Comments on: British ISPs block Wikipedia over child pornography allegations

By: John

John — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 13:58:11 +0000

Dave Parrack states “it’s interesting to note that the album cover in question isn’t a problem in the U.S. thanks to it passing the Miller test”

However, the Supreme Court determined in the 1982 case New York vs Ferber, the Court wrote “The Miller standard, like all general definitions of what may be banned as obscene, does not reflect the State’s particular and more compelling interest in prosecuting those who promote the sexual exploitation of children.”

In particular, the Court stated, “it is irrelevant to the child [who has been harmed] whether or not the material … has a literary, artistic, political or social value.”

The Supreme Court concluded:

“The test for child pornography is separate from the obscenity standard enunciated in Miller, but may be compared to it for the purpose of clarity. The Miller formulation is adjusted in the following respects: A trier of fact need not find that the material appeals to the prurient interest of the average person; it is not required that sexual conduct portrayed be done so in a patently offensive manner; and the material at issue need not be considered as a whole.”

By: Brian

Brian — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 11:35:00 +0000

At the end of the day possessing an image depicting a crime can’t be illegal. I am not guilty of murder for looking at a beheading video, why can’t I look at CP? Its not like I pay for it.

By: Spencer

Spencer — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 11:31:44 +0000

Guise just use a proxy, you can look at it all you want :)

By: J.delanoy

J.delanoy — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 05:10:33 +0000

I particularly liked the Sydney Morning Herald’s assessment.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/web/wikipedia-added-to-child-pornography-blacklist/2008/12/08/1228584723764.html

“Ironically, the banning of the image has only made it visible to more people as news sites publicise the issue and the image spreads across sites other than Wikipedia.”

Fail.

How long is it going to take people to understand that trying to censor something only makes it more visible? I thought that people had learned that last year with the whole HD DVD encryption mess with Digg.

By: JoJo

JoJo — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 03:01:15 +0000

Actaully you are a citizen and not a subject. This was changed under the British Nationality Act 1981.

Also if you don’t like living in a “Democratic Monarchy” then I’d suggest you emigrate to the closest republic because you won’t be “Free” their either!

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 23:26:00 +0000

There’s no “ban one, ban them all” mentality, there’s no banning of IP ranges, it’s just because they’re all going through a handful of proxies now, there’s no way at all to distinguish individual anonymous users; everyone is being lumped in under one of a bit over a dozen single IPs, along with thousands of other users.

I should also note that in addition to not being a problem in the US, it’s possibly not even a problem in the UK. As the IWF’s official statement on the matter (http://iwf.org.uk/media/news.249.htm, which is fairly dry and completely ignores the real problem) states, it’s merely a “potentially illegal indecent image of a child”. Though this just makes it even worse, because it means they apparently block stuff that just might be illegal.

By: MCG

MCG — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 23:07:54 +0000

No no no, it’s only anonymous users on the ISPs in question that can’t edit Wikipedia – which is a kind of silver lining, since anonymous vandals are the bane of Wikipedia.

By: Scott Lyon

Scott Lyon — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 22:23:13 +0000

There will be an interview with the head of IWF on Radio 4 tomorrow at 8:20AM.

Hopefully we’ll hear some more details of this.