If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Citizen)   Visiting Sweden this year? Why not have a seat right over here in the national library   (thelocal.se) divider line 50
    More: Interesting, national library, Sweden, Swedish films, Stieg Larsson, environmental laws, ministry of education, child pornography, futures studies  
•       •       •

10260 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Jan 2011 at 8:27 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



50 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2011-01-28 08:30:15 AM
First they came for the porn, and I did nothing.....
 
2011-01-28 08:31:03 AM
Okay, this ought to be interesting, between the content of TFA and Monty Python references...

*gets popcorn*
 
2011-01-28 08:31:32 AM
Wi nøt trei a høliday in Sweden this yër?

See the løveli lakes

The wøndërful telephøne system

And mäni interesting furry animals

Including the majestik møøse

A Møøse once bit my sister...

No realli! She was Karving her initials on the møøse with the sharpened end of an interspace tøøthbrush given to her by Svenge - her brother-in-law - an Oslo dentist and star of many Norwegian møvies: "The Høt Hands of an Oslo Dentist", "Fillings of Passion", "The Huge Mølars of Horst
Nordfink"...


/Mynd you, møøse bites Kan be pretty nasti...
 
2011-01-28 08:35:47 AM
Kungliga sounds like it would contain porn.
 
2011-01-28 08:38:28 AM
Not many comments yet. I am guessing a lot of Farkers are busy applying for a job as archivist at the Swedish National Library.

/they could advertise the job opening on /b/
 
2011-01-28 08:41:27 AM
A library should preserve written works whether it be from Hitler, Abraham Lincoln, or some scum bag child molester. Let the future book burners sort it out. For now, just be thankful we have books.
 
2011-01-28 08:49:21 AM
ragrobyn.files.wordpress.com

I like tø løøk at der kiddie pøørn and chøøke der chicken.
 
2011-01-28 08:52:09 AM
I'm just gonna leave this here...
www.thelocal.se

What's the Swedish word for "BOI-YOI-YOING"?
 
2011-01-28 09:00:51 AM
Perhaps they should hire someone from the grass-on-the-field ministry to play ball with this one.
 
Biv
2011-01-28 09:00:55 AM

Mitch Mitchell: A library should preserve written works whether it be from Hitler, Abraham Lincoln, or some scum bag child molester. Let the future book burners sort it out. For now, just be thankful we have books.


This. It's abhorrent, but should be preserved.
 
Biv
2011-01-28 09:04:12 AM

MysticSavage: I'm just gonna leave this here...


What's the Swedish word for "BOI-YOI-YOING"?


I'll see that, and raise you a www.thelocal.se
 
2011-01-28 09:11:22 AM
Finland, Finland, Finland
The country where I want to be
Eating breakfast or dinner
Or snack lunch in the hall
Finland, Finland, Finland
Finland has it all

/oh...wait
 
2011-01-28 09:13:21 AM
Rikskriminalpolisen

I suck at spelling in my native merkin I would be twice as special if I went to Sweden.
 
2011-01-28 09:13:24 AM

Mitch Mitchell: A library should preserve written works whether it be from Hitler, Abraham Lincoln, or some scum bag child molester. Let the future book burners sort it out. For now, just be thankful we have books.


Yeah pretty much this. Keep it locked in a vault and only accessible after written application and demonstration of "Im-doing-a-thesis-in-relevant-subject" etc etc but destroying it outright is stupid.

No knowledge or information is wrong or evil of itself.
 
2011-01-28 09:18:20 AM

MysticSavage: I'm just gonna leave this here...


What's the Swedish word for "BOI-YOI-YOING"?


If I wasn't an insomniac and farking, I would never know that an orange girl with obviously fake tits was attractive. Thanks.
 
2011-01-28 09:19:19 AM
What Swedish librarians may look like

"Would you like a drink while you research?"

www.thelocal.se
 
2011-01-28 09:23:35 AM

AbbeySomeone: MysticSavage: I'm just gonna leave this here...


What's the Swedish word for "BOI-YOI-YOING"?

