Comments:British ISPs restrict access to Wikipedia amid child pornography allegations

Valid Concerns
Should a so-called "encyclopaedia" with a page like this:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Naked_children

really be allowed full access to our children's minds? Our governments have the right- and DUTY- to track down sex offenders who threaten our youth- and remove them. If the government is too lax, we can take matters into our own hands. I think we have all heard plenty of stories about the deviancy that runs rampant amidst the so called "ADMINS"- whose ranks are openly acceptant of pederasts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_userbox_wheel_war#Wikipedia_is_open_to_all

I praise the British government for being so forward thinking. Websites that attempt to insinuate deviant agendas into helpless minds are as much an enemy as terrorists. Treat them as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.40.27 (talk) 05:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, not that wheel war again. It was a fine example of nonsense that arose from multiple people disagreeing, all of which had valid points, but when combined resulted in a fight. Jimbo had to step in and all that, I think. Rickyrab (talk) 08:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, IWF. You and your shitty thinking. Incidentally, 24.61.40.27, you must have the brain of a 2-year-old if you seriously think that. Valid concerns my ass, USE YOUR COMMON SENSE. Oh screw it, I'll say it; you have none and you're a total idiot for thinking you do. 124.188.171.7 23:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Multiculturalism
Hessian -- metalhead, headbanger, metalfan -- culture is a subculture in a realm of multiple cultures (multiculturalism).

Part of our culture is enjoying the death of sacred cows, whether nudity of teen girls or holiness of God.

Basically, banning this picture is intolerance of our culture, and reveals a significant Judeo-Christian bias, even if secular. Prozak (talk) 03:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Who's culture, as the West was built on Christianity, else it would have stayed in the banding rebel, eras. It took the Vikings to convert to Christianity,and others to, to make Europe the biggest success in history. Also there is no such thing and a Jedeo Christian as they are both naturally opposed to each other. Jesus would be totally against Israel today. The third temple is prophesied to come from him when he returns, not Ashkenazis and real Jews building one in the mean time with (deceived) so called Christian monies. Personally I think the picture is Porn, even though it maybe linked to 70's culture. It's still inappropriate.  I also am against internet suppression. Wikipedia should take it down in good taste, or place into a sensible area.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.215.14 (talk) 00:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Just mindlessly exercising power
The IWF just want to exercise their power. Wikipedia gets a lot of Google hits, so they target it. You don't see them focusing on real child porn sites, or the sites selling the album, such as Amazon and eBay, only on Wikipedia. Because they want to show that they have power. Dendodge (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's completely idiotic, nobody there seems to realise that it isn't intended as child porn, just only that it is on WP following the guidelines, to make the subject more recognisable etc. Stwalkerster (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have nothing against fighting child porn, but there is a difference between child porn and an academic discussion of child porn (and the controversy surrounding possible cases of it), which is what the article in question (and the picture) is about. So censoring this page is just lunacy. Gopher65talk 20:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Although it seems funny they go after such a (normally) non-issue image and not something a lot more obvious such as w:Image:Namibie Himba 0707a.jpg or w:Image:Kids skinny dipping in India.jpg. TheFearow (userpage) 22:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I personally feel someone who doesn't truly understand what Wikipedia is about saw the picture and complained about it. I can wager that if they took the time to read the article(s) with the picture(s) in them, they would have understood why it's there rather than ruining everything for their neighbors by complaining and getting the whole Wiki on an embargo. -Jéské Couriano (talk) 22:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The other pictures you linked to are fine, because they're of naked boys.  The moral scolds behind this action couldn't care less about naked boys - it's topless girls they go crazy over.24.42.71.182 16:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I wonder what they'd say if you sent a link to all the UK legislators/people in government pictures of the naked boys, since they'd be disobeying their own laws (it doesn't say anything about the gender of the children...) once it downloads the picture (even though they didn't know about it, their careers could be destroyed by a stupid law that doesn't take academic discussions into consideration...). I don't care to find their email addresses, or I might do that (unless it's against the law to force someone else into breaking the law... but this is all hypothetical, since I don't care to find their email addresses). Or you could save it to a different site, so they wouldn't have blocked it due to it being from Wikipedia...

