Wikipedia child image censored

[Guest alex]

Good point re the difference between a body like BBFC and a self-appointed lobby group like.

[Happy Face 29]

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?

 

Did I use the word justification? Not sure why that's in quotes.

 

I don't think people should be beaten up, but I don't get too apalled by nonce bashing either.

 

I don't see how an ISP could censor the picture and not the text. So the difference between the two isn't worth debating either afaic, as a censored page they go hand in hand.

 

EDIT: I'm sure if Wiki removed the offending image, the ISPs wouldn't censor the text.

Edited December 9, 2008 by Happy Face

[Guest alex]

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?

 

Did I use the word justification? Not sure why that's in quotes.

 

I don't think people should be beaten up, but I don't get too apalled by nonce bashing either.

 

I don't see how an ISP could censor the picture and not the text. So the difference between the two isn't worth debating either afaic, as a censored page they go hand in hand.

I suppose it's a matter of principle is what Fop is saying. I haven't seen the image but from what you suggest it sounds as indefensible as their music.

[manc-mag 1]

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.

 

I don't disagree on the legal point btw-I think you're probably right about the legality of the image for what it's worth and in that sense it is a bit galling-but what I don't think is that you have to always revert to the position that people are trying to 'control you'.

 

Indirectly this may be the result (to a degree), but ultimately what is happening I should imagine is that an economic concern is, in its mind at least, protecting it's own interests, by doing what it thinks is achievable given it's own resources; and as a result wikipedia loses out and amazon doesnt. Like I say it was ever thus.

 

It's just commercial pressure being brought to bear and as far as commerce is concerned the internet is in for a penny, in for a pound.

 

Just trying to offer a real world view. Don't worry Fop, when they come for your real freedoms in the middle of the night, then as a lawyer I will get on my hind legs and give it the full Winston Smith QC for your bail application.

[Fop 1]

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?

 

Did I use the word justification? Not sure why that's in quotes.

You seemed to think it was "justified" (I don't, but there we go).

 

I don't think people should be beaten up, but I don't get too apalled by nonce bashing either.

Especially if it's a charity doing it?

 

 

I don't see how an ISP could censor the picture and not the text. So the difference between the two isn't worth debating either afaic, as a censored page they go hand in hand.

They just block the picture, blocking the text is a different thing, it's actually causes all sort of problem with people from those ISP (95% of the UK) editing Wiki - which of course is the whole point of Wiki.

 

 

EDIT: I'm sure if Wiki removed the offending image, the ISPs wouldn't censor the text.

It's not a UK site.

 

The picture can be blocked separately (it is easier to do so in fact).

 

The offending item is the picture, what is offensive or "potentially illegal" about the text?

[Fop 1]

I suppose it's a matter of principle is what Fop is saying. I haven't seen the image but from what you suggest it sounds as indefensible as their music.

 

The image isn't nice, but I doubt it would be illegal (or if it was then an awful lot of art and album/book covers would be illegal too).

 

The text is just plain bizarre though - the only reason I can think of is potentially a backlash at them because of the page picture ban.

 

Which again just shows how insidious this whole thing is, not only arbitrary controlling what is seen, but what people can write/read about it too (I wonder if this thread will find its way onto the IWF "banned" list ).

[Happy Face 29]

Good point re the difference between a body like BBFC and a self-appointed lobby group like.

 

It was another point I couldn't really be arsed to argue tbh.

 

My point was that the BBFC have to certify anything for it to get a release. If they refuse certification, it's effectively banned unless the courts get involved. The classification and decision to "ban" is not exactly arbitrary, but entirely at their discretion and is only challenged when it's cost effective.

 

That's the same decision the ISPs are making at the insistence of the IWF. The ISPs are free to listen to lobby groups or not. Anyone disagreeing with the decision is free to set up their own lobby group to have the decision overturned or change ISP in protest

 

You wouldn't want and couldn't have a statutory designated authority classifying every page of the internet because it's too vast and too instant. You'd end up like China.

[Guest alex]

I suppose it's a matter of principle is what Fop is saying. I haven't seen the image but from what you suggest it sounds as indefensible as their music.

 

The image isn't nice, but I doubt it would be illegal (or if it was then an awful lot of art and album/book covers would be illegal too).

 

The text is just plain bizarre though - the only reason I can think of is potentially a backlash at them because of the page picture ban.

 

Which again just shows how insidious this whole thing is, not only arbitrary controlling what is seen, but what people can write/read about it too (I wonder if this thread will find its way onto the IWF "banned" list ).

It was probably just easier to block the whole page.

[Guest alex]

Good point re the difference between a body like BBFC and a self-appointed lobby group like.

 

It was another point I couldn't really be arsed to argue tbh.

