Rather worrying.... (95)

Which would mean that the censorship was anything BUT a voluntary code. Indeed, if you're struggling to find a "non cleenfeed" ISP it already IS anything but a voluntary code.

Toak

FEMALE, BONDAGE-FRIENDLY MODEL SOUGHT. I am seeking to update my "How To" shibari bondage pictures (see my profile pics, the clothed blonde tied in red and black) with a model more "enthusiastic" about BDSM, and who is happy to be photographed nude. MEMO ME if this is you.

<begin> This URL shows the same picture as that on the Wikipedia page recently blocked by IWF. Someone on MSN gave me the URL and I was shocked to see that I'd unwittingly ended up with a banned illegal picture on my machine! How was I to know? After all, I saw that the URL was part of HMV record stores, so I though it'd be above board. Does this make me a criminal? Am I going to end up on the sex offender's register for having followed a link to a site operated by a well-known and (supposedly) trustworthy chain-store? <end>

Nasty evil HMV! It'll be interesting to see what IWF does

C;x=

Ridiculous Lucky Captain Rabbit King! Lucky Captain Rabbit King Nuggets are for the youth!

Well now you've reported it, they'll probably get it taken down or blocked. It's unclear from your comment, but was that your intention?

FTR, the IWF *only* act on reported sites, they don't go searching for them (I know this because I telephoned them this morning to get clarity on what they do).

So, well done. Or not.

ETA: They also told me that Wiki are appealing against their actions.

judy

Edited 8 Dec 08, 2:24 PM by JudyInDsGuise

I absolutely agree.

However a photographer was prosecuted and jailed for taking photos of children, commissioned by their parents, that were not abusive or exploitative, just naked, and not intended for publication or distribution.

There have been many similar instances. I consider such cases to be miscarriages of justice too, contrary to the law as originally intended and the right of free expression under the ECHR. The law should be clarified to demand proof of abuse, exploitation or of actual, or intent of, distribution on child porn possession charges.

Those who abuse or exploit children and distribute child porn should be dealt with rigorously: but the law is needlessly criminalising many who would never abuse, exploit or distribute, because of the way it is being interpreted.

I don't oppose the CJIA because I want to see or to publish violent and obscene pornography. Most assuredly, I don't.

I oppose it because it creates victimless crimes and blameless criminals and is therefore a bad law.

It will create huge "collateral damage" in society, exactly in the way that child-porn possession laws have done.

With the extra irony that only very rarely will there have been any abuse or exploitation taking place.

It won't be effective either in either stemming the distribution of violent porn to those who really want to seek it out, or protecting women, or other people.

Academy Incorporated: turning fantasy into reality, fast friendly, helpful, discreet service, with integrity www.academywear.com for retro adult school and maid uniform guy@tawse.com PO Box 135, Hereford, HR2 7WL, UK +44(0)1432 343100 [pi

I hope you'll be quickly changing your name on here, "Daddy".

Tovarich is a combination of frothy comedy with bitter political undertones.- googlism

of course wiki are appealing/registering a complaint..they aren't some backwater eastern european child porn peddler..the IWF pride themselves on the fact that usually people just roll over and play dead when their site is taken down or blocked(who's going to listen to a child pornographer fight for their smut...or even a falsely accused obsure person tarred with the child porn brush).

Wiki are a different matter...they may not have the money to fight this... but they are US based and mainstream. I hope they fight this decision all the way as the image in question has already been judged NOT obscene in the US earlier this year.

The effect of complaining about other mainstream places that have the image is to show up how out of step our law (and hysteria) is in this area compared to other comparable places like the US.

Its one thing to have a list of dubious URLs on that blacklist...but when the list becomes saturated with US URLs we start to look like some nutty puritanical backwater.

CAAN statement of principle.

The British are very well conditioned as a population.

De

Sign up to CAAN's statement - http://www.caan.org.uk
Sexuality - strong and warm and wild and free, Sexuality - your laws do not apply to me (Billy Bragg)

I understand that you can still view the wikipedia page from behind the Great Firewall of China. So there you have it - the UK's internet censorship is more draconian than China's.

p.s. If, out of interest, you have sought out the image, and viewed it on your machine, you may now have a child porn picture on your computer. I hope you know how to delete it!

Obligatory wanky Latin tagline: Neque porro quisquam est qui dolorem ipsum quia dolor sit amet, consectetur, adipisci velit

On the plus side the government is severely out of step with the UK population on this: In a recent survey the UK came top of all the major industrial nations on its liberal attitude to sex (sociosexuality index), so I think if enough fuss keeps being made eventually that minority view in power can be made to back down.

- Chris

Anyone with a brain is manipulable. Only the truly unimaginative are difficult to control.

Actually the biggest 'laugh' is the IWF's appeals procedure, where ultimatly they defer to what the police think is illegal.

- Chris

Anyone with a brain is manipulable. Only the truly unimaginative are difficult to control.