community.zdnet.co.uk — The content being filtered is apparently that deemed to meet the Internet Watch Foundation's critera for child pornography – in one case, this involves a 1970s LP cover art which, although controversial, is still widely available.
Dec 7, 2008 View in Crawl 4
stavrosianDec 8, 2008
Make sure to let TalkTalk know, in no uncertain terms, that if they continue to block content without any merit then you will cancel your account and find a different ISP.If a few thousand people are angry enough to stop paying them money it sends a better message than anything else.
n3himaDec 8, 2008
Virgin Media drops the request before it gets to Wikipeda and replies with a TCP FIN packet (ending the session) -- which in IE7 produces a 404-esque page (I am told) and in FF3 produces a blank page.
woollymittensDec 8, 2008
Sheep don't protest. Most of the population has been brainwashed by the media. They'll never rebel against anything anymore.
wownotagain123Dec 8, 2008
When there is a will there is a proxy
owenblackerDec 9, 2008
@LJU1492: No, you're still completely missing the point.There is NO clear case that the law is being broken. That there is a controversy in the press here at all proves the lie of your statement.I am fully aware of the issues underlying this event, but a naked child does not pornography make. The image is not sexualised and is, indeed, far less so than many other album covers (also to be found on the Wikipedia) and than many more-conventional works of art.I would have to suggest that it's you coming from a point of principle here and, given the relative response to our comments here on Digg and the furore elsewhere (online, in the press etc), I would say my principles are the ones shared by a greater number of people on this issue.I'm sorry, mate, but you're simply wrong.
nascenttDec 9, 2008
It used to be legal for 16 year old nudity in the UK. There were many glamour models at the age of 16 that would appear in widely distributed newspapers (i.e The Sun).Then sometime in the mid to late 90s the law changed and it became 18+, although many people I've talk to on the subject haven't been aware of this change in law and still assume it legal.Also, the age of consent being 16 applies only to both parties being 16-17, and if they decide to take pictures of themselves doing it then there are problems with the law.
pattydawnDec 11, 2008
The page in question now says:In December, 2008 the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF), a UK-based non-government organization, added the Wikipedia article Virgin Killer to its internet blacklist due to concerns over legality of the image, which had been assessed as the lowest level of legal concern: "erotic posing with no sexual activity".[23] As a result, people using many major UK ISPs were blocked from viewing the entire article,[24][25] and a large part of the U.K. was blocked from editing Wikipedia due to the means of blocking in use. Following discussion, representations by the Wikimedia Foundation (who host the Wikipedia website),[26] and public complaints,[27] the IWF reversed their decision 3 days later, and confirmed that in future they would not block copies of the image that were hosted overseas.[4]But surely, that's ridiculous. The album cover is surely poor taste, but the solution is not to allow ISPs to block content.
kalponaMay 22, 2009
hhhmmmm,,,<a class="user" href="http://www.rttp.com">http://www.rttp.com</a>