Wikipedia defends photo of naked young girl, a potential violation of U.S. porn laws
Company defends photo of naked young girl, a potential violation of U.S. porn laws
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=63722
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: May 07, 2008
10:30 pm Eastern
By Chelsea Schilling
© 2008
In the wake of WND news coverage, the FBI is now reviewing a Wikipedia photo of a nude adolescent that could violate federal child-pornography laws.
The image in question, titled "Virgin Killer" from RCA's 1976 Scorpions rock album, depicts a naked pre-pubescent girl (appearing about 10 years of age) in a provocative pose. Her chest is completely exposed and a small crack is placed over her vagina.
The album's cover was banned in the United States due to its extremely controversial nature and was later replaced with a photo of the band. When WND brought the image to the attention of several Wikipedia representatives, they denied any knowledge of it.
Asked if the photograph of the nude child would remain on the site or be taken down, Jay Walsh, head of communications for the Wikimedia foundation, responded:
I have no idea when it will come down, as I probably already discussed with you – the foundation does not play a direct role in making edits to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a platform for use by members of the public, around the world.
I understand your concern has been raised with volunteer administrators and editors. They will review and consider your request, in the context of the Wikipedia editorial policies.
As of this evening, the photo of the nude child was still available online.
The nude album cover is just one of many hard-core pornographic images displayed on Wikipedia, WND has revealed.
Mark Pelligrini, regional representative for Wikipedia, told WND, "Wikipedia's goal is to provide an encyclopedia that contains the sum of all human knowledge. To that end, Wikipedia does not censor objectionable material.
"If someone goes to the articles on 'sex,' 'penis' or any graphic topic, we do provide frank descriptions and images," Pelligrini said. "For images, we aim for clinical pictures of the sort you would find in an anatomy or medical textbook."
However, in addition to textbook anatomy images, the following can also be found on Wikipedia:
Matt Barber, a constitutional law attorney who serves as Concerned Women for America's policy director for cultural issues, expressed outrage at Wikipedia's decision to allow sexually explicit images.
"Children use Wikipedia all of the time for reports for school, and this stuff is not just pornography, this is hard-core pornography," he said. "Much of it may even be in violation of our nation's obscenity laws."
Cary Bass, volunteer coordinator for Wikipedia, told WND, "There's not really a definition of pornography."
As for children's access to the site, he said, "If a child is looking at an article about a penis, he should expect to see a penis."
Barber expressed concern about the nude image of the child in particular.
"Although it's an old album cover, it is done in very poor taste," Barber said. "There's no utility in allowing the posting of that image of child pornography on the website. It could appeal to the prurient interests of pedophiles around the world. By allowing that image to remain posted, Wikipedia is helping to further facilitate perversion and pedophilia."
Barber is asking Wikipedia to pull all hard-core pornographic images or post a predominantly featured warning for minors before sexually explicit images are displayed.
"There's no policy on pornography on Wikipedia," Bass told WND. "But of course, we don't want anything illegal on this site."
The online encyclopedia indicated it was inundated with e-mails from concerned users in the wake of WND's initial report.
In a WND poll related to the story, the No. 1 response, at more than 47 percent, had readers saying Wikipedia is clearly violating U.S. obscenity laws and should face prosecution.
Personal Note:
So you are telling me that those who created the site have no control over the content on it?
Wow, so now Wikipedia is playing dumb. Instead of just admitting to their own fault in this issue, they'd rather discuss the issue than act on it. "I have no idea when it will come down" and "They will review and consider your request, in the context of the Wikipedia editorial policies." clearly shows that this guy and those who own/created/monitor Wikipedia don't care about their audience. They'd rather leace to someone else to take care of this issue.
God bless,
Johnathan
1. Please be polite and courteous.
2. Please don't use profanity.
3. We are here to discuss, not bash each other.