I think it might be an accident. Although I could be applying Hanlon's razor too liberally. Stifle (talk) 22:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * An accident? You mean, accident that they're creating a firewall? If that - unlikely. IceUnshattered (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The "firewall" existed for a long time before this. Someone just happens to have added a high profile edge case to it. the wub "?!"  23:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh...-frown- IceUnshattered (talk) 23:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * By "accident I assume you mean they didn't expect to get this response from their actions. Censorship only works when you have subjugated the people or the people are unaware of the censorship taking place.  This is probably why you get redirected to a fake 404 page instead of a message saying the content you are trying to view is illegal and has been blocked.-Lotu (talk) 21:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

This makes me feel very uncomfortable about living in the UK. Freedom from censorship is one of the most basic rights of a free society, and it looks like even that is a moving target now. Arresting MP's for telling the truth and now blocking Wikipedia (whether as an unintentional side-effect of another policy or not, it does not matter). This government needs to get the priorities straight, or we'll soon find ourselves living in the "United People's Republic of Britain". 62.30.249.131 00:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I personally do not think pornography in any form, much less child pornography, is a good thing. But this is simply an unbelievably outrageous action. I only hope that this causes enough waves to get them to stop being fucking morons. J.delanoy (talk) 02:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with J.delanoy, porn is bad (that sounds cliche). However, this is obviously not porn. It's a nude girl with her genitals covered, not a girl having sex. Plus, it's a fucking cover of a fucking CD. It's not porn. The IWF is a group of oblivious morons. DavidWS (talk) 14:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The pose is a pose which if it were in another context might be consider sexual if the individual were an adult. Indeed, a fully clothed adult in that posed might even come across as sexual. I don't think this is child porn but that decision isn't necessarily so clear cut. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if the pose is sexual, all it cares about is female breasts and beavers. If it cared about the kids, it would also censor dicks, but it's not, it's about preventing criminals, who can easily get around it (ever heard of an encrypted proxy? You can't tell what is going through there, or even where it started). I don't like the idea of government firewalls, because those could very easily turn into censors (ever heard of the Great Firewall of China?). The UK government could easily use firewalls to illegally catch criminals, or change their laws to catch them legally, but I do not believe that it's bad enough of a crime to prevent everyone from downloading the pictures (I'm thinking about the people who are doing it for research, however twisted that research might be... their hypothesis might be that child porn is better than the alternative, who knows?). "Those who trade freedom for security deserve neither." -someone famous. This censorship could easily escalate so you can't even see blood or violence 'to make sure the UK doesn't create any murderers' (which would probably create more murderers) It's a lot easier for them to adapt a law or make one that's similar than it is for them to make a law, so they are past their hardest step to escalate the censorship. (Self censored because I'd probably get flamed by those who don't deserve any respect and feel like being nice to those that might deserve respect).

No, they should not.
First I would say they should not do this. But if we have come to this (and it is just the thin end of the wedge) I do not want my ISP sending me fake "this page does not exist" pages, which is what it appears Virgin are currently doing, and that I consider very underhand and insulting. At the very least they should provide me with a message to tell me why they are not letting me see the page, and perhaps even supply a link I can use to get around it.

I'm accessing Wikipedia through PlusNet and it is going EXTREMELY slowly - presumably as a result of this! 212.159.3.234 00:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to edit various wikimedia projects using PlusNet and it's extremely slow! 212.159.3.234 00:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is the simple answer, however, I am waiting on them to censor eBay and Amazon, maybe that will attract some real attention to the matter, and get some responses from them. This isn't right.Daedalus969 (talk) 02:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That would bring a lot more public exposure especially because it would show how stupid what they are trying to do is. Because amazon and ebay have more complex pages than wikipedia, it would require more fine grained filtering to actually block this image.  Furthermore, many people access amazon and ebay through https which the ISP cannot intercept and block, unless they want to try a man in the middle attack.-Lotu (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * These jackasses can't filter the image out of a Wikipedia page without also nuking the text. Retards should be blown off the net and consigned to the ever-increasing pile of stupid ideas that people come up with, "for the children". --Brian McNeil / talk 21:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

the omnipresent nonce police
i wonder if they found the Nirvana Nevermind album yet. or the Phan Thị Kim Phúc article. 98.216.168.196 02:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps they forgot the very definition of pornography. These are certainly artistic, and not then considerable as pornography. Oh well.


