IWF cave in on Wikipedia image
Janitor of Lunacy
http://www.iwf.org.uk/media/news.251.htm
Unknown
So, all those convicted of posessing similar images will have their
cases reviewed?
Janitor of Lunacy
I doubt it. The IWF have said that they still regard that image as illegal
and have clearly taken a "pragmatic" decision based on the negative
publicity they've had over the last three days. So much for principle!
Cynic
So the IWF are condoning child abuse. After all, they believe that
every time someone looks at such an image, the abuse is repeated.
The fact that *I* believe that claim to be complete rubbish is
irrelevant, the IWF are prepared to allow what *they* believe will
result in child abuse to take place simply because it would otherwise
make them unpopular.
--
Cynic
Janitor of Lunacy
They should review their relationship with CEOP for starters. It's all very
well for self-appointed watchdogs to be single-minded, but to rely on advice
from only one body makes them look nothing less than foolish. Operating in a
self-imposed information vacuum is unhelpful.
Webmanager_CritEst
> The IWF have now "reviewed" their decision and have withdrawn the blocking:
>
> http://www.iwf.org.uk/media/news.251.htm
"IWF’s overriding objective is to minimise the availability of
indecent images of children on the internet, however, on this occasion
our efforts have had the opposite effect."
Mwwwwwhhhhwaaaaa.
What a fuck up.
Richard Miller
Lunacy <gh...@attic.info> writes
album, but I have several others by the Scorpions. Even back in my
student days I thought that picture to be "a bit much". I am astonished
that only now is there a fuss about it.
--
Richard Miller
Webmanager_CritEst
wrote:
> In message <Rzz%k.4043$Sp5.3...@text.news.virginmedia.com>, Janitor of
Ah well, that's life in a monastery for you Richard ;)
WM
Cynic
<ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I've known that album cover since my student days. I don't own that
>album, but I have several others by the Scorpions. Even back in my
>student days I thought that picture to be "a bit much". I am astonished
>that only now is there a fuss about it.
But does your feeling that the image was "a bit much" go as far as
believing that had you decided to buy the album, you would have been
guilty of possessing an indecent image of a child and thus ought to
have been convicted and placed on the sex offenders' register?
And do you believe that everyone who *did* buy the album has abused
the child and contributed to the child abuse industry in general?
--
Cynic
Svenne
<ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I've known that album cover since my student days. I don't own that
>album, but I have several others by the Scorpions. Even back in my
>student days I thought that picture to be "a bit much". I am astonished
>that only now is there a fuss about it.
I have a hazy memory of a similar one from the late 1960's. I think it
was by Jefferson Airplane, but I'm not 100% sure, it was the Sixties
after all and I did actively participate in the decade.. The pic in
question was a girl holding an airplane on an album cover, or maybe
inside the album, I think (I should have done less pot and acid). The
newpapers at the time commented that it was a bit inappropriate, but
it wasn't banned or illegal.
Svenne
Chris Hills
> "IWF’s overriding objective is to minimise the availability of
> indecent images of children on the internet, however, on this occasion
> our efforts have had the opposite effect."
>
> Mwwwwwhhhhwaaaaa.
>
> What a fuck up.
But on the positive side, it has generated them a ton of free publicity.
(sarcasm alert)
sussex_b...@hotmail.com
> On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 21:02:01 +0000, Richard Miller
>
I think it was a Blind Faith album Svenne. The airplane she was
holding obviously confused you ;-).
When I first got into Clapton's music, and by extension that of Blind
Faith, which would have been the late 80s / early 90s, there was some
moderate outcry about that album cover. I think Woolies banned it or
something. No police involvement though, that's for sure ...
Dissenter
You must be thinking of the self titled Blind Faith album (check
Google Images for pics).
I think it was the _presence_ of budding breasts on the pubescent girl
that causes eyebrows to be raised in those days, not the fact that it
was a child.
Other album covers you might like to check out (before destroying your
HDD) are:
Anorexia Nervosa - New Obscurantis Order (2001)
Led Zeppelin - Houses Of The Holy (1973)
Nirvana - Nevermind (1991)
Soul Asylum - Grave Dancer's Union (1992)
Van Halen - Balance (1995)
Yes - Yesterdays (1974 - reverse LP cover)
--
Dissenter
Janitor of Lunacy
The album came out out in 1976; the Protection of Children Act in 1978.
Nobody would have batted an eyelid. FFS, it was the tail-end of glam-rock
and the beginning of punk. Few cared about a third-rate German metal band
back then.
Janitor of Lunacy
Blind Faith. Clapton, Winwood, Baker & Grech. Still available (and mostly
uncensored)
Janitor of Lunacy
99% of it bad- even the Daily Mail were neutral about it. I fully expected
headlines such as "Wikipedos".
Sarcasm, indeed.
Unknown
This is the latest Blind Faith album cover.
Stephen Wolstenholme
I had all Jefferson Airplane LP's up to Jefferson Starship and I don't
remember any with a girl on the cover apart from Grace Slick and she
was fully clothed.
Steve
Alex Heney
<gh...@attic.info> wrote:
>sjp wrote:
>> On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 18:58:40 GMT, "Janitor of Lunacy"
>> <gh...@attic.info> wrote:
>>
>>> The IWF have now "reviewed" their decision and have withdrawn the
>>> blocking:
>>>
>>> http://www.iwf.org.uk/media/news.251.htm
>>>
>>
>> So, all those convicted of posessing similar images will have their
>> cases reviewed?
>
>I doubt it. The IWF have said that they still regard that image as illegal
They have never said they regard that image as illegal, never mind
that they "still" do so.
>and have clearly taken a "pragmatic" decision based on the negative
>publicity they've had over the last three days. So much for principle!
>
They are correct.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
FIGHT BACK! Fill out your tax forms with Roman numerals.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
Robbie
> The IWF have now "reviewed" their decision and have withdrawn the blocking:
>
> http://www.iwf.org.uk/media/news.251.htm
>
More like "we made a mistake and got bad publicity".
