On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 5:44 PM, Mike Godwin <mgodwin(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
Anthony writes:
I'm sure they're in the process of
changing their review system to
take
these issues into account. At the same time, requiring *all* images
to be
"found illegal" before taking action, would not be a good idea.
In this particular instance, however, it is worth noting that the
image in question has been widely available, both on the Internet and
offline, and in fact remains widely available.
Mike, that's exactly the point made by the post I was responding to (and
agreeing with).
Moreover,
since the album covers themselves are worthy of encyclopedic
discussion, it seems important to add a context requirement to any
judgment of illegality. Indeed, the Internet Watch Foundation itself
acknowledges the importance of context in its public statement about
the affair: "However, the IWF Board has today (9 December 2008)
considered these findings and the contextual issues involved in this
specific case and, in light of the length of time the image has
existed and its wide availability, the decision has been taken to
remove this webpage from our list."
If the IWF thinks contextual issues are important, who are we to say
otherwise?
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.