[Foundation-l] and what if...

[Mike Godwin]

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