How can an image go from being "potentially illegal" to being allowed.
Surely the Protection Of Children Act 1978 doesn't allow it? The people
who reviewed it should be held in contempt.
They are talking out of their backsides.
--
Robbie
Robbie
> On Dec 9, 6:58 pm, "Janitor of Lunacy" <gh...@attic.info> wrote:
>> The IWF have now "reviewed" their decision and have withdrawn the blocking:
>>
>> http://www.iwf.org.uk/media/news.251.htm
>
> indecent images of children on the internet, however, on this occasion
> our efforts have had the opposite effect."
>
> Mwwwwwhhhhwaaaaa.
>
> What a fuck up.
>
> WM
> www.critest.com
It suits you well though doesn't it? I bet you've had a field day with this.
--
Robbie
Janitor of Lunacy
> On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 19:22:25 GMT, "Janitor of Lunacy"
> <gh...@attic.info> wrote:
>
>> sjp wrote:
>>> On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 18:58:40 GMT, "Janitor of Lunacy"
>>> <gh...@attic.info> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The IWF have now "reviewed" their decision and have withdrawn the
>>>> blocking:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.iwf.org.uk/media/news.251.htm
>>>>
>>>
>>> So, all those convicted of posessing similar images will have their
>>> cases reviewed?
>>
>> I doubt it. The IWF have said that they still regard that image as
>> illegal
>
> They have never said they regard that image as illegal, never mind
> that they "still" do so.
"potentially illegal", then, you fucking boring pedant. What's the
difference in terms of what they actually did?
http://www.iwf.org.uk/media/news.251.htm
or can you not read English?
Joe Lee
I once knew an architect who planned to convert a disused monastery - but he
had to abandon the project when it became clear it wasn't susceptible to any
other belief system.
--
Joe Lee
Svenne
wrote:
>On 9 Dec, 22:08, Svenne <tvaerska...@aol.com> wrote:
>> I have a hazy memory of a similar one from the late 1960's. I think it
>> was by Jefferson Airplane, but I'm not 100% sure, it was the Sixties
>> after all and I did actively participate in the decade.. The pic in
>> question was a girl holding an airplane on an album cover, or maybe
>> inside the album, I think (I should have done less pot and acid). The
>> newpapers at the time commented that it was a bit inappropriate, but
>> it wasn't banned or illegal.
>I think it was a Blind Faith album Svenne. The airplane she was
>holding obviously confused you ;-).
That's the one. There was lots of stuff coursing through my
bloodstream in the 1960's that could cause confusion, not to mention
cosmic enlightenment.
Another one I remember from that time (perhaps I didn't do enough pot
and acid) was an issue of my favourite read, OZ Magazine. One of the
later issues, perhaps arounf 1970, was called the Schoolkids Issue,
full of cartoons and stories of kids doing drugs and indecent stuff,
as they did back then, probably still do for all I know.
I bought a copy just before it was declared illegal and the publishers
prosecuted. If I'd have kept it then it might have been worth
something today, but I kept very little from those days, except my
sanity and that's arguable.
Or, conversly, I could be prosecuted for owning it, even though it was
bought legally.
Svenne
Cynic
<gh...@attic.info> wrote:
>> But does your feeling that the image was "a bit much" go as far as
>> believing that had you decided to buy the album, you would have been
>> guilty of possessing an indecent image of a child and thus ought to
>> have been convicted and placed on the sex offenders' register?
>> And do you believe that everyone who *did* buy the album has abused
>> the child and contributed to the child abuse industry in general?
>The album came out out in 1976; the Protection of Children Act in 1978.
>Nobody would have batted an eyelid. FFS, it was the tail-end of glam-rock
>and the beginning of punk. Few cared about a third-rate German metal band
>back then.
It makes no difference when the law came out and whether the image was
or was not legal at that time. If it is child abuse now, it must
surely have been child abuse then? And if people really *do* deserve
to be convicted for possessing such images today, then they would have
*deserved* such punishment then even if they were not at risk of
prosecution.
--
Cynic
Cynic
wrote:
>>I doubt it. The IWF have said that they still regard that image as illegal
>
>They have never said they regard that image as illegal, never mind
>that they "still" do so.
If they never regarded the image as being illegal, why did they censor
it?
--
Cynic
MM
<ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
And yet it is not dissimilar from the tens of thousands of images
formed on the retinas of naturists the world over, yet I see no signs
of mass arrests among them.
MM
MM
>I think it was the _presence_ of budding breasts on the pubescent girl
>that causes eyebrows to be raised in those days, not the fact that it
>was a child.
I can recall an issue of Der Spiegel (may have been Stern) in the 70s
which depicted a very young girl (around 10 years old) on the front
cover whose nipples had been replaced by large (men sized) penises
(not erect). I can't remember what the article was about.
MM
MM
wrote:
Probably negative publicity, though. Especially once it sinks into the
public consciousness that the IWF has thrown its principles in the
trash and done a volte-face.
MM
MM
wrote:
>Webmanager_CritEst wrote:
>> On Dec 9, 6:58 pm, "Janitor of Lunacy" <gh...@attic.info> wrote:
>>> The IWF have now "reviewed" their decision and have withdrawn the blocking:
>>>
>>> http://www.iwf.org.uk/media/news.251.htm
>>
>> "IWF’s overriding objective is to minimise the availability of
>> indecent images of children on the internet, however, on this occasion
>> our efforts have had the opposite effect."
>>
>> Mwwwwwhhhhwaaaaa.
>>
>> What a fuck up.
>>
>> WM
>> www.critest.com
>
>It suits you well though doesn't it? I bet you've had a field day with this.
Are you therefore saying that the IWF were right to censor Wikipedia?
MM
Dissenter
wrote:
>Janitor of Lunacy wrote:
>> The IWF have now "reviewed" their decision and have withdrawn the blocking:
>>
>> http://www.iwf.org.uk/media/news.251.htm
>>
>
>More like "we made a mistake and got bad publicity".
