http://www.guardian.co.uk/tech ... n-internet-censorship-iwf
(I just thought that you couldn't change thread titles).
(I just thought that you couldn't change thread titles).
Welcome to the People's Republic of the USSK
Not really sure what to make of this TBH.
Well, it isn't a good thing, is it? Where do you honestly think all these thousands of laws, rules, regulations and loss of rights are leading? It isn't like society is moving away from a totalitarian/police state is it?
And the USSK is only a bit part in the EUSSR...
Wait a second, shouldn't theregister.co.uk be prosecuted also? They took screen shots of the alleged child abuse video, and therefore they posses them and have intent to distribute. Since browser cache images, then simply having that image in your cache makes you in possesion of it. Therefore, by their standards, simply viewing an image, whether on purpose or inadvertant is illegal. If some website gets hacked, and a child porn image is uploaded, and you happen to see it, then it should be illegal according to them, right?
There are positive upsides, however I'm too tired to bother thinking about another heavy subject at this time in the evening.
Argh this country is turning commie. All go to borris johnsons house
Speaking of the EU, there was a 85% vote against the 3 strikes and you're off the Internet law, but the French Dictator still pushed it through the EU rule book, the problem is no one has stood up to him and given him a good kicking, they are going to wait until the next dictator takes power of the EU in January to appeal the law.
Speaking of bullies... http://bastardoldholborn.blogs ... 2/let-bullying-begin.html ... just beggars believe, they aren't even bothering to hide the fact they are bullying authoritarians who will just give the Irish another referendum until they vote yes...
Didn't the IWF only block a single Wiki page - and therefore should only block a single Amazon page? Or just ask kindly to remove the image? Anyway, why is all this only happening today? Is something else going on that they don't want us to know about?
Blown out of proportion, methinks.
But then again, what's wrong with removing any kind of child abuse from the Internet? You can't really argue that it should stay, even if it is "artistic".
Blown out of proportion, methinks.
But then again, what's wrong with removing any kind of child abuse from the Internet? You can't really argue that it should stay, even if it is "artistic".
It makes me sad to watch this happen, as the Americans went through this and independence lost to Unification.
Please explain how the image is "child abuse"?
The image is not unlawful (AFAIK, IANAL etc but knowing this Govt then it probably is, along with cartoon porn http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7770781.stm). If the IWF (a EU funded unelected body) thought it to be illegal then they should contact HM Constabulary. However given it was hosted in the US they have no jurisdiction over it.
It sets a dangerous precedent - I mean, who cares if only a 70s album cover is censored?
Ask me that in a few years time when much more is censored...
Wheres my guarenteed job then?
Still, child porn is bad, but seems like the censorship machines have gone a bit mad, or they're too general and don't look at exceptions such as this one.
The thing is, legally speaking, everyone who owns said album is in possession of child porn. So does that now mean there is going to be an amnesties where people can hind them all in?
Does that mean baby photo albums are also illegal, as most involve a naked child in the bath?
I don't see the image really as needing to be sensored as such, but I don't think it's appropriate.. I'd rather NOT see it.
Even if you're under 18, it's still illegal to possess child porn. Which makes me wonder. If you are under 18, and take a naked picture of yourself, then according to law, you are then in possession of child porn.
Or the ultimate conundrum for you, the legal age for sexy time in Blighty is 16, but for a model to get her nude on she has to be 18, which means back when I was a wee lad (~19-20) and my girlfriend was 17 I was in possession of child porn.
And if I could be bothered to find the old HDD and recover the images, one could say I still am. QUICK CALL THE FUZZ!
They were already guilty of owning a Scorpions record. I'd rather people knew I had kiddie porn, personally.
Has that law changed semi-recently? I remember a few years back The Sun was running a countdown to a girl's 16th birthday and they put her tits on page 3 as soon as she was 16.
They're classy at The Sun.
Unless I have got my wires crossed somewhere, I thought it was 18. If it was 16 then yay, I didn't own kiddie porn.
Wow, sound like the sort of people one would enjoy the company of when having a cut of tea with HRH.
I think theres a limit for nudity anyway. Most girls are actually not bothered about showing skin if it's modellings, hell some parents even force their children into it.
In the U.S., you are.
There have at least been 2 cases. One was a girl who took a sexy pic of herself and mailed it to friends. The other was a couple who filmed themselves while making love, and then she mailed the movie to her lover. All persons were under 18, and were found guilty of possessing child porn. The lawmakers never thought there could be kids making pictures of themselves, and the judges wouldn't or couldn't dismiss the case as being totally ridiculous.
Maybe they can use this image instead of the original cover:
http://i37.tinypic.com/2hxaia0.jpg
http://i37.tinypic.com/2hxaia0.jpg
Na, the tittie are still visible.
FWIW Browser Cache isn't classed as your possession - BritChan have an article about this on their site.
just wait until they see nirvanas "come as you are" album, they'll shut down the ****ing tubes!
1
2
Welcome to the People's Republic of the USSK
(28 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG