Wikipedia child image censored

[Ketsbaia 0]

More to the point though - How shit are the Scorpions?

" De Wint off Chenge"

aaaaargh

 

They're South African now?

[Happy Face 29]

IWF backs down on Wiki censorship

Screenshot of IWF website

The IWF regulates illegal online content

 

The online watchdog, the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF), has withdrawn its objection to a Wikipedia page that contained an image of a naked girl.

 

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

 

A number of internet providers blocked the page after IWF said it could be "potential illegal child sexual abuse."

 

The IWF now says that given the age and availability of the image, it was no longer on its list of proscribed sites.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7774102.stm

 

Before they blocked it page views were around 500-1000/day. Two days later and it's viewed 371,000 times (more than the combined total for the previous 12 months).

 

http://stats.grok.se/en/200812/Virgin%20Killer

[Ketsbaia 0]

Whey! Common sense!

[Tom 13860]

I think common sense has been out of the equation all together!

 

Now it just means (as above) that they have drawn attention to something people probably never looked at.

[Fop 1]

I think common sense has been out of the equation all together!

 

Now it just means (as above) that they have drawn attention to something people probably never looked at.

 

 

Aye that and you have to wonder if court action wasn't also eventually threatened, clearly it wasn't "potentially illegal" (as this shows) and the IWF knew this as they knew about the Amazon pic at the same time and did nothing.

 

The problem is of course that this got a LOT of publicity, how much do the IWF and others like them ban without anyone knowing?

 

 

 

I'm being independently proven utterly right so much at the moment it's scary.

[Fop 1]

And I'm still vastly disturbed about them blocking the text as well, look at the site there's nothing that needs blocking in the text at all.

 

 

 

Although there is this there now too:

 

Internet censorship

 

Main article: Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia

 

In May 2008, the US-based social conservative site WorldNetDaily reported the cover image on Wikipedia to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. An officer of the Concerned Women for America, a conservative Christian advocacy group, commented, "By allowing that image to remain posted, Wikipedia is helping to further facilitate perversion and pedophilia."[21] The May controversy prompted extensive discussion among Wikipedia contributors and was reported in the website's internal newsletter, which noted that "relevant content policies and community practices" state that "Wikipedia is not censored, and barring a legal imperative the decision to display or remove the offensive image rests with Wikipedia's users."[22] EContent magazine subsequently reported that the discussion page associated with the article declared "Prior discussion has determined by broad consensus that the Virgin Killer cover will not be removed", and asserted that Wikipedia contributors "favor inclusion in all but the most extreme cases".[23]

Wikinews

Wikinews has related news:

 

* British ISPs restrict access to Wikipedia amid child pornography allegations

* Wikimedia, IWF respond to block of Wikipedia over child pornography allegations

 

In December, 2008 the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF), a UK-based non-government organization, added the Wikipedia article Virgin Killer to its blacklist due to the online encyclopedia's use of an image of the original Virgin Killer album cover. As a result, people using many major UK ISPs were blocked from viewing the entire article.[24][25] A modified version of the controversial cover art was used for the "In Trance/Virgin Killer" deluxe boxed edition double album sold worldwide after a 2004 release.[26] 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").[27][28] In a press release, the lawyer for the Wikimedia Foundation stated, "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."[29] Under the Cleanfeed content blocking system, the block was accomplished by ISP proxy systems impersonating Wikipedia's servers, which resulted in degraded performance and left site administrators with little option but to block a significant portion of the UK from editing Wikipedia or creating accounts.[30][31]

 

Sarah Robertson, director of communications for the IWF, stated that in collaboration with the Child Exploitation and Online Protection agency of the UK, the image had been rated as a "1 on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is the least offensive",[32] representing "erotic posing with no sexual activity".[32] On December 9, 2008, the IWF issued a statement reversing their blacklist of Wikipedia.[3]

 

 

 

Happy Face supporting US Christian Neo-Cons and Fop being completely right shocker.

