> 2008/12/10 geni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> 2008/12/10 K. Peachey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >>> Don't forget that was after jimbo said he was considering sueing >>> because even the IWF had it checked and it was only "possibly" >>> illegal, they never got confirmation, it would the same in court say >>> if someone was stopping people from entering a store and claiming >>> their carrot cake had rat poison in it without checking. > >> I doubt that was a significant factor. Looking at their statement the >> decision was based on the pragmatic position that it would not be >> possible to filter the image due to it's very wide distribution. > > > And that no-one was saying "BAN THIS SICK FILTH" or "THINK OF THE > CHILDREN", instead they were saying "MY ISP CENSORED AN ENCYCLOPEDIA" > and "YOU CAN GET IT IN THE HIGH STREET". And "The IWF head looks like > a curtain-twitching weasel." > > No-one knew about the IWF before this. Once people knew, they despised > them and their existence. > > > - d.
You go too far. We censor actual child pornography out of Wikipedia too. There are limits and someone enforces them. Fred _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
