dslreports logo
 story category
Brit Censors Back Off Wikipedia Ban
Revisit 'contextual issues,' sort of admit error...

Over the weekend, six of the UK's largest broadband ISPs began inadvertently filtering user access to Wikipedia for all users. Why? The image of an under-aged nude girl on the cover of a 1970's Scorpions album was flagged by a child filtration watchlist created by the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF). Because the system uses six proxy servers, Wikipedia can't verify unique IPs, resulting in the system being unavailable for many users. After a weekend of contentious debate, the IWF posted this to their website:

quote:
Click for full size
Following representations from Wikipedia, IWF invoked its Appeals Procedure and has given careful consideration to the issues involved in this case. The procedure is now complete and has confirmed that the image in question is potentially in breach of the Protection of Children Act 1978. However, 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.
That's code for they were wrong to censor art (albeit very bad art) being used in the context of historical reference. The decision highlights the inevitable problems created by Internet filters, which more often than not don't work properly and cast too wide a net in a quest to eliminate disgusting content like child porn; content which is often more successfully targeted at the source by law enforcement. While in this instance the IWF corrected their error, it makes you wonder what would have happened if the site in question didn't have the influence of Wikipedia.

The IWF scuff up comes just as Australia begins testing one of the largest and most complicated Internet filtering systems ever devised. As it stands, the filtration of child porn is being used as a global rallying cry by entertainment industry lobbyists and execs (and folks like NY AG Andrew Cuomo), who'd like to see ISPs saddled with the expensive and potentially futile responsibility of playing Internet content nannies.
view:
topics flat nest 

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

1 edit

FFH5

Premium Member

But Amazon.com knuckled under and removed the pic

»Amazon

The threat alone will accomplish the intent in most cases.

Of course, Wikipedia isn't off the hook yet. Any number of US prosecutors could decide to pursue this case anyway.

Nightshade
Premium Member
join:2002-05-26
Salem, OR

2 edits

Nightshade

Premium Member

Re: But Amazon.com knuckled under and removed the pic

Highly doubtful. This has been going around for the better part of 30 years now and it being a album cover, it is widely known. If both governments didn't do anything about it then, why expect them to do anything about it now?

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Re: But Amazon.com knuckled under and removed the pic

said by Nightshade:

Highly doubtful. This has been going around for the better part of 30 years now and it being a album cover, it is widely known. If both governments didn't do anything about it then, why expect them to do anything about it now?
But it hadn't reached widespread notice in the press like it has now. Some prosecutor looking to get re-elected in a conservative district could see this as an opportunity to garner votes - no matter what his chances of succeeding in court are.

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02

2 edits

1 recommendation

Karl Bode

News Guy

Re: But Amazon.com knuckled under and removed the pic

But it hadn't reached widespread notice in the press like it has now. Some prosecutor looking to get re-elected in a conservative district could see this as an opportunity to garner votes - no matter what his chances of succeeding in court are.
Eh, no. It's a shitty album cover buried in an encyclopedic entry. The only people interested in banning it are batshit insane.

Nightshade
Premium Member
join:2002-05-26
Salem, OR

2 edits

1 recommendation

Nightshade to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
So what you're saying is someone might pull a Cuomo? Hmm....Yeah I can see that.

I always expect anything goes on what incumbents will do to get re-elected. It's like all common sense and decency goes out the window all for the sake of votes.

james16
join:2001-02-26

james16 to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

But it hadn't reached widespread notice in the press like it has now.
Obviously you haven't read the article. It was controversial when released and replacement covers were released. Furthermore it's one of the FEW examples of naked children that is unquestionably protected on artistic grounds.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Re: But Amazon.com knuckled under and removed the pic

said by james16:
said by FFH5:

But it hadn't reached widespread notice in the press like it has now.
Obviously you haven't read the article. It was controversial when released and replacement covers were released. Furthermore it's one of the FEW examples of naked children that is unquestionably protected on artistic grounds.
I don't agree. And when it was released the anti-child porn laws were barely being considered. Anti-porn laws have chgd drastically since the original album was released.

james16
join:2001-02-26

2 edits

james16

Member

Re: But Amazon.com knuckled under and removed the pic

said by FFH5:

