Re: [Wikimediauk-l] UK censorship: I'm on BBC Radio 4 Today show tomorrow 8:20am (and then IWF backs down on Wiki censorship)
Excellent news! Theresa On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 11:17 PM, Gordon Joly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 22:17 + 9/12/08, Gordon Joly wrote: >>IWF backs down on Wiki censorship >> >>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7774102.stm > > http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/IWF_reverses_censorship_of_Wikipedia?curid=117966 > > -- > "Think Feynman"/ > http://pobox.com/~gordo/ > [EMAIL PROTECTED]/// > > ___ > Wikimedia UK mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK > http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l > -- http://theresaknott.googlepages.com/home http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Theresa_knott ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] UK censorship: I'm on BBC Radio 4 Today show tomorrow 8:20am (and then IWF backs down on Wiki censorship)
At 22:17 + 9/12/08, Gordon Joly wrote: >IWF backs down on Wiki censorship > >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7774102.stm http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/IWF_reverses_censorship_of_Wikipedia?curid=117966 -- "Think Feynman"/ http://pobox.com/~gordo/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]/// ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] UK censorship: I'm on BBC Radio 4 Today show tomorrow 8:20am (and then IWF backs down on Wiki censorship)
IWF backs down on Wiki censorship http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7774102.stm -- "Think Feynman"/ http://pobox.com/~gordo/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]/// ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] UK censorship: I'm on BBC Radio 4 Today show tomorrow 8:20am
2008/12/8 Alison Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Mon, December 8, 2008 18:35, jonathan cardy wrote: >> Amazon don't seem to have the image up - I've just searched for scorpion >> killers and got half a dozen hits, a couple with a photo of the band and >> the rest with "no image available". > > They deleted the three 'user supplied' copies around half past five, > however http://myqurl.com/KcdjM still has an official (ie Amazon-loaded) > copy. Amazon.com currently has the surreal situation where if you search for "virgin killer" in CDs, the third hit has a thumbnail of what's clearly the same cover. As soon as you load the page, though, it changes to "no image available..." -- - Andrew Gray [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] UK censorship: I'm on BBC Radio 4 Today show tomorrow 8:20am
On Mon, December 8, 2008 18:35, jonathan cardy wrote: > Amazon don't seem to have the image up - I've just searched for scorpion > killers and got half a dozen hits, a couple with a photo of the band and > the rest with "no image available". They deleted the three 'user supplied' copies around half past five, however http://myqurl.com/KcdjM still has an official (ie Amazon-loaded) copy. > Would be better off replacing the photo of a naked 10 year old girl with > the image of the band? The alternate image is also on the article page, but if you now decide to accept the principle of censorship by deleting this particular (non-banned, not illegal anywhere) image then how would you justify keeping, for example, the Mohammed pbhn images? Alison ps. Cartoon from Channel 4: http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/society/isp+killer+by+hack/2876012 ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] UK censorship: I'm on BBC Radio 4 Today show tomorrow 8:20am
I agree that David did well, but I wonder whether we are fighting the right battle. I wouldn't want to defend that image as being nude but not erotic. Amazon don't seem to have the image up - I've just searched for scorpion killers and got half a dozen hits, a couple with a photo of the band and the rest with "no image available". See: http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_ss_m_h_?url=search-alias%3Dpopular&field-keywords=scorpions+killers&x=15&y=16 Would be better off replacing the photo of a naked 10 year old girl with the image of the band? Regards Jonathan Cardy [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- On Mon, 8/12/08, joseph seddon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: joseph seddon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] UK censorship: I'm on BBC Radio 4 Today show > tomorrow 8:20am > To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Date: Monday, 8 December, 2008, 5:53 PM > Can I just say something, having just listened to the > recording, i think David did > a damn good job of holding his ground in the interview, and > I was plesently suprised > how sympathetic to our cause the interviewee seemed. Good > on ya dave :)> Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 17:48:49 +> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: > wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: Re: > [Wikimediauk-l] UK censorship: I'm on BBC Radio 4 Today > show tomorrow 8:20am> > > You are, of course, > right.> > That doesn't change, however, that this > image is not illegal to view, it's> > merely in a > greyer legal area of "might be illegal". Which > does nothing to> > change the IWF's shameful > overreach in blocking the article as well as the> > > image — and in doing such a cack-handed job of either. > :o)> > If hasn't been proven in a court of law not > to be illegal to view.> However, it is not illegal to > view simply because the image is not> sexual as is plain > to any reasonable person. So, as you say, the IWF> has > gone overboard in blocking it.> > ___> > Wikimedia UK mailing list> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK> > http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l > _ > Imagine a life without walls. See the possibilities. > http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/122465943/direct/01/___ > Wikimedia UK mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK > http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] UK censorship: I'm on BBC Radio 4 Today show tomorrow 8:20am
