It's now mainstream. IWF representative to be present. I look forward to dropping in the line "Wikipedia smells of hammers." ([[Brass Eye]])
- d.
Will this be available online anywhere (either as a live stream or archived)?
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 10:31 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
It's now mainstream. IWF representative to be present. I look forward to dropping in the line "Wikipedia smells of hammers." ([[Brass Eye]])
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I think the BBC make everything available on their site for a week.
Someone recording it and putting up an ogg would be nice!
2008/12/7 John Reaves johnjreaves@gmail.com:
Will this be available online anywhere (either as a live stream or archived)?
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 10:31 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
It's now mainstream. IWF representative to be present. I look forward to dropping in the line "Wikipedia smells of hammers." ([[Brass Eye]])
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- John Reaves johnjreaves@gmail.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2008/12/7 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
I think the BBC make everything available on their site for a week.
Someone recording it and putting up an ogg would be nice!
I'll see what can be done (though it'll have to wait until the evening).
Good luck, and you may want to emphasise that we didn't know about this until we found out by accident...
2008/12/7 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
I think the BBC make everything available on their site for a week.
Someone recording it and putting up an ogg would be nice!
Nice, sure, but isn't that illegal? I'm sure I read a Wikipedia article on something called "copyright" one time...
2008/12/7 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
2008/12/7 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
I think the BBC make everything available on their site for a week. Someone recording it and putting up an ogg would be nice!
Nice, sure, but isn't that illegal? I'm sure I read a Wikipedia article on something called "copyright" one time...
I'll put it up and see if the BBC doesn't like it.
- d.
excellent - well done David, please let us know how it goes.
On Dec 7, 5:31 pm, "David Gerard" dger...@gmail.com wrote:
It's now mainstream. IWF representative to be present. I look forward to dropping in the line "Wikipedia smells of hammers." ([[Brass Eye]])
- d.
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.orghttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UKhttp://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman...
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 12:31 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
It's now mainstream. IWF representative to be present. I look forward to dropping in the line "Wikipedia smells of hammers." ([[Brass Eye]])
Apparently the image is on the the deluxe boxed set sold everywhere, http://www.amazon.co.uk/Trance-Virgin-Killer-Deluxe-Collectors/dp/B000N3AWGQ (It's on the back side, click the second image)
It would be super-fantastic if someone could confirm that you can just walk into a record store in the UK and buy it. There are stores here that have it, I'm tempted to go get a picture of myself holding... and start a campaign of other folks doing that.
One fact that some of the media is getting wrong is the claim that the cover is banned in 'some' places. I can't find any evidence of this. Record dealers often call any cover which is changed or pulled 'banned', since it makes the records sound more valuable. The cover was most certainly not banned in the US, although the label pulled it amid controversy about the image.
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
It would be super-fantastic if someone could confirm that you can just walk into a record store in the UK and buy it. There are stores here that have it, I'm tempted to go get a picture of myself holding... and start a campaign of other folks doing that.
I'm not sure that would send the right message.
On the radio interview: I thought David sounded unfair, espousing some unlikely conspiracy theories suggesting that the IWF chose Wikipedia for any other reason than the fact that some disgruntled Wikipedian submitted it to their tip box a few days ago.
On the wider issue: I'm sure the IWF would not mind at all if the police started raiding music stores. And there are elements of the wider community that would support them in that.
Australians are in the privileged position of having seen this all before, in the form of the Bill Henson controversy six months ago. An art gallery was raided by police and explicit photographs were seized. Journalist David Marr gave us an incisive analysis of the motivations of the prudes, both at the time, and at length in a book published in October.
Why is it that this cover image has been around for 30 years, but only now do we see moves for censorship? Marr was asked a similar question in a TV interview regarding the Bill Henson case, and he said "It's the Internet".
"The Internet has changed the way we view photography. There is a sense in which no photograph can actually be corralled anymore. Everything is potentially available to anybody anywhere in the world, once it gets on the Internet. We still have to deal with that, that apprehension of the Internet, because it's changing the way we consider art, photography, all sorts of things. Part of the purpose of my book is to look at the history of that fear of the Internet, and try to work out whether in fact we need to be so afraid. I don't think we do."
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2383376.htm
-- Tim Starling
Lemme know when its on youtube so I can give it a listen.
