2008/12/8 geni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 2008/12/8 David Gerard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> 2008/12/7 AndrewRT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>>> It seems the IWF are getting so much flak they've put a front page
>>> statement on their website:
>>> http://www.iwf.org.uk/media/news.249.htm
>>
>>
>> So who thinks they'd issue a press release accusing Amazon of
>> distributing child porn if it were Amazon being blocked?
>>
>> (I plan to call the press release "abusive and defamatory", 'cos it is.)
>
> The wording is "potentially illegal". Since pretty much everything has
> ability to be potentially illegal (with the possible exception of the
> queen and statements in the chamber) defamatory is questionable.
>
> It is understandable that the IWF would be mealy-mouthed rather than
> accusing the Scorpions record label of making and distributing child
> pornography.
>
>
> --
> geni
>


Hmmp they stonewalled which is to be expected and did it fairly well.
Still they appear to have been out of the office since Friday so
perhaps now we will see some movement. They are sticking to their
potential illegal line so the only way out for them is to decide that
the content is not potentially illegal. No idea how we would get that.

Otherwise it appears that the ISPs may be starting to act. Seeing some
reports that suggest that they are pulling their blocks which would be
interesting.


-- 
geni

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l

Reply via email to