British Isp's censoring users net connections

[Lucio]

I appreciate many people see this as a "breach of civil liberties" and we should fight the good fight against such horrific censorship but really now, we *need* to clamp down on child pornography and as such, all this case really shows is just how difficult it is to actually block or filter out specific images or ideas on the Internet.

At the end of the day, I'd rather have a filtered internet with proper oversight and control mechanisms that can be challenged and discussed, than an unrestricted Internet that's used and abused by the criminal underworld.

And honestly, ask yourself this if you still think I'm wrong in thinking this way, do you think really think Wikipedia has helped itself by allowing this image to be uploaded and approved? It's their own damned fault for not checking for something as basic as child pornography (one of the few things they DO censor out according to their policy)

[iranu]

They need to ban the cover of Nirvana's Nevermind album then because that features a naked child with everything on display.

[directhex]

I appreciate many people see this as a "breach of civil liberties" and we should fight the good fight against such horrific censorship but really now, we *need* to clamp down on child pornography and as such, all this case really shows is just how difficult it is to actually block or filter out specific images or ideas on the Internet.

It's hard when done by boneheaded people who don't understand the technology, yes.

At the end of the day, I'd rather have a filtered internet with proper oversight and control mechanisms that can be challenged and discussed, than an unrestricted Internet that's used and abused by the criminal underworld.

How about a secretly filtered internet that returns fake error messages for pages on an arbitrarily created secret list, with no oversight or recourse? What should we filter? Anything tangentially related to "terrorism"? Are racist sites out? How about religion (or anti-religion) sites, which upset a lot of people?

"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation." - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

And honestly, ask yourself this if you still think I'm wrong in thinking this way, do you think really think Wikipedia has helped itself by allowing this image to be uploaded and approved? It's their own damned fault for not checking for something as basic as child pornography (one of the few things they DO censor out according to their policy)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...s_not_censored

The key points of this kerfuffle, which you're going out of your way to ignore, are:

• The cover in question was published 32 years ago, and has been on sale since then, including on sites like Amazon
• The cover was published by Polydor, a Universal Music Group subsidiary. We're not talking about shadowy pornographers, we're talking about one of the world's biggest record labels
• An image of a child isn't illegal (i.e. isn't porn) if it's not meant to titillate. Are you in the "throw people in jail who take pictures of their kids in the bath" camp? I hope not. The cover is crass and unpleasant, but that's part of the point - can you really see people in plastic macs going to Wikipedia to pleasure themselves at an image of the cover for an old record by a German heavy metal band?
• The article was notable specifically BECAUSE of the controversy surrounding the album cover. What was censored was access to the article text - not the image itself.

[greenalien]

...and what about the 'Blind Faith' album, with the topless 11-year old girl on the cover? Art or pornography - surely a distinction that is in the mind of the viewer?

[Clunk]

It's hard when done by boneheaded people who don't understand the technology, yes.



How about a secretly filtered internet that returns fake error messages for pages on an arbitrarily created secret list, with no oversight or recourse? What should we filter? Anything tangentially related to "terrorism"? Are racist sites out? How about religion (or anti-religion) sites, which upset a lot of people?

"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation." - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...s_not_censored

The key points of this kerfuffle, which you're going out of your way to ignore, are:

• The cover in question was published 32 years ago, and has been on sale since then, including on sites like Amazon
• The cover was published by Polydor, a Universal Music Group subsidiary. We're not talking about shadowy pornographers, we're talking about one of the world's biggest record labels
• An image of a child isn't illegal (i.e. isn't porn) if it's not meant to titillate. Are you in the "throw people in jail who take pictures of their kids in the bath" camp? I hope not. The cover is crass and unpleasant, but that's part of the point - can you really see people in plastic macs going to Wikipedia to pleasure themselves at an image of the cover for an old record by a German heavy metal band?
• The article was notable specifically BECAUSE of the controversy surrounding the album cover. What was censored was access to the article text - not the image itself.

When that album was published in 1976, child pornography wasn't illegal in the UK, I believe that in 1978 it became illegal, as did those kind of album covers. That's why the record company got away with it.

An image of a child isn't illegal (i.e. isn't porn) if it's not meant to titillate

Sorry mate but who are you to decide what "titilates" paedophiles? You are doing exactly what you are saying you don't like wikipedia doing by passing your own judgement that the pics are ok as long as they don't "titilate". Let's be honest, it's not like "virgin Killers" album cover is a work of art, it's a naked child with her legs open - you think that's fine to be on a family orientated website like wikipedia?

To me, it doesn't matter how old the picture is or where it has appeared in the past, if it's grossly indecent (which I believe it is) and probably illegal now, then I would say that it doesn't belong on any public website now.

And don't get me wrong here, I'm no prude and I'm not in favour of banning things for banning's sake, just that I'm having real trouble understanding how you think that you should have the right to view indecent images of children (namely the Virgin Killers cover) that have clearly been censored for good reason?

[directhex]

When that album was published in 1976, child pornography wasn't illegal in the UK, I believe that in 1978 it became illegal, as did those kind of album covers. That's why the record company got away with it.

Which, in itself, is interesting. Was it causal, even partly?