If I wasn't an insomniac and farking, I would never know that an orange girl with obviously fake tits was attractive. Thanks.


Snöökie?
 
2011-01-28 09:27:26 AM

AbbeySomeone: MysticSavage: I'm just gonna leave this here...


What's the Swedish word for "BOI-YOI-YOING"?

If I wasn't an insomniac and farking, I would never know that an orange girl with obviously fake tits was attractive. Thanks.


Translation: Look at those sharp knees!

/I kid
//I'm a kidder
 
2011-01-28 09:28:10 AM
Did it include Romeo and Juliet? 'cause your know they were 13 and 14.....

/Everyone take a seat over there
 
2011-01-28 09:33:08 AM
I don't get the orange face fad. People actually find that attractive?

Still, it makes me feel better about the way I looked in the 80s.
 
2011-01-28 09:33:45 AM

Mitch Mitchell: A library should preserve written works whether it be from Hitler, Abraham Lincoln, or some scum bag child molester. Let the future book burners sort it out. For now, just be thankful we have books.


this
if we try to erase it from history, we can not learn from it.
 
TWX
2011-01-28 09:35:12 AM

Mitch Mitchell: A library should preserve written works whether it be from Hitler, Abraham Lincoln, or some scum bag child molester. Let the future book burners sort it out. For now, just be thankful we have books.


I don't agree. The only reason why child porn was published in Sweden is that they had a legal oops in the seventies that allowed it, and the laws governing the retention of all Swedish content were probably not intended for child sexual exploitation.

If it hasn't already been done yet, each item needs to be evaluated, and those that violate the law should be removed from the collection and destroyed. If the offending material is part of a magazine that has inoffensive material, the offending material should be removed from the publication. If there's a situation where one side of a page has offending material but the other doesn't, the non-offending side should be duplicated and kept with the magazine while the original page with the offending content is removed.

Obviously it's up to the Swedes to determine the line between nude art photography and pornography, and to determine the age which a model must be in order to consent to such imagery. Once they've made that determination though, there's no reason to retain the images that violate those constraints.

I don't think that they can prosecute the publisher or photographer of the images for the original act of publication, because when the images were published the act of doing so wasn't illegal. But, they still may have the right to confiscate any other copies or the originals that may still exist in private hands, including those of the photographer, as they are now illegal. If anything, the photographer runs the risk of child porn charges if still in possession of such images once the laws changed, so simply confiscating and destroying them is less of a punishment than the prosecution for child pornography that could result in an attempt to fight confiscation.
 
TWX
2011-01-28 09:38:28 AM

MysticSavage: I'm just gonna leave this here...


www.thelocal.se

Fascinating.

(it's the eyebrows and the green drink)
 
2011-01-28 09:39:46 AM

TWX: Mitch Mitchell: A library should preserve written works whether it be from Hitler, Abraham Lincoln, or some scum bag child molester. Let the future book burners sort it out. For now, just be thankful we have books.

I don't agree. The only reason why child porn was published in Sweden is that they had a legal oops in the seventies that allowed it, and the laws governing the retention of all Swedish content were probably not intended for child sexual exploitation.

If it hasn't already been done yet, each item needs to be evaluated, and those that violate the law should be removed from the collection and destroyed. If the offending material is part of a magazine that has inoffensive material, the offending material should be removed from the publication. If there's a situation where one side of a page has offending material but the other doesn't, the non-offending side should be duplicated and kept with the magazine while the original page with the offending content is removed.

Obviously it's up to the Swedes to determine the line between nude art photography and pornography, and to determine the age which a model must be in order to consent to such imagery. Once they've made that determination though, there's no reason to retain the images that violate those constraints.

I don't think that they can prosecute the publisher or photographer of the images for the original act of publication, because when the images were published the act of doing so wasn't illegal. But, they still may have the right to confiscate any other copies or the originals that may still exist in private hands, including those of the photographer, as they are now illegal. If anything, the photographer runs the risk of child porn charges if still in possession of such images once the laws changed, so simply confiscating and destroying them is less of a punishment than the prosecution for child pornography that could result in an attempt to fight confiscation.


