of the overeaction that can occur, simply because a young person is photographed/painted naked. google Bill Henson

The naked human body does not immediately become a tool for sex, it can infact express a million different concepts, sadlythe religious right and the easily led will jump on baord any "kiddy porn" story and cloud the truth.

How many of you, reading this...have ever looked at an Anne Geddes baby calendar? In days gone by every single shop and work place had these horrifying images on public display.

grow up people..nudity does not immediatley become porn...nor does it mean you are a paedophile if you can appreciate art.

i remember chris morris doing a thing about art, in which he made a piece of art more and more offensive, asking the critic when it, actually, becomes offensive.

still i'd prefer not to see pictures of kiddie porn ( ) but as i would prefer not to see it, i tend not to look.

re. the album art, if the girl (now woman) was that annoyed by it, i guess she could've asked for it so be withdrawn when she reached an age to realise about age's of consent and such.

[Zingari]

Good egg,

The 'girl' is now 40...and your knowledge of girls seems somewhat amiss if you believe she is 15 years old.

The record cover is widely available in record shops, online stores such as Amazon, the band's official site and numerous books dedicated to rock, album art and music in general. I guess you value Wikipedia more highly as a source of corrupting impressionable people.

Broadstream society (and by that I'm guessing you mean Daily Mail readers) are always banging on about your rights to hear Chubby Brown be an ignorant turd - and I'm pretty sure you yourself made a racist joke about Indian shopkeepers only this weekend. Broadstream society didn't do much to protect me from that. Neither have I seen broadstream society preventing me from seeing ivory.

Shit! I've just seen another piece!

Have you even looked at the album cover? This isn't an explicit image - I don't know if you've noticed but it doesn't even have nipples. If you find the image of a child with all references to sex removed 'explicit' then I think that says something about the way your mind works and you need to be addressing serious questions to yourself rather than jumping back on your high horse again in a hurry.

So, in conclusion, if you fancy making yourself aware of the salient facts appertaining to this matter I'd be delighted to debate this with you further but (as it stands at the moment) I don't fancy reading another Dear Editor of The Daily Mail letter.

Good egg,

thank you

The 'girl' is now 40...and your knowledge of girls seems somewhat amiss if you believe she is 15 years old.

I bow down to your superior knowledge regarding this, but find it a little pedantic ( and i was talking about photos taken of girls more recently who are now 14-15 )

The record cover is widely available in record shops, online stores such as Amazon, the band's official site and numerous books dedicated to rock, album art and music in general. I guess you value Wikipedia more highly as a source of corrupting impressionable people.

Yes i know and so are many other things that are not deemed suitable for general viewing in the present climate , and so are put out of sight of minors ( top shelf )

Broadstream society (and by that I'm guessing you mean Daily Mail readers) are always banging on about your rights to hear Chubby Brown be an ignorant turd - and I'm pretty sure you yourself made a racist joke about Indian shopkeepers only this weekend. Broadstream society didn't do much to protect me from that. Neither have I seen broadstream society preventing me from seeing ivory.

Racist joke ? no that wasn't me unless Thursday counts as the weekend ( pedantry is so pathetic isn't it ? ) and if it was so offensive to you , take heart , in more enlightened times still to come these so called offensive "jokes" will, i'm sure be banned . and hopefully the likes of yours truly clapped in irons .

i was actually referring to the trading in ivory , not it's manifestation in various ornaments , but i suspect you knew that .

But isn't this the sort of diversionary tactic in debate that you claim to despise ?

Shit! I've just seen another piece!

Have you even looked at the album cover? This isn't an explicit image - I don't know if you've noticed but it doesn't even have nipples. If you find the image of a child with all references to sex removed 'explicit' then I think that says something about the way your mind works and you need to be addressing serious questions to yourself rather than jumping back on your high horse again in a hurry.

The IWF consider it to be , and they consider a lot of internet content to be racist too and try to act on it , but do you complain then ? probably not . ( go to their site , they actually try to do a lot of good )

http://www.iwf.org.uk/

So, in conclusion, if you fancy making yourself aware of the salient facts appertaining to this matter I'd be delighted to debate this with you further but (as it stands at the moment) I don't fancy reading another Dear Editor of The Daily Mail letter

So in conclusion, spare me the "Dave Spart" indignancy at your loss of freedom , and save it for fighting for the rights of freedom for groups of youths in the the streets of Birmingham .

Some of the residents want the power to stop them meeting and dressing in certain clothes , can you believe that ?

perhaps these residents should write to the daily mail , the morning star is pretty useless at these things

( see ?diversionary irrelevant tactic, )

yours in expectation of being re-educated into being properly indignant at being denied my freedoms

zingari

i can't foresee that we will ever agree regarding this, so i'll just say that i won't be making any more posts in regard to it , so feel free to answer or totally disregard as you see fit , i'll read ,but i will not reply.

but all the best anyway

[Thracian]

I find it ironic that it's YOU who starts these 'close to the bone' provocative threads, yet you say to Zingari..

I think it's you who needs to think about the way your mind works, for example. Your analysis of the picture reveals that there are no nipples, now what does that say about you? Examining the young girls body. You know what you have posted is going to (again) be close to the bone and gain that reaction, just for you to turn the post around onto someone else.

Seriously you need to stop creating these threads, I think you will notice that your 'Forum followers' haven't posted in these threads, because there really is no need for them.

