Quote:
Originally Posted by Barton71
Makes no difference. Amazon.com is still viewable within the UK.
The IWF have over stepped their remit, or at the very least are on the very fringes of their remit. If i remember correctly they tried the same thing with 4chan are year or so ago and had to reverse the decission.
|
Their remit is to stop the distribution of any image, or block any website/page that could be considered offensive under law. They have apparently done this. How is that not within their remit?
Quote:
|
Someone said earlier that wikipedia should remove the image and solve the problem, but i think that would confound the problem. They would be caving in to censorship if they done so, and if the IWF can see that they can get away with it once, they will continue to do it again and again.
|
OK. We relax the censorship a bit, forgetting for a moment that the rules on Child Pornography are there for a reason.
How for do you relax them? Do you allow pictures of nude children? Nude children in sexual poses? Nude children in sexual poses with other children? Nude children in sexual poses with adults? Nude children having sex?
Clearly, the ones involving sex are bad, but Wikimedia "caving" in to demands to censor it's own images (which, as has been noted, it does anyway just not pictures of nude children apparently) will not compound any problem.
Remember, while this album cover image was allowed in Germany, it was banned in other countrys and well before the current politically correct climate started.
Reading the discussions on Wikipedia on the image, the arrogance of some of the people posting is staggering. They appear to think that Wikipedia serves some higher purpose than a website that enables people to provide occassionally accurate information to other people.