 

My point was that the BBFC have to certify anything for it to get a release. If they refuse certification, it's effectively banned unless the courts get involved. The classification and decision to "ban" is not exactly arbitrary, but entirely at their discretion and is only challenged when it's cost effective.

 

That's the same decision the ISPs are making at the insistence of the IWF. The ISPs are free to listen to lobby groups or not. Anyone disagreeing with the decision is free to set up their own lobby group to have the decision overturned or change ISP in protest

 

You wouldn't want and couldn't have a statutory designated authority classifying every page of the internet because it's too vast and too instant. You'd end up like China.

I can see the difference between films and the internet. But if a body were to exist I would probably do it the other way round anyway, i.e. have a body that retrospectively adjudicated on whether or not something was illegal if there were complaints or whatever rather than classifying every page before it could be viewed. I don't give a shit about this particular page but that's not really the point.

[Fop 1]

I don't disagree on the legal point btw-I think you're probably right about the legality of the image for what it's worth and in that sense it is a bit galling-but what I don't think is that you have to always revert to the position that people are trying to 'control you'.

 

Indirectly this may be the result (to a degree), but ultimately what is happening I should imagine is that an economic concern is, in its mind at least, protecting it's own interests, by doing what it thinks is achievable given it's own resources; and as a result wikipedia loses out and amazon doesnt. Like I say it was ever thus.

 

It's just commercial pressure being brought to bear and as far as commerce is concerned the internet is in for a penny, in for a pound.

 

Just trying to offer a real world view. Don't worry Fop, when they come for your real freedoms in the middle of the night, then as a lawyer I will get on my hind legs and give it the full Winston Smith QC for your bail application.

 

I'd have no problem at all with this, if it had gone through a proper court process and was deemed illegal.

 

But it hasn't, and I suspect it wouldn't be deemed such if it had.

 

 

 

 

 

What I object to is arbitrary censorship carried out by threat of "force" rather than by any rule of law.

 

What I further object to is the way it has been done suggests the IWF itself knows it probably isn't illegal, but still wants to get its way where it can.

[Guest alex]

I don't disagree on the legal point btw-I think you're probably right about the legality of the image for what it's worth and in that sense it is a bit galling-but what I don't think is that you have to always revert to the position that people are trying to 'control you'.

 

Indirectly this may be the result (to a degree), but ultimately what is happening I should imagine is that an economic concern is, in its mind at least, protecting it's own interests, by doing what it thinks is achievable given it's own resources; and as a result wikipedia loses out and amazon doesnt. Like I say it was ever thus.

 

It's just commercial pressure being brought to bear and as far as commerce is concerned the internet is in for a penny, in for a pound.

 

Just trying to offer a real world view. Don't worry Fop, when they come for your real freedoms in the middle of the night, then as a lawyer I will get on my hind legs and give it the full Winston Smith QC for your bail application.

 

I'd have no problem at all with this, if it had gone through a proper court process and was deemed illegal.

 

But it hasn't, and I suspect it wouldn't be deemed such if it had.

 

 

 

 

 

What I object to is arbitrary censorship carried out by threat of "force" rather than by any rule of law.

 

What I further object to is the way it has been done suggests the IWF itself knows it probably isn't illegal, but still wants to get its way where it can.

At the same time to expect court cases over every internet page deemed controversial is totally unworkable.

[Fop 1]

Good point re the difference between a body like BBFC and a self-appointed lobby group like.

 

It was another point I couldn't really be arsed to argue tbh.

 

My point was that the BBFC have to certify anything for it to get a release. If they refuse certification, it's effectively banned unless the courts get involved. The classification and decision to "ban" is not exactly arbitrary, but entirely at their discretion and is only challenged when it's cost effective.

 

That's the same decision the ISPs are making at the insistence of the IWF. The ISPs are free to listen to lobby groups or not. Anyone disagreeing with the decision is free to set up their own lobby group to have the decision overturned or change ISP in protest

 

You wouldn't want and couldn't have a statutory designated authority classifying every page of the internet because it's too vast and too instant. You'd end up like China.

 

This is what China does.

 

But again the BBFC and IWF are completely different in what they do and what they are..... again should Cancer Research be responsible for UK tobbaco policy? Should Alcoholics Anonymous control licensing laws?

 

Also even the IWF knows it's on shaky ground as it has only targeted websites that couldn't/wouldn't put up a fight.

[Fop 1]

I suppose it's a matter of principle is what Fop is saying. I haven't seen the image but from what you suggest it sounds as indefensible as their music.

 

The image isn't nice, but I doubt it would be illegal (or if it was then an awful lot of art and album/book covers would be illegal too).

 

The text is just plain bizarre though - the only reason I can think of is potentially a backlash at them because of the page picture ban.