They're images. You know. Ink on paper.
 
2011-01-28 09:42:24 AM

Greymalkin: Mitch Mitchell: A library should preserve written works whether it be from Hitler, Abraham Lincoln, or some scum bag child molester. Let the future book burners sort it out. For now, just be thankful we have books.

Yeah pretty much this. Keep it locked in a vault and only accessible after written application and demonstration of "Im-doing-a-thesis-in-relevant-subject" etc etc but destroying it outright is stupid.

No knowledge or information is wrong or evil of itself.


Do you hold the same opinion if it's pictures and video, or does that apply only to the written word?
 
2011-01-28 09:46:02 AM

Coming on a Bicycle: TWX: Mitch Mitchell: A library should preserve written works whether it be from Hitler, Abraham Lincoln, or some scum bag child molester. Let the future book burners sort it out. For now, just be thankful we have books.

I don't agree. The only reason why child porn was published in Sweden is that they had a legal oops in the seventies that allowed it, and the laws governing the retention of all Swedish content were probably not intended for child sexual exploitation.

If it hasn't already been done yet, each item needs to be evaluated, and those that violate the law should be removed from the collection and destroyed. If the offending material is part of a magazine that has inoffensive material, the offending material should be removed from the publication. If there's a situation where one side of a page has offending material but the other doesn't, the non-offending side should be duplicated and kept with the magazine while the original page with the offending content is removed.

Obviously it's up to the Swedes to determine the line between nude art photography and pornography, and to determine the age which a model must be in order to consent to such imagery. Once they've made that determination though, there's no reason to retain the images that violate those constraints.

I don't think that they can prosecute the publisher or photographer of the images for the original act of publication, because when the images were published the act of doing so wasn't illegal. But, they still may have the right to confiscate any other copies or the originals that may still exist in private hands, including those of the photographer, as they are now illegal. If anything, the photographer runs the risk of child porn charges if still in possession of such images once the laws changed, so simply confiscating and destroying them is less of a punishment than the prosecution for child pornography that could result in an attempt to fight confiscation.

They're images. You know. Ink on paper.


Images of human being, who quite possibly was photographed at the most horrific moment of their lives (they don't mention ages but if this involves children and not teenagers) being used for perverts selfish pleasure. You want to document it? Fine, document that it existed, document that it showed an approximately 8 year old child being sodomized by an adult. We can even record that the child seems to be in pain if you insist. Other than that destroy them, what purpose does it serve?
 
2011-01-28 09:47:26 AM
This story seems to pop up over and over. Generally about once a quarter we hear about the pr0n and the Swedes. It's like it rises up to a head, everyone gets involved, and then the excitement subsides. Then, after an appropriate period of rest, it's coming back up again.
 
TWX
2011-01-28 09:50:42 AM

Coming on a Bicycle: They're images. You know. Ink on paper.


I don't deny that, but they're also ongoing sexual exploitation of children. I know, they children are adults now, probably in their forties, but when these people were photographed as children the images weren't created for their artistic value, they were created for sexual gratification. Additionally, the photographer as an "artist" generally doesn't do any interpretation or necessarily place creative energy into the act of capturing the image on film that a painter would have to put into their work, even for the same subject.

When a photographer does place this kind of interpretation or work to make the photo creative, we generally call it art, not exploitation, and there are numerous examples of this in nude photography, including images of children, that are not classed as porn. And as I said before, that line is for the Swedes to determine, and if they find these works on wrong side of the line then I support their actions to expunge them.

Given how very liberal Swedish culture is on matters of sex and the body, I'm inclined to figure that if even they are offended then there's probably something to this argument.
 
2011-01-28 09:53:48 AM

TWX: MysticSavage: I'm just gonna leave this here...



Fascinating.

