Jump to content
Fop

Wikipedia child image censored

Recommended Posts

Wikipedia child image censored

_45276913_45139988.jpg

Wikipedia allows readers to edit the content of its pages

 

A decision by a number of UK internet providers to block a Wikipedia page showing an image of a naked girl has angered users of the popular site.

 

The blocked page of the online encyclopaedia shows an album cover of German heavy metal band Scorpions, released in 1976.

 

Internet providers acted after online watchdog the Internet Watch Foundation warned them its picture may be illegal.

 

The IWF said it was a "potentially illegal child sexual abuse image".

 

Some volunteers who run Wikipedia said it was not for the foundation to censor one of the web's most popular sites.

 

They also argued that the image was available in a number of books and had never been ruled illegal.

 

But the IWF, which warns internet providers about possible images that could be linked to child abuse, said it had consulted the police before making its decision.

 

The foundation's list of proscribed sites is widely used by British internet service providers to filter out images showing child abuse and other illegal content.

 

It's the first time they've done this on such a visible site

David Gerard, Wikipedia volunteer

 

As a result, the addition of the Scorpions Wikipedia page has made it inaccessible to the majority of British internet users.

 

The IWF, which lists the BBC, News International and internet companies AOL (UK) and Ask among its members, said as many as 95% of British users would now be unable to access the page.

 

Wikipedia volunteer David Gerard said he and fellow users were angry that as well as the photo, the text on the page had been blocked.

 

"Blocking text is a whole new thing - it's the first time they've done this on such a visible site," he said.

 

Mr Gerard also told BBC Radio 4's Today programme the album cover was still available as part of the band's box set and could be viewed on retail websites.

 

"When we asked the Internet Watch Foundation why they blocked Wikipedia and not Amazon, apparently the decision was 'pragmatic', which we think means that Amazon had money and would sue them, whereas we're an educational charity."

 

Access blocked

 

Susan Robertson, of the IWF, said the image could potentially contravene the Protection of Children Act 1978.

 

"We only act on the reports we receive, and as I understand it, the only report we received regarding this content, as of Friday, was the content on Wikipedia," she said.

 

A fascinating case which sheds light on the debate about freedom of speech on the internet

Rory Cellan-Jones

 

Read more at the dot.life blog

 

Ms Robertson also said the IWF needed to "take a view" on the images available on Amazon with its "analyst team and police partners".

 

Jay Walsh, a spokesman for the Wikimedia Foundation, which manages the encyclopaedia, said the removal of the page also appeared to have stopped thousands of UK users from editing articles on Wikipedia, which allows readers to self-edit its pages.

 

"It appears that there's a large number of editors - I can't say all - who appear to have access issues," he said.

 

The IWF spokeswoman said a reader had brought the image to the foundation's attention last week and it had contacted the police before adding the page to their list.

 

Wikipedia is one of the world's most popular websites. It is a multi-lingual online database written, edited and funded largely by its users. It has 2.6m articles in English alone.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7770456.stm

 

 

More bigots using the threat of "it may be illegal" to scare others into (their) line. :birthday:

Edited by Fop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I presume they will be banning access to the image of the front cover of Nirvana -Nevermind next.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I presume they will be banning access to the image of the front cover of Nirvana -Nevermind next.

 

Eventually, quite possibly.

 

 

Another worrying part of this is:

"When we asked the Internet Watch Foundation why they blocked Wikipedia and not Amazon, apparently the decision was 'pragmatic', which we think means that Amazon had money and would sue them, whereas we're an educational charity."
which basically means the internet is brought even more under corporate control. :birthday:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not unreasonable imo.

 

It's a vile album cover.

 

Perhaps, but using the threat of potential illegality (it isn't illegal as it stands - and it probably wouldn't be just like that artwork last year) to remove something from 95% of the UK on-line public, whilst leaving the same image on Amazon alone (because as rightly stated Amazon can and will stand up for itself).... all by a self-appointed "moral guardian".

