Wikipedia Censored in Britain

[TygerTyger]

A decision by a number of UK internet providers to block a Wikipedia page showing an image of a naked girl has angered users of the popular site.

The blocked page of the online encyclopaedia shows an album cover of German heavy metal band Scorpions.
Internet providers acted after online watchdog the Internet Watch

Foundation warned them its picture may be illegal.
Some volunteers who run Wikipedia said it was not for the foundation to censor one of the web's most popular sites.
They also argued that the image was available in a number of books and had never been ruled illegal.


Rest of the story here: Scorpions Banned (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7770456.stm)

The image that has caused the webpage to be blocked is the front cover of their 1976 album 'Virgin Killers', which I used to own on vinyl. The picture was quite controversial back then but was never banned from display in the UK.

The picture is still available at other websites, including the band's own site, so what is the point of censoring just one page?

The artistic validity of the use of the image, which admittedly some people do find toubling, was debated extensively back in the late 1970's and again, if memory serves me right, in the 1980's when the album was re-released on cd format. The proper authorities never banned the image then but an unelected body has seen fit to do so now!

[Cunae]

http://static.rateyourmusic.com/album_images/227442.jpg

This is the censored version, which is still borderline childporn (Admins may decide to delete it, acutally)

It's not the visual that's the problem, it's the age of the model and the implication. We know so much more about pedophiles and their victims than we ever have before. This cover, uncovered, would probably appeal to a lot of them. Why give them more fodder for their perverse passions? Why belittle the horror of child rape with this on an album cover? The photo and the title undeniably suggest the rape and murder of little girls.

A young girl does not belong posed in this way. It gives every wrong message I can think of. In this case, I vote for censorship. What's more, the photographer should have been arrested and charged with distribution of child pornography.

That's the risk artists take when they present something they know will incite controversy.

[Fluoxetine]

Does not surprise me regarding that image, but to block content as well?

Guess turn around is fair play when nearly 10 years ago a local man had his site blocked by the US for having blur tit birds on his site. They took it for porn and banned his site. Maybe in another 10 years time the US could block another UK site just for the fun of it.

Oh well, it's been out for 28 years or so since that album came out so maybe 28 years later they could ban all child porn.

[Cassie]

The picture is still available at other websites, including the band's own site, so what is the point of censoring just one page?

The artistic validity of the use of the image, which admittedly some people do find toubling, was debated extensively back in the late 1970's and again, if memory serves me right, in the 1980's when the album was re-released on cd format. The proper authorities never banned the image then but an unelected body has seen fit to do so now!
Those were more innocent times. I think it would be banned if it were first released now. I am generally against this form of censorship but I think wiki were correct to do this. I have seen the original image and in the context of modern times I think it should be completely banned from the internet. I'd like to think that in the same modern context, The Scorpions themselves would agree.

ETA... I was able to access the Scorpions Wiki site and found all content still displayed there.

[Fluoxetine]

The page regarding the album Virgin Killers is banned, not the biography of Scorpions itself. And if you are in Europe the ban will not affect you.

[LostSheep]

The Wiki themselves mention it on the page about Big Brother. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Watch_Foundation

"On 5 December 2008 the IWF system started blacklisting a Wikipedia article and related image. Users of some major ISPs, including Virgin Media/Tesco.net, Telefónica|Be/O2, EasyNet/UK Online/Sky Broadband, PlusNet, Demon, and TalkTalk (Opal Telecom), were unable to access the filtered content, which included an article (Virgin Killer) and an image of the 1970s LP cover art (Image:Virgin_Killer.jpg) which appeared on that article. This also had the effect that access to any article on Wikipedia through these ISPs appeared to come through a small number of IP addresses, meaning that Wikipedia administrators had to block all non-registered users from editing articles or creating accounts. Although controversial, the album and image are still widely available."

It just sounds like anyone at all is able to get anything at all blocked, just if they feel like it and they happen to be offended by it, according to this quote.

"The IWF spokeswoman said a reader had brought the image to the foundation's attention last week and it had contacted the police before adding the page to their list. "

It does sound a sinister development, regardless of the morals of this particular case; some vague and slightly shadowy body deciding what is or isn't fit for the public to see, just because one person can consider they they feel offended by it.

[TygerTyger]

I admit that when I first bought the album I was a bit disturbed by the album cover, possibly one reason why I never replaced it with a cd, although to be honet my taste in music had moved on from just heavy rock by then.

I think the image should be banned but by the proper authorities and/or the group themselves. I do not accept that the Internet Watch Foundation, which is actually a charity, should be given the right to ban websites as they have in this fashion. There appears to have been no consideration of the context with regard to the use of the image, in respect of an album cover in this case and not just some gratuitous hook to lure people into an unsavourary website. There seems to be no process at work in this instance, just a knee jerk reaction.