[Happy Face 29]

And I'm still vastly disturbed about them blocking the text as well, look at the site there's nothing that needs blocking in the text at all.

 

 

 

Although there is this there now too:

 

Internet censorship

 

Main article: Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia

 

In May 2008, the US-based social conservative site WorldNetDaily reported the cover image on Wikipedia to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. An officer of the Concerned Women for America, a conservative Christian advocacy group, commented, "By allowing that image to remain posted, Wikipedia is helping to further facilitate perversion and pedophilia."[21] The May controversy prompted extensive discussion among Wikipedia contributors and was reported in the website's internal newsletter, which noted that "relevant content policies and community practices" state that "Wikipedia is not censored, and barring a legal imperative the decision to display or remove the offensive image rests with Wikipedia's users."[22] EContent magazine subsequently reported that the discussion page associated with the article declared "Prior discussion has determined by broad consensus that the Virgin Killer cover will not be removed", and asserted that Wikipedia contributors "favor inclusion in all but the most extreme cases".[23]

Wikinews

Wikinews has related news:

 

* British ISPs restrict access to Wikipedia amid child pornography allegations

* Wikimedia, IWF respond to block of Wikipedia over child pornography allegations

 

In December, 2008 the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF), a UK-based non-government organization, added the Wikipedia article Virgin Killer to its blacklist due to the online encyclopedia's use of an image of the original Virgin Killer album cover. As a result, people using many major UK ISPs were blocked from viewing the entire article.[24][25] A modified version of the controversial cover art was used for the "In Trance/Virgin Killer" deluxe boxed edition double album sold worldwide after a 2004 release.[26] 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").[27][28] In a press release, the lawyer for the Wikimedia Foundation stated, "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."[29] Under the Cleanfeed content blocking system, the block was accomplished by ISP proxy systems impersonating Wikipedia's servers, which resulted in degraded performance and left site administrators with little option but to block a significant portion of the UK from editing Wikipedia or creating accounts.[30][31]

 

Sarah Robertson, director of communications for the IWF, stated that in collaboration with the Child Exploitation and Online Protection agency of the UK, the image had been rated as a "1 on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is the least offensive",[32] representing "erotic posing with no sexual activity".[32] On December 9, 2008, the IWF issued a statement reversing their blacklist of Wikipedia.[3]

 

 

 

Happy Face supporting US Christian Neo-Cons and Fop being completely right shocker.

 

Not really. I think the system is pretty much fine as it is, you seem to think either we're living in a police state, or the internet is under corporate control.

 

I'd say this decision being made within days vindicates my position more than yours.

[Guest alex]

I think common sense has been out of the equation all together!

 

Now it just means (as above) that they have drawn attention to something people probably never looked at.

 

 

Aye that and you have to wonder if court action wasn't also eventually threatened, clearly it wasn't "potentially illegal" (as this shows) and the IWF knew this as they knew about the Amazon pic at the same time and did nothing.

 

The problem is of course that this got a LOT of publicity, how much do the IWF and others like them ban without anyone knowing?

 

 

 

I'm being independently proven utterly right so much at the moment it's scary.

I thought you were against self-appointed moral guardians having an influence on what ISPs block though

[Happy Face 29]

I think common sense has been out of the equation all together!

 

Now it just means (as above) that they have drawn attention to something people probably never looked at.

 

 

Aye that and you have to wonder if court action wasn't also eventually threatened, clearly it wasn't "potentially illegal" (as this shows) and the IWF knew this as they knew about the Amazon pic at the same time and did nothing.

 

The problem is of course that this got a LOT of publicity, how much do the IWF and others like them ban without anyone knowing?

 

 

 

I'm being independently proven utterly right so much at the moment it's scary.

 

"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,"

[Fop 1]

And I'm still vastly disturbed about them blocking the text as well, look at the site there's nothing that needs blocking in the text at all.

