cleanfeed and wikipedia

[Ian Batten]

On 07 Dec 08, at 1259, Chris Edwards wrote:

> On Sun, 7 Dec 2008, Dave wrote:
>
> | The offending article is currently blocked by virgin media, though  
> it can be
> | seen via alternative access methods. So, being paranoid here, will  
> my
> | attempted viewing of the page be logged, and will I now receive a  
> visit from
> | the rozzers......?
>
> For your failed attempt, no.  My understanding is no offence was  
> committed
> (thanks to cleanfeed!).  However, I wouldn't be so confident for your
> successful attempts via alternative access methods...

Offence?  Really?

IWF were quoted on Radio 4 this morning as having got advice from the  
police prior to listing the URL.  There was a famous debacle in  
Birmingham --- in which the Vice Chancellor of what is now UCE emerged  
as a knight in shining armour by telling the police to go away --- in  
which the police swooped on a library following the revelation that it  
contained obscene material.  Their beef was with a book of  
Mapplethorpe photographs, available in bookshops the length and  
breadth of the country.

Similarly, the album in question is more than thirty years old, has  
been sold in a wide range of jurisdictions and still is in many, can  
in no way be described as a photograph of child abuse (although it may  
fall into the category of potentially indecent) and in general terms  
looks like the IWF crossing a line from ``blocking material which is  
highly likely to be illegal'' to ``blocking material which someone  
might find offensive but is unlikely to result in a successful  
prosecution''.  Which is not the purpose for which the IWF was set up.

ian