Page: 1 2 3 4

IWF as a legal advice service (36)

This post is on the BDSM Activism web board.

emark wrote:
Even if they stick with the OPA category, at the moment they only block such material hosted in the UK.

Now that I think about it more, I'm not sure this is even true - do they block "obscene" material at all? Or do they only refer it to the police in order to get the material removed?

The Register article ( http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/12/iwf_inve... ) suggests this isn't the case, and the IWF spokesperson claims this won't be the case with extreme porn either:

"In respect of indecent material featuring child abuse, our remit covers sites hosted both in the UK and overseas. We will refer sites hosted here to the police for futher action, and where we deem sites hosted abroad to contain potentially illegal material, they will be added to the list of blocked sites that we provide to ISPs.

"That is not the case with Obscene material: nor will it be the case with extreme porn. With those categories, our remit will only go so far as to refer sites hosted in the UK to the appropriate authorities."

So (potential) child porn is blocked so that UK Internet users are not a legal risk, yet this doesn't apply to the far broader category of potentially "extreme" material. Hmm.

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.

13 Dec 08, 11:14 AM
Degenerate

UK(M), 4 yrs

xjames wrote:
There is the interesting position of Scotland. If the IWF becomes involved in identification, analysis and subsequent blocking of overseas-hosted extreme porn images from 26th Jan, they will also cause the blocking of these sites and images for those in Scotland. For the scots it will remain legal to view these images until their parliament passes their equivalent law. The need to also block the scots is is due to the GB-wide nature of the ISP's networks (unless there's a McFirewall that I'm unaware of).

There is perhaps a chance for our kinfolk north of Hadrian's wall to kick up a stink about perfectly legal content being blocked. It would be a bravehearted person who would do it, and it wouldn't win the war - but it'll put a spanner in the works for a short while.

Yeah this would make an interesting news piece, wouldn't it.

Tanos, yes it will be interesting to see if that is what they do.

Hmmm! Confusinger and confusinger...

Which brings us back to the main guts of this, how the heck can anyone tell whether images we possess are illegal or not. We're really hoping to have a bigger news piece soon about this issue.

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)

Edited 13 Dec 08, 11:17 AM by Degenerate

15 Dec 08, 7:46 PM
DarkLordDredd
UK, 9 yrs

Just read on the Register that the IWF have made it very cleasr that they will not act as an arbitrator or legal advise service on images which could be deemed illegal under the CJIA 2008 as this is outside their remit.

I unfortunately I can not immediately post the link as I have closed the browser as I thought that by this time tonight someone else may have picked up on the story. It seems to be a big slap in the face for the Ministry of (IN)Justice!

Never ever accused of knowingly ever doing anything nice!

15 Dec 08, 10:31 PM
emark
UK, 8 yrs

The_Hogfather wrote:
Just read on the Register that the IWF have made it very cleasr that they will not act as an arbitrator or legal advise service on images which could be deemed illegal under the CJIA 2008 as this is outside their remit.

This one: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/12/iwf_inve... ? Or is there another one you mean?

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.

15 Dec 08, 11:17 PM
DarkLordDredd
UK, 9 yrs

emark wrote:

This one: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/12/iwf_inve... ? Or is there another one you mean?

That is the beastie.

Never ever accused of knowingly ever doing anything nice!

29 Jan 09, 3:55 AM
DaddysTouch
UK(RG), 3 yrs

emark wrote:
(There is also the question of the recent news that police supposedly won't actively be looking for people - if all it takes is a report to the IWF, then this isn't so straightforward.)

Well, the IWF doesn't report people viewing or downloading images, it has no way of knowing who has been accessing material online, all it does is report who is hosting.

In addition, it is only interested in UK-hosted material. Although extreme porn is illegal to download or view in the UK regardless of where it is hosted, the IWF can't do anything about that. So, if you upload your extreme picture to a site hosted in the Netherlands, they won't be reporting it. They will have no idea that the picture came from the UK, no idea that UK people might be looking at it, all they will know, even if someone flags it for them, is that it's hosted in the Netherlands. Even if they reported it to police, police in the Netherlands cannot go kicking down doors to investigate possible offences of a British law by rooting through server logs to trace who uploaded the image.

Love, love is a verb
Love is a doing word
Fearless on my breath

Edited 29 Jan 09, 3:56 AM by DaddysTouch

29 Jan 09, 3:57 AM
Degenerate

UK(M), 4 yrs

now.. where were those potentially illegal images from the Mail website, of the Satanic Sluts...?

Sign up to CAAN's statement - http://www.caan.org.uk
Sing if you're glad to be Gay... http://cockerel.net/music/pitd/gtbg.mp3 (Tom Robinson Band).

29 Jan 09, 9:10 AM
prettyname
UK(NW), 11 yrs

I'd be more inclined to think that they have no clue either, and if something's reported, they'll ban them because they think other people think they should be banned. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

~�Nothing is ever the same as they said it was. It's what I've never seen before that I recognise.� Diane Arbus~
~"it's what you see other times that's interesting"~ foxxx~
Extreme Porn Bill Petition : www.londonalternativemarket.com

29 Jan 09, 9:56 AM
Sirebel
UK, 5 yrs

I don't understand why an organisation that is effectively enforcing the OPA would need to change anything about it's procedures because of the changes relating to COC (Criminally Obscene Content). There activities are all focused on publishers not on the consumer.

Why do they limit their activities to sites hosted in the UK? They can add any IP address and URL to their block list.

So are we going to flood them with large numbers of BDSM referrals from respected websites and see what happens?

I don't know what's right and what's real any more

Next page