>
>How can an image go from being "potentially illegal" to being allowed.
>Surely the Protection Of Children Act 1978 doesn't allow it? The people
>who reviewed it should be held in contempt.
Well the same thing happened with that photo that "national treasure"
Elton John owned http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/7063564.stm
and that was the police and CPS (taking a long time to decide).
--
Dissenter
Webmanager_CritEst
Webmanager_CritEst
> Webmanager_CritEst wrote:
> > On Dec 9, 6:58 pm, "Janitor of Lunacy" <gh...@attic.info> wrote:
> >> The IWF have now "reviewed" their decision and have withdrawn the blocking:
>
> >>http://www.iwf.org.uk/media/news.251.htm
>
> > indecent images of children on the internet, however, on this occasion
> > our efforts have had the opposite effect."
>
> > Mwwwwwhhhhwaaaaa.
>
> > What a fuck up.
>
> > WM
> >www.critest.com
>
> It suits you well though doesn't it? I bet you've had a field day with this.
>
> --
> Robbie
Absolutely, more grist to the mill.
I really do not need any more material, so as to show what a legal/
social debacle 'indecent images' and 'abuse' myths are, but, the more,
the merrier :)
As for the image, I tried to fap and failed ;)
WM
Robbie
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:09:01 +0000, Robbie <ngrobbi...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Janitor of Lunacy wrote:
> >> The IWF have now "reviewed" their decision and have withdrawn the blocking:
>
> >>http://www.iwf.org.uk/media/news.251.htm
>
> >More like "we made a mistake and got bad publicity".
>
> >How can an image go from being "potentially illegal" to being allowed.
> >Surely the Protection Of Children Act 1978 doesn't allow it? The people
> >who reviewed it should be held in contempt.
>
> Well the same thing happened with that photo that "national treasure"
> and that was the police and CPS (taking a long time to decide).
>
> --
> Dissenter
Of course the fact that EJ has deep pockets and wealthy lawyers
wouldn't make much of a difference...
Mr X
"Cynic" <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:jo6vj45p0397p8mpe...@4ax.com...
differing cultural norms. All abuse is, IMO, a subjective designation made
by the law makers. Therefore something considdered abusive at any given
time may no longer be seen of as such and vice versa. Domestic abuse/
violence wouldn't have been recognised as such 50 or 100 years ago but most
people will see it as abusive now. Similarly teachers were once allowed to
beat children with sticks. Now that would be abuse. Similarly in the 18th
and even 19th C girls would be married and having children very young. Now
such acts would be considdered unaccpetable.
Mr X
"Robbie" <ngrob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6q8fkuF...@mid.individual.net...
> Janitor of Lunacy wrote:
>> The IWF have now "reviewed" their decision and have withdrawn the
>> blocking:
>>
>> http://www.iwf.org.uk/media/news.251.htm
>
> More like "we made a mistake and got bad publicity".
>
> How can an image go from being "potentially illegal" to being allowed.
> Surely the Protection Of Children Act 1978 doesn't allow it? The people
> who reviewed it should be held in contempt.
>
Mr X
"MM" <kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:0u7vj4dqo9r8qa0b1...@4ax.com...
anyone else who hosts images in accordance with their aims.
Robbie
They only backed down when it was pointed out that the album cover was
also on amazon and that other covers (by Blind Faith, Led Zep and
Nirvana) may also be caught up too. The silly woman who is a
spokesperson for the IWF insisted it was a child abuse image.
--
Robbie
Mr X
should have dismissed this report out of hand.
Janitor of Lunacy
Child pornography has occasionally been uploaded to Wikipedia over the past
few years; it is immediately deleted, the uploader blocked indefinitely and
their local law enforcement notified.
But let me get this right; you're suggesting that a self-appointed handful
(4) of police-trained analysts accountable to nobody should have the power
to prevent access to a global encyclopedia whose servers are located in the
United States?
George Orwell, thou shouldst be alive right now!
Robbie
Indeed.
It's a distasteful picture but not indecent.
--
Robbie
Mr X
"Janitor of Lunacy" <gh...@attic.info> wrote in message
news:0LR%k.4378$Sp5....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
built just to host child abuse images or the site refused to take it down?
> But let me get this right; you're suggesting that a self-appointed handful
> (4) of police-trained analysts accountable to nobody should have the power
> to prevent access to a global encyclopedia whose servers are located in
> the United States?
>
What's wrong with it? I know many people on here want to look at images of
children but plenty of people have decided we'd rather not allow people to
do such a thing. How else would you suggest access to such images was
restricted?
MM
wrote:
>
>"MM" <kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:0u7vj4dqo9r8qa0b1...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:11:54 +0000, Robbie <ngrob...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Webmanager_CritEst wrote:
>>>> On Dec 9, 6:58 pm, "Janitor of Lunacy" <gh...@attic.info> wrote:
>>>>> The IWF have now "reviewed" their decision and have withdrawn the
>>>>> blocking:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.iwf.org.uk/media/news.251.htm
>>>>
>>>> "IWF's overriding objective is to minimise the availability of
>>>> indecent images of children on the internet, however, on this occasion
>>>> our efforts have had the opposite effect."
>>>>
>>>> Mwwwwwhhhhwaaaaa.
>>>>
>>>> What a fuck up.
>>>>
>>>> WM
>>>> www.critest.com
>>>
>>>It suits you well though doesn't it? I bet you've had a field day with
>>>this.
>>
>> Are you therefore saying that the IWF were right to censor Wikipedia?
>>
>Not on this occasion
But they have NOT reversed their decision because they now find the
picture in question is NOT illegal! They are still claiming it is
potentially an illegal child abuse image. Therefore they have made a
political decision, probably after having been "leant on" from various
quarters in whose interest this story must be kicked into the long
grass as quickly as possible.
