FunnyBones
Premium
join:2004-01-22
usa
 ·Vonage
| UK ISPs flip censorship switch on Wikipedia
A bevy of United Kingdom Internet service providers are restricting Wikipedia access over child pornography allegations.
The move, reported by ZDNet UK’s Rupert Goodwins, caused a bit of a ruckus (Techmeme). Rupert spied the following notice as UK users attempted to edit Wikipedia.
“Wikipedia has been added to an Internet Watch Foundation UK website blacklist, and your Internet service provider has decided to block part of your access. Unfortunately, this also makes it impossible for us to differentiate between different users, and block those abusing the site without blocking other innocent people as well.”
»blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=11125
More censorship on the way and this time it is wikipedia lol ok now what the heck is up with that. 
--
Are you part of the cattle? |
|
Its a Secret
Whatever
Premium
join:2008-02-23
U B Funny
 ·Shaw
1 edit | I remember that album from waaaay back, and it was just a kid on the cover. I never thought jack about it in '76... How times have changed. (sighs heavily) I must be getting old. 
Geez, it only took them 22 years to ban it!
(edit for additional comments)
--
"In the future, that which is not mandatory will be illegal" |
|
Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
| reply to FunnyBones
I guess maybe I just broke the law? I clicked on the wikipedia article with the pic and the Amazon sales page with three of the same pic. I guess the folks who uploaded it to Amazon also broke the law? That album's cover was banned in the USA when the album came out according to what I just read. To me, it is a beautiful work of art and it would be a crime to stop folks from viewing it. It reminds me of Pretty Baby which is one of my all time favorite movies. I guess that will be banned now too. The girl who posed said 15 years later when the band members met her that she was fine with it. She is European with a healthy attitude toward sex. It is only the British and the puritanical USA that would ban a beautiful work of art as being abusive. The model says she was not abused. That is good enough for me.
--
"The same ferocity that our founders devoted to protect the freedom and independence of the press is now appropriate for our defense of the freedom of the internet. The stakes are the same: the survival of our Republic". Al Gore, The Assault on Reason |
|
Cudni
La Merma - Vigilado
Premium,MVM
join:2003-12-20
Someshire
1 edit | said by Mele20  :The model says she was not abused. That is good enough for me. maybe she has suppressed the memory of the event?
edit: on the subject of Amazon
»www.thinkbroadband.com/news/3817···ers.html
"..
The album, when sold on sites like Amazon in the UK has a UK version of the cover which features the band members, but Amazon.com does host the reportedly illegal image, and it is thought has also been reported to the IWF over the weekend.
.."
Cudni
--
"what we know we know the same, what we don't know, we don't know it differently."
Help yourself so God can help you.
Microsoft MVP, 2006 - 2008 |
|
Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
1 edit | What I read was that she was the record producer's daughter. That cover wasn't the band's idea as the song is not referring to the deflowering of a female (a specific loss of innocence) but to the loss of innocence through time that happens to all of us. But the record producer (RCA) wanted the cover to be provocative so as to sell more albums. It could also be that the band was all for it at the time and then later said they were not. But it makes sense to me that this was the idea of the record producer and the band went along because what else could they do? They were owned by RCA. Besides, this was 70's and, of course, they wanted to make as much money as they could.
Yes, she could have a repressed memory but a lot of that has been debunked in recent years. It is a very seductive thing to be told by "experts", if you are a woman, that your problems are all due to incest or some other sexual horror you endured as a child and have repressed. We now know that all those self help books in this area and the talk shows and stuff in the 80's - 90's was mostly bunk.
--
"The same ferocity that our founders devoted to protect the freedom and independence of the press is now appropriate for our defense of the freedom of the internet. The stakes are the same: the survival of our Republic". Al Gore, The Assault on Reason |
|
Cudni
La Merma - Vigilado
Premium,MVM
join:2003-12-20
Someshire
| it doesn't matter if you are a woman or man brain works in its wondrous way to protect the mind if there is cause to be protected against.
As for the producer the fact, if true, that he wanted to provoke in order to make more money and then proceeded and used the image of his naked daughter is just...
However good to know it does not matter that she was not harmed she should not have been there. And for parents to be around and allow that. That is not avant-garde but something else completely
Cudni
--
"what we know we know the same, what we don't know, we don't know it differently."
Help yourself so God can help you.
