2008/12/10 geni geniice@gmail.com:
2008/12/10 K. Peachey p858snake@yahoo.com.au:
Don't forget that was after jimbo said he was considering sueing because even the IWF had it checked and it was only "possibly" illegal, they never got confirmation, it would the same in court say if someone was stopping people from entering a store and claiming their carrot cake had rat poison in it without checking.
I doubt that was a significant factor. Looking at their statement the decision was based on the pragmatic position that it would not be possible to filter the image due to it's very wide distribution.
And that no-one was saying "BAN THIS SICK FILTH" or "THINK OF THE CHILDREN", instead they were saying "MY ISP CENSORED AN ENCYCLOPEDIA" and "YOU CAN GET IT IN THE HIGH STREET". And "The IWF head looks like a curtain-twitching weasel."
No-one knew about the IWF before this. Once people knew, they despised them and their existence.
- d.
You go too far. We censor actual child pornography out of Wikipedia too. There are limits and someone enforces them.
Fred