Wikipaedo

Written by Phil

Topics: Politics

The album cover for the 1976 Scorpions album “Virgin Killer” has resulted in the clever bastards at the Internet Watch Foundation (motto: “stop what you’re doing on the internets, we’re watching you”) to add Wikipedia to their list of sites providing child pornography – or as their website itself states:

Please note that “child pornography”, “child porn” and “kiddie porn” are not acceptable terms. The use of such language acts to legitimise images which are not pornography, rather, they are permanent records of children being sexually abused and as such should be referred to as child sexual abuse images.

The image in questiom is of a naked ten year old girl with a imposed “glass crack” over her groin. The law on “child sexual abuse images” is, again according to their website, clear:

The law on images of child sexual abuse is clear. It is an offence to take, permit to be taken, make, possess, show, distribute or advertise indecent images of children in the United Kingdom.

As a guide, the word ‘indecent’ means any images of children, under 18 years of age, involved in a sexual pose or activity.

I bring this up because what the presence of this image has resulted in is the channelling of all UK users of wikipedia through a proxy of two IP addresses. This has the result in preventing anonymous editing of Wikipedia entries and the prevention of viewing the Wikipedia page in question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer – for those of you who live in a free country). Further information is here (ZDNet)

Any Scorpions’ fans out there with this album in their possession had better destroy it lest some zealous law enforcement officer and CPS staffer decides that they are in possession of an indecent image of a child.

That said, it is good to know that we, like the Chinese, have a firewall protecting us.

1 Comment Comments For This Post I'd Love to Hear Yours!

  1. JP says:

    Until this week, we didn’t know quite how Chinese our net-filtering has become.

    More hand-throwing into the air in disbelief.

    Sarah Robertson, director of communications for the IWF, stated that in collaboration with the Child Exploitation and Online Protection agency of the UK, the image had been rated as a “1 on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is the least offensive”, representing “erotic posing with no sexual activity”. On December 9, 2008, the IWF issued a statement reversing their blacklist of Wikipedia.

    What are the IWF doing working with an agency who also exploit children? Can we request the IWF filter themselves?

Leave a Comment Here's Your Chance to Be Heard!