> 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. The fact that a > particular image has been presumptively legal for more than three > decades necessarily informs any responsible consideration of the > decision to block it today. If one is familiar with the history of > child-pornography prosecutions (as I happen to be), it's clear that > these controversial album covers (not just the "Virgin Killer" cover, > but that of "Blind Faith" and others) are not the material the child- > porn statutes were designed to discourage and suppress. 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? > > > --Mike