Wikipedia article censored by UK ISPs!! !

Page 1 of 2 [ 22 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

DeLoreanDude
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Oct 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,562
Location: FL

08 Dec 2008, 12:46 pm

Article on the BBC

The page that's blocked

f*****g mad this is, why does the UK have internet censorship???

Anyone would think this was China! :roll:



familiar_stranger
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Nov 2008
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 653
Location: cambridgeshire UK

08 Dec 2008, 12:51 pm

i coulod get onto the page just fine, but once again i'm disgusted by humanity. doesn't anyone else think that 'music' these days oversteps the mark? calling analbum "virgin killer" with the cover being a naked pre-pubescent girl?


_________________
most people think i'm a bit strange, even abnormal. normal is the majority, the average, what is most frequent. if you lived around here, you'll see the positive of not being normal :)


DeLoreanDude
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Oct 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,562
Location: FL

08 Dec 2008, 12:54 pm

familiar_stranger wrote:
i coulod get onto the page just fine, but once again i'm disgusted by humanity. doesn't anyone else think that 'music' these days oversteps the mark? calling analbum "virgin killer" with the cover being a naked pre-pubescent girl?


I do agree but I think internet censorship in the UK is a breech of human rights, like what you get in China.

I also know for a fact they could have just blocked the image through the system they use.



Kajjie
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2008
Age: 33
Gender: Female
Posts: 495
Location: Sometimes London, sometimes Coventry

08 Dec 2008, 2:18 pm

I've been on that Wikipedia page before (I followed a link mentioning it had a very controversial album cover and wanted to see what it was) , and I could veiw it when I clicked your link just now. I am in the UK.

I don't think the page should be banned - the image was on an album cover - the damage has been done. It doesn't matter who veiws it now.
I have no idea how such a thing was published in the first place though. :?



familiar_stranger
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Nov 2008
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 653
Location: cambridgeshire UK

08 Dec 2008, 3:24 pm

they probably want more of a market, peados included.


_________________
most people think i'm a bit strange, even abnormal. normal is the majority, the average, what is most frequent. if you lived around here, you'll see the positive of not being normal :)


history_of_psychiatry
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Dec 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,105
Location: X

08 Dec 2008, 4:57 pm

That is freekin ridiculous. I am totally anti cencorship. That just goes to show that we don't really have "freedom of speech".


_________________
X


familiar_stranger
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Nov 2008
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 653
Location: cambridgeshire UK

08 Dec 2008, 5:13 pm

i believe in freedom of speach and hate censorship, i also believe peadophiles don't deserve free eyecandy and naked children should be censored/covered up.


_________________
most people think i'm a bit strange, even abnormal. normal is the majority, the average, what is most frequent. if you lived around here, you'll see the positive of not being normal :)


ShadesOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,983
Location: California

08 Dec 2008, 6:58 pm

I think the image is sick. I've seen it before. it should never have been the cover of a CD. and just the cracked glass, what it's saying... But, yeah, I think it's wrong to block the page, just because that image is there. Censorship is NOT cool, and should not be done.



KBABZ
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,012
Location: Middle Earth. Er, I mean Wellywood. Wait, Wellington.

08 Dec 2008, 7:59 pm

Well I find this stupid. Why do they block this instead of porn sites? Wouldn't that be more logical?


_________________
I was sad when I found that she left
But then I found
That I could speak to her,
In a way
And sadness turned to comfort
We all go there


pakled
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Nov 2007
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,015

08 Dec 2008, 10:26 pm

it reminds me of the Blind Faith album cover, which kinda creeped me out as well...



09 Dec 2008, 1:14 am

She had no breasts and she looked like a child.



LadyMacbeth
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,091
Location: In the girls toilets at Hogwarts, washing the blood off my hands.

09 Dec 2008, 1:27 am

Looks to me they've actually deleted it now? Or have they nabbed my ISP too?