 

 

 

Although there is this there now too:

 

Internet censorship

 

Main article: Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia

 

In May 2008, the US-based social conservative site WorldNetDaily reported the cover image on Wikipedia to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. An officer of the Concerned Women for America, a conservative Christian advocacy group, commented, "By allowing that image to remain posted, Wikipedia is helping to further facilitate perversion and pedophilia."[21] The May controversy prompted extensive discussion among Wikipedia contributors and was reported in the website's internal newsletter, which noted that "relevant content policies and community practices" state that "Wikipedia is not censored, and barring a legal imperative the decision to display or remove the offensive image rests with Wikipedia's users."[22] EContent magazine subsequently reported that the discussion page associated with the article declared "Prior discussion has determined by broad consensus that the Virgin Killer cover will not be removed", and asserted that Wikipedia contributors "favor inclusion in all but the most extreme cases".[23]

Wikinews

Wikinews has related news:

 

* British ISPs restrict access to Wikipedia amid child pornography allegations

* Wikimedia, IWF respond to block of Wikipedia over child pornography allegations

 

In December, 2008 the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF), a UK-based non-government organization, added the Wikipedia article Virgin Killer to its blacklist due to the online encyclopedia's use of an image of the original Virgin Killer album cover. As a result, people using many major UK ISPs were blocked from viewing the entire article.[24][25] A modified version of the controversial cover art was used for the "In Trance/Virgin Killer" deluxe boxed edition double album sold worldwide after a 2004 release.[26] 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").[27][28] In a press release, the lawyer for the Wikimedia Foundation stated, "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."[29] Under the Cleanfeed content blocking system, the block was accomplished by ISP proxy systems impersonating Wikipedia's servers, which resulted in degraded performance and left site administrators with little option but to block a significant portion of the UK from editing Wikipedia or creating accounts.[30][31]

 

Sarah Robertson, director of communications for the IWF, stated that in collaboration with the Child Exploitation and Online Protection agency of the UK, the image had been rated as a "1 on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is the least offensive",[32] representing "erotic posing with no sexual activity".[32] On December 9, 2008, the IWF issued a statement reversing their blacklist of Wikipedia.[3]

 

 

 

Happy Face supporting US Christian Neo-Cons and Fop being completely right shocker.

 

Not really. I think the system is pretty much fine as it is, you seem to think either we're living in a police state, or the internet is under corporate control.

 

I'd say this decision being made within days vindicates my position more than yours.

 

Aye, you and the US Christian Neo-Cons seem to agree on a lot.

 

 

 

This decision validates my points that:

 

1) it was wrong, it wasn't illegal and was done for utterly the wrong reasons.

&

2) publicity, protest and basically saying is the right thing and does actually work.

 

[Fop 1]

I think common sense has been out of the equation all together!

 

Now it just means (as above) that they have drawn attention to something people probably never looked at.

 

 

Aye that and you have to wonder if court action wasn't also eventually threatened, clearly it wasn't "potentially illegal" (as this shows) and the IWF knew this as they knew about the Amazon pic at the same time and did nothing.

 

The problem is of course that this got a LOT of publicity, how much do the IWF and others like them ban without anyone knowing?

 

 

 

I'm being independently proven utterly right so much at the moment it's scary.

I thought you were against self-appointed moral guardians having an influence on what ISPs block though

 

Only what they censor, not what they don't censor. I don't care who doesn't censor stuff.

 

 

 

 

I'm just mostly amused that Happy Face managed to unknowingly align himself with US Christian Neo-Cons.

[Happy Face 29]

Aye, you and the US Christian Neo-Cons seem to agree on a lot.

 

This decision validates my points that:

 

1) it was wrong, it wasn't illegal and was done for utterly the wrong reasons.

&

2) publicity, protest and basically saying is the right thing and does actually work.

