UK ISPs censor Wikipedia page [Archive]

PowerFullMac

Dec 8, 2008, 11:19 AM

chilipie

Dec 8, 2008, 11:47 AM

S'ridiculous, frankly. The 'tards haven't even blocked the image itself, only that particular page - the image is still perfectly accessible from other pages on Wikipedia.

The other thing I really don't like is returning an Error 403, implying that it's Wikipedia's servers that aren't working. They should at least have the guts to say they've censored it.

(My ISP is Virgin, FWIW)

iJohnHenry

Dec 8, 2008, 11:52 AM

The other thing I really don't like is returning an Error 403, implying that it's Wikipedia's servers that aren't working. They should at least have the guts to say they've censored it.

FYI, 404 is not found. They say "403 Forbidden".

I'll bet RCA is surprised to find out this morning that they are in the pr0n business. :eek:

I would get a time-out, or worse, if I posted it, so I won't.

Let me just say that, to me, it depicts the social phenomonum of younger and younger children loosing their virginity. :(

nick9191

Dec 8, 2008, 11:53 AM

I accessed it fine.

I can understand why some would want it blocked.

PowerFullMac

Dec 8, 2008, 12:29 PM

I accessed it fine.

I can understand why some would want it blocked.

What ISP you on?

I think the worst thing is that they never censored the Amazon page or any other sites page with the album art on it, only Wikipedia because its a charity. :mad:

ucfgrad93

Dec 8, 2008, 12:42 PM

I accessed it fine.

I can understand why some would want it blocked.

Agreed, I just googled it and it came up fine. But like nick9191, I understand why some people would want it blocked.

chilipie

Dec 8, 2008, 12:46 PM

FYI, 404 is not found. They say "403 Forbidden".

I know, I said Error 403 :)

The 403 Forbidden HTTP status code indicates that the client was able to communicate with the server, but the server doesn't let the user access what was requested.

...thus implying it's Wikipedia not letting you access the page, not your ISP.

Loge

Dec 8, 2008, 01:02 PM

Hope these ISPs don't have adverts claiming they offer the "whole internet" :p

But the real problem is that using proxy servers like that is effectively banning users of those ISPs from making any edits to regular pages on wikipedia, because their IP address is a generic one.

Phil A.

Dec 8, 2008, 02:18 PM

PowerFullMac

Dec 8, 2008, 04:19 PM

According to the IWF, they took advice from the police, so anyone in the UK would be well advised not to go looking for this picture...
On a similar note, a guy in Australia has just been convicted on Child Sex offences for possessing some lewd cartoons of Simpsons Characters (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/08/simpsons_supreme_court/) (link is to the story on the Register, not the actual images...).

That's mad! It's Simpsons for Gods sake, why the hell is that illegal?

It's also stupid that the UK government are outlawing some types of porn... Where the **** is freedom of speech gone these days?!?!

Jaffa Cake

Dec 8, 2008, 04:23 PM

But the real problem is that using proxy servers like that is effectively banning users of those ISPs from making any edits to regular pages on wikipedia, because their IP address is a generic one.One of the ISPs affected is our local provider, Karoo – and due to a quirk of history, Karoo is the only ISP we can actually get here. So what this means is that the only place in the country where you can't edit or create Wikipedia pages about stuff related to Hull is, er... Hull.

dmr727

Dec 8, 2008, 04:25 PM

Wait a minute.
Holy crap.

The Scorpions are from Germany???

nick9191

Dec 8, 2008, 04:52 PM

What ISP you on?
Pipex

takao

Dec 8, 2008, 05:35 PM

Wait a minute.
Holy crap.