> but they are cetainly right to censor wikipedia or
>anyone else who hosts images in accordance with their aims.
How are they more right or wrong than anybody else? What gives them
the right to remove people's livelihoods? F'rinstance, if someone had
30 copies of that particular album cover and had kept them because she
thought one day they might be worth a lot of money to collectors,
should the IWF be allowed to stymie such practice out of the blue if
no court has actually found the picture to be illegal? This is
veritable star chamber territory that you seem happy enough to accept.
MM
MM
<gh...@attic.info> wrote:
Exactly! It was an idiotic knee-jerk reaction by a bunch of
Cambridgeshire nannies.
MM
Cynic
wrote:
>Indeed.
>
>It's a distasteful picture but not indecent.
I don't think that it is distasteful. While not a masterpiece, it is
a photographic representation of the theme of "shattered innocence"
which also marries with the album title in a way that I think is
artistically creative. Also containing a sort of visual pun.
Yes, it is deliberately designed to shock the viewer, but not by being
grotesque or obscene. I have seen similar effects produced using a
symbol of childhood rather than a real child. A broken teddybear or
tricycle for example. A child can be used as an especially evocative
symbol of vulnerability, and a naked child even more so.
Related effects use other symbols of vulnerability or weakness
juxtaposed with a symbol of merciless power - a photograph of a pair
of glasses in a puddle being stepped on and destroyed by a soldier's
boot or run over by a tank's tracks, for example. Add a rivulet of
blood for greater shock.
Besides innocence, naivity and vulnerability, children are good
subjects to use to visually represent other emotions. Hope, love,
optimism, wonder, curiosity, trust, mischieviousness etc.
Besides being good art, emotive imagry is also used for propaganda
purposes in the media and on posters.
For some reason monochrome photographs are better than colour for
conveying symbollic ideas, though a very small touch of vivid colour
on an otherwise black-and-white image can be used to good effect if
done right.
It is the people who ignore the very obvious symbollism and see only
pornography and smut in the image who have warped minds. I'll have to
try to think of a photographic composition that would be symbollic of
that irony!
--
Cynic
MM
Well, why should it if the picture was deemed unacceptable? Or are we
back to Humpty Dumpty-speak ("It means whatever we say it means")? In
fact, the CPS found that particular picture did not break any law,
even though it exposed far more of the girl's genitals. I think the
way it works is, the police like to pick off individuals, maybe using
the IWF as their lackeys, but when someone with a bit of clout who can
string more than two words together, like EJ or Wikipedia, they back
off in a hurry.
MM
MM
wrote:
>
I don't believe they think they made a mistake. I believe they have
withdrawn their ban because they were leant on and because the whole
farrago has been counterproductive.
MM
MM
wrote:
Yes, and presumably she still thinks so today, even after the banned
URL has been reinstated. So should she resign, or don't her principles
in fighting child abuse stretch that far?
MM
MM
wrote:
Well, she must be a fool, as any research would have shown that there
was minimal exposure to the album cover PRIOR to the IWF ban, and
common sense would have suggested that there would be a LOT MORE
exposure following any ban, especially in the cackhanded way it was
done.
MM
Mr X
> the right to remove people's livelihoods? F'rinstance, if someone had
> 30 copies of that particular album cover and had kept them because she
> thought one day they might be worth a lot of money to collectors,
> should the IWF be allowed to stymie such practice out of the blue if
> no court has actually found the picture to be illegal? This is
> veritable star chamber territory that you seem happy enough to accept.
>
people think that.
Janitor of Lunacy
Indeed, but is it their first and only error, and how can anyone trust them
ever again if we have no way of knowing this?
Mr X
"Janitor of Lunacy" <gh...@attic.info> wrote in message
news:glT%k.4415$Sp5...@text.news.virginmedia.com...
easier if there was some way of checking on their work but I can't see one
that didn't defeat the aims of the IWF. They could, perhaps, have a better
appeals procedure for site owners.
Robbie
Having a physical copy of an album, whether or not the cover is
considered a potential image of child abuse, is outside of the remit of
the IWF... not trying to be funny but they only deal with images on the
internet.
--
Robbie
Robbie
I remember when the album was released in the mid 70s. I used to buy
"Record Mirror", a music mag, and the cover of the album was debated
back then. The Scorpions were forced to change the cover and in RM there
was a massive debate about whether the cover was out of order. The
general consensus was that it was and I agreed with the general view
from back then.
It didn't stop Record Mirror having the album cover on its back page as
a full page advert though...
--
Robbie
Robbie
She probably just spouts the "company" line. I doubt she's even seen the
image in question, and I wouldn't expect her to see any image that the
IWF consider as potentially illegal. But it just shows that people who
try to defend what are at times the indefensible come across as sounding
pathetic.
--
Robbie
Cynic
wrote:
>What's wrong with it? I know many people on here want to look at images of
>children but plenty of people have decided we'd rather not allow people to
>do such a thing. How else would you suggest access to such images was
>restricted?
And what if many people on here wanted to look at the policies of a
political party, but plenty of other people decide that they'd rather
not let them? Would it be equally acceptable to you if opposing
political views were also restricted?
Incidentally, you are making a huge error of logic if you believe that
anyone who opposes the criminalisation of a certain act wants to carry
out that act themselves.
--
Cynic
Cynic
wrote:
>We're not talking about this case. They made an error. I and most other
>people think that.
But according to themselves, they did *not* make an error. They still
consider that the image is illegal.
--
Cynic
Mr X
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 16:37:33 -0000, "Mr X" <inv...@invalid.com>
> wrote:
>
>>What's wrong with it? I know many people on here want to look at images
>>of
>>children but plenty of people have decided we'd rather not allow people to
>>do such a thing. How else would you suggest access to such images was
>>restricted?
>
> And what if many people on here wanted to look at the policies of a
> political party, but plenty of other people decide that they'd rather
> not let them? Would it be equally acceptable to you if opposing
> political views were also restricted?