Can I just say something, having just listened to the recording, i think David did a damn good job of holding his ground in the interview, and I was plesently suprised how sympathetic to our cause the interviewee seemed. Good on ya dave :)> Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 17:48:49 +> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] UK censorship: I'm on BBC Radio 4 Today show tomorrow 8:20am> > > You are, of course, right.> > That doesn't change, however, that this image is not illegal to view, it's> > merely in a greyer legal area of "might be illegal". Which does nothing to> > change the IWF's shameful overreach in blocking the article as well as the> > image — and in doing such a cack-handed job of either. :o)> > If hasn't been proven in a court of law not to be illegal to view.> However, it is not illegal to view simply because the image is not> sexual as is plain to any reasonable person. So, as you say, the IWF> has gone overboard in blocking it.> ___> Wikimedia UK mailing list> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l _ Imagine a life without walls. See the possibilities. http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/122465943/direct/01/___ Wikimedia UK mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] UK censorship: I'm on BBC Radio 4 Today show tomorrow 8:20am
> You are, of course, right. > That doesn't change, however, that this image is not illegal to view, it's > merely in a greyer legal area of "might be illegal". Which does nothing to > change the IWF's shameful overreach in blocking the article as well as the > image — and in doing such a cack-handed job of either. :o) If hasn't been proven in a court of law not to be illegal to view. However, it is not illegal to view simply because the image is not sexual as is plain to any reasonable person. So, as you say, the IWF has gone overboard in blocking it. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] UK censorship: I'm on BBC Radio 4 Today show tomorrow 8:20am
2008/12/8 Thomas Dalton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > As no jury has, to my knowledge, ever determined that this image meets > that > > test, then the image does not qualify as indecent under English law. At > > elast until some jury decides to the contrary. > > No, that doesn't work. If it only becomes indecent once found so by a > jury then no-one could ever be convicted on child pornography charges > because the image wasn't indecent when they made it. A jury determines > whether or not it is indecent, that determination doesn't *make* it > indecent. (Yes, there is the principle of "innocent until proven > guilty", but that applies to people, not the facts of the case - a > person that makes an image is innocent until proven guilty, but the > image isn't decent until proven indecent, it simply is what it is.) You are, of course, right. That doesn't change, however, that this image is not illegal to view, it's merely in a greyer legal area of "might be illegal". Which does nothing to change the IWF's shameful overreach in blocking the article as well as the image — and in doing such a cack-handed job of either. :o) O x ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] UK censorship: I'm on BBC Radio 4 Today show tomorrow 8:20am
2008/12/8 Owen Blacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > The legal definition of indecent, in this context, under English law, > appears to be "anything which and ordinary decent man or woman would find to > be shocking, disgusting, or revolting" (Knuller vs DPP, 1973). That sounds about right. > As no jury has, to my knowledge, ever determined that this image meets that > test, then the image does not qualify as indecent under English law. At > elast until some jury decides to the contrary. No, that doesn't work. If it only becomes indecent once found so by a jury then no-one could ever be convicted on child pornography charges because the image wasn't indecent when they made it. A jury determines whether or not it is indecent, that determination doesn't *make* it indecent. (Yes, there is the principle of "innocent until proven guilty", but that applies to people, not the facts of the case - a person that makes an image is innocent until proven guilty, but the image isn't decent until proven indecent, it simply is what it is.) ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] UK censorship: I'm on BBC Radio 4 Today show tomorrow 8:20am
The legal definition of indecent, in this context, under English law, appears to be "anything which and ordinary decent man or woman would find to be shocking, disgusting, or revolting" (Knuller vs DPP, 1973). As no jury has, to my knowledge, ever determined that this image meets that test, then the image does not qualify as indecent under English law. At elast until some jury decides to the contrary. I have to agree completely, though, that the pose is indeed exhibitionistic, but not intrinsically erotic or sexual. Owen 2008/12/8 Thomas Dalton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I think a better analogy would be paintings in galleries which depict > under > > 18s, many of which could be considered "Images depicting erotic posing > with > > no sexual activity". I am thinking of some of the paintings of > Caravaggio, > > almost any depiction of Ganymede etc. > > An under 18 naked in an erotic pose, even without sexual activity, > would qualify as "indecent" by my understanding of how that word is > usually interpreted. The key thing with the Virgin Killer cover is > that the pose isn't erotic. It's clearly designed to show off her > nudity, but that's all. > > ___ > Wikimedia UK mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK > http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l > ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] UK censorship: I'm on BBC Radio 4 Today show tomorrow 8:20am
