UK ISP's are censoring Wikipedia

The real question is if they are transparently proxying Wikipedia and sending back fake wikipedia-styled 404's, what else are they transparently proxying without our knowledge?

think that the picture is a bit wrong but then again i dont know much about art but if it isnt art and it just for the attention then i think that it should be made to be removed or the company that is showing it be put out of bueissness because its showing a indecent picture of a little girl, but as for cencoring the internet, come on i would have thought every one would know that all types of media are cencored

Picture coming in loud and clear on Sky Broadband.

Easynet bought out by BSkyB. Current BSkyB network uses the Easynet LLU. Strange that under the easynet brand the page is censored though under BSkyB its fine

No. Censorship in any capacity is very wrong, its like the forbiddon fruit. Naked images of young girls or boys don't make pedophiles. And even thinking of young girls or boys dosnt make you a pedophile this definition is created by an action. I understand why the image was not included, because WE have the right to filter or include what WE want to see no other institution should have that right.

don't you hate it when the government tries to censor what you hear and see. they cannot turn my INTERNET into fox news!

Just send the Paedofinder General after anyone who looks at the page.

By the power vested in me by the British government, I pronounce you guilty of pedofillia!

Censoring anything is bullshit, the whole issue of child pornography is a complete fucking red herring.

Realize that child pornography is already illegal and you can be arrested for posting it on the internet or having it on your hard drive. And, despite the insistence to the contrary, the government is extremely effective at weeding those people out.

So when it comes to censorship, it's completely unnecessary and completely useless. If you're caught with any offending material, you can be arrested and your hard drive erased. If you are the host of the site, it can be taken down.

Anything that remains is ALWAYS going to be there, no matter how insistent on censorship you are. The internet is too vast to monitor completely. If you censor one site, ten more can pop up in an hour. Furthermore, it doesn't prevent people from sending the images to each other encoded or hidden in other images across chatrooms or other websites. The list goes on and on, censorship won't stop those people.

And the people promoting censorship KNOW that, how could you not? It's so obviously subversive that it shocks me how stupid people are on the issue. All anyone has to do is invoke a public enemy to get everyone's panties in a bunch.

What censorship for child porn DOES do is give the government a legal precedent for censorship, which can (and WILL) be expanded into anything they don't care to have around. Which, in our Capitalist Democratic Republic, means anything that voters whine enough about or companies pay enough to get rid of. See Australia for proof.

Realize that the internet is the first real tool the human race has had to share unfiltered information with and it's already vastly changed how things work. But as open as it is, that freedom can easily be torn down if the internet does not remain perfectly neutral.

In short, censorship will not stop child porn and you're an idiot if you think it will. You're also an idiot if you think censorship is an appropriate response to something you find to be horrible. You're a triple dumbfuck idiot if you think that the initiation of censorship won't expand into other areas on the same justification you gave for child porn.

Censoring words is a breach of free speech. In this case they are censoring an image.

If the child was exploited by the photographer then there is a case for censorship, to protect the child!

In every case, the right to censor should be determined by the law. The creator should have a right of appeal in Borderline cases.

Only if the album cover has been banned in the UK, should ISP's have any authority to block the image.

Censorship is always wrong.

good why not censor some bullshit song no one cares about

First of all, wanted to say good job for not posting the image here. Come on people, it's one thing for the image to be blocked on Wikipedia (which is an ENCYCLOPEDIA) than for it to not be posted on here (which is a NEWS story & commentary on it).

Seeing the exact picture is irrelevant to the discussion here. We got a description of what the picture is and that should be enough, especially since the discussion should not be about the picture itself but about censorship. Posting the photo will no doubt cause people to stray off the kind of discussion that this post was aiming for. People would be discussing the picture itself, not censorship.

If people are interested in seeing the picture and can't see the Wikipedia, Google the album cover or something.

That said, I am on a University ISP and I can see the Wikipedia page.

Great Britain is the mother of all facist goverment right now , cameras everywhere , censorship of information, arresting people who tell the truth.
It is worse than Hitlers days in power and the US is copying all his methods.
Thats what I call the final solution.

