On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 6:19 PM, Phil Nash <[email protected]>wrote:
> [...] context does not appear to have contributed > to their original decision. Based on their description of the process, it almost surely wasn't. > One wonders how many similar cases there have > been in the last twelve years of their existence. I can't even think of any similar cases in existence. Educational sites tend not to include child porn. > I instinctively dislike > prior restraint, although this is not such a case, but I am even more > opposed to restraint long after the cat is out of the bag, as it were. All > in all, I perceive this as having done the IWF no favours, which, sadly, > dilutes the good work that they may do- although, of course, being totally > unaccountable, we have only their word for that. If they don't do a good job, the ISPs can stop using them. On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 6:19 PM, Thomas Dalton <[email protected]>wrote: > > The IWF said that contextual issues are important in the decision of > whether > > or not they will keep the webpage on their list. They specifically > > reiterated that they still consider the image to be potentially illegal. > > You expected them to actually admit to having made a mistake? I don't think their designation of the image was a mistake. Maybe the blocking of the image was (it's a pragmatic question which I'm not in as good a position to answer as they are), but that was something they did admit was a mistake. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
