Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

IWF Backs Down On Wiki Censorship

Posted by kdawson on from the that-streisand-thing-again dept.

jonbryce writes "The Internet Watch Foundation, guardians of the Great Firewall of Britain, have stopped censoring Wikipedia for hosting what they considered to be a child porn image. They had previously threatened to block Amazon for hosting the same image." Here is the IWF's statement, which credits the Streisand Effect for opening their eyes: "...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. Any further reported instances of this image which are hosted abroad, will not be added to the list. ... IWF's overriding objective is to minimize the availability of indecent images of children on the internet, however, on this occasion our efforts have had the opposite effect."

10 of 226 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Whoo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm rather surprised personally that they even admitted that it was their efforts that created the opposite effect rather than trying to label those talking about it as being "part of the problem" like most groups do for these kinds of issues.

  2. not a "child porn" image by commodoresloat · · Score: 5, Funny

    Let's get it right; the IWF didn't say the page was porn; they said it was "potential illegal child sexual abuse." Most people seem to have assumed this was because the album cover artwork on the Wikipedia page included an image of a naked girl, but the reality is that IWF only wanted to protect children from the horrors of having to listen to anything released by the Scorpions.

    1. Re:not a "child porn" image by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why stop there?

      What about the disgusting child porn proudly features on Nirvana's Nevermind album, Led Zeppelin's Houses of the Holy, Blind Faith's self-titled album; also Van Halen's Balance album cover, The Coppertone Girl, and all the Family guy jokes about child sex and bestiality(Stewie: "I'd do her, do her, lose the pigtails and we'll talk, ugh who hasn't done her?" as well as Brian's relationships with human women), The now well-discussed showing of Bart's pecker in the Simpsons movie, The Winger song "Seventeen", The Police song "Don't Stand...".

      Hmmph. I guess we're all guilty of possessing and consuming what people call "child pornography".

  3. Good Grief by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    omeone better start blocking this bit of smut from that den of molesters at Wikipedia:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Raffael_030.jpg

    Sick, I tell you, sick!

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  4. Still... by Alarindris · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They still didn't admit it was wrong, they said their plan didn't work.
    They are also admitting that kiddie porn images can be copied and transferred all over the world with no effort.
    Unfortunately, I bet they still think it's possible to censor thoughts out of existence.

  5. I'm Relieved by Kenyai · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This particular situation was so ridiculous, I'm glad they realized what fools they were making of themselves. I mean, if the image had been hurting anyone in any way at all, I would have a different opinion. But as we have heard, the girl in question has stated herself that she's fine with it, was fine with it back then, and her parents were fine with it back then. Plus the fact that it's been available since the 1970s, in my opinion, means that it is actually a culturally significant work of art. Etc. Censorship is such an old issue, you would think people would realize when these policing agencies are crossing the line.

  6. I don't like the suddenoutbreakofcommonsense tag by erroneus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...not in this instance anyway. These people were effectively forced to see the light and had to defend its indefensible actions. Finding that they could not and that, as the streissand effect goes, causes more attention to the matter than they were seeking.

    I'm not sure what a better tag might be, but the image of cockroaches running away hiding from the light might be more apt in this case. These people seeking to censor too much find themselves in indefensible positions when light is shined on them.

  7. Kinda makes you wonder... by night_flyer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What else have they censored that dont have the "name recognition" like Wiki or Amazon?

    --


    Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
    Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
  8. Re:Whoo! by aussie_a · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Its almost like they were trying to do the right thing and realised they did the wrong thing.

  9. Why stop at albums by Martin+Spamer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why stop with the albums of decedant rock bands, Wikipedia is full of images of naked children.