I don't agree.
Well, I do suppose you're right in a sense, it's not really "unquestionable" by any means, otherwise you wouldn't be questioning it. My point is that a similar photograph of an adult could easily be accepted as art, and could hardly be considered be pornography.
While I hate those idiotic "artists" who do retarded things and call it "art", this photograph isn't the sort of thing child porn laws were meant to stop, in fact child porn laws aren't even about the pictures at all, they're about protecting children from abuse. Think about this: The amount of money and court time that has gone into prosecuting people for "grey area" child porn (ie cartoons or this album cover) could easily have been used to catch one of the people who actually makes REAL child porn, where a kid is engaging in very real sexual activity. Sometimes it's hard to imagine, but yes, there really is stuff that horrible being made and exchanged, and it's stupid shit like this that's taking resources away from catching those people.

zalternate
join:2007-02-22
freedom land

zalternate

Member

Freedom of Speech or Shutup by force?

Next up... Dollar stores across this planet shut down due to selling statues of naked children .... Cherubs.

The debate is, It may be out there, but why should the ISP control what you see? The feds are always busy monitoring websites, as many sites owners have noticed in their log files.... If the Feds won't stop it,,,Making massive Black Lists also will stop legitimate artwork from a time when nudity was not shunned as EVIL.. And the government dropping off Pedophiles under bridges does not help either..
SilverSurfer1
join:2007-08-19

SilverSurfer1

Member

Re: Freedom of Speech or Shutup by force?

said by zalternate:

Next up... Dollar stores across this planet shut down due to selling statues of naked children .... Cherubs.
LMAO. Thx for reminding everyone of this conveniently overlooked fact. If you didn't, then I would have. The only objective any government could have for Internet censoring has nada to do with the standard but it's for the children bullshit war cry and everything to do with censorship for the sake of censorship itself, thereby proving that age old maxim of the more power government usurps for itself, the more it wants.

TechyDad
Premium Member
join:2001-07-13
USA

TechyDad to zalternate

Premium Member

to zalternate
Good point on the cherubs. That got me to thinking. During my recent trip to Charleston, South Carolina, I saw a statue of 5 barely dressed kids. Obviously, they were meant to be cherubs (or something similar). Was that child porn?

I took a photo of that statue. Does that mean I'm guilty of possessing child porn now? I even had that photo printed in a photo book (for my friend whose wedding brought me to Charleston). Does that mean I'm guilty of distributing child porn?

Here's the photo (now maybe all of you are guilty of viewing child porn):




For the record, I don't think any reasonable person would call this child porn, but you never know where some people will draw the line. Child Porn has, like terrorism, become an excuse for people in power to get things passed that wouldn't have a chance otherwise. Yes, child porn is bad and should be stopped. However, many people seem to lose all rational thought when child porn is brought up. Mention "child porn" and they suddenly will support draconian legislation that does little to stop child porn and does plenty to reduce our freedoms.

Capt Renaud
@teksavvy.com

Capt Renaud

Anon

Re: Freedom of Speech or Shutup by force?

I'm shocked!!

»www.manneken-pis.com/intro.html

Every tourist who snaps a photo of this is carrying kiddie porn into the USA.

-----------------

This whole thing reminds me vaguely of the rationale the Nazi's used for destroying 'degenerate' art - paintings by Impressionists and Cubists and indeed anyone they detested.

Doctor Four
My other vehicle is a TARDIS
Premium Member
join:2000-09-05
Dallas, TX

Doctor Four

Premium Member

The Streisand Effect again

Trying to censor something like this only led to it becoming more widespread. This was just like the attempts at censoring the AACS processing key (the one that began with 09-f9...)

The IWF even admitted themselves that they were wrong. It is not often that organizations which claim to control or regulate what happens online have a sudden outbreak of common sense.

As for Australia's impending content filtering, they are going to find it futile.
Desdinova
Premium Member
join:2003-01-26
Gaithersburg, MD

1 recommendation

Desdinova

Premium Member

Hmmm...