 

 

I've never said it was illegal. Personally I think it's wrong that an image of a tied up teenager with her tits out was allowed on the cover of an album in the first place, so I didn't give a shit that a crap bands shock tactics were being obstructed. Shame it's given them the further oxygen of publicity.

 

I never saw you make that second point anywhere in this thread. You actually implied the opposite, that interfering charity busy bodies should not be able to campaign against images, and continue to that very point above by having a go at christian movements that don't like this stuff.

[Fop 1]

Aye, you and the US Christian Neo-Cons seem to agree on a lot.

 

This decision validates my points that:

 

1) it was wrong, it wasn't illegal and was done for utterly the wrong reasons.

&

2) publicity, protest and basically saying is the right thing and does actually work.

 

 

I've never said it was illegal. Personally I think it's wrong that an image of a tied up teenager with her tits out was allowed on the cover of an album in the first place, so I didn't give a shit that a crap bands shock tactics were being obstructed. Shame it's given them the further oxygen of publicity.

 

I never saw you make that second point anywhere in this thread. You actually implied the opposite, that interfering charity busy bodies should not be able to campaign against images, and continue to that very point above by having a go at christian movements that don't like this stuff.

 

Yes, yes, you and the US Christian Neo-Cons are all for censorship without the oversights of the court, we get it.

[Happy Face 29]

Aye, you and the US Christian Neo-Cons seem to agree on a lot.

 

This decision validates my points that:

 

1) it was wrong, it wasn't illegal and was done for utterly the wrong reasons.

&

2) publicity, protest and basically saying is the right thing and does actually work.

 

 

I've never said it was illegal. Personally I think it's wrong that an image of a tied up teenager with her tits out was allowed on the cover of an album in the first place, so I didn't give a shit that a crap bands shock tactics were being obstructed. Shame it's given them the further oxygen of publicity.

 

I never saw you make that second point anywhere in this thread. You actually implied the opposite, that interfering charity busy bodies should not be able to campaign against images, and continue to that very point above by having a go at christian movements that don't like this stuff.

 

Yes, yes, you and the US Christian Neo-Cons are all for censorship without the oversights of the court, we get it.

 

 

Where the fuck have you dragged US christian neocons into this from anyway? You know the IWF is UK based?

[Fop 1]

Aye, you and the US Christian Neo-Cons seem to agree on a lot.

 

This decision validates my points that:

 

1) it was wrong, it wasn't illegal and was done for utterly the wrong reasons.

&

2) publicity, protest and basically saying is the right thing and does actually work.

 

 

I've never said it was illegal. Personally I think it's wrong that an image of a tied up teenager with her tits out was allowed on the cover of an album in the first place, so I didn't give a shit that a crap bands shock tactics were being obstructed. Shame it's given them the further oxygen of publicity.

 

I never saw you make that second point anywhere in this thread. You actually implied the opposite, that interfering charity busy bodies should not be able to campaign against images, and continue to that very point above by having a go at christian movements that don't like this stuff.

 

Yes, yes, you and the US Christian Neo-Cons are all for censorship without the oversights of the court, we get it.

 

 

Where the fuck have you dragged US christian neocons into this from anyway? You know the IWF is UK based?

 

You should read more carefully.

 

 

You have to admit it's very funny that you have though.

[Happy Face 29]

Aye, you and the US Christian Neo-Cons seem to agree on a lot.

 

This decision validates my points that:

 

1) it was wrong, it wasn't illegal and was done for utterly the wrong reasons.

&

2) publicity, protest and basically saying is the right thing and does actually work.

 

 

I've never said it was illegal. Personally I think it's wrong that an image of a tied up teenager with her tits out was allowed on the cover of an album in the first place, so I didn't give a shit that a crap bands shock tactics were being obstructed. Shame it's given them the further oxygen of publicity.

 

I never saw you make that second point anywhere in this thread. You actually implied the opposite, that interfering charity busy bodies should not be able to campaign against images, and continue to that very point above by having a go at christian movements that don't like this stuff.