_________________
We are the mutant race!! !! Don't look at my eyes, don't look at my face...


Jellybean
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Apr 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,795
Location: Bedford UK

09 Dec 2008, 6:14 am

I am assuming it is only one picture which is causing all the problems and not the text. Why don't they just ban the image (or censor it) rather than getting rid of the whole page. I don't support pornography at all because it is immorral.


_________________
I have HFA, ADHD, OCD & Tourette syndrome. I love animals, especially my bunnies and hamster. I skate in a roller derby team (but I'll try not to bite ;) )


familiar_stranger
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Nov 2008
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 653
Location: cambridgeshire UK

09 Dec 2008, 7:29 am

Spokane_Girl wrote:
She had no breasts and she looked like a child.


that's because the girl is a child, and so this could and should be classed as child porography, which for good reason is illegal.


KBABZ wrote:
Well I find this stupid. Why do they block this instead of porn sites? Wouldn't that be more logical?


porn sites aren't a problem in my book as long as they don't go over the top, but the album cover picture, as i've said previously, is of a naked child that peadophiles will get turned on by. child porn sites are blocked when it's possible to, and i'm guessing this wiki page breaches the law showing the picture.


_________________
most people think i'm a bit strange, even abnormal. normal is the majority, the average, what is most frequent. if you lived around here, you'll see the positive of not being normal :)


Keith
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2008
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,321
Location: East Sussex, UK

09 Dec 2008, 7:53 am

My ISP has blocked it as well... - typical



familiar_stranger
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Nov 2008
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 653
Location: cambridgeshire UK

09 Dec 2008, 8:50 am

Quote:
Internet censorship
Main article: IWF block of Wikipedia
In May 2008, the US-based social conservative site WorldNetDaily reported the cover image on Wikipedia to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. An officer of the Concerned Women for America, a conservative Christian advocacy group, commented, "By allowing that image to remain posted, Wikipedia is helping to further facilitate perversion and pedophilia." The May controversy prompted extensive discussion among Wikipedia contributors and was reported in the website's internal newsletter, which noted that "relevant content policies and community practices" state that "Wikipedia is not censored, and barring a legal imperative the decision to display or remove the offensive image rests with Wikipedia's users." EContent magazine subsequently reported that the discussion page associated with the article declared "Prior discussion has determined by broad consensus that the Virgin Killer cover will not be removed", and asserted that Wikipedia contributors "favor inclusion in all but the most extreme cases".

Wikinews has related news:
British ISPs restrict access to Wikipedia amid child pornography allegations
Wikimedia, IWF respond to block of Wikipedia over child pornography allegations
In December, 2008 the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF), a UK-based non-government organization, added the Wikipedia article Virgin Killer to its blacklist due to the online encyclopedia's use of an image of the original Virgin Killer album cover. As a result, people using many major UK ISPs were blocked from viewing the entire article. A modified version of the controversial cover art was used for the "In Trance/Virgin Killer" deluxe boxed edition double album sold worldwide after a 2004 release. Nevertheless, the IWF classified the image of the cover as a "potentially illegal indecent image of a child hosted outside the UK" (whereas their reporting mechanism specifies only "child sexual abuse images hosted outside the UK"). In a press release, the lawyer for the Wikimedia Foundation stated, "We have no reason to believe the article, or the image contained in the article, has been held to be illegal in any jurisdiction anywhere in the world." Under the Cleanfeed content blocking system, the block was accomplished by ISP proxy systems impersonating Wikipedia's servers, which resulted in degraded performance and left site administrators with little option but to block a significant portion of the UK from editing Wikipedia or creating accounts.


and that's why it's been censored, typical consertive christian groups :evil:

notice how religion is once again trying to blind us from what's in the world? they don't want to remove the picture, they want to remove the entire article! in my oppinion, they're idiots.


_________________
most people think i'm a bit strange, even abnormal. normal is the majority, the average, what is most frequent. if you lived around here, you'll see the positive of not being normal :)