[Foundation-l] and what if...

[Anthony]

On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 6:19 PM, Phil Nash <pn007a2145 at blueyonder.co.uk>wrote:

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


Based on their description of the process, it almost surely wasn't.


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


I can't even think of any similar cases in existence.  Educational sites
tend not to include child porn.


> 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.


If they don't do a good job, the ISPs can stop using them.

On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 6:19 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com>wrote:

> > 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.
>
> You expected them to actually admit to having made a mistake?


I don't think their designation of the image was a mistake.  Maybe the
blocking of the image was (it's a pragmatic question which I'm not in as
good a position to answer as they are), but that was something they did
admit was a mistake.