:-D
David Gerard wrote:
It's now mainstream. IWF representative to be present. I look forward to dropping in the line "Wikipedia smells of hammers." ([[Brass Eye]])
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2008/12/7 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
It's now mainstream. IWF representative to be present. I look forward to dropping in the line "Wikipedia smells of hammers." ([[Brass Eye]])
I particularly liked the line "We're an educational charity." - I think it was good that you that in, I suggest emphasising that in future interviews. Perhaps make an analogy to medical textbooks containing nude images (the analogy is imperfect, but it's not bad)?
2008/12/8 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com
2008/12/7 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
It's now mainstream. IWF representative to be present. I look forward to dropping in the line "Wikipedia smells of hammers." ([[Brass Eye]])
I particularly liked the line "We're an educational charity." - I think it was good that you that in, I suggest emphasising that in future interviews. Perhaps make an analogy to medical textbooks containing nude images (the analogy is imperfect, but it's not bad)?
I think a better analogy would be paintings in galleries which depict under 18s, many of which could be considered "Images depicting erotic posing with no sexual activity". I am thinking of some of the paintings of Caravaggio, almost any depiction of Ganymede etc.
In these and the album cover in question, the intention was artistic. While I personally don't believe this cover is comparable in quality to the old masters, it cannot be right that an unaccountable self-appointed guardian of our morality, should deny me and millions of others the right to decide on its artistic merits for ourselves.
-- James Hardy MrWeeble
I think a better analogy would be paintings in galleries which depict under 18s, many of which could be considered "Images depicting erotic posing with no sexual activity". I am thinking of some of the paintings of Caravaggio, almost any depiction of Ganymede etc.
An under 18 naked in an erotic pose, even without sexual activity, would qualify as "indecent" by my understanding of how that word is usually interpreted. The key thing with the Virgin Killer cover is that the pose isn't erotic. It's clearly designed to show off her nudity, but that's all.
The legal definition of indecent, in this context, under English law, appears to be "anything which and ordinary decent man or woman would find to be shocking, disgusting, or revolting" (Knuller vs DPP, 1973). As no jury has, to my knowledge, ever determined that this image meets that test, then the image does not qualify as indecent under English law. At elast until some jury decides to the contrary.
I have to agree completely, though, that the pose is indeed exhibitionistic, but not intrinsically erotic or sexual.
Owen
2008/12/8 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com
I think a better analogy would be paintings in galleries which depict
under
18s, many of which could be considered "Images depicting erotic posing
with
no sexual activity". I am thinking of some of the paintings of
Caravaggio,
almost any depiction of Ganymede etc.
An under 18 naked in an erotic pose, even without sexual activity, would qualify as "indecent" by my understanding of how that word is usually interpreted. The key thing with the Virgin Killer cover is that the pose isn't erotic. It's clearly designed to show off her nudity, but that's all.
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
2008/12/8 Owen Blacker owen@blacker.me.uk:
The legal definition of indecent, in this context, under English law, appears to be "anything which and ordinary decent man or woman would find to be shocking, disgusting, or revolting" (Knuller vs DPP, 1973).
That sounds about right.
As no jury has, to my knowledge, ever determined that this image meets that test, then the image does not qualify as indecent under English law. At elast until some jury decides to the contrary.
No, that doesn't work. If it only becomes indecent once found so by a jury then no-one could ever be convicted on child pornography charges because the image wasn't indecent when they made it. A jury determines whether or not it is indecent, that determination doesn't *make* it indecent. (Yes, there is the principle of "innocent until proven guilty", but that applies to people, not the facts of the case - a person that makes an image is innocent until proven guilty, but the image isn't decent until proven indecent, it simply is what it is.)
2008/12/8 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com
As no jury has, to my knowledge, ever determined that this image meets
that
test, then the image does not qualify as indecent under English law. At elast until some jury decides to the contrary.
No, that doesn't work. If it only becomes indecent once found so by a jury then no-one could ever be convicted on child pornography charges because the image wasn't indecent when they made it. A jury determines whether or not it is indecent, that determination doesn't *make* it indecent. (Yes, there is the principle of "innocent until proven guilty", but that applies to people, not the facts of the case - a person that makes an image is innocent until proven guilty, but the image isn't decent until proven indecent, it simply is what it is.)
You are, of course, right.
That doesn't change, however, that this image is not illegal to view, it's merely in a greyer legal area of "might be illegal". Which does nothing to change the IWF's shameful overreach in blocking the article as well as the image — and in doing such a cack-handed job of either. :o)
O x
You are, of course, right. That doesn't change, however, that this image is not illegal to view, it's merely in a greyer legal area of "might be illegal". Which does nothing to change the IWF's shameful overreach in blocking the article as well as the image — and in doing such a cack-handed job of either. :o)
If hasn't been proven in a court of law not to be illegal to view. However, it is not illegal to view simply because the image is not sexual as is plain to any reasonable person. So, as you say, the IWF has gone overboard in blocking it.