Microsoft MVP, 2006 - 2008 |
|
FunnyBones
Premium
join:2004-01-22
usa
·Vonage
| reply to FunnyBones
The same is on the way for the usa and obama so you may want to view the video in my post about VeriChip and MS
»www.csis.org/tech/cyber/
»Re: VeriChip partners with Microsoft HealthVault
»news.wired.com/dynamic/stories/O···07-35-40
--
Are you part of the cattle? |
|
fatness
subtle
Janitor
join:2000-11-17
fishing
 ·EarthLink
Host:
Earthlink DSL
TekSavvy
Forum Feature Requ..
Need Site Help?
Rants, Raves, and ..
| reply to FunnyBones
In 2008 the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF), a UK-based non-government organization, added Wikipedia’s Virgin Killer article to its blacklist due to the online encyclopedia’s use of an image of the original Virgin Killer album cover. As a result, people using many major UK ISPs were blocked from viewing the entire article. Although the controversial cover art is still provided on the deluxe boxed edition of the album sold worldwide, the IWF classified the image of the cover as a “potentially illegal indecent image of a child”. The block was accomplished by ISP proxy systems impersonating Wikipedia’s servers, which had the side effects of degrading performance and left site administrators with little option but to block a significant portion of the UK from editing Wikipedia or creating accounts.
So all it takes to be blocked now is to be called "potentially illegal", apparently.
--
goodbye dad |
|
dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Hasn't it ever been so? Publishers withdraw books that are "potentially libelous". TV won't show anything that is "potentially offensive". Etc.
These all seem like cases where the middleman (ISP/publisher/channel) doesn't want to deal with any trouble, so he pre-emptively throws something out.
I'm not defending the ISP actions here. |
|
Blue2
Premium
join:2004-04-14
France
| reply to FunnyBones
said by FunnyBones :A bevy of United Kingdom Internet service providers are restricting Wikipedia access over child pornography allegations. So let me get this straight, someone looked at Wikipedia, got offended, reported this to the IWF, and now for the first time 30 years after this appeared, there's an "allegation" of child pornography? And that allegation was sufficient to cause access to Wikipedia to be restricted?
Is anyone expecting criminal "child pornography" charges to be filed against the record label 30 years later? (I wouldn't bet on it.)
Let's shut down the Coppertone domain next. I seem to remember a young girl and a dog from fifty years ago... |
|
Blackbird
Built for Speed
Premium
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN
·Verizon Online DSL
2 edits | reply to fatness
said by fatness :... So all it takes to be blocked now is to be called "potentially illegal", apparently. Strange how that works, isn't it? "Illegal" means something "not lawful", and it either is or it isn't - but it takes a trial or legal hearing to determine it. "Potentially" illegal indicates something might be "not lawful". The Western concept of "presumed innocent until proven guilty" establishes the principle that guilt or illegality must be proven through specified legal processes, usually in a trial. Which, AFAIK, has not occurred in over 2 decades with that album cover or reproductions of it. I personally find the album cover as offensive today as I did back when it first appeared in music stores because of the realities of abuse that so often surround underage visual exploitation. But my personal opinions do not establish the cover as illegal. And two decades of opportunity have pretty much diluted any "potential" aspects, as well.
Ordinary snapshots of Queen Elizabeth could be described by someone as "potentially illegal". Lacking existing legal findings of illegality, such innuendo is always cast by the one making the description, purely for their own reasons. In the case of publishers (print-media, websites, etc, etc), as dave has noted, the reason is fear: the mere threat of lawsuits, organized protests, or frivolous prosecution. In the case of those making the complaints to the publishers that triggered those fears (and actions), the reason is the desire to censor, with or without the sanction of legal process.
And there is where the "rubber meets the road"... once again, the same questions are raised: Will legal processes be followed - are we nations of law? Do the laws apply equally for all - no matter how 'offensive' something or someone might otherwise seem? Do we even grasp the principle that 'what I cheer somebody doing to another might someday be done to me' - and do we remember that when we make choices between candidates in elections (edited to add:) and between products/services in the marketplace?
And finally, do we act - strongly - to demand respect for others' rights be given by businesses, elected officials, and our own peer groups... even when we may strongly disagree with those "others"? Freedom is there for all of us to maintain - or to... lose. 