 * In the case of Phan Thi Kim Phuc, that was more of a historical document than art. That picture appeared in newspapers (and magazines) as an example of the horror of the Vietnam War. Also famous was the Vietnam prisoner being executed by a casual gunshot to the head. Both were very shocking, and may have helped to galvanize the antiwar movement. Rickyrab (talk) 09:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

At least it's out in the open
Since they can do this it's a good thing in my view that enough people get to see how it will affect them in the future and to get heard on whether they should do this sort of thing or not. Too many people assume that because they don't surf for porn it doesn't affect them. 81.178.81.118 10:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Sign up to the ISP boycott
I've created a PledgeBank pledge "I will move to an ISP that does not censor my Internet access but only if 1,000 other people in the UK will do the same.": [sign here] 84.234.24.232 10:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Rather than that, does anyone have a list of non-IWF ISPs? 81.178.81.118 12:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been looking for one for most of the morning -- it seems there are plenty of lists of those who do, but not a lot of information on those who don't. I especially like how my ISP is currently routing me through a transparent proxy as I write this, and thusly my static IP address (as a logged out user) is not displayed here. Time to move, I think. HawkeVIPER (talk) 11:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Demon doesn't block it for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.49.54.43 (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Really? Demon's blocking my access to the image page, producing a 403 and a description of IWF's idiocy. And I'm well pissed off about it, having listened to a thick, fat IWF fuck comprehensively fail to justify his right to decide what I can see.
 * Seems to me that this action, coming as it does at a time when Australians are also about to be subjected to unprecedented censorship, may be our last chance to resist before the UK Internet gets a PG certificate. --Cdavis999 (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Censorship sucks!
I just remembered this cartoon in which a penguin carries a banner saying censorship sucks!! I think nobody has the right to practice censorship on anything.--Mustafaahmedhussien (talk) 10:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

No it is not appropriate for the ISPs to restrict access. This picture is no different to the photography that was on show at a gallery in the NE recently. To call it child porn is nonsense and to censor your customers because you think you know best is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.138.219.131 (talk) 13:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Is it necessary to post the album cover?
The photo on the album cover clearly violates the social norm. Wikipedia is showing poor taste in reproducing the photo.

Wikipedia can resolve the situation simply by taking the offending photo off of it site.

As for censorship issues, I think Wikipedia is just the wrong place for this type of content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tweet (talk • contribs) 13:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The article in question is about the controversy surrounding the release of the album due to its cover image. As long as the image remains legal (and it IS legal, since no one has been charged or prosecuted for buying or processing the album in question), then it deserves to remain on the page. Gopher65talk 13:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I would argue it's now essential to retain the image; it's notable in the context of the current censorship. I don't like the image, but I am glad of the opportunity to have made up my own mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.167.221.131 (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, removing the image just hides the censorship more, which is not what Wikipedia should do (they won't censor for China, they shouldn't for the UK!).

NO NONO
Censorship is totally unacceptable in all its forms. The image is bad taste but it happened, its image that was printed and in history. Theres nothing overtly sexual about the image, its just nudity. Since when does nudity = porn automatically.

Child porn is bad but censorship is not the solution. People who are involved with child porn know what they are doing they go to great lengths to keep themselves hidden. Blocking an image which in my mind isnt even child porn does nothing but bring us one step closer to the police state. Who says what is wrong? Who decides what i can and cannot see?

I am outraged the my ISP would even consider filtering my internet, i feel like i'm in china or something. Wikipedia should not censor itself because of some misguided zeal. The internet is a place of free exchange of information. No one decides what i can and cannot see.

