Scorpions cover is child porn

[Deleted]

So, a man was prosecuted for possession of child porn pics in Sweden. All well, he was convicted for it.

Buuuuuuuut, they deemed a scorpion cover to be child porn, but it didn't constitute it to be illegal possession, if I understood the court right.

http://www.thelocal.se/20150807/reco...-swedish-court

Would you say it is child porn?

[TirielWoW]

I have no idea what that is, so...

[Deleted]

The cover in question.

On second note should probably remove the image in case I get done for child pornography :>

[Acidbaron]

I seriously doubt that all pictures were just album covers.

[Karreck]

Article link for the curious.

http://www.thelocal.se/20150807/reco...-swedish-court

Link to the album cover in question -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer

In my opinion, no, the album cover is not child porn by intention. Could some sicko use it as fap material? Sure. But since pornography is the portrayal of sexual subject matter for the purposes of sexual arousal, the album cover doesn't really meet that criteria. Do I think it is in bad taste? Yeah. But not porn.

[Deleted]

I seriously doubt that all pictures were just album covers.

They weren't, it's just that I'm a bit, uh, like, a cover being labelled child porn. Lots of people own that cd. Which means...

Responding to whether fans of the German group should be worried, Nordenman told TT: “Purely theoretically you could be sentenced for [owning the album in question], but I don't think the risk is particularly great if it is part of a record collection.”

Which would be kind of really ridiculous if it did result in a conviction, just because you own the album.

[THE Bigzoman]

Not sure that something being mass produced and sold to everyone legally should be considered child porn once people possess it.

[Jonnusthegreat]

I don't know how old that girl is, so I can't be sure.

[Deleted]

I seriously doubt that all pictures were just album covers.

That's not what the intended discussion is. He had a million child pornography pictures/videos at his home, and also the album cover I posted above. The intended debate is whether or not that should be considered child porn as the Swedish court said it is.

[Templar 331]

The cover in question.

On second note should probably remove the image in case I get done for child pornography :>

Yeah, I'd say it is child porn.

[Karreck]

I don't know how old that girl is, so I can't be sure.

From what Wikipedia says, she was 10 at the time.

[Acidbaron]

They weren't, it's just that I'm a bit, uh, like, a cover being labelled child porn. Lots of people own that cd. Which means...



Which would be kind of really ridiculous if it did result in a conviction, just because you own the album.

To me it merely reads as a piece of evidence to further stress and point out the behavior of the person, that it's part of his collection. Not that it's child pornography outside of that context. To me it seems they wanted to make the most solid case possible and were thorough.

I really doubt that you would get in trouble for having that album in your own collection if there are no ties between you and child pornography.

[Crissi]

I thought child porn inveigled actual children. If its a painting, then it technically isnt (even if it makes me feel unconfortable)?

I wonder if Nirvana's naked baby album cover would be child porn then...

edit: read more into the wiki. Used a model which makes me feel even weirder about it. Although, what about videos where a chid is playing in a tub naked? I assume a wid3er context is used for all these things,

[Fencers]

Would you say it is child porn?

What. No. That album and cover are both considered classics among music enthusiast. It was even on one of the VH1 Behind the Music things in the 90s.

The fucking Scorpions, bro.

[Deleted]

Laws are weird and often not explicit enough (for example educational material can have all the nude youth they want).

Though if it is the only album you own, and it is beside your bed on the night table, you might have some explaining to do. Laws are sometimes not purely guidelines to put a person in jail, sometimes they are used as a means to legalize further investigation or questioning.

In this case, it was deemed as actual audio entertainment, not porn; and hopefully that is what all other people use it for.

[Feali]

Oh 1976... different times.
You could do shit without getting judged because you're a rockstar.

Scorpions still suck.

[Skayth]

I would classify the cover art under art. Like many statues, film, pictures, and paintings portraying such nudity (or more obscene than that), it is under the art clause. Could some sick freak fap to it? Sure, like many other things. But that, in itself, no. its not child porn.

[usiris]

Is that Nirvana cover also child porn?

[Skayth]

Is that Nirvana cover also child porn?

Technically, it would be if not under what is considered art, along with Parents' photos of their nude child (not taken maliciously, but as memories).

[Bushtuckrman]

It might me more to do with him using that cover for pedophilia sexual gratification as opposed to that products actual use which is to play music, considering he had over a million images of child pornography.

I guess its in a similar vein to using a baseball bat as a deadly weapon if you beat somebody with it.