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.