I can see the IWF was made with good intentions but censoring only leads down a road i wish i would never see. pedophiles need to be dealt with properly and images of abuse need to be removed but this is totally unacceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.167.221.3 (talk) 15:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That's your opinion, and you're welcome to express it, but it's not the way the law sees it. We have to abide by the law and we can't complain if ISPs act in accordance with the law. 212.159.3.234 17:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * We especially can't complain about that if we are in China, at least not safely. So what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.13.160 (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think the law actually requires ISPs to block child porn. This is a voluntary action on their part.-Lotu (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Image of Virgin Killer
I am sorry but the image is offensive. —201.79.141.143 16:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that doesn't make it child porn. A lot of people find kissing men and most people find excrements offensive, yet you don't censor their pictures from an encyclopedia, do you?
 * I accept your apology, but I do not find the image offensive. There. All done. --89.167.221.131 21:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Neither do I. Seems to me that an image of a prepubescent girl should not have a sexual component or aspect in non-pathological individuals. It's just a picture of a pretty child, and no more intrinsically 'offensive' than a picture of a pretty kitten.
 * Perhaps the offence in in the eye of the beholder. The possible response of paedophiles has no more right to influence the rights of the rest of us to see such a thing that the possible response of foot-fetishists should dictate picture of shoes. --Cdavis999 (talk) 23:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Better block amazon.com, too! They sell this album and have the naughty images. Won't somebody please think of the children? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.210.63.2 (talk) 20:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * They're thinking of doing that next ... > http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/dec/08/amazon-internet-censorship-iwf - 79.79.215.179 18:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Amazon have already removed the image from both the .co.uk and .com sites. I guess they don't feel they have anything to prove. Throwaway (talk) 04:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Offensive or not, porn or not, to me that's not the issue. I don't think Wikipedia should put someone (me) in the position of unintentionally downloading images that someone somewhere might construe as kiddie porn. I see an article about Britain banning something on Wikipedia, so I click on it. I certainly don't expect to end up with an image of a topless child - an image that could end up on my computer hidden away somewhere by Internet Explorer. I'm not only NOT viewing the image as pornographic, I'm clicking to get away as fast as I can, due to commercials declaring how those who download child pornography are going to jail.

So I think Wikipedia, Amazon, and or anyone else is totally irresponsible putting people in such a position. There should be warnings, so that those of us who choose to live within the boundaries of acceptable behavior have no need to worry.

Saraalan (talk) 05:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * So let me get this straight: Whenever ANYONE in the
 * world interprets ANYTHING offensive into ANY picture,
 * Wikipedia should remove it? Contrary to your opinion,
 * I think that you should rather ask your governmental
 * representative on what the "boundaries of acceptable
 * behaviour" should be in our modern society as opposed
 * to the notion that "all child nudity is EVIL!!1!". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.195.76.2 (talk) 14:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Stop the Censorship Infrastructure
the rerouting of most UK traffic through 6 servers for organized censorship in the UK is the real scandal. Is this just a trial case for an infrastructure which is made for "exceptional circumstances" probably to be expected when the recession becomes a depression and people are back on the street? this must be stopped at the outset.

Definitely not
This is not only censorship, but stupid censorship at that.

And to all of you who think the image is offensive. Folks, please. Either it is child pornography according to the law (then the law has a big problem!) or it is not. Whether this image is offensive to *you* is completely irrelevant to the legal status.

An image of Tony Blair is offensive to me. Should I advocate censoring those?

-- tomás —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.214.209.191 (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think it is. Assuming there are only two questionable instances, they have obviously gone overboard. Assuming they didn't notify Wikimedia, they are unfriendly at the least. Regardless though, this is a problem that should be regulated at the personal computer side, and a dissemination of information of the consequences of viewing child pornography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.111.25 (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it's censorship
http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/5372397/ --Histo (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts
The image is clearly in bad taste. But that's no reason to delete it. As stated above, the image is used to demonstrate the controversy. It's not porn, because porn is meant to titillate; this image is meant to arouse intellectual discussion. -- Poe Joe (talk) 21:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't agree. I think it's designed to illustrate the title of the album with the only age remaining that's even plausibly a virgin (for the 1970s; now, it would have to be a nine year old). They wanted a picture of naked innocence and they got it. However, your point stands because it is not meant to titillate and I think the Nanny State shouldn't be censoring it -- no matter how much I hate wikipedia for your pathological persecution and exclusion of the net's oldest metal sites so your wannabe-blackmetal editors can post their own pointless bloviation. Prozak (talk) 02:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocking child pornography is legal
Blocking child pornography is legal and should be done more often and not less. Wikipedia deserves the response by the ISPs for not removing the content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.153.84 (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If you're ready for an arbitrarily appointed bunch like the IWF to decide for you what 'child pornography' is, and what you may or may not see, you should probably not have an opinion. --Cdavis999 (talk) 23:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