I imagine that there are certain things that can be deemed inappropriate. But unfortunately there is a fine line between keeping away the inappropriate and suppressing the media.

It is a fine line that is hard to discern in my opinion...

It shows just how open Wikipedia actually is. That's why I love Wikipedia, because its a completely open news and information source where anyone can edit articles and stories, no censorship whatsoever.

I can't blame Current for not posting the image. Current allows enough free speech as it is, but we most remember that some things like nude children might scare off the Current Staff...

Big friggin deal either way.

Seriously, the album cover was obviously in poor taste for shock value, and it shouldn't be treated as some sort of legitimate piece of art or history. "Virgin Killer"? Oh what a loss.

Whatever happened to the respect that is necessary for a free society to function properly? Many in our society abuse the freedom they are given to take advantage of others naive innocence, and you can just look around you at the manifestations of the damage that causes.

Why isn't it legal to just kill anyone you want to? Oh, come, it's a free society. What do you mean there are lines of reason? So what's the difference between killing someone physically and killing someone psychologically? One lives to then cause more damage to others?

I could care less about this because it is such a embarrassing footnote more than anything else. The only thing it is good for is seeing how twisted people's minds are in how they respond to it.

Worry about censoring the good guys, fuck the "Virgin Killers".

This is ridiculous. You want to argue whether or not they should Block the Image. Yet, you Block the image!?

There is absolutely nothing you can discuss from a closed point of view.

You all sound like Russian Imperialism. They all vow to the greatness of the Community and how important this is, yet no one is free.

This post is a sham and specially the way this was handled.

1. You say the Image should not be Blocked.
1.1 YOU EVEN POST ABOUT IT!
2. The image is added to the Post, then REMOVED!

Why discuss something you even support!?

Clearly PhillyHarper removed the image because it is disturbing to the Post. This is exactly what the ISP's are doing. Removing a Disturbing Image!

To discuss this Post and issue, and yet Censor part of it's comment and the Picture itself, is DIRTY Activism!

Wanting to attack the UK ISP's, but then you do exactly what they did? Perhaps, they are doing the RIGHT THING. Is people just to rebel to Agree with them!?

http://www.pledgebank.com/boycottcensors

Sign the pledge if you're in the UK.

one of the underlying issues that becomes lost on censorship is the issue of rights vs responsibilities..

everyone always talks about the right to this.. the right to that..

practically no one ever discusses the responsibilities that come with those rights..

its the never-ending push to amass and recognize all of the rights to be able to do whatever it is that you want to do.. with no accountability.. that has led to the irresponsible behavior that pushes the limits of society at large..

now.. where exactly does that balance between rights and responsibilities hang? and should there ever be certain limits to the rights of individuals?

one may argue that there are some limits which could be applied to every society no matter where you are.. and that there are other case-specific issues which are unique to each population, culture, religion, etc..

with respect to this topic, i think its pretty obvious that there is no such thing as absolute free speech.. i dont think its unreasonable to censor images of a naked child.. the difficulty now comes with trying to define what is art, what are its limits, and what responsibilities come with that of being an artist..

peace

I have no comment.

Fine, Well lets write some lyrics for "Rock musician Killer or Rock singer killer or Rock band killer. Some of these modern muscians are not using the intellectual brain they were born with.. It seems that after entering into this world punk and Rap and other musicians or someone who considers himself as a composer is insane or finds pleasure in killing or morder. Why caint the lyricists write lyrics that make sense and also respect the freedom of speech. While freedom of speech is everyones right, the audience has rights also and listening to vile, insulting words can be disgusting for some. Freedom of speech works both ways. Freedom of speech is also part of public decency.`

This should serve as a warning to everyone on what happens when the government appointed morality cops are unleashed on the public. I'm beginning to think that outside of China, England is the most surveilled country in the world.

I can respect an ISP's wishes of censorship. Rarely is the case of ISP monopoly in a centralized location.

If you don't like your ISP, then get a different one. Or Hughes net for the true isolationist.

What ISP are you with?

Error 404 (although I have googled the image in question).

