Talk:Virgin Killer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

[edit] VfD

On April 24, 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Virgin Killer for a record of the discussion. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:41, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

For the version of this article that was nominated for VFD (by User:Squash), click here. Note that its topic was not The Scorpions' album. (Therefore I don't think the above notice is relevant but I'm sure I lack the authority to remove it.) — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 06:39, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] image showing a naked prepubescent girl

First things first, I'd rather keep the cover image. After all, it was the original cover and it was controversial, therefore interesting in itself.

But, there is the legal issue to ponder. I am not sure about any individual country, but images like this are illegal in numerous countries (I think the UK and Australia are rather strict, others possibly?).

I'd rather have someone check if that applies to countries, where

1. Wikipedia-servers reside
2. the Wikipedia Foundation or individuals could be legally responsible
3. etc

Is there some legal guidance for stuff like that?

IcycleMort 19:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Nudity ≠ pornography. Suppose the band released a nearly identical cover where the only difference was the age of the girl shown. A picture of a nude 22-year-old girl in the exact same pose as the 12-year-old one would not be considered pornographic at all. It would be mere "nudity" and there would have been no controversy. To suggest that particular pose may or may not be a "pornographic pose" (depending solely on the age of the individual posing) is facetious.
Conversely, it is possible for images to be pornographic without showing any private parts (leaving them acceptable for network television broadcast even—see Paris Hilton).
If I remember correctly:

the cover was not banned in the traditional sense, as it was never declared illegal. It was in fact released, uncensored (as shown in Virgin Killer.jpg), only to be recalled from distribution after numerous complaints and at least one incident of mass vandalism of on-shelf albums by a customer. Then it was re-released with a different cover.

I'll try to cite sources on all this before adding this information to the article.

— FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 06:30, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, Nudity ≠ pornography. I do not consider the image offensive. But I do know, that it would be illegal to display/own/whatever that kind of image in many countries(legislation can be very strange). I am concerned legally not morally. I've searched Wikipedia, but the only legal issues adressed are copyright issues. So I am just trying to find out if somebody has more of a clue regarding the legal situation in countries we'd be concerned about (probably mostly regarding server-location). Do you know somebody who could answer those questions? IcycleMort | Talk 08:39, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok. Glad that we can agree that Virgin Killer.jpg is not porn. Maybe I used too many words to argue that, but I'll move on. Since it's not porn and therefore not child porn, it's not illegal in the U.S. which (I assume) is where the English language Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org) is stored.
As for whether or not it is legal to view this image in various other countries, I do not know, but I'm not sure it would matter, since persons viewing Virgin Killer.jpg in a countries where it is confirmed to be illegal (due to adolescent nudity) would be doing so at their own risk, not ours.
Furthermore, this would not be the only problematic image. Take, for example, the following (Pulitzer Prize-winning) image of the infamous Kim Phuc Phan Thi (third from left, nude).

400px

(© 1972, Huynh Cong "Nick" Ut, Associated Press.)

Some might find this to be a tasteless comparison, but it begs the question of whether:

• fear of censorship laws is more dangerous than the laws themselves, or
• context really does make all the difference.

I don't speak often, but guess I'm long-winded when I do.

— FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 09:36, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Convinced. IcycleMort | Talk 17:29, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the comments above, the original "Virgin Killer" cover was withdrawn by RCA in the US, due to a somewhat negative reaction to it's contents. It was never officially banned by the Government or anything like that. In most other countries (UK, Europe, Japan etc), it did not attract the same level of controversy, and was used as the cover for many years. During this time it sold many copies (it was a very popular album) and has been widely disseminated, both as an original cover and as a web image. To my knowledge, it has never faced any legal challenges, despite numerous inclusions on other "international" sites such as "EBay" etc. There was a similar controversy regarding the "Blind Faith" album cover which featured a girl of similar age in a state of undress, and holding a remarkably phallic model of a futuristic aeroplane. That one is already featured on Wiki! Paulzon (Museum Of Bad Album Covers)

Based on my understanding of the federal law regarding child pornography this picture of the album cover is not illegal. Here is why:

• Nudity in and of itself involving a minor is not illegal unless it depicts "lascivious exhibition of the genitals".
• As the album cover does not, based on my understanding of concept, depict "lascivious exhibition of the genitals", (the genitals being obscured by the crack in the glass), I do not believe it would be illegal. Had the genitals not been obscered then the picture might be said to fall into a gray area.
• While the picture is almost certainly illegal in some countries outside the US, the Wikipedia servers reside in the US and thus we only need to worry about US law.

--Cab88 21:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)