TASSY P2P FORUMS

Wikipedia is blocking tens of thousands of its editors in Britain after the site was blacklisted by a watchdog group for publishing child porn.

Over the weekend, the British Internet Watch Foundation placed Wikipedia on its blacklist when the group was told the encyclopedia had published the banned cover of a 1970s Scorpions album, Virgin Killer, featuring a naked prepubescent girl.

"This situation is not normal," spokesman Jay Walsh said in a telephone interview. "We are working with the U.K. ISPs on this right now."

Wikipedia is one of the world's most visited websites. The online encyclopedia hosts about 10 million unique visitors daily. Walsh said the roughly 20,000 editors in Britain account for about one quarter of the online encyclopedia's English-language edits. Wikipedia is scrambling to correct the problem.

But because of the Internet Watch Foundation blacklisting, British internet service providers are currently redirecting Wikipedia traffic to a proxy server. When British editors log in via that proxy server, Wikipedia’s systems cannot verify their unique IP addresses, and is blocking most access to British editors because it cannot adequately verify them.

"Everybody is looking exactly the same to us," Walsh added, adding that the group is disappointed by being censored.

The brouhaha began early Saturday when the IWF, an internet hotline for the public to report potentially illegal online content, notified British internet service providers of the album cover on Wikipedia, a nonprofit run by Wikimedia Foundation of San Francisco. Because of the blacklisting, web surfers in Britain cannot access that posting. Wikipedia traffic has been crawling at a snail's pace, Walsh said.

"As with all child sexual abuse reports received by our hotline analysts, the image was assessed according to the U.K. Sentencing Guidelines Council. The content was considered to be a potentially illegal indecent image of a child under the age of 18," the IWF said in a statement.

The group says roughly 95 percent of British internet service providers abide by the IWF's voluntary blacklisting recommendations.

The album's image has now popped up everywhere online and is readily accessible, including in Britain.

"The album is available in record shops in the UK with the controversial image. You can buy it right now. So do we need to worry the police will come and confiscate our record collections?" asked David Gerard, a Wikipedia editor in London.

Wikipedia declined to remove the album cover. "We are particularly displeased that the IWF chose to censor not solely the image, but also the explanatory article text which described and contextualized the controversy surrounding the image, in a neutral and educational fashion," the foundation said in a statement.

The ISPs abiding by the IWF's filtering recommendation are: Virgin Media, Be Unlimited/O2/Telefonica, EasyNet/UK Online, PlusNet, Demon and Opal.


http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/1 ... block.html

I completely disagree with Wiki on this one. Call it art or whatever you want to call it, the bottom line is the cover is nothing more than a picture of a young naked girl! Had this picture been posted as anything other than an album cover would they still have the same stance?

I'm all for free speach but this is a blatant violation. You can't tell me that just because it's an alblum cover that some creepy pedophile isn't getting his rocks of looking at the picture. It's not just disgusting, its wrong!

Agree Mij.

its a thin line

the cover of u2's achtung baby has adam claytons jnr's dick on it
doesn't make it porn

Someone once said, I cant tell you what pornography is but I know it when I see it. Hmm, what about Nirvana "Nevermind?"

yeah that could be viewed as inappropriate
what about that bit in superman when he comes to earth and 5 year old clark kent is standing with his whalloper waving in the wind?

Toucan wrote:its a thin line

the cover of u2's achtung baby has adam claytons jnr's dick on it
doesn't make it porn

The line is not thin. I don't care if you call it art, porn or whatever else you want to call it, little kids should not be naked in movies or pictures. PERIOD!

You can debate all you want wheter 18 is the appropriate age for making the decision for ones self, but that kid couldn't be more than 10 or 11. It's my opinion that the person who took that picture should still be in jail now. Twenty years after the ablum cover was created.

There is a differance between nudity and porn...Sally Mann, David hamilton, Jock Sturges, have all taken nude photo's of children, thier art has been shown in some of the best galleries in the world. Their photo's are tasteful and artistic, and do not show sexual situations, to say they should be jailed for takeing nude pictures of childeren is a joke..

Ps. I prefer the works by Gottfried Helnwein my self, better know for his Marilyn Manson photo's.

Blind Faith – Blind Faith
Nirvana – Nevermind
Led Zepplin - Houses of the Holy

All Featured nudity

Parrot wrote:There is a differance between nudity and porn...