Sorry mate but who are you to decide what "titilates" paedophiles? You are doing exactly what you are saying you don't like wikipedia doing by passing your own judgement that the pics are ok as long as they don't "titilate". Let's be honest, it's not like "virgin Killers" album cover is a work of art, it's a naked child with her legs open - you think that's fine to be on a family orientated website like wikipedia?

Who ever told you Wikipedia was "family oriented"?

And no, I'm not the one making a decision on what titillates - that's the point (and a point which was covered brilliantly in the Brass Eye 2001 special - "Is this obscene? How about now?")

Are YOU the one making a decision? Does Nirvana's Nevermind stay? Why? How about all those classical paintings with fat naked kids on? Do those go in the fire?

To me, it doesn't matter how old the picture is or where it has appeared in the past, if it's grossly indecent (which I believe it is) and probably illegal now, then I would say that it doesn't belong on any public website now.

So you would remove the discussion of it, rather than the image itself? As the IWF did?

And don't get me wrong here, I'm no prude and I'm not in favour of banning things for banning's sake, just that I'm having real trouble understanding how you think that you should have the right to view indecent images of children (namely the Virgin Killers cover) that have clearly been censored for good reason?

Did you just call me a paedophile because I disagree with secret arbitrary unaccountable censorship of text on an encyclopaedia?

[Stewart]

Let's be honest, it's not like "virgin Killers" album cover is a work of art, it's a naked child with her legs open - you think that's fine to be on a family orientated website like wikipedia?

Wikipedia isn't a family orientated website, it's factual.

[PeterStoba]

So, what happens if I want to read about the album now then?

Oh I can't

[Stewart]

So, what happens if I want to read about the album now then?

Oh I can't

*reports post to the sex police*

[directhex]

So, what happens if I want to read about the album now then?

Oh I can't

http://www.iwf.org.uk/media/news.251.htm

"the IWF Board has today (9 December 2008) considered these findings and the contextual issues involved in this specific case and, in light of the length of time the image has existed and its wide availability, the decision has been taken to remove this webpage from our list."

[format]

They've been busted this time, but its important to remember this.

[Barakka]

To me, it doesn't matter how old the picture is or where it has appeared in the past, if it's grossly indecent (which I believe it is) and probably illegal now, then I would say that it doesn't belong on any public website now.

And that is what forms part of this whole discussion. That there are established methods to rate things like this to say if they are indecent or not and Wikipedia checked before posting it up that it had been approved as legal in the US - where Wikimedia is based.

The image was deemed as legal and not offensive in the opinion of the people suitably qualified to make that decision.

Anyway the IWF has reversed it's decision...
http://www.itwire.com/content/view/22202/53/
*edit: Damn beaten to it

[Clunk]

Which, in itself, is interesting. Was it causal, even partly?



Who ever told you Wikipedia was "family oriented"?

And no, I'm not the one making a decision on what titillates - that's the point (and a point which was covered brilliantly in the Brass Eye 2001 special - "Is this obscene? How about now?")

Are YOU the one making a decision? Does Nirvana's Nevermind stay? Why? How about all those classical paintings with fat naked kids on? Do those go in the fire?



So you would remove the discussion of it, rather than the image itself? As the IWF did?



Did you just call me a paedophile because I disagree with secret arbitrary unaccountable censorship of text on an encyclopaedia?

I didn't call you anything at all.

I was addressing the points that I quoted from your previous post. The points that you said that Lucio was going out of his way to ignore.

Wikipedia, by it's very nature is going to attract all age groups, why would there need to be those images in the first place?

As for Wikipedia's means of censoring, that's not what I'm talking about, I was talking solely about the "Virgin Killers" album cover image.

I wouldn't remove any discussion, however, I wouldn't personally want to see those kind of images, even if I had surfed there by accident or via a thread like this.

[format]

Wikipedia, by it's very nature is going to attract all age groups, why would there need to be those images in the first place?

If you actually think about it, a child most likely wouldn't bat an eye at that image. It's the millions upon millions of easily available hardcore pornographic images and videos floating around that might affect a child.

[jamin]

The IWF advise ISPs when they become aware of sites holding child porn. As far as I'm concerned blocking these sites is not censorship, its vital action taken to protect children who can't protect themselves. ISP's who have responded and blocked are actually acting responsibly. Supply is driven by demand at the end of the day.

[directhex]

The IWF advise ISPs when they become aware of sites holding child porn. As far as I'm concerned blocking these sites is not censorship, its vital action taken to protect children who can't protect themselves. ISP's who have responded and blocked are actually acting responsibly. Supply is driven by demand at the end of the day.

Semantics here is important.

If they believe one image on Wikipedia is child porn, you're okay with them blocking Wikipedia?

Again, the problem isn't the censorship of the image. The problem is twofold:

• They blocked the TEXT about the image and the controversy it caused, which is historically interesting, and broke the site for anyone one an affected ISP whilst they were at it, and
• They did it in secret. Visiting the blocked page didn't give a "this site is blocked because you're a paedo" message, it gave a fake 404.
  
  If they're inserting fake errors into your surfing, can you state with absolute certainty whether ANY content is being seen through a filter of some kind? Given the list is secret, can you be certain that only child porn is on it?

If you think an unaccountable organization should be given free reign to secretly cause text they dislike to disappear, then we're well on the way to fascism