Six British ISPs are filtering access to Wikipedia

[TheDon]

Originally Posted by Stuart C

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.

I'm not actually sure any country banned the image. Certainly no court in the world has. The album was rereleased in several countries because of the controversy about the album art, but I don't think it was ever actually banned and AFAIK it was a voluntary action.

Originally Posted by Maggy J

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.

I wouldn't class it as a "paedophile type" image, there's not really anything there that is sexual other than plenty of flesh, certainly nothing more sexual than some kids bikinis. The nipples have even been airbrushed out.

You're entitled to your opinion, everyone else is entitled to theirs.

One persons opinion should however hold no more weight than anyone elses, and people shouldn't beable to enforce their opinions onto others unless their opinions have the legal opinion of the law behind them. In this case the opinion of the IWF does not have any legal backing behind it, so as far as I'm concerned it's no more valid than mine, and so if they don't want to see the image they can not look at it, and they have zero right to tell me that I can't as it should be my own personal choice until such a point as a judge declares that the image is illegal. Seeing as how it's been around for 30 years and hasn't been ruled to be illegal, I'm guessing that's not likely to happen so the IWF should back down.

That's without even going into their complete and unneeded censorship of an encyclopedia article. I thought free countries prided themselves on not tearing pages out of history books when they didn't agree with what they say. It seems however that this country keeps taking steps backwards when it comes to the freedoms that we say we take for granted.

[Maggy J]

Originally Posted by Barton71

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.

I'm having some trouble with this issue...because I'm wondering if this is a misunderstanding or something else.

I'm not saying that there should be indiscriminate,wholesale censorship of everything.I'm just saying that THIS particular image IS offensive and in todays climate it might be found to be offensive and pornographic..That's why it should be removed...

Whatever else you want to view is entirely up to you...I'm just saying that you can't just say that there must be NO censorship at all especially images of a particular graphic nature.I'm just as concerned that certain subjects must not be censored and that freedom to express oneself is of paramount importance.

However any society that seeks to protect the vulnerable will have to consider some censorship.Paedophilia seeks to exploit the extremely vulnerable and every image produced represents a victim.Leaving such images on display has the effect of creating future victims..children deserve our considration in this matter.

If I've completely misunderstood the position then I'm sorry,but I'm worried that you are ignoring something just as equally fundamental as human freedom which is that the weak and vulnerable need our protection even at the risk of censorship.

[Phormic Acid]

Originally Posted by Barton71

There is a far bigger issue here, and its about censorship on the internet.

Two issues. The other is: Is Virgin Media’s content filtering system good enough? We know there is a problem using Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is so big. If this where to happen to a website that relatively few people in this country use, what would happen? Small websites often share an IP address with many other sites. The contentious image could be hosted on a completely unrelated website. When the IWF start to classify material that has the potential to be ‘extreme pornography’, the number of IP addresses involved could skyrocket. Until there is case law for Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act, the IWF may adopt a very wide interpretation.

The IWF’s decision is almost irrelevant. They made a subjective decision. The police have to do the same. The IWF have said they consulted the police. We’ve seen a range of views on this thread. If you were to ask different police officers whether they would arrest someone in possession of that image, you're bound to get a similar range of answers.

Yes. I believe a jury would convict them.
Yes. The CPS would never take it to trial, but I would try to squeeze a caution out of them.
No. Although I have a problem with the image, the CPS wouldn’t take it to trial.
No. I own a copy of that album.

The advice to the IWF must have been that the police would arrest. A decision to arrest for possession of an indecent image of a child would mess up the life of one person. The IWF’s decision has mildly inconvenienced a lot of people. Decisions like this, that must have seemed a good idea at the time, should be called Damian Greens.

Originally Posted by Thomas.Fisk

Ignoring discussion on whether the image is illegal or not, the more important issue is why VM are blocking anything.

Because the UK ISPs don’t want legislation here like that being proposed by the Australian government.

[mdwh2]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

but that was then,this is now..and attitudes have changed

I'm pretty sure child abuse was still illegal back then?

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.

Why would that make me have the same attitude? What does abused children have to do with not abused children? Child abuse is a serious and awful thing - I think to suggest that child abuse is comparable to images that people find offensive just trivialises the suffering of child abuse.

---------- Post added at 22:56 ---------- Previous post was at 22:46 ----------

Originally Posted by Phormic Acid

When the IWF start to classify material that has the potential to be ‘extreme pornography’, the number of IP addresses involved could skyrocket. Until there is case law for Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act, the IWF may adopt a very wide interpretation.

I'm glad someone mentioned this - yes, this is very worrying, nevermind that I disagree with the principle of criminalising possession of consensual adult images in the first place, but the law seems broader and far more vague than child porn law. We might hope that the courts will interpret the law somewhat sensibly, but the IWF's job is to censor anything that might "potentially" be illegal. With a vague law, that means erring on the broader side.

To be fair to the IWF, IIRC their response to the Government consultation requested specific examples of what should be illegal, as if they really didn't like the idea of enforcing such a vague law. The Government has not provided this - the only "guidance" is to say that the definitions are up to the jury to interpret.

I guess we shall see - the law comes in 26 January.

(If anyone wants more info, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_pornography , http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/26//pr0n_ban_date/ , http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/ , http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7364475.stm .)

[Mick Fisher]

The IWF are throwing there weight about purely because, being unaccountable, they can, with impunity.

IMO this is just another notch up of the surveillance society being forced upon us and I reckon is just the thin edge of an ever thickening wedge.

[hokkers999]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

[snip]

I'm not saying that there should be indiscriminate,wholesale censorship of everything.I'm just saying that THIS particular image IS offensive and in todays climate it might be found to be offensive and pornographic..That's why it should be removed...