 

It's more than unreasonable, it's dangerous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fake Simpsons cartoon 'is porn'

By Nick Bryant

BBC News, Sydney

 

An appeal judge in Australia has ruled that an animation depicting well-known cartoon characters engaging in sexual acts is child pornography.

 

The internet cartoon featured characters from the Simpsons TV series.

 

The central issue in the case was whether a cartoon character could depict a real person.

 

Judge Michael Adams decided that it could, and found a man from Sydney guilty of possessing child pornography on his computer.

 

The defence had argued that the fictional, animated characters were not real people, and clearly departed from the human form.

 

They therefore contested that the conviction for the possession of child pornography should be overturned.

 

Justice Michael Adams said the purpose of anti-child pornography legislation was to stop sexual exploitation and child abuse where images of "real" children were depicted.

 

But in a landmark ruling he decided that the mere fact that they were not realistic representations of human beings did not mean that they could not be considered people.

 

He ruled that the animated cartoon could "fuel demand for material that does involve the abuse of children," and therefore upheld the conviction for child pornography.

 

Rather than jail the man, however, he fined him Aus$3,000 (US$2,000).

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7770781.stm

 

 

:razz:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest alex

And yet the 2012 London Olympics gets away with a depiction of Lisa Simpson giving a blow job as its emblem.

:razz: At the above btw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fake Simpsons cartoon 'is porn'

By Nick Bryant

BBC News, Sydney

 

An appeal judge in Australia has ruled that an animation depicting well-known cartoon characters engaging in sexual acts is child pornography.

 

The internet cartoon featured characters from the Simpsons TV series.

 

The central issue in the case was whether a cartoon character could depict a real person.

 

Judge Michael Adams decided that it could, and found a man from Sydney guilty of possessing child pornography on his computer.

 

The defence had argued that the fictional, animated characters were not real people, and clearly departed from the human form.

 

They therefore contested that the conviction for the possession of child pornography should be overturned.

 

Justice Michael Adams said the purpose of anti-child pornography legislation was to stop sexual exploitation and child abuse where images of "real" children were depicted.

 

But in a landmark ruling he decided that the mere fact that they were not realistic representations of human beings did not mean that they could not be considered people.

 

He ruled that the animated cartoon could "fuel demand for material that does involve the abuse of children," and therefore upheld the conviction for child pornography.

 

Rather than jail the man, however, he fined him Aus$3,000 (US$2,000).

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7770781.stm

 

 

:(

 

:razz:

 

Jesus wept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So spurious police charges are bad, and ISPs protecting their customers from spurious police charges are bad. It's a confusing old world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And yet the 2012 London Olympics gets away with a depiction of Lisa Simpson giving a blow job as its emblem.

:razz: At the above btw

 

Mention that publicly and you are carted off to Guantanamo though.

 

 

 

 

So spurious police charges are bad, and ISPs protecting their customers from spurious police charges are bad. It's a confusing old world.

Thing is they aren't though (for a start they'd have banned Amazon who show the image - but like I said, Amazon have lawyers).

 

There is no legal definition on that picture, it may be distasteful, but that doesn't mean it's illegal, and neither the say so of a self-appointed internet Nanny nor a some random police officer make it so.

 

The courts would have to rule on it, as it should be.

 

 

 

 

All this self-appointed judge of what is "right" is doing is using the threat of potential illegality to get others to march to their tune - there's been a few people that have tried that over the years, it never ends well.

 

It might be this now, but who knows what it will be next.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then they came for the rubbish old German rockers, and I did not speak up, because I was not a rubbish old German rocker.

They wield a LOT of power.

 

Who else could arbitrarily ban something online from 95% of a countries population? (outside of China anyway :D )

 

 

 

 

 

Like I said there is no legal basis for this, it's just a group deciding 95% of people shouldn't see the picture (or indeed read the accompanying text - which makes it even worse - I'm sure they have some :( reason :razz: for banning text based information about the album.... but I doubt I [or the British Courts] would agree with it :razz: ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then they came for the rubbish old German rockers, and I did not speak up, because I was not a rubbish old German rocker.

