Scorpions' "Virgin Killers" image censored

[bobzilla77]

Censorship in any form is unacceptable.

No it's not. Whatever the merits of this case (and I think they have a point, though a clumsily executed one), moral relativism is not a strong case. Something's aren't right. And of they're not right...

Also I wouldn't claim any "artistic merit" defence, which a piece of literature like Lolita might be worthy of.

The Wikipedia article doesn't defend the cover. It is called controversial in its second line, then again in the caption, and so on. The cover itself was quickly modified at the time in most countries. But the fact is that it did exist and that Wikipedia is being censored for telling the story - and they're blocking text too.

Well that's another story. You should be allowed to talk about history. I don't have a problem with that particular image being blocked though.

[doctorlouie]

Also I wouldn't claim any "artistic merit" defence, which a piece of literature like Lolita might be worthy of.

I never understood the problem with this book. It's a cautiuonary tale, surely.
Two characters die and it doesn't end well for the others either.
Not really a pro pedophilia rant or anything.

It's ages since I read it, but I'm sure you're right. There is some dodgy content, if only by inference, if I remember correctly. The context, however, makes it different.

I'm not pro-censorship, but I think a reasonable liberal democracy should be troubled by somethings and needs to work them out whenever they come along. This is one such instance. I remember the author of Summerhill saying that he thought Dracula would be a disturbing book for a young child, but pictures of couples in sexual congress might not be. He was vilified for his progressive beliefs, but he might be right. These things are complicated and require a light touch.

[Underwater]

The IWF have backtracked after they classified the image as a 1 on the scale of 1-5 offensiveness. The page is back now for all to see.

I'm still using the secure version of Wikipedia from now on, though.

[Snarfyguy]

I'm still using the secure version of Wikipedia from now on, though.

Sorry, what does that mean - "the secure version?"

[jude]

They've backed down. Hurrah!

I'm still using the secure version of Wikipedia from now on, though.

Sorry, what does that mean - "the secure version?"

https rather than http. It's encrypted with a security certificate much like online banking, email accounts, etc.

EDIT - Didn't see Underwater's last post.

[jude]

I'm still using the secure version of Wikipedia from now on, though.

For any particular reason?

[dang65]

Anyone been into W H Smiths recently and seen the TRAGIC LIVES section? They've collected together all those books with titles like "A Boy Called It" or "Don't Tell Mum" or whatever. There are hundreds of them. All about abusive childhoods. The really sick thing is that a lot of them are actually fiction. They don't even have the justification of being some kind of cathartic outburst of writing by a genuinely abused person... someone's actually made that stuff up.

Not that I think they should be censored, but I do wonder who reads that stuff.