[Cassie]

I

I think the image should be banned but by the proper authorities and/or the group themselves. I do not accept that the Internet Watch Foundation, which is actually a charity, should be given the right to ban websites as they have in this fashion. There appears to have been no consideration of the context with regard to the use of the image, in respect of an album cover in this case and not just some gratuitous hook to lure people into an unsavourary website. There seems to be no process at work in this instance, just a knee jerk reaction.


Well I guess the unsavoury charectors will have been led to the site by this publicity alone. The problem is that neither the band nor the 'proper authorities', did do anything about this image; thus leaving it in the hands of the IWF to take the action they neglected to do themselves.

[LostSheep]

Only thing is, it seems from the story that this Big Brother organisation decided what should and shouldn't be seen by the public, on the say-so of one person who was offended by it? it's a bit like when ads are pulled, or some comedian is censured for saying something, because one person complained about it. It just doesn't seem very... democratic. Totalitarian, almost.

And that makes me go :-/ .

[TygerTyger]

Well I guess the unsavoury charectors will have been led to the site by this publicity alone. The problem is that neither the band nor the 'proper authorities', did do anything about this image; thus leaving it in the hands of the IWF to take the action they neglected to do themselves.

Sorry, but I disagree with you there. As I mentioned earlier this album cover was debated previously and was not banned by the British authorities, nor any other authorities in Europe as far as I am aware (I’m not sure what The Scorpion’s fan-base is like in North America).

The IWF is a charity, not a properly constituted authority and it has no legal powers to censor anything. It’s main role, which I support, is; “to report potentially illegal online content within our remit,” specifically, “to minimise the availability of this content, specifically, child sexual abuse content hosted anywhere in the world and criminally obscene and incitement to racial hatred content hosted in the UK.”. It is not, apparently, in their remit to censor, that is the role of the authorities, but they have effectively usurped that role in this instance. The IWF requested the advice of the police, but their role is to enact laws not interpret them, that is the role of the judiciary.

It is not the album cover image that concerns me, it is the actions of an unelected body that cannot, apparently, be called to task over its’ decisions by the very people they impact upon. This is not the case for the online industries, trade associations, the financial sector and ‘other organisations’ that fund the IWF and have, therefore, representation. The IWF works with the British government but how easy would it be for the government to work through the IWF?

Like Lostsheep I think the ease with which this censorship was carried out with no resort to constitutional authority is disturbing.

[Cassie]

Sorry, but I disagree with you there. As I mentioned earlier this album cover was debated previously and was not banned by the British authorities, nor any other authorities in Europe as far as I am aware (I’m not sure what The Scorpion’s fan-base is like in North America).

The IWF is a charity, not a properly constituted authority and it has no legal powers to censor anything. It’s main role, which I support, is; “to report potentially illegal online content within our remit,” specifically, “to minimise the availability of this content, specifically, child sexual abuse content hosted anywhere in the world and criminally obscene and incitement to racial hatred content hosted in the UK.”. It is not, apparently, in their remit to censor, that is the role of the authorities, but they have effectively usurped that role in this instance. The IWF requested the advice of the police, but their role is to enact laws not interpret them, that is the role of the judiciary.

It is not the album cover image that concerns me, it is the actions of an unelected body that cannot, apparently, be called to task over its’ decisions by the very people they impact upon. This is not the case for the online industries, trade associations, the financial sector and ‘other organisations’ that fund the IWF and have, therefore, representation. The IWF works with the British government but how easy would it be for the government to work through the IWF?

Like Lostsheep I think the ease with which this censorship was carried out with no resort to constitutional authority is disturbing.


I may be wrong but I don't think the IWF censored this by themeslves. I think they did exactly what their remit allows and drew attention to the issue, after which various servers took that advice on board and restricted access to the page in question.

What should web sites and servers do once these issues have been highlighted? Should they wait however long it takes for the various legitimate authorities to ban certain content? If they know they are hosting dubious material, isn't it more responsible to take action sooner rather than later? They could always allow access again later if the authorities deem the material to be ok.

Frankly I think any pedophile who did not previously know of the existance of this image will be hurrying to any site which still hosts it. That is why action needs to be taken speedily.

[TygerTyger]

The IWF asked the opinion of the police who said that the image ‘might’ be illegal, they then listed it as a banned site. As the status of the image is questionable the IWF would have done better to seek expert advice on its’ legal status and contacted Wikipedia, a reasonably respectable website, to raise any concerns and reach an amicable solution. This is what you are suggesting I think, but the IWF chose to place the website on its’ banned list immediately and without investigation.