> I think a better analogy would be paintings in galleries which depict under > 18s, many of which could be considered "Images depicting erotic posing with > no sexual activity". I am thinking of some of the paintings of Caravaggio, > almost any depiction of Ganymede etc. An under 18 naked in an erotic pose, even without sexual activity, would qualify as "indecent" by my understanding of how that word is usually interpreted. The key thing with the Virgin Killer cover is that the pose isn't erotic. It's clearly designed to show off her nudity, but that's all. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] UK censorship: I'm on BBC Radio 4 Today show tomorrow 8:20am
2008/12/8 Thomas Dalton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 2008/12/7 David Gerard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > It's now mainstream. IWF representative to be present. I look forward > > to dropping in the line "Wikipedia smells of hammers." ([[Brass Eye]]) > > I particularly liked the line "We're an educational charity." - I > think it was good that you that in, I suggest emphasising that in > future interviews. Perhaps make an analogy to medical textbooks > containing nude images (the analogy is imperfect, but it's not bad)? > I think a better analogy would be paintings in galleries which depict under 18s, many of which could be considered "Images depicting erotic posing with no sexual activity". I am thinking of some of the paintings of Caravaggio, almost any depiction of Ganymede etc. In these and the album cover in question, the intention was artistic. While I personally don't believe this cover is comparable in quality to the old masters, it cannot be right that an unaccountable self-appointed guardian of our morality, should deny me and millions of others the right to decide on its artistic merits for ourselves. -- James Hardy MrWeeble ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] UK censorship: I'm on BBC Radio 4 Today show tomorrow 8:20am
Gregory Maxwell wrote: > It would be super-fantastic if someone could confirm that you can just > walk into a record store in the UK and buy it. There are stores here > that have it, I'm tempted to go get a picture of myself holding... and > start a campaign of other folks doing that. I'm not sure that would send the right message. On the radio interview: I thought David sounded unfair, espousing some unlikely conspiracy theories suggesting that the IWF chose Wikipedia for any other reason than the fact that some disgruntled Wikipedian submitted it to their tip box a few days ago. On the wider issue: I'm sure the IWF would not mind at all if the police started raiding music stores. And there are elements of the wider community that would support them in that. Australians are in the privileged position of having seen this all before, in the form of the Bill Henson controversy six months ago. An art gallery was raided by police and explicit photographs were seized. Journalist David Marr gave us an incisive analysis of the motivations of the prudes, both at the time, and at length in a book published in October. Why is it that this cover image has been around for 30 years, but only now do we see moves for censorship? Marr was asked a similar question in a TV interview regarding the Bill Henson case, and he said "It's the Internet". "The Internet has changed the way we view photography. There is a sense in which no photograph can actually be corralled anymore. Everything is potentially available to anybody anywhere in the world, once it gets on the Internet. We still have to deal with that, that apprehension of the Internet, because it's changing the way we consider art, photography, all sorts of things. Part of the purpose of my book is to look at the history of that fear of the Internet, and try to work out whether in fact we need to be so afraid. I don't think we do." http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2383376.htm -- Tim Starling ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] UK censorship: I'm on BBC Radio 4 Today show tomorrow 8:20am
2008/12/7 David Gerard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > It's now mainstream. IWF representative to be present. I look forward > to dropping in the line "Wikipedia smells of hammers." ([[Brass Eye]]) I particularly liked the line "We're an educational charity." - I think it was good that you that in, I suggest emphasising that in future interviews. Perhaps make an analogy to medical textbooks containing nude images (the analogy is imperfect, but it's not bad)? ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] UK censorship: I'm on BBC Radio 4 Today show tomorrow 8:20am
excellent - well done David, please let us know how it goes. On Dec 7, 5:31 pm, "David Gerard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's now mainstream. IWF representative to be present. I look forward > to dropping in the line "Wikipedia smells of hammers." ([[Brass Eye]]) > > - d. > > ___ > Wikimedia UK mailing list > [EMAIL > PROTECTED]://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UKhttp://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
[Wikimediauk-l] UK censorship: I'm on BBC Radio 4 Today show tomorrow 8:20am
It's now mainstream. IWF representative to be present. I look forward to dropping in the line "Wikipedia smells of hammers." ([[Brass Eye]]) - d. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