[snip]

"I'm just saying that IN MY OPINION this particular image IS offensive "

There, corrected that for you.

[mr,m]

Originally Posted by punky

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

BAAAA lol

[Stuart]

Well, that well known legal advisory website, outlaw.com has had their say... http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12...wikipedia_ban/

He actually singles out both parties for criticism. The criticism of the IWF is that they blocked the whole page rather than one image (this is a sledgehammer to crack a walnut approach, IMO, but apparently the IWF system doesn't allow anything else).

He says a lot about Wikimedia, but two main points stood out for me..

Wikimedia general counsel Mike Godwin said: "We have no reason to believe the article, or the image contained in the article, has been held to be illegal in any jurisdiction anywhere in the world." But Godwin's argument misses the point.

Web hosts must not wait for an image to be declared unlawful by a court when they receive a complaint, albeit only a court can declare an image unlawful. If they wait, there is every chance that the declaration will come at their own trial.

I agree, it *is* in Wikimedia's interest to remove the image (at least until it's legality is assured). They have the mechanism to do this, and frequently do (for copyright reasons). Better that they ensure the image is legal beforehand than they find out it's not when they are prosecuted for distributing illegal images of children (assuming it is illegal).

The Protection of Children Act 1978 bans indecent images of children (under 18s). A sexually provocative pose will constitute an indecent image. (It's also worth noting that the law covers only photographs and 'pseudo photographs' – so the IWF will not censor, as one contributor to a BBC blog fears, Michelangelo's David.)

This is interesting as it attempts to dispel some of the myths about the act. Basically, the act specifically applies to photographs and "pseudo photographs", so we aren't going to see mass censorship of works of art..

[TheDon]

Originally Posted by Stuart C

I agree, it *is* in Wikimedia's interest to remove the image (at least until it's legality is assured). They have the mechanism to do this, and frequently do (for copyright reasons). Better that they ensure the image is legal beforehand than they find out it's not when they are prosecuted for distributing illegal images of children (assuming it is illegal).

Normally I'd agree (but only that it's in wikipedia's interest to err on the side of caution, it's not the IWF's place to block it without 100% knowledge that it is illegal) except for the fact there has been controversy about the image before, it's been reported to the FBI before, and yet it hasn't once been stated that it is an illegal image. Surely if there were any legal basis for it being banned then it would have been at any time during it's 30 year lifespan? The fact it hasn't been, dispite this not being the first time it's been bought to authorities attention, speaks wonders.

I'd say that due to prior circumstances surrounding the image it can be more than assumed that the image is lawful until such a time that it is proven otherwise.

[mr,m]

Just in case anyone wants to see the image,to form your own opinion,check it out here,if you dare risk the rath of the pc brigade!

www.the-scorpions.com/.../discography/records/
Remove frame

---------- Post added at 15:13 ---------- Previous post was at 15:12 ----------

OH how surprising,not found,the cops will probably be round soon so better go and hide somewhere lol

[Raistlin]

Perhaps if you'd done the link correctly

[Scurra]

Originally Posted by Stuart C

This is interesting as it attempts to dispel some of the myths about the act. Basically, the act specifically applies to photographs and "pseudo photographs", so we aren't going to see mass censorship of works of art..

Um, yes. The point is that this case does involve censoring a work of art. The photograph wasn't sourced from some "kiddie pron" website and then airbrushed into acceptability. It was taken for this album specifically, and apparently with the full and informed consent of the individual involved (who has subsequently not withdrawn that consent.) i.e. the image was intended for public display in a known context - and thus complied with all the relevant laws at the time, no matter how personally offensive some individuals found it to be - and yes, I consider those individuals to be ill-informed - the context argument is the one that the IWF has failed on as well, but it's probably the most important one, even though it is also the most difficult. But context is what takes the time to establish. Look at the fact that people are still arguing about Robert Mapplethorpe.

Originally Posted by Maggy J

I'm just saying that THIS particular image IS offensive

In your opinion. Not in the opinion of any legal authority, or even public opinion for the 30 or so years the album was available.

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.

I absolutely disagree with the argument that people who were abused as children somehow have some additional moral rights denied to the rest of us. No, I'm not some heartless git who doesn't care, but I do think that I am an adult who can make their own decisions. You are entitled to your opinion, but, crucially, I am entitled to mine. If we have to legislate based on the dumbest or most traumatised person in our society, then we are finished (hmmm. Am I agreeing with the Daily Mail here? D'oh.) If the context argument isn't going to be considered, then it really is all over - Romeo & Juliet is about two early teens having sex. The image on Virgin Killer is all about the multiplicity of meanings inherent in the title, presented in a deliberately provocative way.

Anyway, what has riled people here isn't the picture per se, it's the combination of (a) the IWF choosing to target an image which was rife on the 'net before this case, and will be everywhere now, and (b) the cackhandedness of the ISPs in the way the blocking has been handled. A page saying that the image had been blocked because it was potentially illegal wouldn't have caused the same level of outrage; a deliberately misleading 404 page (which any technoliterate person would know had to be fake) is not a solution. Indeed, as someone else said, is it not a breach of the Computer Misuse Act since it is modifying a page without explicit (or even implicit!) permission.

[Samtheman]

Hey,

If they are blocking it - then please someone tell me why you can view it (with no proxy or anything) here at http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikimedi...hy_allegations

[Raistlin]

Because I suspect that it's only the one page on Wikipedia that's on the IWF's list at the moment, not every page containing the image.

I would imagine this page will be blocked as well soon enough.

[Samtheman]

Heh,

Welcome to England.