Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 26

Thread: Censorship

  1. #1

    Unhappy Censorship

    Here is a link to a wikipedia article:


    Do not click on it!

    That link leads to child pornography! And is potentially illegal depending on where you live. Some members of this forum will not actually be able to see that link, it'll show an error 404 or something.

    Here's a full story: British ISPs restrict access to Wikipedia amid child pornography allegations - Wikinews, the free news source
    (Warning, this also contains the image in question)

    What is your view on this?
    I'm all for blocking child porn pictures in theory (although see the pedophile thread for my views on faked images that contain no real children), but that depends on what is meant by "child porn". I think blocking wikipedia because of cover ART is just plain censorship.
    And once again nobody is going to say "wait, hold on!" because you can't stick your net out in things like this without looking like a paedo.

    Although the child porn thing I can live with because it's not a big deal, however I'm more concerned about the fact that other sites can be blocked because of 'offensive' material. This includes written (typed) words.
    Don't get me wrong, I hate racism and all that, but I think people have right to write and publish whatever they want. You don't have to read anything you don't want to.
    This just seems like book burning.

    I think that people have seriously lost respect for the freedom of speech/expression. I don't know why I care about this stuff, but it really bugs the hell out of me whenever stuff like this happens... whenever any rights are denied, no matter how trivial. I can't help but take it personally, I don't understand how people can let this stuff go.
    Although it hasn't been all bad, there has been one victory this week.

  2. #2


    I agree. I think censorship of any sort on information by the government is unacceptable. If it's breaking a law, then pursue the perpetrators / threaten legal action against the web hosts, but I don't think it's the government's business to decide what is too inappropriate for us to read/see.

  3. #3


    thankfully I am not restricted online. Though I do feel for people in the UK, Australia and most of all China. I think either cuban's or north korean's are finally getting their first computers.

    Anyway's I don't think anything should be block, if you find child porn sites go and shut the site down don't just block it for your own country and still let others from around the world view the child porn site. If they can't then just let it be since it's still illegal for people to view that site anyways right?

    Blocking stuff would be exactly like DRM technology, people WILL bypass it if they really want to.

  4. #4


    I fail to see the album cover as pornographic. Suggestive, yes, but more in the realm of "art". The fact that A) the album has been around since 1976, and B) no one was arrested and sent to pedo hell for creating the image suggests that a certain standard had been met before they put it on an album cover. It's kinda silly, prudish, and scary that a select group of politically correct do gooders can impose their views on a freakin nation. I thought America was bad, but the colonies do have a (somewhat) stiff neck when it comes to network neutrality, and censorship on the net.

  5. #5


    There is a difference between "art" and "obscenity"; between "reporting" and "pornography."

    I bring this up because there's a world-famous picture of a little girl in Vietnam running down the street naked. She's naked, you see, because her clothes and a lot of skin have been burned away by napalm. A journalist shot this picture and then took her to the hospital. The picture, in turn, painted a very vivid and human picture of what the war had become.

    I do feel that we shouldn't see tentacle-rape of real girls. This would be obscene (to me). However, I too believe that this should not be done at the governmental level. Under free-market conditions, let dollar-votes (and local control) dictate. Under other conditions, local control (especially at the "parent" level) should prevail.

    As for this album cover, it is irresponsible and stupid, but I don't see it as a systematic abuse of the girl in question, nor as an object of sexual pleasure. Hence, my own opinion here is that it's art - art done badly, but art.

  6. #6


    Under German law (and The Scorpions are a German band after all), the album cover is not pornographic. It does not show the vagina of the girl while her legs are spread. In fact, her private parts aren't visible at all. So it's just nudity, which is not illegal as long as it's not sexual. Obviously, the Scorpions are not a porn production firm, so it's not meant to be sexual.
    So that link is accessible to me.

    Beats me why that is censored by the British government. But then, the picture may be considered porn by British law. Our government is thinking about blocking certain child porn sites on the ISP level, although I'm not sure if they'll actually manage to implement it with all the legal restrictions in place. AFter all, the constitution says quite clearly that there must not be any government-induced censorship in this country.


  7. #7


    I guess I fail, because I see nothing wrong with it. Sure, it's suggestive, but hey, I consider it "art". If I were in a CD store, and it was on the shelf, I would probably walk right past it, and not notice it. And the fact it's been around since 1976, and it's from Germany, it's not considered Child Pornography.
    And anyone who does consider it Kiddie Porno should just not look at it and move on.

  8. #8


    I have no problem with this particular example... I don't think that CP is at all good, but on the other hand, I am against all forms of censorship, and I will fight it in any way I can. When the government has to decide for people whether or not it's a good idea to be exposed to "controversial" material, there's a problem. People should be able to decide for themselves.

  9. #9


    It's worth pointing out that currently that link isn't illegal in Britain (although arguably it is, I have no idea really), all that's happened is that the Internet Watch Foundation (not the government, but they support it) has made this list and given it to ISPs. I have no idea why some ISPs actually listen to the IWF, they might think that it's a good thing.

    I've noticed Google is affected too. I searched for something really mundane and at the bottom of the page there was something saying that Google had removed certain links due to a legal notice or something.

    I wish Jacqui Smith would die.

  10. #10


    I am not bothered by it, and the girl is not old enough.

Similar Threads

  1. censorship on the net
    By ade in forum Mature Topics
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 17-Aug-2008, 21:37

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  • - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community. is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.