(it's the eyebrows and the green drink)


WARNING: keep Sharpies away from dark-haired Swedes
 
2011-01-28 09:54:29 AM

Greymalkin: Mitch Mitchell: A library should preserve written works whether it be from Hitler, Abraham Lincoln, or some scum bag child molester. Let the future book burners sort it out. For now, just be thankful we have books.

Yeah pretty much this. Keep it locked in a vault and only accessible after written application and demonstration of "Im-doing-a-thesis-in-relevant-subject" etc etc but destroying it outright is stupid.

No knowledge or information is wrong or evil of itself.


Well, yeah, and the story doesn't say what it is. Is it depicting sexual activity, or just simple nudity, like Jock Sturges or David Hamilton? There's a substantial difference.
 
Biv
2011-01-28 09:55:34 AM

TWX: Mitch Mitchell: A library should preserve written works whether it be from Hitler, Abraham Lincoln, or some scum bag child molester. Let the future book burners sort it out. For now, just be thankful we have books.

I don't agree. The only reason why child porn was published in Sweden is that they had a legal oops in the seventies that allowed it, and the laws governing the retention of all Swedish content were probably not intended for child sexual exploitation.

If it hasn't already been done yet, each item needs to be evaluated, and those that violate the law should be removed from the collection and destroyed. If the offending material is part of a magazine that has inoffensive material, the offending material should be removed from the publication. If there's a situation where one side of a page has offending material but the other doesn't, the non-offending side should be duplicated and kept with the magazine while the original page with the offending content is removed.

Obviously it's up to the Swedes to determine the line between nude art photography and pornography, and to determine the age which a model must be in order to consent to such imagery. Once they've made that determination though, there's no reason to retain the images that violate those constraints.

I don't think that they can prosecute the publisher or photographer of the images for the original act of publication, because when the images were published the act of doing so wasn't illegal. But, they still may have the right to confiscate any other copies or the originals that may still exist in private hands, including those of the photographer, as they are now illegal. If anything, the photographer runs the risk of child porn charges if still in possession of such images once the laws changed, so simply confiscating and destroying them is less of a punishment than the prosecution for child pornography that could result in an attempt to fight confiscation.


Nothing published should ever be destroyed. Ever. For ANY reason. No matter how horrible it is. Lock it away, but don't destroy it.
 
2011-01-28 09:57:30 AM

Speaker2Animals: Greymalkin: Mitch Mitchell: A library should preserve written works whether it be from Hitler, Abraham Lincoln, or some scum bag child molester. Let the future book burners sort it out. For now, just be thankful we have books.

Yeah pretty much this. Keep it locked in a vault and only accessible after written application and demonstration of "Im-doing-a-thesis-in-relevant-subject" etc etc but destroying it outright is stupid.

No knowledge or information is wrong or evil of itself.

Well, yeah, and the story doesn't say what it is. Is it depicting sexual activity, or just simple nudity, like Jock Sturges or David Hamilton? There's a substantial difference.


And what about the girl in the Coppertone ad?
 
2011-01-28 10:40:36 AM

TWX: Coming on a Bicycle: They're images. You know. Ink on paper.

I don't deny that, but they're also ongoing sexual exploitation of children. I know, they children are adults now, probably in their forties, but when these people were photographed as children the images weren't created for their artistic value, they were created for sexual gratification. Additionally, the photographer as an "artist" generally doesn't do any interpretation or necessarily place creative energy into the act of capturing the image on film that a painter would have to put into their work, even for the same subject.

When a photographer does place this kind of interpretation or work to make the photo creative, we generally call it art, not exploitation, and there are numerous examples of this in nude photography, including images of children, that are not classed as porn. And as I said before, that line is for the Swedes to determine, and if they find these works on wrong side of the line then I support their actions to expunge them.

Given how very liberal Swedish culture is on matters of sex and the body, I'm inclined to figure that if even they are offended then there's probably something to this argument.


We also need to get the Italians to reconsider their vast pornographic vase collections. The children are often depicted in very sexual positions with usually much older partners and it is grotesque. It is despicable that we allow these vases to continue existing. What good could come from this "knowledge" being preserved for future generations?

