This post is on the BDSM Activism web board.
| 8 Dec 08, 3:24 AM The_Vicar UK(CF), 6 yrs  |
I find the whole concept of secret censorship by employees of a Quango, composed of unelected members who cannot be challenged or held to account, frightening and abhorrent especially when linked to other things which are happening in the UK at the moment. ETA What's even more disturbing is that I learned about it here, on a minority interest website, and not from the mainstream news media. I've been told I don't suffer fools gladly - but I don't particularly dislike them. It's the malicious sociopaths I can't stand. Edited 8 Dec 08, 4:41 AM by The_Vicar | ||||
| 8 Dec 08, 3:40 AM Cagoulion UK, 7 yrs  |
The biggest worry I can see about this is that IWF can without any accountability place a blanket ban on bondage.com or a pay for view site based ONLY on the fact that it has been reported to them (this is not to say bondage.com would be illegal but if somebody reported it then IWF isn't likely to join to find out. As an adult site it'll be just taken down). There are a number of government functions that seem to have been outsourced to largely unaccountable devices of late. The IWF is state sponsored censorship doing the government's bidding however well intentioned it might seem. People have the right to know the site they are trying to visit has been blocked rather than just not available because the browser is having an off day. Cag
| ||||
| 8 Dec 08, 3:51 AM Doghouse_Reilly UK(MK), 6 yrs |
I'll complain about exactly that. An ISP should not be blocking access to anything whatsoever. It's not their job. I don't care if they are blocking access to a passage of text that, were I to read it, would mean my certain death by llama avalanche, until I hire or vote for somebody to fuck with my internet connection I don't want somebody fucking with it. Anybody who says truth is stranger than fiction has never seen tentacle porn. | ||||
| 8 Dec 08, 5:53 AM JudyInDsGuise UK(E), 8 yrs |
Check with your ISP's Terms and Conditions; I've looked at several tonight:
http://mysky.sky.com/portal/site/skycom/skyprodu...
http://service.o2.co.uk/IQ/srvs/cgi-bin/webcgi.e... (sorry this link won't work properly, but if you go to the site and search for IWF you'll find it).
http://bt.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/bt.cfg/php/enduse... So yeah, if your ISP says something similar you hired or voted for it by signing the contract. judy
| ||||
| 8 Dec 08, 7:00 AM proccie UK(HP), 5 yrs   |
Delving into the murky depths of the IWF it would seem that Admin on this site would be eligible to join as a full member of the IWF, as he hosts this site. Just a thought. Zen S&M: The sound of one hand smacking. | ||||
| 8 Dec 08, 7:19 AM Sirebel UK, 5 yrs    |
The IWF taught me a very important point last time I visited their pages. The correct way to refer to these images is "child abuse" the word pornography should never be used in conjunction with images of children. Interestingly, if you try the same thing with pictures that will become illegal in January it becomes nonsense (Extreme abuse? Where is the abuse?). However, this action is a timely reminder for me to chase up my submission to the Home Office under the Freedom of Information act. For those that have been following the IWF it was pointed out, the last time something came up, that the list is passed through the Home Office and therefore should be accessible through this route. God knows I don't want this list but we need to find a way to make it more open and subject to visible governance. Anyone else find it a bit strange that the IWF members are all media companies? Madness takes a troll | ||||
| 8 Dec 08, 9:35 AM Backdooruk UK(BA), 12 yrs |
Such is the hysteria revolving around child protection these days that the government could block anything and there will be support from some people, regardless of whether the image has been found to be illegal or not (and of course this one has not). - Chris Anyone with a brain is manipulable. Only the truly unimaginative are difficult to control. | ||||
| 8 Dec 08, 10:43 AM alandra UK(BH), 6 yrs |
After looking at said album cover I find myself at odds with myself.
Although i dont agree with censorship, unfortunatly it is needed when it comes to child pornography.
The image, in my mind, not only depicts an obviously underage girl, it gives a suggestion, by its title of virgin killer. On top of that it shows her through glass, which is broken over her vagina. I feel this cover is intended to be sexually thought provoking, which would be fine if the girl was over 16. But she is not or atleast is portrayed to be a lot younger. I agree with the censorship of this, as i would with any child porn and this, in my view, is child porn.
to those that understand, no explaination is needed, to those that dont understand, no explaination is possible | ||||
| 8 Dec 08, 10:54 AM Sirebel UK, 5 yrs |
I have viewed this image (and subsequently emptied my browser cache). I found the image unacceptable in terms of taste and would expect it to be banned in the UK for that alone. However, this gave rise to a couple of interesting thouhts: You could end up with this image on your computer if you downloaded (or ripped) this album onto your computer and your media player downloads the album cover art. Scary thought. Fortunately, this isn't my taste in music. However, this is and under the same conditions should also be illegal. It's a complicated and emotive subject when talking about child abuse (why do I find the scorpions cover unacceptable but the Nirvana one acceptable?). When trying to apply this distinction to extreme porn it will be even harder. I'm tempted to draw the IWF's attention to the Nevermind entry just to see their response. Madness takes a troll | ||||
| 8 Dec 08, 10:58 AM emark UK, 8 yrs |
By this logic, ISPs could censor vast numbers of sites (including in their entirety, e.g., all of Wikipedia not just the article page), and it would technically still be okay with their ToS. But that doesn't mean an ISP should get away with that, and obviously it wouldn't be unreasonable for people to complain about it. Sign the statement against criminalisation of possession "extreme" images. See http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/ and http://www.seenoevil.org.uk/wiki/index.php/Main_... for more details. |