 

Yes, yes, you and the US Christian Neo-Cons are all for censorship without the oversights of the court, we get it.

 

 

Where the fuck have you dragged US christian neocons into this from anyway? You know the IWF is UK based?

 

You should read more carefully.

 

 

You have to admit it's very funny that you have though.

 

So you DO want a change to the system of self regulation we have?

 

What process do you envision to include the courts automatically in such cases?

[Happy Face 29]

Aye, you and the US Christian Neo-Cons seem to agree on a lot.

 

This decision validates my points that:

 

1) it was wrong, it wasn't illegal and was done for utterly the wrong reasons.

&

2) publicity, protest and basically saying is the right thing and does actually work.

 

 

I've never said it was illegal. Personally I think it's wrong that an image of a tied up teenager with her tits out was allowed on the cover of an album in the first place, so I didn't give a shit that a crap bands shock tactics were being obstructed. Shame it's given them the further oxygen of publicity.

 

I never saw you make that second point anywhere in this thread. You actually implied the opposite, that interfering charity busy bodies should not be able to campaign against images, and continue to that very point above by having a go at christian movements that don't like this stuff.

 

Yes, yes, you and the US Christian Neo-Cons are all for censorship without the oversights of the court, we get it.

 

 

Where the fuck have you dragged US christian neocons into this from anyway? You know the IWF is UK based?

 

You should read more carefully.

 

 

You have to admit it's very funny that you have though.

 

So you DO want a change to the system of self regulation we have?

 

What process do you envision to include the courts automatically in such cases?

 

Then they came for the paedophiles and I said nothing, because I'm not a paedophile.

 

Fop did like, because he is.

[Monkeys Fist 38775]

Aye, you and the US Christian Neo-Cons seem to agree on a lot.

 

This decision validates my points that:

 

1) it was wrong, it wasn't illegal and was done for utterly the wrong reasons.

&

2) publicity, protest and basically saying is the right thing and does actually work.

 

 

I've never said it was illegal. Personally I think it's wrong that an image of a tied up teenager with her tits out was allowed on the cover of an album in the first place, so I didn't give a shit that a crap bands shock tactics were being obstructed. Shame it's given them the further oxygen of publicity.

 

I never saw you make that second point anywhere in this thread. You actually implied the opposite, that interfering charity busy bodies should not be able to campaign against images, and continue to that very point above by having a go at christian movements that don't like this stuff.

 

Yes, yes, you and the US Christian Neo-Cons are all for censorship without the oversights of the court, we get it.

 

 

Where the fuck have you dragged US christian neocons into this from anyway? You know the IWF is UK based?

 

You should read more carefully.

 

 

You have to admit it's very funny that you have though.

 

So you DO want a change to the system of self regulation we have?

 

What process do you envision to include the courts automatically in such cases?

 

Then they came for the paedophiles and I said nothing, because I'm not a paedophile.

 

Fop did like, because he is.

can a girly virgin be a paedophile?

[Happy Face 29]

Aye, you and the US Christian Neo-Cons seem to agree on a lot.

 

This decision validates my points that:

 

1) it was wrong, it wasn't illegal and was done for utterly the wrong reasons.

&

2) publicity, protest and basically saying is the right thing and does actually work.

 

 

I've never said it was illegal. Personally I think it's wrong that an image of a tied up teenager with her tits out was allowed on the cover of an album in the first place, so I didn't give a shit that a crap bands shock tactics were being obstructed. Shame it's given them the further oxygen of publicity.

 

I never saw you make that second point anywhere in this thread. You actually implied the opposite, that interfering charity busy bodies should not be able to campaign against images, and continue to that very point above by having a go at christian movements that don't like this stuff.

 

Yes, yes, you and the US Christian Neo-Cons are all for censorship without the oversights of the court, we get it.

 

 

Where the fuck have you dragged US christian neocons into this from anyway? You know the IWF is UK based?

