Anthony writes: 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.

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?

> 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

[...] context does not appear to have contributed to their original decision.

One wonders how many similar cases there have been in the last twelve years of their existence.

I instinctively dislike prior restraint, although this is not such a case, but I am even more opposed to restraint long after the cat is out of the bag, as it were. All in all, I perceive this as having done the IWF no favours, which, sadly, dilutes the good work that they may do- although, of course, being totally unaccountable, we have only their word for that.

whether You expected them to actually admit to having made a mistake?