 

:razz:

 

Fuckin' hell man I never tire of them responses. Jesus wept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then they came for the rubbish old German rockers, and I did not speak up, because I was not a rubbish old German rocker.

 

:razz:

 

Fuckin' hell man I never tire of them responses. Jesus wept.

We know. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not unreasonable imo.

 

It's a vile album cover.

 

Out of interest do you really think the courts should play no part in deeming what the UK public should see or not see?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest alex
Not unreasonable imo.

 

It's a vile album cover.

 

Out of interest do you really think the courts should play no part in deeming what the UK public should see or not see?

That's the crux of the issue for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tbh, if the bottom line with this is that wikipedia have been less robust than Amazon (potentially) because they have less money to fight a legal action than Amazon, then this isn't really news. It was ever thus tbh. I'm not saying that that's right btw, I'm just saying that it's nowt new.

 

I think the days in which people (perhaps rather naively) thought that the internet would or should be allowed to operate as an exception to other forms of media are behind us now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tbh, if the bottom line with this is that wikipedia have been less robust than Amazon (potentially) because they have less money to fight a legal action than Amazon, then this isn't really news. It was ever thus tbh. I'm not saying that that's right btw, I'm just saying that it's nowt new.

 

I think the days in which people (perhaps rather naively) thought that the internet would or should be allowed to operate as an exception to other forms of media are behind us now.

 

And if it was a book being banned in this way? Just shrug and say that's life? (they have banned the text on that site too, not just the picture).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not unreasonable imo.

 

It's a vile album cover.

 

Out of interest do you really think the courts should play no part in deeming what the UK public should see or not see?

 

The courts have no part in BBFC decisions either, unless someone takes it further. Same thing here.

 

Of course it's illegal to release anything on video without certification. Would you prefer EVERY page viewable in the UK to be certified, or a common sense approach where ISPs and sites self censor?

Edited by Happy Face

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tbh, if the bottom line with this is that wikipedia have been less robust than Amazon (potentially) because they have less money to fight a legal action than Amazon, then this isn't really news. It was ever thus tbh. I'm not saying that that's right btw, I'm just saying that it's nowt new.

 

I think the days in which people (perhaps rather naively) thought that the internet would or should be allowed to operate as an exception to other forms of media are behind us now.

 

And if it was a book being banned in this way? Just shrug and say that's life? (they have banned the text on that site too, not just the picture).

 

On a serious note, I think if there was sufficient threat to a freedom then the natural thing would be for people to i) legally protest (as you have here) and/or ii) share resources to bring a legal action. In the case of ii), (and with the will of Wikipedia obviously), that way there would be access to the courts.

 

Ultimately it seems people are not bothered to do ii) because the information is still out there albeit at a cost from Amazon. So I guess they don't deem the information important enough to protect it's free access.

 

That might change in the future and indeed a more compelling case might arise where the dynamics are different and people rally to get the legal principle before the courts and you get what you're after.

 

I think my main point is that theres so much information out there, freely (which is unprecedented), that where there is an attempt at restriction to this for whatever reason it's not viable for everything to be hoyed before the courts. It'd also require us to treat the internet as a complete exception to the rules (equally dangerous) if this were so. Some things will go before the courts though where theyre important enough, and because we live in a system of stare decisis this will provide us with binding authorities which will bring stability and (as far as is possible with a broadcaster of such limitless information) better clarity on the law. That's just the way of the world tbh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not unreasonable imo.

 

It's a vile album cover.

 

Out of interest do you really think the courts should play no part in deeming what the UK public should see or not see?

 

The courts have no part in BBFC decisions either, unless someone takes it further. Same thing here.

 

For a start the BBFC is a statutory designated authority, IWF is not it's a charity.

 

Plus the BBFC are enforced be the law, not themselves (and they are at pains to state this themselves), and they will simply to refuse to certify them (not arbitrary ban them) and it goes through the court process (which would make the final decision).

 

Which is completely different.

 

 

Of course it's illegal to release anything on video without certification. Would you prefer EVERY page viewable in the UK to be certified, or a common sense approach where ISPs and sites self censor?