--
If God wanted us to work with electrons, He'd make them big enough to see... |
|
FunnyBones
Premium
join:2004-01-22
usa
·Vonage
2 edits | reply to Blue2
said by Blue2 :said by FunnyBones :A bevy of United Kingdom Internet service providers are restricting Wikipedia access over child pornography allegations. So let me get this straight, someone looked at Wikipedia, got offended, reported this to the IWF, and now for the first time 30 years after this appeared, there's an "allegation" of child pornography? And that allegation was sufficient to cause access to Wikipedia to be restricted? Is anyone expecting criminal "child pornography" charges to be filed against the record label 30 years later? (I wouldn't bet on it.) Let's shut down the Coppertone domain next. I seem to remember a young girl and a dog from fifty years ago... Yep that is what I'm thinking and this action has done nothing to stop real pedophiles at all period.
I agree you have to look at the time this was made it did not have the meaning they are making it out to be and no matter what filters they have you could probably get this image from thousand's of webpages.
I have been doing my homework lately and I see a big potential for a major revolt on a mass scale from buying guns to hackers ready to do fire sale and it seems like they have no clue as to what they are doing but then maybe they really want chaos and then offer to fix it and give up any freedom you had left.
--
Are you part of the cattle? |
|
Its a Secret
Whatever
Premium
join:2008-02-23
U B Funny
·Shaw
1 edit | reply to Mele20
said by Mele20 :I guess maybe I just broke the law? Funny, I did the click through as well, and then did some research via the 'net on it, again, clicking links. Afterwards, I was thinking of the older FBI child porn article we have on here and thought, Jeez, I wonder if my door is going to be broke down and get taken away in cuffs now?said by FunnyBones : ...but then maybe they really want chaos and then offer to fix it and give up any freedom you had left. You may be right. Just create FUD in the general populace, and you'll get compliance without a fight. Terrorists, WMD, and child porn will be enough to get people to turn in their neighbour to the authorities. A new McCarthy era could be starting.
--
"In the future, that which is not mandatory will be illegal" |
|
FunnyBones
Premium
join:2004-01-22
usa
·Vonage
| said by Its a Secret :said by Mele20 :I guess maybe I just broke the law? Funny, I did the click through as well, and then did some research via the 'net on it, again, clicking links. Afterwards, I was thinking of the older FBI child porn article we have on here and thought, Jeez, I wonder if my door is going to be broke down and get taken away in cuffs now? said by FunnyBones : ...but then maybe they really want chaos and then offer to fix it and give up any freedom you had left. You may be right. Just create FUD in the general populace, and you'll get compliance without a fight. Terrorists, WMD, and child porn will be enough to get people to turn in their neighbour to the authorities. A new McCarthy era could be starting. I had a cousin who was going hunting and this lady seen a gun and was like oh no and called the police on him and boom 5 minutes later he had a million questions aimed at him and wow what is next and almost like if you own a gun they have people convinced it is illegal..
--
Are you part of the cattle? |
|
raul6
@opaltelecom.net | reply to FunnyBones
it is good publicity for everybody involved and it raises awareness and makes people talk and think |
|
Blue2
Premium
join:2004-04-14
France
| said by raul6 :
it is good publicity for everybody involved and it raises awareness and makes people talk and think
Or to put it a different way, it's a waste of limited resources, with the IWF acting on something that doesn't have a chance of resulting in legal enforcement. It reinforces to those who initiated the accusation that they should perhaps try to shut down some other websites. And it still leaves lots of pedophiles, hackers, and malware writers and distributors free to profit from the confusion created and the resources diverted to this. |
|
Jim Shaffer
join:2004-08-06
Montgomery, PA | reply to FunnyBones
The simplest thing to do would be to grow a spine and ignore the Internet Watch Foundation. It's not a government entity, so nothing should be subject to censorship on its say-so. |
|
SUMware
Premium
join:2002-05-21
| reply to FunnyBones
Almost 40 years ago a British band named "Blind Faith" (Steve Winwood, Ric Grech, Ginger Baker, Eric Clapton) released their first album.
The release of the album provoked controversy because the cover featured a topless pubescent girl, holding in her hands a sculpture of an airplane, which some perceived as phallic. The U.S. record company issued it with an alternative cover which showed a photograph of the band on the front.
Though initially banned in some parts of the USA and other countries, the original artwork was quite popular and collectible. It also became available later in the 1970s on the RSO label worldwide, and in the USA as an import item.
Guess that pic will need to be censored now, too. |
|
raul6
@opaltelecom.net | reply to Blue2
sure limited resources unlike human ability to hurt other humans and then justify it as higher purpose. or too put it differently there are still some redeeming features to the race |
|
anonymous cookie
@techentrance.com | reply to FunnyBones
Can someone explain what is a firesale? |
|