The Scorpions are from Germany???

and ironically they aren't really popular there ... while they fill up stadiums in south america and asia they have problems with filling up a club in their hometown

oh and some might argue the replacement cover to be _more_ offensive .. since it is a photograph of the band ;)
http://www.amazon.de/Virgin-Killer-Scorpions/dp/B0000073NK/

edit: can our affected Uk users check if they still can reach the album cover of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevermind
by Nirvana ;)

GSMiller

Dec 8, 2008, 07:43 PM

edit: can our affected Uk users check if they still can reach the album cover of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevermind
by Nirvana ;)

I wondered the exact same thing after hearing they blocked The Scorpions' cover.

iJohnHenry

Dec 8, 2008, 07:53 PM

I remember that one.

Drown-proofing for money. The bastards.

EricNau

Dec 8, 2008, 08:03 PM

It's also stupid that the UK government are outlawing some types of porn... Where the **** is freedom of speech gone these days?!?!
Are you joking?

Porn depicting children is outlawed because the children are being exploited; they simply aren't old enough to make such decisions for themselves.

iJohnHenry

Dec 8, 2008, 08:05 PM

Define "porn" please.

mkrishnan

Dec 8, 2008, 08:07 PM

It's also stupid that the UK government are outlawing some types of porn... Where the **** is freedom of speech gone these days?!?!

Are you really advocating that, on the underlying issue, genuine child pornography (not things like this picture that have never been traditionally considered pornography, but actual pornography) should be legal?

Wow, just wow.

AmbitiousLemon

Dec 8, 2008, 08:18 PM

Wow, just wow.

He is not referring to child porn at all. He is referring to sections 62-67 of the Criminal Justice Act of 2008 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2008/ukpga_20080004_en_9#pt5-pb1-l1g63)

mkrishnan

Dec 8, 2008, 08:33 PM

He is not referring to child porn at all. He is referring to sections 62-67 of the Criminal Justice Act of 2008 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2008/ukpga_20080004_en_9#pt5-pb1-l1g63)

Ahh, okay. Given the context, you could perhaps forgive the mistake, coming from an American who isn't completely up on everything legal and British. :o

That being said, don't at least a couple of these types of porn images (the ones that are essentially snuff and necro, on their list) generally constitute things that have been illegal in many countries for many years? The imminent harm to genitalia aspect seems like it would be open to judicial abuse pretty readily, though. Anyway, I'm not saying I particularly support your law... I'm just curious. Is this an actual departure from previous practice in the UK?

AmbitiousLemon

Dec 8, 2008, 08:43 PM

your law...

I'm American so its not my law.

The main opposition to this law lies in that it is making images illegal that are merely faking said acts. Many popular movies for example have scenes that would be classified as extreme porn under this new law. It is making illegal images of acts that themselves are legal (since it is fake/acting). The other objection to the law is that it is extremely vague. It does make exceptions for images produced by the BBC and other major film makers, but does note that taken out of context clips from such films could still be illegal.

I also find it amusing how they make sex with an animal illegal - think someone ought to tell them that people are animals.

mkrishnan

Dec 8, 2008, 08:48 PM

I also find it amusing how they make sex with an animal illegal - think someone ought to tell them that people are animals.

"Non-human animal" would be, erm, more accurate. ;)

PowerFullMac

Dec 9, 2008, 02:49 AM

Are you really advocating that, on the underlying issue, genuine child pornography (not things like this picture that have never been traditionally considered pornography, but actual pornography) should be legal?

Wow, just wow.

I wasent referring to child porn, I was referring a seperate law.

Edit: the one AmbitiousLemon said.

Peace

Dec 9, 2008, 11:27 AM

Although I don't like The Scorpions. Hate heavy metal. This is akin to Led Zepplin's House's Of The Holy.

Wiki that and see what you get.:rolleyes:

In otherwords it's frackin art. And I see a big difference between art and pornography.

Obviously, draconian law makers don't.

Peterkro

Dec 9, 2008, 02:38 PM

The small group of ISP's have backed down and won't restrict access.

PowerFullMac

Dec 9, 2008, 04:31 PM

The small group of ISP's have backed down and won't restrict access.

Still won't load on my iPhone, in fact I'm getting error 404 now!

