Wikipedia child image censored

[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.

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.

 

I had to look that one up as well - naked girls engaging in lesbian activity (albeit cartoon stylee) could be deemed offensive. The thing is, in that case, the record shop covered the image up from general display (which could be seen by all) but didn't ban the sale of the record.

 

FWIW, I can understand the need for internet censorship (not on the scale of China like) given that it is a widely available medium now - accessibly by people of all ages. Don't jazz mags on the top shelf come in black bags or something now (shows how often I look at the mag rack of my local newsagent)? I just think the body who controls this needs to be setup, run and accountable in the same manner as the BBFC.

[Happy Face 29]

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.

 

I had to look that one up as well - naked girls engaging in lesbian activity (albeit cartoon stylee) could be deemed offensive. The thing is, in that case, the record shop covered the image up from general display (which could be seen by all) but didn't ban the sale of the record.

 

FWIW, I can understand the need for internet censorship (not on the scale of China like) given that it is a widely available medium now - accessibly by people of all ages. Don't jazz mags on the top shelf come in black bags or something now (shows how often I look at the mag rack of my local newsagent)? I just think the body who controls this needs to be setup, run and accountable in the same manner as the BBFC.

 

 

I still don't personally see the massive difference between the BBFC (set up and paid for by the film industry to self regulate) and the IWF (set up and paid for by the ISPs to self regulate).

[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.

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.

 

I had to look that one up as well - naked girls engaging in lesbian activity (albeit cartoon stylee) could be deemed offensive. The thing is, in that case, the record shop covered the image up from general display (which could be seen by all) but didn't ban the sale of the record.

 

FWIW, I can understand the need for internet censorship (not on the scale of China like) given that it is a widely available medium now - accessibly by people of all ages. Don't jazz mags on the top shelf come in black bags or something now (shows how often I look at the mag rack of my local newsagent)? I just think the body who controls this needs to be setup, run and accountable in the same manner as the BBFC.

 

 

I still don't personally see the massive difference between the BBFC (set up and paid for by the film industry to self regulate) and the IWF (set up and paid for by the ISPs to self regulate).

 

Taken form the BBFC site:

The British Board of Film Classification is an independent, non-governmental body, which has classified cinema films since it was set up in 1912, and videos since the passing of the Video Recordings Act in 1984.

Cinema

 

The British Board of Film Censors was set up in 1912 by the film industry as an independent body to bring a degree of uniformity to the classification of film nationally.

 

Statutory powers on film remain with the local councils, which may overrule any of the Board's decisions, passing films we reject, banning films we have passed, and even waiving cuts, instituting new ones, or altering categories for films exhibited under their own licensing jurisdiction.

Video

 

In 1984 Parliament passed the Video Recordings Act. This act stated that, subject to certain exemptions, video recordings offered for sale or hire commercially in the UK must be classified by an authority designated by the Secretary of State. The President and Vice Presidents of the BBFC were so designated, and charged with applying the new test of 'suitability for viewing in the home'. At this point the Board's title was changed to British Board of Film Classification to reflect the fact that classification plays a far larger part in the Board's work than censorship.

So I've learned something new today - I thought the BBFC was linked in part to the UK Govt - but it would appear that is not the case. So in one respect there is little difference.

 

They do say that statutory powers lie with the local councils who may overrule the boards decisions. In this case, this is completely different to a charity organisation with no formal powers threatening legal action against some people but not others.

 

The BBFC appear to advise but can be overruled (it seems commonplace that this doesn't happen) and were setup by the government in 84. The IWF dont look like they have any more powers/abilities than BBFC yet wake up one day threatening legal action on a smaller fish, whilst leaving the bigger fish? That doesn't seem right to me.

[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? )

 

 

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?

 

Again the courts ultimately, if public scrutiny fails (as it didn't in this case), at least some form of statutory appeals process before that.

 

 

All very sensible, which I realise irks you and your Neo-Con beliefs ( ), but that is life.

[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?

 

Again the courts ultimately, if public scrutiny fails (as it didn't in this case), at least some form of statutory appeals process before that.

 

 

All very sensible, which I realise irks you and your Neo-Con beliefs ( ), but that is life.

 

"The courts" isn't a process it's a result.

 

I'm asking how webpages should come to a court ruling. Like a film whereby no webpage gets released until it's classified?

 

Should all pages be published to begin with and a court ruling be required on EVERY page proposed for censorship?

