Six British ISPs are filtering access to Wikipedia - Page 5

Barton71 · 08-12-2008, 17:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by justreading

Sureley Wikipedia should remove the image, i'm against censorship and all but that particular image, yes it's an album cover, is still extremley sickening! The IWF are usually right 99.9 % of the time, it's just this one occasion that it all seems a little out of hand. On wikipedia's for not just simply removing the image straight away to stop anything getting out of hand (yes have an article written about the offending cover, but don't show the image) and on the iwf and isp's for over zelous blocking of a worldwide popular, informative site without even debating it or engaging in any dialogue first with the wikipedia owners.

We don't actually know if they get it correct 99.9% of the time, as the block list is not made public. We just need to rely on them being truthful and honest with us. There has been 1 occasion that i know, when the IWF have got it wrong. They blocked access to the /b/ board on 4chan a year or 2 ago, and had to review the decision. They must be held accountable on the 0.1% of the time when they get it wrong.

My biggest gripe in all of this, is not, not being able to access this particular image, its the fact that a private institution can, off its own back, censor what we can and can not see on the web. If they were to stick solely to blocking access to child porn images, then that would be fine, but as i said before, we have no way of knowing if that is all they are blocking.

A woman from the IWF was on radio 5 today defending the decision to block the page, and she was asked if there had ever been a prosecution involving that particular image, to which she replied, not to her knowledge. My question then, is, if something has never been proved to be illegal, why are the censoring it? The child in that image was obviously never in any danger, and she definitely was not being abused. Yes she is naked in the image, but you do not see anything, as there is an other image super imposed between her legs. So what purpose does censoring the image serve? You can see far worse, but perfectly legal, photographic images in art galleries up and down the country.

hokkers999 · 08-12-2008, 18:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr,m

Personally I did'nt find the image offensive,but can well see why it's been blocked.For obvious reasons the easiest thing to do would be for wiki to remove the entry.People could take great offence to it.

And then again many people who have a more enlightened attitude to the whole idea of nakedness do not.

---------- Post added at 17:01 ---------- Previous post was at 16:56 ----------

Quote:

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.

You are overly sensitive. I have two daughters and it didn't offend me. What surprises me is that none of the "I want it banned" brigade have bothered to track down the interview with the girl done several years later. she has no problem with it.

---------- Post added at 17:10 ---------- Previous post was at 17:01 ----------

[Mod Edit (Rob M): Removed]

SMHarman · 08-12-2008, 18:11

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wikipedia

A modified version of the controversial cover art was used for the "In Trance/Virgin Killer" deluxe boxed edition double album sold worldwide[20] after a 2004 release. Nevertheless, the IWF classified the image of the cover as a "potentially illegal indecent image of a child hosted outside the UK" (whereas their reporting mechanism specifies only "child sexual abuse images hosted outside the UK").[21][22]

says it all really

Raistlin · 08-12-2008, 18:11

Let's keep this pleasant and not start taking personal potshots at each other shall we?

The topic is the choice of 6 British ISPs to block access to the page in question.

SMHarman · 08-12-2008, 18:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDon

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wikipedia article

Even the girl, when we met her fifteen years later, had no problem with the cover. Growing up in Europe, sexuality, of course not with children, was very normal. The lyrics really say it all. Time is the virgin killer.

**Hugh** · 08-12-2008, 18:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by hokkers999

And then again many people who have a more enlightened attitude to the whole idea of nakedness do not.

---------- Post added at 17:01 ---------- Previous post was at 16:56 ----------

You are overly sensitive. I have two daughters and it didn't offend me. What surprises me is that none of the "I want it banned" brigade have bothered to track down the interview with the girl done several years later. she has no problem with it.

---------- Post added at 17:10 ---------- Previous post was at 17:01 ----------

[Mod Edit (Rob M): Removed]

Beyond the pale, imho.

hokkers999 · 08-12-2008, 18:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by justreading

Sureley Wikipedia should remove the image, i'm against censorship and all but that particular image, yes it's an album cover, is still extremley sickening!

[snip]

You need to get out more. There is nothing in that image that "sickens" me, or many others on here.

You do realise the double standard in your post don't you "I'm against censorhip" vs "Wikipedia should remove the image".

What, because YOU don't like it?

sparky621 · 08-12-2008, 18:29

This seems to be getting very personal. Of course the topic will divide opinion, but, are we now saying that every picture of a naked child, be it boy or girl, is pornographic and everyone that views it is immediately a paedophile. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia for goodness sake. Its subject matter is as diverse as human knowledge and experience.
What if said album or similar came up on ebay or was part of a thesis posted by a PHD candidate uploaded to their University server via the VM broadband connection?

hokkers999 · 08-12-2008, 18:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by nffc

I agree with you. However, that content is clearly illegal in the UK as well as probably in most countries where it would be hosted (since the law of the hosting company's country applies here).