>
permitted to do such things but that's their business.
Richard Miller
<cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 21:02:01 +0000, Richard Miller
><ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>I've known that album cover since my student days. I don't own that
>>album, but I have several others by the Scorpions. Even back in my
>>student days I thought that picture to be "a bit much". I am astonished
>>that only now is there a fuss about it.
>
>But does your feeling that the image was "a bit much" go as far as
>believing that had you decided to buy the album, you would have been
>guilty of possessing an indecent image of a child and thus ought to
>have been convicted and placed on the sex offenders' register?
Ought? No. But did I think possessing the image might break that
particular law? As a law student aware that the law is not necessarily
rational, yes, I did.
>
>And do you believe that everyone who *did* buy the album has abused
>the child and contributed to the child abuse industry in general?
>
On a scale with Bill Wyman, Gary Glitter and Pete Townshend at one end
and, say, the St Winifred's School Choir at the other (ie an example of
children abusing adults)?
I have no idea of the circumstances in which the picture was taken or
what the individual in question thinks of the image having been used in
this way. Nor do I know what the Scorpions were thinking when they
decided to use the image. So it is a very difficult question to answer,
and I would not automatically answer you with a comprehensive negative.
--
Richard Miller
MM
wrote:
But this picture IS on the internet!
MM
MM
wrote:
>For some reason monochrome photographs are better than colour for
>conveying symbollic ideas, though a very small touch of vivid colour
>on an otherwise black-and-white image can be used to good effect if
>done right.
Schindler's List! Girl in red coat.
MM
Cub Reporter
<gh...@attic.info> wrote:
>The IWF have now "reviewed" their decision and have withdrawn the blocking:
>
>http://www.iwf.org.uk/media/news.251.htm
It's worth noting that this image in Wikipedia received attention
earlier this year in the US:
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=63722
--
Cub Reporter
Alex Heney
<gh...@attic.info> wrote:
>Alex Heney wrote:
>> On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 19:22:25 GMT, "Janitor of Lunacy"
>> <gh...@attic.info> wrote:
>>
>>> sjp wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 18:58:40 GMT, "Janitor of Lunacy"
>>>> <gh...@attic.info> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The IWF have now "reviewed" their decision and have withdrawn the
>>>>> blocking:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.iwf.org.uk/media/news.251.htm
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, all those convicted of posessing similar images will have their
>>>> cases reviewed?
>>>
>>> I doubt it. The IWF have said that they still regard that image as
>>> illegal
>>
>> They have never said they regard that image as illegal, never mind
>> that they "still" do so.
>
>"potentially illegal", then, you fucking boring pedant. What's the
>difference in terms of what they actually did?
>
If they thought it was definitely illegal, they wouldn't have removed
the page from their list, nor said that any further reported instances
of the photo would not be put on their list.
>http://www.iwf.org.uk/media/news.251.htm
>
>or can you not read English?
>
Better than you can write it, it would seem :)
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Bald: follicularly challenged.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
Alex Heney
wrote:
>On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:00:21 +0000, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net>
>wrote:
>
>>>I doubt it. The IWF have said that they still regard that image as illegal
>>
>>They have never said they regard that image as illegal, never mind
>>that they "still" do so.
>
>If they never regarded the image as being illegal, why did they censor
>it?
Because they censor many images reported to them that they think *may*
be illegal.
If they thought it was definitely illegal, they would not have removed
the page from their list.
Graham.
>>
>>>I've known that album cover since my student days. I don't own that
>>>album, but I have several others by the Scorpions. Even back in my
>>>student days I thought that picture to be "a bit much". I am astonished
>>>that only now is there a fuss about it.
>>
>>But does your feeling that the image was "a bit much" go as far as
>>believing that had you decided to buy the album, you would have been
>>guilty of possessing an indecent image of a child and thus ought to
>>have been convicted and placed on the sex offenders' register?
>
> Ought? No. But did I think possessing the image might break that
> particular law? As a law student aware that the law is not necessarily
> rational, yes, I did.
>
>>
>>And do you believe that everyone who *did* buy the album has abused
>>the child and contributed to the child abuse industry in general?
>>
>
> On a scale with Bill Wyman, Gary Glitter and Pete Townshend at one end
> and, say, the St Winifred's School Choir at the other (ie an example of
> children abusing adults)?
>
> I have no idea of the circumstances in which the picture was taken or what
> the individual in question thinks of the image having been used in this
> way. Nor do I know what the Scorpions were thinking when they decided to
> use the image. So it is a very difficult question to answer, and I would
> not automatically answer you with a comprehensive negative.
Apparantly she got a pony (a small horse, not 20GBP) as a fee.
--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%
Janitor of Lunacy
Yeah, we knew about all that. I'm sure you noted how "unbiased" the
reportage is, but then they're not an encyclopedia, with a neutral point of
view, are they? They're journalists, with an obvious axe to grind; and if
they had wanted to highlight "child abuse images", they didn't look deeply
enough. Try less "Cub", less "Reporter", and more facts, please. If this is
part of your media studies course at the University of Budleigh Salterton,
you'll still fail it.
Janitor of Lunacy
Oh, yes I can, and your precis of their response is inaccurate. Their
response is the best of damage limitation as they are prepared to concede,
and given that they maintain the potentially illegal nature of the image,
but removed it from their list because of the "context" and the "effects"
their action has had (see "Streisand Effect"), they have done themselves no
favours whatsoever. If they *really* believed *on principle* that the image
contravenes UK law, they would have stuck to their guns, but they haven't.
They've caved in.
Which makes them not only self-appointed and unaccountable, but also
unprincipled. On that basis, they are no longer credible.
Now, Heney, should you stick to your software, cars, bikes and pinball
machine, things you understand, or poke your nose into complex issues that
are out of your depth? We all have something to contribute to this debate,
but I'd suggest that in future your best contribution here should be some
silence.