 

Or should it stay as it is whereby all pages get published to begin with but an indepentent organisation deem what's acceptable or not and where someone disagrees with any censorship they can take it to court?

[The Fish 8947]

[Happy Face 29]

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.

 

I had to look that one up as well - naked girls engaging in lesbian activity (albeit cartoon stylee) could be deemed offensive. The thing is, in that case, the record shop covered the image up from general display (which could be seen by all) but didn't ban the sale of the record.

 

FWIW, I can understand the need for internet censorship (not on the scale of China like) given that it is a widely available medium now - accessibly by people of all ages. Don't jazz mags on the top shelf come in black bags or something now (shows how often I look at the mag rack of my local newsagent)? I just think the body who controls this needs to be setup, run and accountable in the same manner as the BBFC.

 

 

I still don't personally see the massive difference between the BBFC (set up and paid for by the film industry to self regulate) and the IWF (set up and paid for by the ISPs to self regulate).

 

Taken form the BBFC site:

The British Board of Film Classification is an independent, non-governmental body, which has classified cinema films since it was set up in 1912, and videos since the passing of the Video Recordings Act in 1984.

Cinema

 

The British Board of Film Censors was set up in 1912 by the film industry as an independent body to bring a degree of uniformity to the classification of film nationally.

 

Statutory powers on film remain with the local councils, which may overrule any of the Board's decisions, passing films we reject, banning films we have passed, and even waiving cuts, instituting new ones, or altering categories for films exhibited under their own licensing jurisdiction.

Video

 

In 1984 Parliament passed the Video Recordings Act. This act stated that, subject to certain exemptions, video recordings offered for sale or hire commercially in the UK must be classified by an authority designated by the Secretary of State. The President and Vice Presidents of the BBFC were so designated, and charged with applying the new test of 'suitability for viewing in the home'. At this point the Board's title was changed to British Board of Film Classification to reflect the fact that classification plays a far larger part in the Board's work than censorship.

So I've learned something new today - I thought the BBFC was linked in part to the UK Govt - but it would appear that is not the case. So in one respect there is little difference.

 

They do say that statutory powers lie with the local councils who may overrule the boards decisions. In this case, this is completely different to a charity organisation with no formal powers threatening legal action against some people but not others.

 

The BBFC appear to advise but can be overruled (it seems commonplace that this doesn't happen) and were setup by the government in 84. The IWF dont look like they have any more powers/abilities than BBFC yet wake up one day threatening legal action on a smaller fish, whilst leaving the bigger fish? That doesn't seem right to me.

 

As far as I see it, the IWF have a list of what they recommend be blocked so that ISPs aren't left open to prosecution.

 

The IWF don't threaten legal action against anyone not conforming to their list. No ISP is forced to use the list but most choose to.

 

The IWF react to what they receive. A Wiki page was added to the list after being reported. Amazon wasn't reported.

 

The IWF realised it was an image widely in the public domain and quickly removed it from the list with no need for court intervention.

[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.

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.

 

I had to look that one up as well - naked girls engaging in lesbian activity (albeit cartoon stylee) could be deemed offensive. The thing is, in that case, the record shop covered the image up from general display (which could be seen by all) but didn't ban the sale of the record.

 

FWIW, I can understand the need for internet censorship (not on the scale of China like) given that it is a widely available medium now - accessibly by people of all ages. Don't jazz mags on the top shelf come in black bags or something now (shows how often I look at the mag rack of my local newsagent)? I just think the body who controls this needs to be setup, run and accountable in the same manner as the BBFC.

 

 

I still don't personally see the massive difference between the BBFC (set up and paid for by the film industry to self regulate) and the IWF (set up and paid for by the ISPs to self regulate).

 

Taken form the BBFC site:

The British Board of Film Classification is an independent, non-governmental body, which has classified cinema films since it was set up in 1912, and videos since the passing of the Video Recordings Act in 1984.

Cinema

 

The British Board of Film Censors was set up in 1912 by the film industry as an independent body to bring a degree of uniformity to the classification of film nationally.

 

Statutory powers on film remain with the local councils, which may overrule any of the Board's decisions, passing films we reject, banning films we have passed, and even waiving cuts, instituting new ones, or altering categories for films exhibited under their own licensing jurisdiction.