Reminds me of a cartoon from the National Lampoon: a guy walks into a porn store and asks the owner, "Got any pictures of twelve year-old girls in their underwear?" and the owner says, "Nah. Try the Sears catalog."

spamd
Premium Member
join:2001-04-22
Cherry Valley, IL

spamd

Premium Member

Re: Hmmm...

said by Desdinova:

Reminds me of a cartoon from the National Lampoon: a guy walks into a porn store and asks the owner, "Got any pictures of twelve year-old girls in their underwear?" and the owner says, "Nah. Try the Sears catalog."
LMAO..

I was going to say something like.

News Flash... "The CEO of JCPenny has been arrested this morning under aligations of child pornography charges. Andrew Cuomo states that the JCPenny's catalog has evidence of children in their underwear in slightly suggestive poses.
News @ 10!!"

sickofeuros
@bellsouth.net

sickofeuros

Anon

michelangelo was a child porn promoter

Ah I see so this is what all the snobby internet control freak nonsense was about?

I wonder if any of those people running the ban everything dept have taken a stroll through the sistine chapel lately? or maybe just about any catholic church throughout europe and especially snobby ol england? All those naked people on the ceiling of the chapel painted by michelangelo been there for how many centuries now? LOL if anyone wanted to throw something new at the catholic church related to child abuse or whatver else you wanna call it, here it is courtesy of the stuck up and stuck on themselves euro internet monitoring dept.
jarthur31
join:2006-04-14
Carlsbad, NM

jarthur31

Member

Re: michelangelo was a child porn promoter

That's truly sad. Go after artists but not the priests who actually commit crimes!

fatness
subtle

join:2000-11-17
fishing

fatness

child pornography



spamd
Premium Member
join:2001-04-22
Cherry Valley, IL

spamd

Premium Member

Re: child pornography

Careful that photo right there just might make Cuomo a NY state senator.
seederjed
Premium Member
join:2005-02-28
Norcross, GA

seederjed

Premium Member

Re: child pornography

Once again nobody mentions the cover of Nirvana's "Nevermind" album.

james16
join:2001-02-26

james16

Member

Re: child pornography

said by seederjed:

Once again nobody mentions the cover of Nirvana's "Nevermind" album.
It's not a sexual pose at all though, it doesn't even need to be justified as art. It's the sort of photograph that you would find in any family's house, just open up a photo album of their kids as babies.

TechyDad
Premium Member
join:2001-07-13
USA

TechyDad

Premium Member

Re: child pornography

I seem to recall a recent case where a grandmother was arrested on child pornography charges because a photo printing clerk saw photos of nude kids (her grandchildren) in the photos she was getting printed. I've taken more than my share of bath time photos of my kids, would this mean I have child porn on my computer?

After some Googling, I found an article about it complete with one of the photos in question: »www.popphoto.com/popular ··· ife.html

james16
join:2001-02-26

james16

Member

Re: child pornography

That link does contain a couple cases where I think the person in question was stupid to take the pictures, but for the most part that is a quite terrifying article.
qworster
join:2001-11-25
Bryn Mawr, PA

qworster to fatness

Member

to fatness

Don't laugh-this isn't funny!

Considering that Australia has already decided that drawings are also kiddie porn, this might truly BE considered child porn in Australia!

When I see these piss poor decisions, I begin to wonder WHO HAS the dirty minds to FIND drawings such as this to be pornography!

james16
join:2001-02-26

1 edit

james16

Member

Re: Don't laugh-this isn't funny!

said by qworster:

Considering that Australia has already decided that drawings are also kiddie porn...
Actually, the judge decided that fictional characters are in fact "persons". I'd love to see their voters lists... maybe Mickey Mouse and Roger Rabbit will cast a vote.
Justice Adams ruled the word "person" included imaginary or fictional characters and that an unrealistic representation of a figure did not preclude that figure from being a "person".

jtudor
MVM
join:2002-12-07
Morganton, NC

jtudor

MVM

Re: Don't laugh-this isn't funny!

Didn't Donald Duck already get banned somewhere because he never wears pants?

james16
join:2001-02-26

james16

Member

Re: Don't laugh-this isn't funny!

I think Mickey Mouse was convicted of something in some middle eastern country, I remember someone condemning him to beheading.