/ keep the shiat in a vault
// your "ongoing sexual exploitation" argument is absurd regarding mere storage of historical media
/// in a hundred and fifty years, we'll all be dead, and noone will be left alive with a personal stake in the matter
 
2011-01-28 10:45:14 AM
I think the real story here is that child pornography was legal for 9 years.

It was not an over site......it was legalized in 1971.

WTF?

How does that even happen?
 
2011-01-28 10:59:25 AM
The works are just nudity no sex acts are preformed. Most places in Europe you can photograph and film persons under the age of 18 as long as they are not committing a sex act which includes them committing the act on themselves. Sweden changed its law to not allow any nudity of anyone under the age of 18.
I know this because I work IT in a government office.
Also did anyone know this story was posted on here before?
 
2011-01-28 11:05:54 AM

LOGICAL_PSYCHO: I think the real story here is that child pornography was legal for 9 years.

It was not an over site......it was legalized in 1971.

WTF?

How does that even happen?


It's quite possible to do something like that by mistake. You decide a law against is a bad law and remove it, not considering that it was also the only thing that made illegal. Without intending to you legalize .

A hypothetical scenario to illustrate: Suppose they decided to legalize porn in 1971. Prior to that kiddie porn would have been illegal as part of the general law against it but when they repealed the general law they didn't put in place a law specifically about child porn.
 
2011-01-28 11:15:22 AM
target="_blank" href="http://www.fark.com/comments/5912956/66545238#c66545238">Loren:
A hypothetical scenario to illustrate: Suppose they decided to legalize porn in 1971. Prior to that kiddie porn would have been illegal as part of the general law against it but when they repealed the general law they didn't put in place a law specifically about child porn.




Ok.. lets suppose that is true, it takes 9 FREAKING YEARS TO FIX IT?

Would love to read up on it, but there is no way in hell that search in going into google from my computer.
 
2011-01-28 11:24:29 AM

LOGICAL_PSYCHO: target="_blank" href="http://www.fark.com/comments/5912956/66545238#c66545238">Loren:
A hypothetical scenario to illustrate: Suppose they decided to legalize porn in 1971. Prior to that kiddie porn would have been illegal as part of the general law against it but when they repealed the general law they didn't put in place a law specifically about child porn.

Ok.. lets suppose that is true, it takes 9 FREAKING YEARS TO FIX IT?

Would love to read up on it, but there is no way in hell that search in going into google from my computer.



Could have been that we had to change a part of our constitution, "Tryckfrihetsförordningen" (freedom of speech and freedom of the press) from 1766 in order to do that. And in that case there had to be two general elections in between so that people had a chance to object.
 
2011-01-28 11:36:30 AM

ApeShaft: LOGICAL_PSYCHO: target="_blank" href="http://www.fark.com/comments/5912956/66545238#c66545238">Loren:
A hypothetical scenario to illustrate: Suppose they decided to legalize porn in 1971. Prior to that kiddie porn would have been illegal as part of the general law against it but when they repealed the general law they didn't put in place a law specifically about child porn.

Ok.. lets suppose that is true, it takes 9 FREAKING YEARS TO FIX IT?

Would love to read up on it, but there is no way in hell that search in going into google from my computer.


Could have been that we had to change a part of our constitution, "Tryckfrihetsförordningen" (freedom of speech and freedom of the press) from 1766 in order to do that. And in that case there had to be two general elections in between so that people had a chance to object.


farking rule of law, how does it work.

good on ya, swedes.
 
2011-01-28 11:51:10 AM

DammitIForgotMyLogin: Greymalkin: Mitch Mitchell: A library should preserve written works whether it be from Hitler, Abraham Lincoln, or some scum bag child molester. Let the future book burners sort it out. For now, just be thankful we have books.

Yeah pretty much this. Keep it locked in a vault and only accessible after written application and demonstration of "Im-doing-a-thesis-in-relevant-subject" etc etc but destroying it outright is stupid.

No knowledge or information is wrong or evil of itself.