Can I just say something, having just listened to the recording, i think David did a damn good job of holding his ground in the interview, and I was plesently suprised how sympathetic to our cause the interviewee seemed. Good on ya dave :)> Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 17:48:49 +0000> From: thomas.dalton@gmail.com> To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] UK censorship: I'm on BBC Radio 4 Today show tomorrow 8:20am> > > You are, of course, right.> > That doesn't change, however, that this image is not illegal to view, it's> > merely in a greyer legal area of "might be illegal". Which does nothing to> > change the IWF's shameful overreach in blocking the article as well as the> > image — and in doing such a cack-handed job of either. :o)> > If hasn't been proven in a court of law not to be illegal to view.> However, it is not illegal to view simply because the image is not> sexual as is plain to any reasonable person. So, as you say, the IWF> has gone overboard in blocking it.> _______________________________________________> Wikimedia UK mailing list> wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK%3E http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l _________________________________________________________________ Imagine a life without walls. See the possibilities. http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/122465943/direct/01/
I agree that David did well, but I wonder whether we are fighting the right battle. I wouldn't want to defend that image as being nude but not erotic.
Amazon don't seem to have the image up - I've just searched for scorpion killers and got half a dozen hits, a couple with a photo of the band and the rest with "no image available".
See:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_ss_m_h_?url=search-alias%3Dpopular&fiel...
Would be better off replacing the photo of a naked 10 year old girl with the image of the band?
Regards
Jonathan Cardy
dahsun@yahoo.com
--- On Mon, 8/12/08, joseph seddon life_is_bitter_sweet@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
From: joseph seddon life_is_bitter_sweet@hotmail.co.uk Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] UK censorship: I'm on BBC Radio 4 Today show tomorrow 8:20am To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Monday, 8 December, 2008, 5:53 PM Can I just say something, having just listened to the recording, i think David did a damn good job of holding his ground in the interview, and I was plesently suprised how sympathetic to our cause the interviewee seemed. Good on ya dave :)> Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 17:48:49 +0000> From: thomas.dalton@gmail.com> To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] UK censorship: I'm on BBC Radio 4 Today show tomorrow 8:20am> > > You are, of course, right.> > That doesn't change, however, that this image is not illegal to view, it's> > merely in a greyer legal area of "might be illegal". Which does nothing to> > change the IWF's shameful overreach in blocking the article as well as the> > image — and in doing such a cack-handed job of either. :o)> > If hasn't been proven in a court of law not to be illegal to view.> However, it is not illegal to view simply because the image is not> sexual as is plain to any reasonable person. So, as you say, the IWF> has gone overboard in blocking it.> _______________________________________________> Wikimedia UK mailing list> wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK%3E http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l _________________________________________________________________ Imagine a life without walls. See the possibilities. http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/122465943/direct/01/____________________________... Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
On Mon, December 8, 2008 18:35, jonathan cardy wrote:
Amazon don't seem to have the image up - I've just searched for scorpion killers and got half a dozen hits, a couple with a photo of the band and the rest with "no image available".
They deleted the three 'user supplied' copies around half past five, however http://myqurl.com/KcdjM still has an official (ie Amazon-loaded) copy.
Would be better off replacing the photo of a naked 10 year old girl with the image of the band?
The alternate image is also on the article page, but if you now decide to accept the principle of censorship by deleting this particular (non-banned, not illegal anywhere) image then how would you justify keeping, for example, the Mohammed pbhn images?
Alison
ps. Cartoon from Channel 4: http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/society/isp+killer+by+hack/2876012
2008/12/8 Alison Wheeler wikimedia@alisonwheeler.com:
On Mon, December 8, 2008 18:35, jonathan cardy wrote:
Amazon don't seem to have the image up - I've just searched for scorpion killers and got half a dozen hits, a couple with a photo of the band and the rest with "no image available".
They deleted the three 'user supplied' copies around half past five, however http://myqurl.com/KcdjM still has an official (ie Amazon-loaded) copy.
Amazon.com currently has the surreal situation where if you search for "virgin killer" in CDs, the third hit has a thumbnail of what's clearly the same cover. As soon as you load the page, though, it changes to "no image available..."
IWF backs down on Wiki censorship
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7774102.stm
At 22:17 +0000 9/12/08, Gordon Joly wrote:
IWF backs down on Wiki censorship
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/IWF_reverses_censorship_of_Wikipedia?curid=11796...
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org