IanAl
>> I have no idea of the circumstances in which the picture was taken or what
>> the individual in question thinks of the image having been used in this
>> way. Nor do I know what the Scorpions were thinking when they decided to
>> use the image. So it is a very difficult question to answer, and I would
>> not automatically answer you with a comprehensive negative.
>
>Apparantly she got a pony (a small horse, not 20GBP) as a fee.
Did she ride it bareback?
Cynic
>> I have no idea of the circumstances in which the picture was taken or what
>> the individual in question thinks of the image having been used in this
>> way. Nor do I know what the Scorpions were thinking when they decided to
>> use the image. So it is a very difficult question to answer, and I would
>> not automatically answer you with a comprehensive negative.
>
>Apparantly she got a pony (a small horse, not 20GBP) as a fee.
And she has since been interviewed as an adult, and stated that she
has no regrets whatsoever about posing for that photo.
--
Cynic
Mr X
children) being used for art as long as they agree. I do have a problem
with children being sexually abused and then other people using images of
that abuse for their own sick enjoyment. That means sexual abuse of kids
not some nonsense over a family photo or some other crap that seems to turn
up.
Of course some on here don't believe in sexual abuse of children and others
want to enjoy the images of it.
Cynic
wrote:
>>>They have never said they regard that image as illegal, never mind
>>>that they "still" do so.
>>If they never regarded the image as being illegal, why did they censor
>>it?
>Because they censor many images reported to them that they think *may*
>be illegal.
A minor distinction, given that it is not possible to know for certain
whether *any* image is illegal unless it has been tested in court.
If it is justified to censor every image that *might be* illegal, it
would have to include just about every image of a person who appears
to be under 18.
--
Cynic
Mr X
"Mr X" <inv...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:ghr2d8$hce$1...@frank-exchange-of-views.oucs.ox.ac.uk...
>
> "Cynic" <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:gu22k4tp4ak8h4lj0...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 00:10:15 -0000, "Graham." <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> I have no idea of the circumstances in which the picture was taken or
>>>> what
>>>> the individual in question thinks of the image having been used in this
>>>> way. Nor do I know what the Scorpions were thinking when they decided
>>>> to
>>>> use the image. So it is a very difficult question to answer, and I
>>>> would
>>>> not automatically answer you with a comprehensive negative.
>>>
>>>Apparantly she got a pony (a small horse, not 20GBP) as a fee.
>>
>> And she has since been interviewed as an adult, and stated that she
>> has no regrets whatsoever about posing for that photo.
>>
> Why would she? It was art. I have do problem with naked people
> (including children) being used for art as long as they agree.
Cynic
wrote:
>> And what if many people on here wanted to look at the policies of a
>> political party, but plenty of other people decide that they'd rather
>> not let them? Would it be equally acceptable to you if opposing
>> political views were also restricted?
>>
>No beacuse the two situations are not comparable.
They are *exactly* comparable. It is a question of the authorities
deciding that the citizens should not be permitted to look at or to
know certain things. The justification for censorship is always made
on the grounds that merely looking at something, or having knowlege of
something will cause harm. It is however very rare that such harm can
be objectively demonstrated to be likely.
> In some places it isn't
>permitted to do such things but that's their business.
Whilst it is not your *business* what other countries do, you are
nevertheless permitted, for the moment at least, to express your
personal view as to whether it is right or wrong.
--
Cynic
Cynic
wrote:
>It's worth noting that this image in Wikipedia received attention
>earlier this year in the US:
>http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=63722
A quote from that article:
"The nude album cover is just one of many hard-core pornographic
images displayed on Wikipedia, WND has revealed."
I can see an argument that the photograph might be indecent. But
"hard core pornography"???
I should think the hardcore porn industry could sue the WND for
misrepresentation.
--
Cynic
Mr X
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 18:48:09 -0000, "Mr X" <inv...@invalid.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> And what if many people on here wanted to look at the policies of a
>>> political party, but plenty of other people decide that they'd rather
>>> not let them? Would it be equally acceptable to you if opposing
>>> political views were also restricted?
>>>
>>No beacuse the two situations are not comparable.
>
> They are *exactly* comparable. It is a question of the authorities
> deciding that the citizens should not be permitted to look at or to
> know certain things. The justification for censorship is always made
> on the grounds that merely looking at something, or having knowlege of
> something will cause harm. It is however very rare that such harm can
> be objectively demonstrated to be likely.
>
encourage people to go on to abuse children, perpetuate the abuse through
having a financial motivation to continue to produce such images, disgust
and out rage others at the thought of people getting pleasure from a
depraved act.
None of which can be applied to a polticial site. Except, perhaps, to a
site that promotes terrorism or other forms of 'direct action'.
Francis Burton
Cynic <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> the individual in question thinks of the image having been used in this
>>> way. Nor do I know what the Scorpions were thinking when they decided to
>>> use the image. So it is a very difficult question to answer, and I would
>>> not automatically answer you with a comprehensive negative.
>>
>>Apparantly she got a pony (a small horse, not 20GBP) as a fee.
>
>And she has since been interviewed as an adult, and stated that she
>has no regrets whatsoever about posing for that photo.
Does she still have her pony?
Francis
Cynic
wrote:
>> And she has since been interviewed as an adult, and stated that she
>> has no regrets whatsoever about posing for that photo.
>Why would she? It was art. I have do problem with naked people (including
>children) being used for art as long as they agree. I do have a problem
>with children being sexually abused and then other people using images of
>that abuse for their own sick enjoyment. That means sexual abuse of kids
>not some nonsense over a family photo or some other crap that seems to turn
>up.
>Of course some on here don't believe in sexual abuse of children and others
>want to enjoy the images of it.
The problem, Mr. X, is that the majority of people do not appear to be
capable of distinguishing between art, nudity, family photos and
sexual abuse. And the law does not ban images of child sexual abuse,
it bans images that are considered to be *indecent* regardless of
whether any child was being harmed or not.