 

Which again just shows how insidious this whole thing is, not only arbitrary controlling what is seen, but what people can write/read about it too (I wonder if this thread will find its way onto the IWF "banned" list ).

It was probably just easier to block the whole page.

 

Aye, I can see why people think that, but it's actually not the case. What has been done is effectively TWO blocks rather than the one.

 

They specifically and actively blocked the text as a separate thing.

[manc-mag 1]

Fop, I don't disagree, but the amount of disputes that settle/don't come to court because of financial pressure is immeasurable. I'm just trying to stress that it's nowt new and also that it's not necessarily the result of some sinister 'big brother' figure. Far from it in fact, it's almost always something far more mundane than that.

[Fop 1]

At the same time to expect court cases over every internet page deemed controversial is totally unworkable.

True, but it's not unrealistic to expect them to go for a ruling on a specific artwork/album cover and then have legal backing for any future bans.

 

Or indeed for them to ban every site they are aware of, not just the ones that won't/can't fight back.

[Fop 1]

Fop, I don't disagree, but the amount of disputes that settle/don't come to court because of financial pressure is immeasurable. I'm just trying to stress that it's nowt new and also that it's not necessarily the result of some sinister 'big brother' figure. Far from it in fact, it's almost always something far more mundane than that.

 

Aye, I know, and I won't say I like it, but you're right that is life.

 

 

Just that I think this case is a little different because it's impinging so directly on basic freedoms that we have in the UK, without an legal backing to do so.

 

In the end it doesn't matter much, but then it never does in any one instance.

[Guest alex]

At the same time to expect court cases over every internet page deemed controversial is totally unworkable.

True, but it's not unrealistic to expect them to go for a ruling on a specific artwork/album cover and then have legal backing for any future bans.

Or indeed for them to ban every site they are aware of, not just the ones that won't/can't fight back.

I think it probably is, actually. I agree with you on this matter in general though.

[Happy Face 29]

Good point re the difference between a body like BBFC and a self-appointed lobby group like.

 

It was another point I couldn't really be arsed to argue tbh.

 

My point was that the BBFC have to certify anything for it to get a release. If they refuse certification, it's effectively banned unless the courts get involved. The classification and decision to "ban" is not exactly arbitrary, but entirely at their discretion and is only challenged when it's cost effective.

 

That's the same decision the ISPs are making at the insistence of the IWF. The ISPs are free to listen to lobby groups or not. Anyone disagreeing with the decision is free to set up their own lobby group to have the decision overturned or change ISP in protest

 

You wouldn't want and couldn't have a statutory designated authority classifying every page of the internet because it's too vast and too instant. You'd end up like China.

 

This is what China does.

 

The Chinese government enforce it. This is a selection of private ISPs reacting to complaints, not UK government policy.

 

Which is preferable?

 

But again the BBFC and IWF are completely different in what they do and what they are..... again should Cancer Research be responsible for UK tobbaco policy? Should Alcoholics Anonymous control licensing laws?

 

You've chosen two government policies and are comparing them to Private company policy. Are you saying you want a government body to be created to police ISPs and start censoring across the board?

Edited December 9, 2008 by Happy Face

[Fop 1]

The Chinese government enforce it. This is a selection of private ISPs reacting to complaints, not UK government policy.

 

No. It's ISP's being threatened (without basis most likely) by a charity, and the ISP's acceding to those threats.

 

Even more China-like because of the text blocking as well.

 

Which is preferable?

Neither, a court based decision is.

 

But again the BBFC and IWF are completely different in what they do and what they are..... again should Cancer Research be responsible for UK tobbaco policy? Should Alcoholics Anonymous control licensing laws?

 

You've chosen two government policies and are comparing them to Private company policy. Are you saying you want a government body to be created to police ISPs and start censoring across the board?

I've choosen 2 charities and put them in charge of their relevant policies/laws. Just like a charity is effectively doing in this case.

 

 

Again as you seem to think the courts have no place in this decision, why do you think Cancer Research isn't the idea candidate to arbitrarily decide tobacco policy? It's the same thing.

Edited December 9, 2008 by Fop

[Fop 1]

At the same time to expect court cases over every internet page deemed controversial is totally unworkable.

True, but it's not unrealistic to expect them to go for a ruling on a specific artwork/album cover and then have legal backing for any future bans.

Or indeed for them to ban every site they are aware of, not just the ones that won't/can't fight back.

I think it probably is, actually. I agree with you on this matter in general though.

I think when it's a public work (not just some private picture) and they are selectively banning it, it should be and there's no reason not to do so.

 

I can see why they wouldn't want to do it that way, but that's pretty much part of what I find wrong with the situation.

