Commons:Deletion requests/File:Devoirs de vacances.ogv

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Devoirs de vacances.ogv

[edit]

(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Is containing Zoophilie pornography, which is a criminal offense in most countries. --Politikverbesserer (Diskussion) 10:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC). Incomplete third-party DR completed by me. Túrelio (talk) 10:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Though I ain't the requester, a little reality-check for all the Keepers: Just a few weeks ago, a long-term editor at :de wikipedia was taken to criminal court in Germany because he had inserted a link to a very similar movie as this one (and also hosted on Commons) into the article about pornography on :de. He only got away because the court had decided that the individual guilt of this editor was only minimal, while the court obviously considered the film itself in clear violation of anti-pornography laws of Germany. --Túrelio (talk) 13:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, the user <name censored by Túrelio> was not "taken to court" – the prosecutor's office launched a criminal charge against him and then dropped it. No court has decided or considered anything. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As he himself used the terms "Urteil" (verdict) and "Revision"[1], which usually are only used for court decisions, I somewhat doubt your reasoning. But anyway, it is rather clear that using/showing this video is a criminal offense in Germany. --Túrelio (talk) 06:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1) I responded on my talk page. 2) See my quote above.
Also: Does it follow that all media in Category:Zoophilia ought to be deleted? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know and doesn't matter much, as this here is a single-file DR. As to my knowledge, so far there was no general discussion about possible consequences of the cited "ruling". --Túrelio (talk) 09:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Believe me, you won't get guidance from legal or WMF in regard to specific content questions, except when something is clearly illegal per US law. --Túrelio (talk) 18:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete - per nom. Also arguably outside scope for Commons - Alison ❤ 18:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • People apparently put it on a de.WP page, so it's obviously in-scope. I can't see where we'd would delete an entire genre of film as out of scope; in the narrow sense, deleting the entire genre is what this DR is about, and even in a larger sense, I don't think we have a huge range of pornographic film from this period and place.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Agree entirely with Claritas - one of the most disgusting things I've possibly seen on wiki, and to be fair, Ymblanter looks like the nail is well and truly hit, I would also recommend the involvement of the WMF's legal team for clarification on the content. Certainly well outside of COM:SCOPE if nothing else. BarkingFish (talk) 00:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – a different reality check for all the Deleters: this clip was shown as part of the 2002 film Polissons et galipettes (English: The Good Old Naughty Days). That film was shown in France, Sweden, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, the United States, Hungary, Greece, Spain, the United Kingdom, possibly in Italy. In the UK, it was rated R18 which prohibits depictions of illegal sexual acts. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the zoophilia, depiction of which is expressly prohibited in UK law, was in the R18 cut. --Claritas (talk) 12:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source for either of those two claims? The Sexual Offences Act 2003 prohibits penetration of animals, which doesn't occur here; that's why it was possible to rate it R18. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete as uploader. Of course it is morally reprehensible and abusive, and I would never endorse it. However, I want it kept as a historical film. I think the main moral argument against keeping it is that someone may "get off" watching it; of course, the same might happen with images of Nazi atrocities, and that isn't a valid reason for deletion. I reluctantly ask that it be deleted due to the possible legal consequences, which I am not prepared to accept, or re-uploaded by someone who is willing to defend it. Handcuffed (talk) 01:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dear Handcuffed, if You truly fear prosecution You should immediately contact an oversighter to delete this edit and the video. After this "I reluctantly ask that it be deleted due to the possible legal consequences, which I am not prepared to accept, or re-uploaded by someone who is willing to defend it." You can be sure of the possible legal consequences even if anotherone uploads the video again. This is called accessory oder incitement and is punished equal to the next uploader. If You want to get rid of possible consequences of penal law You need to abandon a crime, i.e. prevent the crime form being committed (which could already be to late, but You could reduce guilt and so punishment by abandoning now). --Ed. J. 07:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Ed. J., as this is a deletion request, your comment/advice directed as Handcuffed seems rather misplaced here. I would ask you to move it to Handcuffed's talkpage. --Túrelio (talk) 08:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, those uninhibited French... -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 12:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Morality is dynamic. It changes from time to time. There are tons of content that you could call immoral. By sicko countries, you must mean the developed countries with an understanding and acceptance of Pornography.

Albay Hardal (talk) 18:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment That individuals find this disgusting or morally repugnant should have absolutely zero relevance to deletion discussion. However if there is some legal reason this cannot be hosted on Commons, it should be deleted promptly. I urge commenters not to muddy the discussion by mixing these very different elements. -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I won't comment on the morality or legality of this film, but I would like to add that for those who study cinema that was considered underground or morally bankrupt in its time, clips like these are incredibly valuable for academic purposes, which is why I don't think it should be discarded sight unseen.
  •  Delete, due to legal consequences. The academic value or otherwise of this file is not relevant, the fact that it is quite possibly illegal to host in Florida is. The Foundation's legal team should be consulted if they haven't been already. Lankiveil (talk) 22:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  •  Keep Unless it's found to be illegal, it should be kept for its historical value.--Ultimate Destiny (talk) 08:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete - It's not being used in any sister project, and I don't see what encyclopaedic purposes it serves to have this material here in said absence. --Smalleditor (talk) 03:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's be clear that I don't mean files that aren't used anywhere should be deleted, but pornographic material like this realy ought to be kept on a very very short leash as regards burden of proof of encyclopaedic value. --Smalleditor (talk) 04:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Commons is not an encyclopedia; encyclopedic purposes are irrelevant. This is a representative work of early pornography and is thus educational; if you read Amazon reviews or the like, you'll find a bunch of people expressing their education, stating that they were stunned by the explicitness of the work, that they thought that pornography was basically invented in the 1970s and that this would be a bunch of women showing ankles.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: If this video contains zoophilia content, and as this is quite possibly illegal under Florida law, COM:PRP is being applied here. As the closing admin, I will reverse this decision if 1) one is able to show me that zoophilia is not illegal in Florida OR 2) any zoophilic content is removed from the video, in which case it can be reuploaded (sans zoophilia). russavia (talk) 03:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Devoirs_de_vacances.ogv&oldid=454815646"