I have to agree...I have a picture I took of my son at no more than age 2 after he stripped off his diaper and climed into his dad's cowboy boots and cowboy hat....I had to take the picture it was too cute, the boots came all the way up to his butt cheeks....and though I took the picture from behind it still caught a glimps of his tally wacker....Should I be in jail?

if i put on boots and a hat will u take naked pics of me im cute?

no E, but if you've got any pics of you like when you were 8, we'll take a gander


read somewhere today that the bans been lifted

I agree there is a difference between nudity and porn. And I don't have any hangups about nudity.

No Tnajus, I don't think you should be in jail.

Where do you draw the line though? Who makes that call? Snapping a picture of your kid doing something goofy is a lot different than bringing a kid to a studio and having him/her pose for various pictures.

thats exactly why i said it's a thin line

this was a pic from the 70's

using my superman example
that film was also made back in the 70's

they got a wee boy about 5 or 6 to stand naked and do a full frontal shot for a film
there is no outcry about that

they could easily have put a pair of y fronts on him and it wouldnt have made a difference to the story

that was just the way things were done in those days

I don't think the line is all that thin, there is nothing wrong with nudity, to pose a minor in a sexual position is pornography, David Hamilton's work though sensual, is in no way pornography..
Robert Mapplethorpe photo's of are pornographic, and if he used children, I would deem them illegal...
Bill Henson was recently arrested and released due to nude photographs of 11-13 yr old's, the court noted the children where in now way posed in a sexual matter and he was acquitted.

eirykhi wrote:if i put on boots and a hat will u take naked pics of me im cute?

LOL depends on how much you are paying me to take those pics.

MijRetrop wrote:I agree there is a difference between nudity and porn. And I don't have any hangups about nudity.

No Tnajus, I don't think you should be in jail.

Where do you draw the line though? Who makes that call? Snapping a picture of your kid doing something goofy is a lot different than bringing a kid to a studio and having him/her pose for various pictures.

Hard to say where you draw the line and who makes the calls Mij....All joking aside the truth is I could have very well gone to jail for the pic when getting it developed at local one hour photo....They could have called the cops or just refused to print it and give me a warning....I have heard from people that have taken shots of their kids like I did and the photo shop refuse to print them and give a warning that if they tried to get pictures developed there again of kids that are naked they would be turned in....and that was of their kid in the bathtub with bubbles piled on top of thier head and around their face....this I think is a typical shot that a lot of parents have of their children....I know my mom does and I as well.

So yes there is a difference between take pictures of your kids doing something goofy and taking them to a studio and posing them but as you said who makes the call....what we see as a goofy inocent shot, someone else may see as child pornography, under the impresion that you should NEVER take a picture of a child naked.

MijRetrop wrote:

Toucan wrote:its a thin line

the cover of u2's achtung baby has adam claytons jnr's dick on it
doesn't make it porn

The line is not thin. I don't care if you call it art, porn or whatever else you want to call it, little kids should not be naked in movies or pictures. PERIOD!

You can debate all you want wheter 18 is the appropriate age for making the decision for ones self, but that kid couldn't be more than 10 or 11. It's my opinion that the person who took that picture should still be in jail now. Twenty years after the ablum cover was created.

Well in the United States the U.S. Supreme Court makes the decision. I think in Britain its Robin Hood or whoever is in charge over there now . I don’t agree with the pic but in 1970 it was a different time and there where different views. My question is who should go to jail the person who took the pic or the kids parents or both and everyone involved (including the band, album producers, printers, lighting personnel, publisher, talent agents, etc...). Recently the Aussies said that if you put a child’s face on a nude cartoon body it is considered child porn.

Only if it depicts a sexual origin..
Bill Henson's show was raided earlier in the year, he was arrested and acquitted..
The only reason they even bothered was some famous actress complained about the photo's.
It's like every thing else in life someone always complains, they pulled allot o books out of American schools due to people complaining about their content.
they celebrate Black History month but fail to tell students that over 5000 blacks served in the Confederate army.
People want to make every faucet of life including the past, to be what they think it should have been.. not what it actually was..they ban art, literature, and everything else because it offends them, what ever happened to change the channel, try a different book, go to a different art gallery, just because it offends you doesn't mean it's wrong or offends everyone..