[Foundation-l] and what if...

[Anthony]

On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 5:44 PM, Mike Godwin <mgodwin at 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.