What the IWF have done is criminal. They are censoring the internet and it has to stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.79.12 (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

No.
What the British ISPs are doing is pure nanny state fascism. I don't agree with child porn (it should stay illegal), but what they are blocking is NOT child porn.{ QUOTE:'''The image is clearly in bad taste. But that's no reason to delete it. As stated above, the image is used to demonstrate the controversy. It's not porn, because porn is meant to titillate; this image is meant to arouse intellectual discussion. -- Poe Joe (talk) 21:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)'''

3 Workarounds, plus Wikinews IP block workaround
There are 3 easy workarounds to view any Wikipedia page that is blocked. 1. login to Wikipedia using the secure server link (best method) 2. Google cache e.g. (older version) 3. Enable popups in Wikipedia and then hover over the link (only small preview available)

oh, the irony here... to create this message, my IP was blocked by wikinews (my first time here on wikinews). The system blocked a creation of an account from this IP, so....as workaround.. A) click on the secure server link, and create an account that way —Widefox (talk) 01:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm and what was your IP? We might be able to fix that...if you like. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 01:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * well of course, now it is on of the 6 proxies! We really must fight this change. :) —Widefox (talk) 01:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyone else in the UK getting the same issue as Widefox? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 01:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Also if you don't mind, what is your ISP? We are trying to determine if WN was filtered... DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 01:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to be - I'm getting a transparent proxy public IP address when posting here anonymously (89.167.221.131). My Be connection has a static IP address (78.86.113.218). HawkeVIPER (talk) 11:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Virgin. My IP according to WN is 62.30.249.131 which is not my IP, so is a proxy, so yes they are filtering WN too. looks like WN has changed its block - account creation now possible from this IP —Widefox (talk) 08:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Another Hypocritical attack on new media.
This is a pattern we are seeing more and more. Basically anything on a computer is seen as fair game to the censorship brigade, it's held to different standards. They would never dare to try and ban a book featuring that image, or send the police to seize copies of the album from record stores, but the internet is seen as fair game. This is exactly the same double standards that sees violent blockbuster movies like Casino Royale universally praised (rightly) as artistic brilliance while video games get universally branded as degenerate and mindless. If the kind of people behind this censorship had their way, they would ban books and movies and have people dragged from the street for even talking about it. The only reason they don't is because they would never get away with it, people need to open their eyes and do something about these puritan freaks before it is too late.

This action is totally extra legal, the IWF is not an official body, they are vigilantes and should not be tolerated. If they had to get permission from the courts before doing something like this they would be bounced all the way to the moon by even the most sympathetic judge, and they know it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.167.74 (talk) 04:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

You can just use it to make money
The Scorpions could use it on a cover, the editor of the album could publish it worldwide, Google can display it with ads on the side, Amazon can sell the album showing the cover...

BUT wikipedia, wich is a free site, and a real public service cant.

Why?

Because censorship enables stupidity to rule the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.54.118.222 (talk) 05:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

its a 1976 album, the girl would be about 40 now!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.166.20.212 (talk) 07:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Scorpions album cover
I'm a huge wiki fan, but was apalled that some of the community objected to the removal of this degrading image. It disturbs me that the image is considered appropriate in the first place. Even the band members themselves are embarassed about the image (replaced by an image of the band subsequently). Wikipedia get a grip
 * And we all know that that is NOT the point here. HawkeVIPER (talk) 11:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

This has profound implications for Internet freedom
For a very measured analysis of the implications of this move for the wider notion of internet freedom see Welcome to Great (Firewall) Britain by Glyn Moody.