Peterkro

Dec 9, 2008, 04:35 PM

Still won't load on my iPhone, in fact I'm getting error 404 now!

May be they're a bit slow redirecting:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/dec/09/wikipedia-ban-reversed

skunk

Dec 9, 2008, 05:14 PM

According to the IWF, they took advice from the police, so anyone in the UK would be well advised not to go looking for this picture...
On a similar note, a guy in Australia has just been convicted on Child Sex offences for possessing some lewd cartoons of Simpsons Characters (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/08/simpsons_supreme_court/) (link is to the story on the Register, not the actual images...).Both cases show distinctly poor judgment. What does it say about those making these decisions and these rulings that they consider that any image of a naked child is likely to deprave or cause harm by its very existence? The girl on the album cover was not concerned in the least when asked about it fifteen years later.

PowerFullMac

Dec 9, 2008, 05:14 PM

May be they're a bit slow redirecting:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/dec/09/wikipedia-ban-reversed

Glad they made the right decision, although I do still think that the fact the UK has a censoring system in the first place is stupid.

However, it was funny to read that their actions actually made the image more widespread! :D

What I wanna know is: why did they randomly decide to do this to a 30-40 year old album?

Idiots.

XnavxeMiyyep

Dec 9, 2008, 05:29 PM

However, it was funny to read that their actions actually made the image more widespread! :D

Haha yeah, probably increased the image's viewing by several orders of magnitude.

From what I understand though, this wasn't a government mandated action, as not all ISPs blocked the image. (Not that it excuses them from not providing what their customers pay them for)

Does the IWF actually have any legal powers in the UK, or is it just an organization that "classifies" things?

skunk

Dec 9, 2008, 05:33 PM

Does the IWF actually have any legal powers in the UK, or is it just an organization that "classifies" things?They, as ISPs, can theoretically be held to account for the distribution of illegal material. Such frightened little rabbits.

Schtumple

Dec 9, 2008, 05:36 PM

CENSORSHIP cannot be used to show what
IS right from what is wrong and as a result is not very accurate or
GOOD at portraying a truthful message

I remember putting that somewhere else, one of my favourite quotes.

Highlight ;)

skunk

Dec 9, 2008, 05:42 PM

iJohnHenry

Dec 9, 2008, 05:46 PM

Did it get pulled?

Ah, finally, we are at the heart of the matter. :p

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g158/MouseMeat/Smilies/MMafter03.gif

Schtumple

Dec 9, 2008, 05:49 PM

Did it get pulled?

Nah, I was wearing enough tin foil, the mods didn't catch me ;)

Nickygoat

Dec 9, 2008, 06:42 PM

What I wanna know is: why did they randomly decide to do this to a 30-40 year old album?

Quite possibly because it was in the Holy Moly email sent out last week.

Schtumple

Dec 9, 2008, 06:44 PM

What I wanna know is: why did they randomly decide to do this to a 30-40 year old album?

Daily Mail readers must've picked up on it...

Nickygoat

Dec 9, 2008, 06:46 PM

Daily Mail readers must've picked up on it...

I think any Daily Mail readers reading Holy Moly would be calling for an ambulance rather than the Internet Watch Foundation :D

Schtumple

Dec 9, 2008, 06:52 PM

I think any Daily Mail readers reading Holy Moly would be calling for an ambulance rather than the Internet Watch Foundation :D

Lol I quoted the wrong post sorry, will change now :p

Anuba

Dec 9, 2008, 08:36 PM

Sorry if this has been posted already, I did a search and couldnt find anything.

Article on BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7770456.stm)

This is mad! Its even blocked on my iPhone (when doing through the O2 internet connection)
It's just silly. The album cover isn't child pornography, it's a picture of a nude child without developed breasts, and by definition there is therefore nothing remotely sexual about it. If the censors somehow consider it sexually charged with a potential for arousal, they've gotta be pretty damn disturbed themselves, and should be kept away from children at all times.