[Happy Face 29]

The Chinese government enforce it. This is a selection of private ISPs reacting to complaints, not UK government policy.

 

No. It's ISP's being threatened (without basis most likely) by a charity, and the ISP's acceding to those threats.

What did they threaten? I still haven't even read the article.

 

Even more China-like because of the text blocking as well.

 

Which is preferable?

Neither, a court based decision is.

 

But again the BBFC and IWF are completely different in what they do and what they are..... again should Cancer Research be responsible for UK tobbaco policy? Should Alcoholics Anonymous control licensing laws?

 

You've chosen two government policies and are comparing them to Private company policy. Are you saying you want a government body to be created to police ISPs and start censoring across the board?

I've choosen 2 charities and put them in charge of their relevant policies/laws. Just like a charity is effectively doing in this case.

 

 

Again as you seem to think the courts have no place in this decision, why do you think Cancer Research isn't the idea candidate to arbitrarily decide tobacco policy? It's the same thing.

 

The courts don't have any place in this until someone takes it to court.

 

I'm still not sure who you've got an axe to grind with or what you propose to do about it. Are you saying ISPs should be forced by law to allow access to every page of the internet? Or That charities shouldn't be able to campaign on an issue? Or that taxpayer money should be used so a court can arbitrate in every individual case like this?

Edited December 9, 2008 by Happy Face

[Guest alex]

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

[Monkeys Fist 38578]

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

" De Wint off Chenge"

aaaaargh

[Happy Face 29]

The Chinese government enforce it. This is a selection of private ISPs reacting to complaints, not UK government policy.

 

No. It's ISP's being threatened (without basis most likely) by a charity, and the ISP's acceding to those threats.

What did they threaten? I still haven't even read the article.

 

Even more China-like because of the text blocking as well.

 

Which is preferable?

Neither, a court based decision is.

 

But again the BBFC and IWF are completely different in what they do and what they are..... again should Cancer Research be responsible for UK tobbaco policy? Should Alcoholics Anonymous control licensing laws?

 

You've chosen two government policies and are comparing them to Private company policy. Are you saying you want a government body to be created to police ISPs and start censoring across the board?

I've choosen 2 charities and put them in charge of their relevant policies/laws. Just like a charity is effectively doing in this case.

 

 

Again as you seem to think the courts have no place in this decision, why do you think Cancer Research isn't the idea candidate to arbitrarily decide tobacco policy? It's the same thing.

 

The courts don't have any place in this until someone takes it to court.

 

I'm still not sure who you've got an axe to grind with or what you propose to do about it. Are you saying ISPs should be forced by law to allow access to every page of the internet? Or That charities shouldn't be able to campaign on an issue? Or that taxpayer money should be used so a court can arbitrate in every individual case like this?

 

 

Sorry, you had specified this earlier...

 

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.

 

So you're against charities campaigning on whatever issue they choose. Bit draconian isn't it.

 

And the chgarity didn't choose to ban either page. They diapprove of both I'd imagine, it's the ISP only selectively going along with it.

[Happy Face 29]

The Chinese government enforce it. This is a selection of private ISPs reacting to complaints, not UK government policy.

 

No. It's ISP's being threatened (without basis most likely) by a charity, and the ISP's acceding to those threats.

What did they threaten? I still haven't even read the article.

 

Even more China-like because of the text blocking as well.

 

Which is preferable?

Neither, a court based decision is.

 

But again the BBFC and IWF are completely different in what they do and what they are..... again should Cancer Research be responsible for UK tobbaco policy? Should Alcoholics Anonymous control licensing laws?

 

You've chosen two government policies and are comparing them to Private company policy. Are you saying you want a government body to be created to police ISPs and start censoring across the board?

I've choosen 2 charities and put them in charge of their relevant policies/laws. Just like a charity is effectively doing in this case.

 

 

Again as you seem to think the courts have no place in this decision, why do you think Cancer Research isn't the idea candidate to arbitrarily decide tobacco policy? It's the same thing.

 

The courts don't have any place in this until someone takes it to court.

 

I'm still not sure who you've got an axe to grind with or what you propose to do about it. Are you saying ISPs should be forced by law to allow access to every page of the internet? Or That charities shouldn't be able to campaign on an issue? Or that taxpayer money should be used so a court can arbitrate in every individual case like this?

 

 

Sorry, you had specified this earlier...

 

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.

 

So you're against charities campaigning on whatever issue they choose. Bit draconian isn't it.

 

And the chgarity didn't choose to ban either page. They diapprove of both I'd imagine, it's the ISP only selectively going along with it.

 

Oops. I've actually read the article now and it seems the IWF did only complain about Wiki, but then...

 

"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.

 

Which is fair enough.