Video

 

In 1984 Parliament passed the Video Recordings Act. This act stated that, subject to certain exemptions, video recordings offered for sale or hire commercially in the UK must be classified by an authority designated by the Secretary of State. The President and Vice Presidents of the BBFC were so designated, and charged with applying the new test of 'suitability for viewing in the home'. At this point the Board's title was changed to British Board of Film Classification to reflect the fact that classification plays a far larger part in the Board's work than censorship.

So I've learned something new today - I thought the BBFC was linked in part to the UK Govt - but it would appear that is not the case. So in one respect there is little difference.

 

They do say that statutory powers lie with the local councils who may overrule the boards decisions. In this case, this is completely different to a charity organisation with no formal powers threatening legal action against some people but not others.

 

The BBFC appear to advise but can be overruled (it seems commonplace that this doesn't happen) and were setup by the government in 84. The IWF dont look like they have any more powers/abilities than BBFC yet wake up one day threatening legal action on a smaller fish, whilst leaving the bigger fish? That doesn't seem right to me.

 

As far as I see it, the IWF have a list of what they recommend be blocked so that ISPs aren't left open to prosecution.

 

The IWF don't threaten legal action against anyone not conforming to their list. No ISP is forced to use the list but most choose to.

 

The IWF react to what they receive. A Wiki page was added to the list after being reported. Amazon wasn't reported.

 

The IWF realised it was an image widely in the public domain and quickly removed it from the list with no need for court intervention.

 

Well, if that's the case - then that's not exactly how it's been reported. However, if this is the case, then perhaps the IWF aren't quite as mickey mouse as I first thought.

 

My original point still stands, it just might not apply to the IWF in this case

[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? )

 

 

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?

 

Again the courts ultimately, if public scrutiny fails (as it didn't in this case), at least some form of statutory appeals process before that.

 

 

All very sensible, which I realise irks you and your Neo-Con beliefs ( ), but that is life.

 

"The courts" isn't a process it's a result.

 

I'm asking how webpages should come to a court ruling. Like a film whereby no webpage gets released until it's classified?

 

Should all pages be published to begin with and a court ruling be required on EVERY page proposed for censorship?

 

Or should it stay as it is whereby all pages get published to begin with but an indepentent organisation deem what's acceptable or not and where someone disagrees with any censorship they can take it to court?

 

 

Again as much as you try to create a strawman to get you out of your little Christian Neo-Con corner ( ) - none of the above. If it's illegal the police and CPS should be involved, if it's just the bad taste police (as this case) there is no case to answer.

 

 

 

As much as it goes against your Neo-Con sensibilities, in this case something was banned that was clearly NOT illegal (even by their own definitions).

So clearly they need much more rigorous and independently overseen (and challengeable) procedures.

 

I know you Neo-Cons don't take kindly to people questioning your beliefs, and generally think of yourselves as thought/moral police, but you're not. So in a free and democratic society that is what happens and must happen.

 

You'll just have to come to terms with it, and move on to the next item on your Christian Neo-Con agenda.

[manc-mag 1]

In all seriousness though Fop, HF is right-it's a very basic question of locus standi. Someone has to bring a matter before the courts, they can't just go in of their own volition.

 

Indeed if it was any different to that I'm sure that would offend against every other principle you stand for. Eg a non-elected judge casting their eye over society and deciding what cases he/she decides they want to try (civil or criminal), regardless of the parties views.

 

Specifically in the scenario you give, the police/CPS would have no legitimate interest in enforcing private law remedies between two individuals, be they bodies corporate or private citizens.

[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?

 

Again the courts ultimately, if public scrutiny fails (as it didn't in this case), at least some form of statutory appeals process before that.

 

 

All very sensible, which I realise irks you and your Neo-Con beliefs ( ), but that is life.

 

"The courts" isn't a process it's a result.

 

I'm asking how webpages should come to a court ruling. Like a film whereby no webpage gets released until it's classified?

 

Should all pages be published to begin with and a court ruling be required on EVERY page proposed for censorship?

 

Or should it stay as it is whereby all pages get published to begin with but an indepentent organisation deem what's acceptable or not and where someone disagrees with any censorship they can take it to court?

 

 

Again as much as you try to create a strawman to get you out of your little Christian Neo-Con corner ( ) - none of the above. If it's illegal the police and CPS should be involved, if it's just the bad taste police (as this case) there is no case to answer.