Do you hold the same opinion if it's pictures and video, or does that apply only to the written word?


Yes. I felt that "knowledge or information" was sufficiently broad to encompass all forms of media, apparently not.

To make it more clear, absolutely no form of information storage should be wantonly destroyed if it contains recognisable and understandable data. Particularly if that data is rare or irreplaceable. So just in case anyone wants to be a smart arse no im not saying we need to keep all 100,000,000 copies of this year's phone book.

Sure, certain data should be restricted access to those with legitimate reason for needing it, but absolutely nothing should be destroyed, no matter how sick, distasteful or obscene you, I, or even the broad community consensus thinks it is.

No exceptions.
 
2011-01-28 12:12:43 PM

Greymalkin: Sure, certain data should be restricted access to those with legitimate reason for needing it, but absolutely nothing should be destroyed, no matter how sick, distasteful or obscene you, I, or even the broad community consensus thinks it is.

No exceptions.


You sound like you keep your poo in jars in your basement (for "archival").
 
TWX
2011-01-28 12:17:07 PM

LOTN: We also need to get the Italians to reconsider their vast pornographic vase collections. The children are often depicted in very sexual positions with usually much older partners and it is grotesque. It is despicable that we allow these vases to continue existing. What good could come from this "knowledge" being preserved for future generations?

/ keep the shiat in a vault
// your "ongoing sexual exploitation" argument is absurd regarding mere storage of historical media
/// in a hundred and fifty years, we'll all be dead, and noone will be left alive with a personal stake in the matter


Photographs are not anonymous representations, they're direct documentation of a specific moment in time from a particular point of view. Depictions of sexual acts on Greek or Roman artwork are artist interpretations that can't generally be tied to a specific, real individual, living or dead, and thus haven't created any victims. The photograph is an entirely different beast. It shows the identifiable individual, and that is wrong.
 
2011-01-28 12:22:07 PM

MysticSavage: BOI-YOI-YOING


BøI-YøI-YøING?

/got nuthin
 
2011-01-28 02:11:18 PM

MysticSavage: I'm just gonna leave this here...


What's the Swedish word for "BOI-YOI-YOING"?


IS that a Swedish Guidette? Damn you, New Jersey! Damn you to Hell!
 
2011-01-28 02:43:12 PM

TWX: MysticSavage: I'm just gonna leave this here...

Fascinating.

(it's the eyebrows and the green drink)


She has eyebrows?
 
TWX
2011-01-28 03:00:33 PM

kcfarker: TWX: MysticSavage: I'm just gonna leave this here...

Fascinating.

(it's the eyebrows and the green drink)

She has eyebrows?


Yeah, but I felt kind of bad finding an Oompa Loompa attractive...
 
2011-01-28 03:00:34 PM

kcfarker: TWX: MysticSavage: I'm just gonna leave this here...

Fascinating.

(it's the eyebrows and the green drink)

She has eyebrows?


Apparently a drink as well, not seeing it though.
 
2011-01-28 05:00:33 PM

TWX: Yeah, but I felt kind of bad finding an Oompa Loompa attractive...


Snükii?
 
2011-01-28 08:01:39 PM

poot_rootbeer: Greymalkin: Sure, certain data should be restricted access to those with legitimate reason for needing it, but absolutely nothing should be destroyed, no matter how sick, distasteful or obscene you, I, or even the broad community consensus thinks it is.

No exceptions.

You sound like you keep your poo in jars in your basement (for "archival").


You sound like you think that was a clever and insightful comment.
 
2011-01-28 08:41:59 PM

Profedius: The works are just nudity no sex acts are preformed. Most places in Europe you can photograph and film persons under the age of 18 as long as they are not committing a sex act which includes them committing the act on themselves. Sweden changed its law to not allow any nudity of anyone under the age of 18.


Aren't there nude beaches in Sweden? I was at one on the German island of Sylt, in the North Sea, years ago and saw people of all ages, completely nude. Saw one in Denmark, too, but I don't recall the location.
 
Displayed 50 of 50 comments



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report