(an error in sending meant my response wasn't actually in the message ... duped below correctly)
On Sat, December 6, 2008 22:47, geni wrote: > Ideally they won't pick > it up. If they do the story will be "wikipedia hosting child porn". > Trying to tackle that head on is suicidally stupid. Their readers > either won't care or won't understand the case that the images are not > indecent. The same applies to the free speech argument. I believe I made this same point in my earlier mail. Whilst there is absolutely a 'free speech' argument it isn't one that Daily Mail readers from Tunbridge Wells will easily accept (for example) > I hope you are an Eric Clapton fan because about the only defense line > we have that might just might reduce the damage is comparing the thing > to the [[Blind Faith (album)]]. Sure we still get hammered but may be > slightly reduced. Sadly, two wrongs don't make a right. Just as Amazon currently hosting the same - banned from us - image doesn't automatically mean we should have it available. And, of course, the new 'kinky stuff ban' law comes into effect mid-january, so this could just be the tip of the iceberg ... Alison Addendum. The IWF state they have an appeals process, though I can't find further details in their FAQ. They are also associated with CEOP whom invited me earlier this year to talk to a conference they were organising so I am happy to discuss the matter with them on Monday. In my mind it would be far better for them to ask for the removal of the image rather than block an entire article. Indeed the article could happily have the later album cover and just refer to the earlier one, although I am not happy with censorship in any form on a personal level. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