 

You should read more carefully.

 

 

You have to admit it's very funny that you have though.

 

So you DO want a change to the system of self regulation we have?

 

What process do you envision to include the courts automatically in such cases?

 

Then they came for the paedophiles and I said nothing, because I'm not a paedophile.

 

Fop did like, because he is.

can a girly virgin be a paedophile?

 

 

I thought you were talking about the lass on the album cover. Took ten minutes to click that you were talking about Fop.

[Monkeys Fist 38775]

Aye, you and the US Christian Neo-Cons seem to agree on a lot.

 

This decision validates my points that:

 

1) it was wrong, it wasn't illegal and was done for utterly the wrong reasons.

&

2) publicity, protest and basically saying is the right thing and does actually work.

 

 

I've never said it was illegal. Personally I think it's wrong that an image of a tied up teenager with her tits out was allowed on the cover of an album in the first place, so I didn't give a shit that a crap bands shock tactics were being obstructed. Shame it's given them the further oxygen of publicity.

 

I never saw you make that second point anywhere in this thread. You actually implied the opposite, that interfering charity busy bodies should not be able to campaign against images, and continue to that very point above by having a go at christian movements that don't like this stuff.

 

Yes, yes, you and the US Christian Neo-Cons are all for censorship without the oversights of the court, we get it.

 

 

Where the fuck have you dragged US christian neocons into this from anyway? You know the IWF is UK based?

 

You should read more carefully.

 

 

You have to admit it's very funny that you have though.

 

So you DO want a change to the system of self regulation we have?

 

What process do you envision to include the courts automatically in such cases?

 

Then they came for the paedophiles and I said nothing, because I'm not a paedophile.

 

Fop did like, because he is.

can a girly virgin be a paedophile?

 

 

I thought you were talking about the lass on the album cover. Took ten minutes to click that you were talking about Fop.

[Fop 1]

So you DO want a change to the system of self regulation we have?

 

What process do you envision to include the courts automatically in such cases?

 

Again it's not self regulation (unless again you think the Cancer Research should control tabacoo policy.... although given your Neo-Con leanings I guess you think it should be the cigarette industry that controls tabacco policy? )

 

Unlike you and your US Christian Neo-Con allies ( ) I do think there should be oversight, and indeed that people shouldn't just accept what they are told to accept.

 

 

Then they came for the paedophiles and I said nothing, because I'm not a paedophile.

 

Fop did like, because he is.

 

I know you're smarting because you painted yourself into the same corner as US Christian Neo-Cons, but really.

 

can a girly virgin be a paedophile?

 

 

 

 

I thought you were talking about the lass on the album cover. Took ten minutes to click that you were talking about Fop.

You always have been slow, I guess that's just another thing you have in common with US Christian Neo-Cons.

[maggiespaws 0]

So, next up is Nirvana - Nevermind, Led Zep - Houses of the Holy and Blind Faith - Blind Faith then eh? What about the original cover for Appetite for Destruction by GnR?

 

I'm honestly curious to see if they do continue. Is this just a first stab to see what they can get away with? Go for an album cover which is obviously not in line with current views on decency and then use it as a yardstick for future actions?

 

I'm 32 in a couple of weeks and I'd never seen the album cover. I think it's unlikely I ever would have given that I don't like the Scorpions. First thing I did when I read the article though was search for the image to see what all the fuss was about. I'd bet my house I'm not the only one who did/will.

 

Censorship by an approved, arbitrated and nationally recognised body is one thing, but censorship under threat from a group of people who woke up one day and decided they didn't like something is a different matter.

 

Tell you what, shall we put together some kind of legal case against MA? After all, I find the current state of NUFC offensive, the method in which he treats the club and it's fans nothing sort of indecent and the torture we're now being forced to endure - inhumane?

 

Stupid example I know, but then the fact the IWF have been able to get away with this is equally as stupid.