 

Again it's not the same thing. This is a picture (and text - how do you justify the text banning btw? It required a separate action it wasn't just the easy way) on a non-UK website, being banned by a self-appointed charity because it "may" be illegal - I'm fairly sure it wouldn't be IF it were to go through the court process - something the IWF it seem to think as it's leaving Amazon well alone.

 

 

 

 

 

So again do you really think the courts should play no part in deeming what the UK public should see or not see?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tbh, if the bottom line with this is that wikipedia have been less robust than Amazon (potentially) because they have less money to fight a legal action than Amazon, then this isn't really news. It was ever thus tbh. I'm not saying that that's right btw, I'm just saying that it's nowt new.

 

I think the days in which people (perhaps rather naively) thought that the internet would or should be allowed to operate as an exception to other forms of media are behind us now.

 

And if it was a book being banned in this way? Just shrug and say that's life? (they have banned the text on that site too, not just the picture).

 

On a serious note, I think if there was sufficient threat to a freedom then the natural thing would be for people to i) legally protest (as you have here) and/or ii) share resources to bring a legal action. In the case of ii), (and with the will of Wikipedia obviously), that way there would be access to the courts.

 

Ultimately it seems people are not bothered to do ii) because the information is still out there albeit at a cost from Amazon. So I guess they don't deem the information important enough to protect it's free access.

 

That might change in the future and indeed a more compelling case might arise where the dynamics are different and people rally to get the legal principle before the courts and you get what you're after.

 

I think my main point is that theres so much information out there, freely (which is unprecedented), that where there is an attempt at restriction to this for whatever reason it's not viable for everything to be hoyed before the courts. It'd also require us to treat the internet as a complete exception to the rules (equally dangerous) if this were so. Some things will go before the courts though where theyre important enough, and because we live in a system of stare decisis this will provide us with binding authorities which will bring stability and (as far as is possible with a broadcaster of such limitless information) better clarity on the law. That's just the way of the world tbh.

 

 

It's freely viewable on Amazon, which is what makes this whole thing so distasteful to me, and suggests it's more about control than anything else.

 

If they really thought it was illegal they'd have taken the action to "ban" that too.

 

It just seems they are banning what they know they can get away with, which is terrible (and dangerous) on so many levels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A similar thing would be:

 

 

 

Should Cancer Research have the say on tobacco control and advertising and not the Government/Courts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not unreasonable imo.

 

It's a vile album cover.

 

Out of interest do you really think the courts should play no part in deeming what the UK public should see or not see?

 

The courts have no part in BBFC decisions either, unless someone takes it further. Same thing here.

 

For a start the BBFC is a statutory designated authority, IWF is not it's a charity.

 

Plus the BBFC are enforced be the law, not themselves (and they are at pains to state this themselves), and they will simply to refuse to certify them (not arbitrary ban them) and it goes through the court process (which would make the final decision).

 

Which is completely different.

 

 

Of course it's illegal to release anything on video without certification. Would you prefer EVERY page viewable in the UK to be certified, or a common sense approach where ISPs and sites self censor?

 

Again it's not the same thing. This is a picture (and text - how do you justify the text banning btw? It required a separate action it wasn't just the easy way) on a non-UK website, being banned by a self-appointed charity because it "may" be illegal - I'm fairly sure it wouldn't be IF it were to go through the court process - something the IWF it seem to think as it's leaving Amazon well alone.

 

 

 

 

 

So again do you really think the courts should play no part in deeming what the UK public should see or not see?

 

I started a post yesterday about differentiating betweeen the text and the picture but was so disinterested in protecting the rights of a rock band to court controversy by using a child with their blit out that I didn't bother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I started a post yesterday about differentiating betweeen the text and the picture but was so disinterested in protecting the rights of a rock band to court controversy by using a child with their blit out that I didn't bother.

It's a very important part though.

 

You say there is "justification" for the picture.... ok (I disagree, but I can see the point).

 

But where is the "justification" for the text?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


Recent tweets

Toontastic Facebook

Donate to Toontastic

Keeping the lights on since... well ages ago
TT-Staff


×