Scorpions cover is child porn

[TirielWoW]

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,

It's not a painting. It was an actual 10 year old.

[Mistame]

Would you say it is child porn?

No. Pornography, by definition, is the portrayal of sexual subject matter. Nudity is not inherently pornographic. Good ole Sweden.

[Mihalik]

I just googled that album cover.

Yup...that's...pretty much kiddy porn. It mystifies me how that ever got published. Tho considering that it was commercially available, it could be simply considered art and I don't think it's something over which you can prosecute someone.

I'm fairly certain that there are completely normal (sexually) collectors who have those album covers in their collection and not because they fap off to them.

[SL1200]

Did you not read the article you are refering to? He had 1000s of images including the album cover, and wasn't convicted for the album cover.

[Gumboy]

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,

Isn't it one of the ban members nieces or something? Read an article on it once...

[Mistame]

Did you not read the article you are refering to? He had 1000s of images including the album cover, and wasn't convicted for the album cover.

Did you not read the OP? The topic is about the album cover being deemed child porn. The rest of the link is irrelevant.

[TirielWoW]

Isn't it one of the ban members nieces or something? Read an article on it once...

Wikipedia says it was the daughter or niece - they weren't sure - of the photographer.

[Kezotar]

It's not child porn if it does not contain children doing something sexual. If it's just naked pictures then it's not illegal. Imagine all the pictures your family has of you when you were young. That's not consider porn. However, if it's sexual. Then yes, it's child porn. Else. No.

[TirielWoW]

It's not child porn if it does not contain children doing something sexual. If it's just naked pictures then it's not illegal. Imagine all the pictures your family has of you when you were young. That's not consider porn. However, if it's sexual. Then yes, it's child porn. Else. No.

I think that "provocative poses" also count as child porn, even if there's nothing overtly sexual about what the child is doing.

[Kezotar]

I think that "provocative poses" also count as child porn, even if there's nothing overtly sexual about what the child is doing.

There's different opinions about that. And you only decide that yourself depending on how much you feel provoked by it.
I checked the album cover. Inappropriate for an Album cover. Child Porn? No way.

Again, if you're there holding your crotch as a child and being taken a picture off doing nothing sexual. Then it's not child porn. However if you're actually trying to perform something, then yes.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

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.

Not quite...They ruled that, although the image on the cover could be considered child pornography, they couldn't prove that was the reason he had it in his possession.

According to many countries legal definitions of Child porn though...that image qualifies as child porn.

[TirielWoW]

There's different opinions about that. And you only decide that yourself depending on how much you feel provoked by it.
I checked the album cover. Inappropriate for an Album cover. Child Porn? No way.

Again, if you're there holding your crotch as a child and being taken a picture off doing nothing sexual. Then it's not child porn. However if you're actually trying to perform something, then yes.

No, I mean legally speaking. The child doesn't have to be doing anything overtly sexual for it to be classified as "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?

Holy moley! I just googled it. Yes, yes it definetly looks like child porn.

[Kezotar]

No, I mean legally speaking. The child doesn't have to be doing anything overtly sexual for it to be classified as "child porn."

Classified by whom?
And absolutely not is it child porn just because a child is being taken a picture of naked. That would even be stupid. Then you would have to take down probably almost every family out there with pictures. There's probably a lot of pictures of me in young ages, naked, and with clothes. If I'm at the beach naked, or if I'm in the bathtub. It's not child porn. Why would it be?

Holy moley! I just googled it. Yes, yes it definetly looks like child porn.

How is that child porn? People being naked is NOT child porn, or other forms of porn. Jesus.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Classified by whom?
And absolutely not is it child porn just because a child is being taken a picture of naked. That would even be stupid. Then you would have to take down probably almost every family out there with pictures. There's probably a lot of pictures of me in young ages, naked, and with clothes. If I'm at the beach naked, or if I'm in the bathtub. It's not child porn. Why would it be?

A child posing in a sexually suggestive way can be considered child porn. But yeah, If it's just a naked child doing normal child things...it's not child porn.

[Kezotar]

A child posing in a sexually suggestive way can be considered child porn. But yeah, If it's just a naked child doing normal child things...it's not child porn.

Yeah, just what I said. As long as the pose is not sexual, or any form of that, it's not child porn. It's simply a child .. naked.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Yeah, just what I said. As long as the pose is not sexual, or any form of that, it's not child porn. It's simply a child .. naked.

That scorpions cover though...yeah...that could easily be considered child porn. There is a reason that Cover was banned in many countries

[Deleted]

I'm feeling pretty anxious for having googled that album cover. That probably means it was a bit far out there, enough to cause worry. But I wouldn't say it is strictly CP. It was a cover that was approved at some point? You can't sentence people for something that exists legally.

[Deleted]

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

Scorpions still suck.

I don't think it's a case of "getting away with things because you're a rock star". The album cover wasn't pornography any more than an adult, naked woman is necessarily pornographic - it's just art featuring nudity.

Not a fan of the band and not going to champion their choice of album covers, but there's an awful lot of art, family photographs and movies that feature nudity but are not pornography, their intended purpose was not to be fap material, and if the definition is "some sick guy can masturbate to it", well, just about everything can be porn in that case.

[Tulune]

Yeah, that's a pretty disgusting album cover. WTF was wrong with people back in the 70's?