Six British ISPs are filtering access to Wikipedia

[punky]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

As I've not seen the page I can't comment on the image, but I'm trying to work out why that is banned, when the Nirvana album isn't

If you google the cover f NOFX - Heavy Petting Zoo, you'd be surprised what people can get away with.

[TheNorm]

Have people who viewed the image broken the law?

...those simply viewing Internet child pornography on their computer screens were committing the offence

http://www.iwf.org.uk/police/page.99.209.htm

[mr,m]

I would think that the image would be looked at as being more arty than pornographic,but it's certainly a fine line.

[TheDon]

It's ridiculous to class that picture as child porn in the context of an encyclopedic article.

Is HMV carrying child porn because it carries the album with original artwork in several boxsets? What about because it still carries Nirvana's Nevermind, and Blind Faith's self titled album?

What next, tearing pages out of art books because they show naked children?

Nudity != pornography, and whilst many people may find the image bad taste, there is nothing illegal about it. No one is going to go to wikipedia find this image and have it turn them to paedophilia, and no paedophile is going to search wikipedia looking for pictures like this.

I think wikipedia are doing exactly the right thing, they are an encyclopedia, their content shouldn't be censored whilst it is legal, and they have to make a stand rather than just going "oh well ok, we'll take the image down" because that then leads down a very dark path.

As for blocking edits from the ISPs, they really have no choice. Having so many users under a few different IPs is asking for trouble and will make it impossible to track vandalism by certain people. You can still edit if you are logged in to an account so it's not like they've stopped most the UK from contributing.

[Graham M]

Eeek yeah it is a bit off, but I wouldn't call it porn, some would class it as art

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by mr,m

I would think that the image would be looked at as being more arty than pornographic,....

Originally Posted by TheDon

It's ridiculous to class that picture as child porn ....

Originally Posted by Graham M

Eeek yeah it is a bit off, but I wouldn't call it porn, ...

Maybe I'm overly sensitive (I have have a teenage daughter and nieces), but I think young girls shouldn't be displayed like that. If it takes a child pornography law to stop it, then so be it.

[Maggy J]

As a professional dealing with pubescent and prepubescent children I regard that as a pornographic image.That is a blatantly sexual pose...

[TheDon]

Originally Posted by TheNorm

Maybe I'm overly sensitive (I have have a teenage daughter and nieces), but I think young girls shouldn't be displayed like that. If it takes a child pornography law to stop it, then so be it.

But that's the thing, that image IS NOT illegal under any current law. The IWF have just arbitually decided that it shouldn't be viewed with no legal basis for the decision.

The question is, should we be stopping people from viewing lawful content on the internet? Even if you think that this image should be unlawful, in it's current state it isn't, so either the law needs to be changed, THEN access to it can be blocked, or it should be left alone.

The method that it's been blocked as well is very orwellian, all traffic to wikipedia is now proxied, and not just the image has been blocked, but the encyclopedic article on it has as well.

[Horace]

It's not necessary for Wikipedia to be targetted in this way, they'd have been better sticking a link to Amazon or any of the other thousands of websites that carry the image. I expect the IWF to be putting those in their sites list too. Bye Bye internet.

[Maggy J]

Originally Posted by TheDon

But that's the thing, that image IS NOT illegal under any current law. The IWF have just arbitually decided that it shouldn't be viewed with no legal basis for the decision.

The question is, should we be stopping people from viewing lawful content on the internet? Even if you think that this image should be unlawful, in it's current state it isn't, so either the law needs to be changed, THEN access to it can be blocked, or it should be left alone.

The method that it's been blocked as well is very orwellian, all traffic to wikipedia is now proxied, and not just the image has been blocked, but the encyclopedic article on it has as well.

I don't care for censorship UNTIL it involves children in this manner.Whatever else wiki should be doing is it should be thinking about intelligent self censorship.There is nothing intelligent in setting up the backs of those out here in the real world.

But then one man's pornography has always been another's ART though in the painted medium much more leeway can be applied.A photograph seems so much more immediate and shocking.

[TheDon]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

I don't care for censorship UNTIL it involves children in this manner.Whatever else wiki should be doing is it should be thinking about intelligent self censorship.There is nothing intelligent in setting up the backs of those out here in the real world.

But then one man's pornography has always been another's ART though in the painted medium much more leeway can be applied.A photograph seems so much more immediate and shocking.

Where are you going to draw the line when it comes to censoring things that are perfectly legal? The child who is in this picture has stated they have no problem with it (of course you can't find that out easily if you're on VM, seeing how the article on it is blocked!) it's not sexual in nature, and it's not child abuse.

For me the line is quite clear, anything legal should be allowed, anything that isn't, shouldn't be.

If there's something you want censored that isn't illegal then lobby government to get the law changed. Until then, it should be free from censorship. Knee jerk reactions of "OMG NAKED CHILD" would result in a huge amount of books having to be burnt.

I don't care for censorship fullstop. Especially when applied by self rightous organisations with no legal basis and in ways that adversely effect normal everyday users.

[Horace]

The IWF are a necessary evil to save people from themselves, however I wish they'd take images of beaten up senior citizens off the net too. I mean we're all human aren't we? An old person is just as vulnerable as a child. I don't see why we all shouldn't have our images protected by the IWF.

[nffc]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Popular_pages

Well, I can see why censoring it is working...

[peanut]

Originally Posted by nffc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Popular_pages

Well, I can see why censoring it is working...

Yeah they've made the problem worse by bringing it to the front.

If something whether it was a film or anything was banned or deemed controversial then it increases it's popularity so it always seem to do the opposite.

I used to collect banned horror films just for that reason basically, I wanted to know why it's been banned and why someone needs to tell me what I can or can't see.

Personally the pic in question though in this day and age I would consider out of order, maybe at the time it was art or whatever I don't know, but with the way things are these days then yes it is pushing the boundries of what is now acceptable.

[nffc]

Originally Posted by peanutkp

Yeah they've made the problem worse by bringing it to the front.

If something whether it was a film or anything was banned or deemed controversial then it increases it's popularity so it always seem to do the opposite.

I used to collect banned horror films just for that reason basically, I wanted to know why it's been banned and why someone needs to tell me what I can or can't see.

Personally the pic in question though in this day and age I would consider out of order, maybe at the time it was art or whatever I don't know, but with the way things are these days then yes it is pushing the boundries of what is now acceptable.

The "cracks" cover over the bit which makes it pornographic (in some circles) anyway.

I'm not particularly worried about this particular incident, however the fact that the IWF can essentially censor what we can view is more alarming.