Child pornography is an abomination, but the case highlights just how vulnerable the Internet is to censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.168.139.210 (talk) 12:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Detecting Censorship
How many other sites are affected by this? This is the first I've heard of a site being blocked by the IWF, which isn't surprising considering that they are an unelected, unaccountable body with zero transparency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heliax (talk • contribs) 13:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hadrian's Firewall
Hadrian's Firewall is the United Kingdoms equivalent of the Great Firewall of China.

http://hadriansfirewall.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.28.17.64 (talk) 14:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there legal redress, in the UK, for being blocked from accessing a web page? Does this breach the contract a user has with the ISP. The Internet Watch Foundation's legal status needs to be challenged. If this is what the IWF are 'censoring' then Led Zeppelin's Houses of the Holy and Nirvana's Nevermind almbum covers will also be censored. I hope that Wikipedia challenges this immediately —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.144.250.196 (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The prospect of the web being policed by the british tabloids kneekerk morality is frightening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.33.242 (talk) 14:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Nudity = Porn? What a joke!
I suppose if my naked 6-year old daughter appears in a family video, that would make it a porn movie? And I'm being a pervert when I'm changing my younger daughter's diapers? If this absurd view of nudity or children is "normal" then I guess I'm a complete freak because I'm certainly not getting a boner when looking at my family videos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.24.232 (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

- I cant see what all the fuss is about either. The picture is part of a a long tradition of nude representations of children that are about innocence, not titillation - going back to Rubens cherubs and medieval representation if you like. Its time to start to challenge this neopuritanism - we cant allow these bigots to take power. 86.138.141.74 00:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Unacceptable
Absolutely unacceptable. First of all, the album cover can be found on thousands of web sites across the internet which are not blocked. Furthermore, it is debatable whether or not the image goes too far. Personally I think it's on the edge, but not over it. In addition to that, it is the image that is in question, not the article itself. So why should that be blocked. And last but not least, if they absolutely must censor this kind of stuff using proxies, then at least implement them correctly. There's no reason why such proxies couldn't add a simple header to their requests. ColinHelvensteijn (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we can report their blacklist as obscene content hosted in the UK? I find censorship to be repugnant and offensive to my moral principals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.110.193.88 (talk) 22:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

midage is here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.21.203.27 (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

V for Vendetta
It's happening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.183.53 (talk) 00:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thus spake Anonymous. 204.52.215.107 08:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Is not this more about blocking Wikipedia?
Since the pictures are found on very big commercial sites it appears that this is more about blocking Wikipedia. I suggest that commercial sites should be blocked first if anything should be blocked. Otherwise it will look like if those who really want to distribute child porn puts up something commercial then it is ok. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.151.87 (talk) 00:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The IWF is considering going after Amazon next, as pointed above. According to them, the main complaint was about Wikipedia, not Amazon or Google or any other sites. -Jéské Couriano (talk) 00:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Amazon have already removed the image. Throwaway (talk) 04:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this censorship is disgusting. The excuse was that is was a "potentially illegal" image. Surely a civilised society can't go around playing police until something has been proved illegal. And clearly the album cover is not a picture depicting child abuse. It's simply a naked body. And furthermore any body parts that some may find offensive are covered up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.80.219 (talk) 02:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

If we want our Internet content filtered then we'll sign up for a service that will do that for us. We are not children that need nannying. We do not been thought police. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.70.240.227 (talk) 14:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Scorpion Virgin Killer Original Artwork
For Art's Sake... As Usual, People with Hate in there heart's, Point Fingers and try to make ordinary People bend to there Doctrines. I guess there a part of the PMRC (Ex members). Is It Pornographic, did the girl suffer, or suffered since? No.. The Lady In question Is German, which posibly means Less Prudish.

Next They will want to take you to court, because You put a Picture of Your Child in the Swimming Pool.

Also if there that bothered about Child Pornography & paedophiles. Make the Registers Public. There Should be No annominetee for Such SICK individuals

We Also Want An International Register.

Bob Bankier

Recall, the hermes birkin handbagreally should work with your current sizing, definitely not versus the item. Should you be petite, opt for 25cm or 30cm Birkin. If you are full-figured or maybe extra tall, 35cm and also hermes birkin 25cm 30cm would probably glimpse most effective. Haut The Courries which happens to be marginally older using shorter shoulder straps is usually called Birkin and extremely good for journeying apply.