Over the weekend it emerged that roughly 95 percent of British Internet users had been banned from reading a certain article on Wikipedia, and consequently barred from editing the online encyclopedia. The issue has arisen due to an image being deemed by the IWF (Internet Watch Foundation) as child pornography. The row is still ongoing, and now Jimmy Wales has got involved.

As I explained in detail on Sunday, the Wikipedia article for Scorpions album, Virgin Killer, contains the image of the album cover. Which is normal, with the vast majority of album covers being shown on the site. However, the album cover in question features a naked pre-pubescent girl, with a fake crack covering her genitalia.

Whether you regard this to be child pornography is personal opinion. It’s certainly bordering on it, and the image was clearly used to cause controversy and sell records. Pretty successfully too seeing as the album is still being talked about 30 years after it was released. But the bigger debate is whether this should have been censored suddenly, without warning, and merely because it might be child pornography.

The IWF is a self-regulated charitable body set up ten years ago to prevent Government intervention in the policing of the Internet. While its intentions may be pure, ridding the Internet of child pornography and obscene and racially motivated content, this case has shown up a trend for the organization overstepping its remit.

The Virgin Killer album cover is accepted as part of pop culture, along with other morally questionable album covers such as the ten featured in Word Magazine. It wasn’t created by child abusers, and wasn’t created for child abusers. It’s also available to view on thousands of Web sites around the Internet, with Wikipedia just one such example. So stopping British citizens accessing the Wikipedia page for the album makes no sense at all.

Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has now had his say on the matter telling Channel 4 News:

My first thoughts when I was told that the Internet Watch Foundation had blocked the Wikipedia page was that we should take them to court. But because they’re not a statutory body, I’ve been told we can’t necessarily challenge their decision.

The Internet Watch Foundation were clearly over reaching their remit when they blocked the text page on Wikipedia – there’s nothing illegal about the description of the album. I’d also question their wisdom about trying to block the image itself.

There’s no question that it’s a dodgy picture, but it’s an artistic protest made many years ago, but my concern isn’t so much about the image – it’s the ambiguous nature that they are acting in. It’s not clear if they are over-reaching their authority.

As a result of their actions, the image is actually being seen by more people, it’s appearing on thousands of blogs today. It will continue to be passed on. What are they going to do? Are they going to block all of the Web if it continues to be spread?

As Wales states, the IWF is clearly over-reaching its authority, and its relative silence on the row is speaking volumes. I’ve never really been a fan of censorship except for when something is clearly morally and criminally wrong, as child pornography is. But I refuse to accept the Virgin Killer album cover is pornographic, and even if it were, it’s entered the public consciousness now so censoring it in hindsight is going to be as useful as a chocolate teapot.

Related:

Entry was posted on Tuesday, December 9th, 2008 at 5:43 pm under Internet, Legal, Opinion.

Read more entries by Dave Parrack.
Stumble It!