 

As much as it goes against your Neo-Con sensibilities, in this case something was banned that was clearly NOT illegal (even by their own definitions).

So clearly they need much more rigorous and independently overseen (and challengeable) procedures.

 

I know you Neo-Cons don't take kindly to people questioning your beliefs, and generally think of yourselves as thought/moral police, but you're not. So in a free and democratic society that is what happens and must happen.

 

You'll just have to come to terms with it, and move on to the next item on your Christian Neo-Con agenda.

 

That's weak, even by your low standards.

 

First of all nothing was banned. Second, it was challengable and indeed challenged succesfully as you so gleefully took (for some unknown reason) as some sort of validation that freedom of speech has been eroded in the UK. Feel free to outline the more rigorous and independently overseen (and even more challengeable) procedures you're proposing though.

Edited December 10, 2008 by Happy Face

[manc-mag 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? )

 

 

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?

 

Again the courts ultimately, if public scrutiny fails (as it didn't in this case), at least some form of statutory appeals process before that.

 

 

All very sensible, which I realise irks you and your Neo-Con beliefs ( ), but that is life.

 

"The courts" isn't a process it's a result.

 

I'm asking how webpages should come to a court ruling. Like a film whereby no webpage gets released until it's classified?

 

Should all pages be published to begin with and a court ruling be required on EVERY page proposed for censorship?

 

Or should it stay as it is whereby all pages get published to begin with but an indepentent organisation deem what's acceptable or not and where someone disagrees with any censorship they can take it to court?

 

 

Again as much as you try to create a strawman to get you out of your little Christian Neo-Con corner ( ) - none of the above. If it's illegal the police and CPS should be involved, if it's just the bad taste police (as this case) there is no case to answer.

 

As much as it goes against your Neo-Con sensibilities, in this case something was banned that was clearly NOT illegal (even by their own definitions).

So clearly they need much more rigorous and independently overseen (and challengeable) procedures.

 

I know you Neo-Cons don't take kindly to people questioning your beliefs, and generally think of yourselves as thought/moral police, but you're not. So in a free and democratic society that is what happens and must happen.

 

You'll just have to come to terms with it, and move on to the next item on your Christian Neo-Con agenda.

 

That's weak, even by your low standards.

 

First of all nothing was banned. Second, it was challengable and indeed challenged succesfully as you so gleefully took (for some unknown reason) as some sort of validation that freedom of speech has been eroded in the UK. Feel free to outline the more rigorous and independently overseen (and even more challengeable) procedures you're proposing though.

 

I think that's a very good point tbh. Fop's arguments can tend to get a bit paradoxical though without him realising.

[Fop 1]

In all seriousness though Fop, HF is right-it's a very basic question of locus standi. Someone has to bring a matter before the courts, they can't just go in of their own volition.

 

Indeed if it was any different to that I'm sure that would offend against every other principle you stand for. Eg a non-elected judge casting their eye over society and deciding what cases he/she decides they want to try (civil or criminal), regardless of the parties views.

 

Specifically in the scenario you give, the police/CPS would have no legitimate interest in enforcing private law remedies between two individuals, be they bodies corporate or private citizens.

 

There are two points there:

 

1) do we need a bad taste police? I think not - the police and CPS should be involved in any actually illegal material.

 

2) if there must be a bad taste police then there needs to be statutory appeal, and in fact much better identification processes as this case so clearly shows.

 

 

 

Just because people like Happy Face bring it to their attention is not a reason for "action".

[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? )

 

 

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?

 

Again the courts ultimately, if public scrutiny fails (as it didn't in this case), at least some form of statutory appeals process before that.

 

 

All very sensible, which I realise irks you and your Neo-Con beliefs ( ), but that is life.

 

"The courts" isn't a process it's a result.

 

I'm asking how webpages should come to a court ruling. Like a film whereby no webpage gets released until it's classified?

 

Should all pages be published to begin with and a court ruling be required on EVERY page proposed for censorship?

 

Or should it stay as it is whereby all pages get published to begin with but an indepentent organisation deem what's acceptable or not and where someone disagrees with any censorship they can take it to court?

 

 

Again as much as you try to create a strawman to get you out of your little Christian Neo-Con corner ( ) - none of the above. If it's illegal the police and CPS should be involved, if it's just the bad taste police (as this case) there is no case to answer.

 

As much as it goes against your Neo-Con sensibilities, in this case something was banned that was clearly NOT illegal (even by their own definitions).