They should go about it properly and get a court order to remove the image from Wikipedia, not just censor the page with a blank screen. Or did they not do that, because they knew full well they would lose, since it is not child porn but covered by the art exemption?

Clearly illegal in the UK? Which court made that ruling, please cite date, court and who presided.

That's right you can't can you. What you mean is YOU have decided that under the law in the uk you THINK it might be. If you don't like it and it offends you then that is your right.

You don't have a right to decide on my behalf. WP have taken advice and in the us where the server is hosted it is legal.

SMHarman · 08-12-2008, 18:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by nffc

I agree with you. However, that content is clearly illegal in the UK as well as probably in most countries where it would be hosted (since the law of the hosting company's country applies here).

They should go about it properly and get a court order to remove the image from Wikipedia, not just censor the page with a blank screen. Or did they not do that, because they knew full well they would lose, since it is not child porn but covered by the art exemption?

It is not clear that the image is illegal in the UK. There is no ruling, only opinion. If IWF blocks this then they should be blocking the same page on Amazon.com and on Google Images searches. Bet Amazon would be leaping up and down if all traffic was proxied in the weeks before christmas and they would have the commercial might of Amazon against them, not the voice of a large charity. Caqn't you see the image in your local HMV/Woolies/Virgin Megastore on the shelves as it is on the cover of the 'In Trance / Virgin Killer" deluxe box set?

nffc · 08-12-2008, 18:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by SMHarman

It is not clear that the image is illegal in the UK. There is no ruling, only opinion. If IWF blocks this then they should be blocking the same page on Amazon.com and on Google Images searches. Bet Amazon would be leaping up and down if all traffic was proxied in the weeks before christmas and they would have the commercial might of Amazon against them, not the voice of a large charity. Caqn't you see the image in your local HMV/Woolies/Virgin Megastore on the shelves as it is on the cover of the 'In Trance / Virgin Killer" deluxe box set?

I'm referring to the other porn Stuart was referring to and NOT the Virgin Killer image, which I agree should NOT be censored.

punky · 08-12-2008, 19:03

It doesn't have to be real children now:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12...supreme_court/

Several episodes of The Simpsons contains child nudity, so anyone who has seen these episodes should come quietly (no pun intended) and sign themselves up on the sex offenders register.

**Maggy J** · 08-12-2008, 19:20

Look I have no problem with people photographing children naked as part of family life.I have no problem with nakedness at all,not even of children..until it comes to carefully posed pictures used to court controversy.

Yes it's an old image but that was then,this is now..and attitudes have changed.I don't care how many pornographic images there are anywhere on the web.If they are an adult and you are an adult that's your business.

I just have a problem with paedophile type images being available where ever they are displayed.Wiki or Amazon it's not acceptable.

I'm entitled to my opinion and as a person who has dealt with children who have been abused you might just have the same attitude.

**Stuart** · 08-12-2008, 19:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by sparky621

This seems to be getting very personal. Of course the topic will divide opinion, but, are we now saying that every picture of a naked child, be it boy or girl, is pornographic and everyone that views it is immediately a paedophile. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia for goodness sake. Its subject matter is as diverse as human knowledge and experience.

Not every photo. The fact remains that even in the 70s (when we didn't have political correctness), a lot of countries banned the photo. I am not saying the UK did because, TBH, I don't know.

Quote:

What if said album or similar came up on ebay or was part of a thesis posted by a PHD candidate uploaded to their University server via the VM broadband connection?

Depends on the image (I am being vague here because I haven't seen it). If it can be called pornographic then it may well be banned from the University's servers. JANET (the network that connects all UK Unis and a lot of schools to the Internet) can be very strict on what is carried over their network. Pornography is specifically forbidden.

Barton71 · 08-12-2008, 20:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Look I have no problem with people photographing children naked as part of family life.I have no problem with nakedness at all,not even of children..until it comes to carefully posed pictures used to court controversy.

Yes it's an old image but that was then,this is now..and attitudes have changed.I don't care how many pornographic images there are anywhere on the web.If they are an adult and you are an adult that's your business.

I just have a problem with paedophile type images being available where ever they are displayed.Wiki or Amazon it's not acceptable.

I'm entitled to my opinion and as a person who has dealt with children who have been abused you might just have the same attitude.

Its not about that image, Maggy J. There is a far bigger issue here, and its about censorship on the internet. You have a right to your opinion like everyone else, but, with regards to legally available material, no one should have the right to censor what other people can see and read. You may find the image offensive and objectionable, but that all part of living in a free country.