Hiding behind a page error, if indeed that is what ISPs are doing, is a cowardly tactic, especially when other error codes are more descriptive -

Error 406 Not Acceptable
Error 423 Locked

There are plenty of search engines that have parental control. The raw internet should be unfiltered warts and all, and it should be up to the individual to choose what they want to find.

I entirely agree with phillyharper's choice. The discussion is about the choice to see the controversial issue about the picture - not the picture itself. The picture is a debate many years old. Censorship is the topic here, the picture on this page would negate the whole point of have the choice to view the controversy. It's not hypocrisy, and the picture doesn't refer to the discussion.

Just so we're all clear on why I removed the picture, I'll re-post my reply to your original comment.

--------

"I just removed it from the page. I made a point of NOT posting the said image to the site, I wanted a discussion raised about the issue of censorship and the internet since i think it's an interesting topic that needs a full discussion.

If the picture is just on our website then people haven't decided to look at it, it's just there for all to see, which is wrong and not fair. I provided a link and a context in which the image was relevant, if people then wanted to see what all the fuss was about then they could.

Please do not post the image to the site, we all know where the image is and we know what it is, we can have the debate about censorship without forcing everyone to see the said image."

WHY WAS THIS HIPOCRIT POST SUBMITTED!!?? I ADDED THE PICTURE AND YOU CENSOR ME?

YOU DON'T LIKE THE PICTURE, BUT LIKE TO ATTACK THOSE WHO CENSORED THE PICTURE?

No Respect for Current today.

WHAT IS THIS!!!?? MY POST WAS REMOVED IN A WEBSITE AGAINST CENSORSHIP!!!

I WAS CENSORED BY THE PERSON THAT POSTED THIS SAME ARTICLE!!!

CURRENT = DISCLOSING HATE TO EVERYONE ELSE AND CENSORING ANYTHING AGAINST THEM!!!

The opinion of the ISP should be irrelevant. Only the law should decide whether the page/image is available to view.

Definetly,Peadophiles are the lowest form of scum there is,but also the words "child porn" gets used by Governments to kill freespeech,they know MOST people hate child porn,me included.So they will alway's use it,while doing nothing in real terms to stop this crap on the net.

I agree if that band thinks this is cool or funny,they should read this.

http://www.isgp.eu/dutroux/Belgian_X_dossiers_of_the_Dutroux_affair.htm

Censoring a picture and arresting it's creator are two different things. Wikipedia decided to keep the image up on the grounds that they "do not censor", probably on the grounds that this is history - how did a band ever get away with releasing that as cover art?

If the image is inappropriate shouldn't the IWF ask wikimedia to take it down instead of faking a 404 page for various ISP users? If the picture isn't appropriate they need to go after its creator and wikipedia for hosting it, that said I do kind of feel they've done the right thing.

Censorship is a debate I've never gotten to the bottom of...

Hmm, surely photographs of naked, pre-pubescent girls are the one kind of thing we should be censoring? Though should Wiki not just remove the offending image altogether?

Credibility Of Wikipedia Takes a Dive After Wired Exposé
Online encyclopedia outed as bias tool of intelligence agencies, corporations by new Wikipedia Scanner database

http://www.infowars.com/articles/science/internet_wikipedia_credibility_takes_di...

Wikipedia and the Intelligence Services
Is the Net's popular encyclopedia marred by disinformation?

http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/internet_wikipedia_and_the_intelligence_serv...

Wikipedia wars erupt

http://www.infowars.com/articles/science/wikipedia_wars_errupt.htm

Yeah, how is this any different from China? If anything Wikipedia should just be able to set up a disclaimer shown before the page loads. Wikipedia is supposed to be entirely open-source and user-created, so any form of censorship automatically allows for a filter or control mechanism by some 'higher power'. Information is a powerful tool and propaganda has long be an effective tool of governments - so having them control information again on the freest places of the internet are sad signs that governments won't cease to keep up their bad habits.

Check the link at the bottom of my article. I'm using BT Broadband and I have no problems accessing it, but I've seen comments elsewhere on the interwebs that suggest that people genuinely aren't able to get on it.

For the techies amongst you, here is the bug report which led to the realisation that the ISP's might be censoring the pages.

https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16569