 

The album cover is not something I'd have put up on my wall, the album is not one I would have bought or even obtained through other means and I'll not lose any sleep if I never see it again. I can see Fop's point though - it's the principle of what they are trying to/actually getting away with.

[Happy Face 29]

So you DO want a change to the system of self regulation we have?

 

What process do you envision to include the courts automatically in such cases?

 

Again it's not self regulation (unless again you think the Cancer Research should control tabacoo policy.... although given your Neo-Con leanings I guess you think it should be the cigarette industry that controls tabacco policy? )

 

 

The Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) is a self-regulated charitable body, the only recognised such organisation in the United Kingdom operating an Internet 'hotline' for the public and IT professionals to report their exposure to potentially illegal content on the Internet. It operates in partnership with the police, government, public, Internet service providers (ISPs), and the wider online industry. Originally formed to police child pornography online, the IWF's remit was later expanded to cover racist and criminally obscene material.

 

The IWF is an incorporated charity, limited by guarantee, and largely funded by voluntary contributions from UK communications service providers, including ISPs, mobile phone operators, Internet trade associations, search engines, hardware manufacturers, and software providers. It also receives funding from the Association for Payment Clearing Services and the European Union.

 

The IWF is governed by a Board of Trustees which consists of an independent chair, six non-industry representatives, and three industry representatives. The Board monitors and reviews IWF's remit, strategy, policy and budget to enable the IWF to achieve its objectives. The IWF operates from offices in Oakington, near Cambridge.

 

Government policy on policing the internet is one of self-regulation...

 

The government believes that a self-regulatory system is the best solution, and the Metropolitan Police also believe that working with ISPs, rather than trying to force them via legislation, is the way forward.[6] The IWF has a blacklist of URLs which is available to ISPs, but ISPs are not forced to subscribe to it.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Watch_Foundation

 

Unlike you and your US Christian Neo-Con allies ( ) I do think there should be oversight, and indeed that people shouldn't just accept what they are told to accept.

 

I'll ask again, what process do you envision that provides oversight of what content is blocked and what isn't?

Edited December 10, 2008 by Happy Face

[Guest alex]

So, next up is Nirvana - Nevermind, Led Zep - Houses of the Holy and Blind Faith - Blind Faith then eh? What about the original cover for Appetite for Destruction by GnR?

 

I'm honestly curious to see if they do continue. Is this just a first stab to see what they can get away with? Go for an album cover which is obviously not in line with current views on decency and then use it as a yardstick for future actions?

 

I'm 32 in a couple of weeks and I'd never seen the album cover. I think it's unlikely I ever would have given that I don't like the Scorpions. First thing I did when I read the article though was search for the image to see what all the fuss was about. I'd bet my house I'm not the only one who did/will.

 

Censorship by an approved, arbitrated and nationally recognised body is one thing, but censorship under threat from a group of people who woke up one day and decided they didn't like something is a different matter.

 

Tell you what, shall we put together some kind of legal case against MA? After all, I find the current state of NUFC offensive, the method in which he treats the club and it's fans nothing sort of indecent and the torture we're now being forced to endure - inhumane?

 

Stupid example I know, but then the fact the IWF have been able to get away with this is equally as stupid.

 

The album cover is not something I'd have put up on my wall, the album is not one I would have bought or even obtained through other means and I'll not lose any sleep if I never see it again. I can see Fop's point though - it's the principle of what they are trying to/actually getting away with.

Thought about the Blind Faith album when this was first brought up as it happens. As an aside, I can remember being in America about 1991-ish and being amazed to see the cover of 'Ritual de lo Habitual' being replaced with a blank brown card cover with just the name of the album / group on. I shit you not. I'd forgotten all about that. I would imagine it was the record shop making the decision (it was a chain btw) rather than some state-wide censorship or whatever.

[manc-mag 1]

Then they came for the paedophiles and I said nothing, because I'm not a paedophile.

 

Fop did like, because he is.

 

 

my apologies.