People have been convicted for taking photographs of naked children
playing normally on a public beach. People have been convicted for
downloading images of naked children that contained no sexual
overtones whatsoever. A person was even convicted for taking
photographs of children in bikinis at a public swimming pool.
And the IWF still believes that the image that you have just stated
was art is most probably illegal.
You also must realise that if anyone is convicted of possessing an
image similar to the one in question, it will be reported as an image
of a child being sexually abused, because the media has been told that
it should now describe *all* illegal images in those terms.
Meanwhile nobody is permitted to see the images that have been
declared illegal, so there is no way that you or I can judge for
ourselves whether we agree that the image should have been banned.
--
Cynic
Cynic
wrote:
>> They are *exactly* comparable. It is a question of the authorities
>> deciding that the citizens should not be permitted to look at or to
>> know certain things. The justification for censorship is always made
>> on the grounds that merely looking at something, or having knowlege of
>> something will cause harm. It is however very rare that such harm can
>> be objectively demonstrated to be likely.
>>
>And rightly so in the case of child abuse (not naked children). It may well
>encourage people to go on to abuse children, perpetuate the abuse through
>having a financial motivation to continue to produce such images, disgust
>and out rage others at the thought of people getting pleasure from a
>depraved act.
Apart from causing disgust and outrage to some people, you have *zero*
evidence to support your other assertions. And I am sure you would
not want to ban everything that makes some people disgusted?
What about the opposite view, that a person who would otherwise be
likely to abuse a real child may instead satify his urges via
pornography? That would mean that child pornography results in a
*decrease* in child abuse.
>None of which can be applied to a polticial site. Except, perhaps, to a
>site that promotes terrorism or other forms of 'direct action'.
*All* of which could apply equally to many types of image. Images of
violence might encourage people to become violent (e.g. "happy
slapping" videos). A market in violent images (the media pays very
good prices) might cause people to commit violent acts just so that
they can take photographs to sell. There was certainly disgust and
outrage over the decapitation videos.
If we were to ban everything based upon speculation as to what the
images *might* cause, we would have to ban 90% of all news images, and
most Hollywood films.
--
Cynic
xxx
wrote:
>
>Meanwhile nobody is permitted to see the images that have been
>declared illegal, so there is no way that you or I can judge for
>ourselves whether we agree that the image should have been banned.
..and this case is the first time such a 'banned' image has been seen
subsequently by hundreds of thousands of people. And the majority
couldn't see a problem with it which has made a mockery of the IWF
'child abuse images' mantra.
Alex Heney
wrote:
>On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 12:51:49 -0000, "Mr X" <inv...@invalid.com>
>wrote:
>
>>> And she has since been interviewed as an adult, and stated that she
>>> has no regrets whatsoever about posing for that photo.
>
>>Why would she? It was art. I have do problem with naked people (including
>>children) being used for art as long as they agree. I do have a problem
>>with children being sexually abused and then other people using images of
>>that abuse for their own sick enjoyment. That means sexual abuse of kids
>>not some nonsense over a family photo or some other crap that seems to turn
>>up.
>>Of course some on here don't believe in sexual abuse of children and others
>>want to enjoy the images of it.
>
>The problem, Mr. X, is that the majority of people do not appear to be
>capable of distinguishing between art, nudity, family photos and
>sexual abuse.
I do not believe you are correct there.
I think the majority are very well capable of distinguishing.
The issue is not whether the majority can distinguish between such
images, but rather whether juries apply the law correctly when
deciding whether an image is "indecent" or not.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
The brain you have reached is out of order at this time.
Alex Heney
<gh...@attic.info> wrote:
It is completely accurate, as far as it goes.
> Their
>response is the best of damage limitation as they are prepared to concede,
>and given that they maintain the potentially illegal nature of the image,
>but removed it from their list because of the "context" and the "effects"
>their action has had (see "Streisand Effect"), they have done themselves no
>favours whatsoever. If they *really* believed *on principle* that the image
>contravenes UK law, they would have stuck to their guns, but they haven't.
>They've caved in.
Which, as I said, means that "whatever the reasons they gave), they
are by no means sure it would be illegal.
>Which makes them not only self-appointed and unaccountable, but also
>unprincipled. On that basis, they are no longer credible.
Have they ever been?
>
>Now, Heney, should you stick to your software, cars, bikes and pinball
>machine, things you understand, or poke your nose into complex issues that
>are out of your depth?
Neither.
>We all have something to contribute to this debate,
>but I'd suggest that in future your best contribution here should be some
>silence.
>
You can suggest all you like.
Perhaps you could also take your own advice.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I tried to daydream, but my mind kept wandering.
Webmanager_CritEst
> "Cynic" <cynic_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:g932k41kh1oui3piq...@4ax.com...
>
> > On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 18:48:09 -0000, "Mr X" <inva...@invalid.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >>> And what if many people on here wanted to look at the policies of a
> >>> political party, but plenty of other people decide that they'd rather
> >>> not let them? Would it be equally acceptable to you if opposing
> >>> political views were also restricted?
>
> >>No beacuse the two situations are not comparable.
>
> > They are *exactly* comparable. It is a question of the authorities
> > deciding that the citizens should not be permitted to look at or to
> > know certain things. The justification for censorship is always made
> > on the grounds that merely looking at something, or having knowlege of
> > something will cause harm. It is however very rare that such harm can
> > be objectively demonstrated to be likely.
>
> And rightly so in the case of child abuse (not naked children). It may well
> encourage people to go on to abuse children, perpetuate the abuse through
> having a financial motivation to continue to produce such images, disgust
> and out rage others at the thought of people getting pleasure from a
> depraved act.
> None of which can be applied to a polticial site. Except, perhaps, to a
> site that promotes terrorism or other forms of 'direct action'.
There is nothing illegal about getting pleasure from a 'depraved act',
in this context. It is a technical, downloading/possession offence.
You think 'naked images' would not incite rampant penises (or other
parts)?