As previously stated the image has been freely available in the UK since the album’s release in the mid-1970’s, this somewhat negates the necessity of speed of reaction. As far as I know it still is available in music shops across the country as well as on many other websites across the world, many of which have nothing to do with porn of any nature, not unlike Wikipedia in that respect. To ban one website is not to actually limit access to the image, merely, as you suggest, to remind people of its’ existence.

My main objection remains with the position of a charity actively banning websites without me, as a British citizen, having recourse to a system of appeal; essentially an undemocratic position in a supposed democracy!

[LostSheep]

As previously stated the image has been freely available in the UK since the album’s release in the mid-1970’s, this somewhat negates the necessity of speed of reaction. As far as I know it still is available in music shops across the country as well as on many other websites across the world, many of which have nothing to do with porn of any nature, not unlike Wikipedia in that respect. To ban one website is not to actually limit access to the image, merely, as you suggest, to remind people of its’ existence.



Indeed so. It, if anything, gives it publicity. And restricting access to sites that depict it is a nonsense for something that's been around since 1976, IMO, at least.

I've never said IMO before, and I shall try not to again, don't worry.

[Nox_Mortus]

I don't even see whats particularly offensive about the album cover, it's not really pornographic or anything.

[banondraig]

I thought the purpose of banning child porn was to protect the children depicted in said porn from sexual abuse. That girl, whoever she is, is at least forty years old by now, therefore no longer a child in need of protection from sexual situations.

[Cassie]

[FONT=Verdana]My main objection remains with the position of a charity actively banning websites without me, as a British citizen, having recourse to a system of appeal; essentially an undemocratic position in a supposed democracy!
I'm ambivolant about that to be honest. The internet is international and i don't think there exists a body with the power or resourses to police it in totality and I don't think many of us would be happy if there was. Meanwhile, various governments, charities and other institutions attempt to police content according to their various agendas. I don't think there is anything new in this.

Indeed so. It, if anything, gives it publicity. And restricting access to sites that depict it is a nonsense for something that's been around since 1976, IMO, at least.

I've never said IMO before, and I shall try not to again, don't worry.
This image did cause a bit of a storm when it was first released in the form of an album cover. But that was 30 years ago and a more innocent age. In it's original context it was pushing boundries; but in a contemporary context and in the context of the publicity which has now been given to it, it is another matter. Moreover, I think there is a big difference between an album cover you have to seek out and buy in the real world, and an image which can be divorced from it's original context, sort out and viewed over the internet by people whose motives have nothing to do with appreciating the music of The Scorpions.


I don't even see whats particularly offensive about the album cover, it's not really pornographic or anything.
It portrays a barely pubesent girl as if she is sexually active and willing. Oddly enough I remember another thread here in which I was defending a peice of art that others had deemed to portray the sexuality of a young girl. I guess we all draw the line in a different place. Fot me this image goes too far becuase (taken out of it's original context) it does not 'ask questions' but rather suggests strongly that the girl in the picture wants and is available for sex. If she were a few years older I'd view it as mildly erotic and there would be no controversey about it. But she is not a few years older and it is her age which makes this image offensive.

[Cunae]

I don't even see whats particularly offensive about the album cover, it's not really pornographic or anything.

If you had this photo among photos being developed somewhere (in the olden days) or on your FaceBook/MySpace page, I assure you someone would report you for it.

Any kind of sexually provocative photograph of a young girl, with her legs splayed apart like that, is child porn and should be addressed as criminal activity.

There's just no excuse for it. Whoever took the photograph can find other images to photograph.

[Nox_Mortus]

If you had this photo among photos being developed somewhere (in the olden days) or on your FaceBook/MySpace page, I assure you someone would report you for it.

Any kind of sexually provocative photograph of a young girl, with her legs splayed apart like that, is child porn and should be addressed as criminal activity.

There's just no excuse for it. Whoever took the photograph can find other images to photograph.

that image doesn't really fit the legal (or my personal) definition of child porn, if it did this album cover would have been banned when it came out.

[LostSheep]

It was a more innocent age in 1976? 1876, I might believe. Anyway, the point remains that this picture has been around since 1976, and so far, it appears that neither The Scorpions nor their record company nor the album designer do seem to have been arrested for it. In fact, not being the biggest enthusiast of Euro-metal, I hadn't even heard of it until the Internet Nanny Authority or whatever they're called drew so much attention to it.

[Fluoxetine]

Well the IWF have backed down on the banning of the page regarding the image. They deemed it not offensive and as it was not previously banned when it came out and it has been in the public domain since 1976 they have dropped the ban on the page allowing people on Wiki to view it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7774102.stm

[TygerTyger]

You know, I agree in principle with what the IWF are about, I just don't agree with the procedures that they used in this instance.

Censorship should never be used lightly and people should not be so quick to think non-elected bodies know better.

[watersprite]

Sorry, I never thought of Wickipedia as a reliable source for ANYTHING.