Let's be realistic here, this is a Leicester City forum, for Leicester City fans. I am back because that is what I am. If you or anyone else don't like my responses to threads/posts like this then fine don't create them, and if you think I am getting on my high horse fine, it's just a shame a lot of you don't have the bollocks to have an opinion and challenge shite that is created like this.

I've stayed out of the debate because I really see it as quite complex. Do you defend the dignity of the female sex or do you defend the freedom of people to choose whether they appear naked on a record sleeve and whether other people are therefore allowed to ogle them?

To me that record sleeve is a publicity exercise and of no consequence. Any controversy will only add to its impact.

I don't see anything offensive in it at all. Would I have wanted my children to see it when they were young? Couldn't give a damn.

If my children would have been so mindless as to have been somehow morally threatened by a commercial image and the screaming publicity banner "Virgin Killer" then my wife and I would have done a pretty poor job as parents.

As for noticing the qualities of a nubile girl's body in a picture what else can you do? To any normal male, and doubtless some females, she's damned attractive and that's for the better too because nature makes all young adolescents look the very best they can as part of the natural drive to make them attractive to the opposite sex for breeding purposes.

Her being nude is no big deal. When mankind first appeared on this planet everyone was nude and even those who wore skins wouldn't have left much to the imagination especially during the warmer months. Some tribes remain nude or nearly nude today.

Nudist families mix and play sports with each other all the time. Do you really believe that no-one finds the others attractive because they are of different age groups? Nonsense.

The puritanical won't change that and why should it be changed. Would you wish your young daughter to be unattractive at 14/ 15/16? Cos I wouldn't. And, remember, our age of consent is only a number imposed by our society because it supposedly best suits the way our society is structured. Other societies have different ages of consent.

I met my wife at 16 and she was some eyecatcher I can promise you. All sorts of people noticed her and I'm sure they noticed her at 14 and 14 and 13 too. People don't suddenly become attractive because someoone rings a bell to announce they are 16 or 18.

I found it quite flattering that people found my wife attractive and don't suppose it would be any different if I had a daughter. I'd be pleased for her cos I'd know that if she wasn't physically attractive as a teenager she probably never would be.

But noticing and being disrespectful or predatory are totally different things.

And as for the record sleeve, if that sort of picture was seen more often - instead of being a sensationalist and deliberately provocative image - then it would put an end to this sort of thread because, very soon, no-one would care whoever was portrayed nude.

That would perhaps be a shame - I think the tradition for females to be reasonably modest adds to their allure and to their dignity, but you see my point about nudity.... it is tantalising and provocative because it's not our society's norm, not because it's wrong.

Bottom line, the censorship could be considered totally OTT, authoritarian, unnecessary and illogical given the amount of time the image has been in the public domain already. On the other hand it could represent a genuine drive to maintain the dignity of women or, more particularly adolescent women.

And where does that end if it continues? Perhaps you'd prefer the Muslim approach with a total ban on the public portrayal of nudity and the insistence that all women of childbearing age should cover up in public.

Nudity can only offend public decency if you consider the exposure of human flesh to be indecent when in fact it is simply outside the society norm.

Some people would report a man or woman, girl or boy who walked down the High Street naked. Me, I'd think it unusual, and perhaps bloody stupid in the weather we've been having. But I wouldn't care at all. I'd just continue on my way and if lots of people walked nude, you'd soon stop noticing any more than if were they clothed.

Apart from the exceptional, of course. I'm sure some of the women would notice then!

And, on that basis, I shall stick with clothes, especially in the cold.

[Daggers]

Brilliant. That little paddyfit didn't last very long then did it!

*wah* *wah* *wah* I'm leaving the forum because you are all horrible! *wah* *wah* *wah*

Nice to see from his quote in Thracian's post that he hasn't managed to find a brain yet - I'd imagine he'd be dead dangerous if he discovered one. What a prize spanner.

[Bellend Sebastian]

Is it a good record, though? That's what I want to know.

I reckon it might be ACE

[stez]

Is it a good record, though? That's what I want to know.

I reckon it might be ACE

the scorpions? i doubt it, the best thing about them was whistling and that fella's 'tache

[Finnegan]

I find it ironic that it's YOU who starts these 'close to the bone' provocative threads, yet you say to Zingari..

I think it's you who needs to think about the way your mind works, for example. Your analysis of the picture reveals that there are no nipples, now what does that say about you? Examining the young girls body. You know what you have posted is going to (again) be close to the bone and gain that reaction, just for you to turn the post around onto someone else.

Seriously you need to stop creating these threads, I think you will notice that your 'Forum followers' haven't posted in these threads, because there really is no need for them.

Let's be realistic here, this is a Leicester City forum, for Leicester City fans. I am back because that is what I am. If you or anyone else don't like my responses to threads/posts like this then fine don't create them, and if you think I am getting on my high horse fine, it's just a shame a lot of you don't have the bollocks to have an opinion and challenge shite that is created like this.

Haven't I seen you somewhere before?

[Daggers]

Is it a good record, though? That's what I want to know.

I reckon it might be ACE

Laibach are the only good thing to come from Germany

[Daggers]

Haven't I seen you somewhere before?

He does love the threads about children to a disproportionate level, doesn't he.

[fox123]

Haven't I seen you somewhere before?

Is that when you had your tongue wedged firmly up Daggers arse?

He does love the threads about children to a disproportionate level, doesn't he.

Seems you love to create threads and post about children as well.

[Daggers]

Woohoo - he's back again.

I guess the off-license has closed or he's been kicked out of his daughter's bedroom again.

[cue semi-literate twat-rant]