So clearly they need much more rigorous and independently overseen (and challengeable) procedures.

 

I know you Neo-Cons don't take kindly to people questioning your beliefs, and generally think of yourselves as thought/moral police, but you're not. So in a free and democratic society that is what happens and must happen.

 

You'll just have to come to terms with it, and move on to the next item on your Christian Neo-Con agenda.

 

That's weak, even by your low standards.

 

First of all nothing was banned. Second, it was challengable and indeed challenged succesfully as you so gleefully took (for some unknown reason) as some sort of validation that freedom of speech has been eroded in the UK. Feel free to outline the more rigorous and independently overseen (and even more challengeable) procedures you're proposing though.

 

First of all yes, the picture and text were blocked and therefore effectively "banned" to 95% of the UK population (yes there were ways around it, but that's not really the point).

 

Now I know semantics is the last resort of those that have found themselves sharing a bed with US Christian Neo-Cons ( ) and really don't like it, but really that is weak.

 

 

 

Nothing was challenged, their own procedures deemed it non-bannable before it was banned, what changed it was the MASSIVE coverage it got.

 

 

 

As usual Christian Neo-Con beliefs like yours don't tend to stand up to mass public scrutiny very well.

[Fop 1]

I think that's a very good point tbh. Fop's arguments can tend to get a bit paradoxical though without him realising.

 

 

More paradoxical that Happy Face arguing the exact same issue as US Christian Neo-Cons?

 

Honestly that's the funniest thing I've seen here in a long time (and he really hates it!).

 

 

 

 

(although as it wasn't challenged though any statutory measure so I fail to see your point too. )

[Monkeys Fist 38556]

subtle as a brick!

[Happy Face 29]

Neo-Cons

 

.....

 

Christian Neo-Con

 

 

US Christian Neo-Cons

 

 

Khaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan!

 

 

FOPFAIL!

[Fop 1]

FOPFAIL!

 

 

It's not my fault you unknowingly argued yourself along the same track as US Christian Neo-Cons, and painted yourself into this corner with them.

 

 

But it is very, very funny.

[Park Life 70]

What's all this about?

[Fop 1]

What's all this about?

 

Freedom, free speech, censorship...... and Happy Face and his US Christian Neo-Con allies trying to destroy the first 2 and bend the latter to their whim.

[Guest alex]

FOPFAIL!

 

 

It's not my fault you unknowingly argued yourself along the same track as US Christian Neo-Cons, and painted yourself into this corner with them.

 

 

But it is very, very funny.

Even if it had been, hammering home the same 'point' a dozen times would have taken any sheen off it tbh.

[Fop 1]

FOPFAIL!

 

 

It's not my fault you unknowingly argued yourself along the same track as US Christian Neo-Cons, and painted yourself into this corner with them.

 

 

But it is very, very funny.

Even if it had been, hammering home the same 'point' a dozen times would have taken any sheen off it tbh.

 

You'll never admit it, of course, but it must have at least raised a wry smile.

 

As for the rest, Happy Face can hardly claim the (Christian Neo-Con) moral high ground there either.

[Park Life 70]

What's all this about?

 

Freedom, free speech, censorship...... and Happy Face and his US Christian Neo-Con allies trying to destroy the first 2 and bend the latter to their whim.

[manc-mag 1]

I think that's a very good point tbh. Fop's arguments can tend to get a bit paradoxical though without him realising.

 

 

More paradoxical that Happy Face arguing the exact same issue as US Christian Neo-Cons?

 

Honestly that's the funniest thing I've seen here in a long time (and he really hates it!).

 

 

 

 

(although as it wasn't challenged though any statutory measure so I fail to see your point too. )

 

Freedom of speech and expression, culminating in the right to lawfully protest (as you have done here) is how people participate in a democracy outside of election periods.

 

On the other hand you insisting that a private law matter be brought before the courts where the parties do not consent to that is basically you imposing your own beliefs on private individuals without any legitimacy. Or if you like, a dictatorship/Big Brother scenario. But I guess that doesn't matter when it's you pulling the strings, eh?

[Happy Face 29]

What's all this about?

 

Freedom, free speech, censorship...... and Happy Face and his US Christian Neo-Con allies trying to destroy the first 2 and bend the latter to their whim.

 

 

Aye, if you can find anywhere in this thread that indicates what he's banging on about give me a shout.