In my experience, level 1/2 images are much more erotic (even sub-
level 1), than higher level images (levels 5s are mythical, in
comparison to their description, of course), except for the many
examples, where the minors are clearly enjoying the activlty and
participating with gusto - those can be very exciting. Easy taken care
of, with a wank ... just like with any erotic image etc.
Of course, the causality between porn and action is not only not
proven, but, comparing the scale of usage, to hands-on sexual
offending, where porn is implicated, it approaches zero, in relevance.
The evidence does suggest, however, that decriminalising all forms of
porn, would reduce hands-on offending (as it already has).
The remainder of you response is a reflection of your negative
obsession with minor sexuality.
WM
Webmanager_CritEst
>
> news:g932k41kh1oui3piq...@4ax.com...
>
> > On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 18:48:09 -0000, "Mr X" <inva...@invalid.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >>> And what if many people on here wanted to look at the policies of a
> >>> political party, but plenty of other people decide that they'd rather
> >>> not let them? Would it be equally acceptable to you if opposing
> >>> political views were also restricted?
>
> >>No beacuse the two situations are not comparable.
>
> > They are *exactly* comparable. It is a question of the authorities
> > deciding that the citizens should not be permitted to look at or to
> > know certain things. The justification for censorship is always made
> > on the grounds that merely looking at something, or having knowlege of
> > something will cause harm. It is however very rare that such harm can
> > be objectively demonstrated to be likely.
>
> And rightly so in the case of child abuse (not naked children). It may well
> encourage people to go on to abuse children, perpetuate the abuse through
> having a financial motivation to continue to produce such images, disgust
> and out rage others at the thought of people getting pleasure from a
> depraved act.
> None of which can be applied to a polticial site. Except, perhaps, to a
> site that promotes terrorism or other forms of 'direct action'.
There is nothing illegal about getting pleasure from a 'depraved act',
Webmanager_CritEst
Janitor of Lunacy
Correct. To argue otherwise is to condone thought-crime. However, it has to
come from somewhere. The law is supposed to prevent that, but analogy with
prosecuting drug users shows again and again that this approach doesn't
work.
> You think 'naked images' would not incite rampant penises (or other
> parts)?
Not sure what other parts can be "rampant", apart from the hypothalamus,
another important gland in structural arousal; however, such rampancy would
be hard to detect and I am not aware of any studies that have examined its
physiological activity in the context of sexual arousal; I'm sure that they
may be out there, but I'm only aware of the penile plesmythmograph studies,
which make interesting reading. One result found was that otherwise "normal"
college students were highly aroused by child pornography images. Surprised?
Why? And does that frighten you?
> In my experience, level 1/2 images are much more erotic (even sub-
> level 1), than higher level images (levels 5s are mythical, in
> comparison to their description, of course), except for the many
> examples, where the minors are clearly enjoying the activlty and
> participating with gusto - those can be very exciting. Easy taken care
> of, with a wank ... just like with any erotic image etc.
My take is that as explicitness increases, eroticism decreases. I once saw a
quote that went something like "eroticism says 'You can have me', whereas
pronography says 'tough titty, loser, someone else is already having me'".
> Of course, the causality between porn and action is not only not
> proven, but, comparing the scale of usage, to hands-on sexual
> offending, where porn is implicated, it approaches zero, in relevance.
I've always considered the existence of porn as a market response to the
disparity between desire and availability of sex, and a powerful response at
that. On balance, would I rather have a potential rapist masturbating at
home to porn on his DVD player or stalking the streets looking for victims,
or a slightly more sophisticated criminal poking his RoHypNol into any
unguarded drink? You tell me.
> The evidence does suggest, however, that decriminalising all forms of
> porn, would reduce hands-on offending (as it already has).
And did in most of nothern Europe after it was decriminalised in the late
1960s.
> The remainder of you response is a reflection of your negative
> obsession with minor sexuality.
Exactly so.
> WM
MM
wrote:
>On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 15:41:11 +0000, Cynic <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 12:51:49 -0000, "Mr X" <inv...@invalid.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>> And she has since been interviewed as an adult, and stated that she
>>>> has no regrets whatsoever about posing for that photo.
>>
>>>Why would she? It was art. I have do problem with naked people (including
>>>children) being used for art as long as they agree. I do have a problem
>>>with children being sexually abused and then other people using images of
>>>that abuse for their own sick enjoyment. That means sexual abuse of kids
>>>not some nonsense over a family photo or some other crap that seems to turn
>>>up.
>>>Of course some on here don't believe in sexual abuse of children and others
>>>want to enjoy the images of it.
>>
>>The problem, Mr. X, is that the majority of people do not appear to be
>>capable of distinguishing between art, nudity, family photos and
>>sexual abuse.
>
>I do not believe you are correct there.
>
>I think the majority are very well capable of distinguishing.
Between what and what?
MM
MM
Supposing Channel 4 (of Brass Eye infamy) made a documentary using
penile plesmythmograph studies to check a large, random sample of
British men from the ages of 16 to 70, what kind of results do you
suppose they would produce, using so-called level 1 images?
How would the authorities handle (!) such findings if there was a
significant minority of positives (or even a MAJority)?
MM
Cynic
wrote:
>>The problem, Mr. X, is that the majority of people do not appear to be
>>capable of distinguishing between art, nudity, family photos and
>>sexual abuse.
>
>I do not believe you are correct there.
>
>I think the majority are very well capable of distinguishing.
>
>The issue is not whether the majority can distinguish between such
>images, but rather whether juries apply the law correctly when
>deciding whether an image is "indecent" or not.
If juries were able to distinguish between the categories I mentioned
correctly, then they would be able to apply the law correctly as well.
--
Cynic
Alex Heney
wrote:
They certainly *could*.
But that doesn't mean they *would*.
It is quite clear from a number of cases, that juries simply do NOT
decide whether a specific image is inherently indecent, but rather
take context into account, including in particular the context in
which the images were found.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
None of you exist, my Sysop types all this in.