Wikipedia censorship case sends 'confusing' message

By Jeremy Kirk, IDG News Service |  Government, censorship, Wikipedia 2 comments

While the fracas over the censoring of a Wikipedia page in the U.K. has somewhat subsided, the case has imparted a confusing message to Internet users about what is considered an indecent image, according to one legal expert.

After public outcry, the U.K.-based Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) on Tuesday reversed its decision to block a Wikipedia entry containing an album cover image of a naked girl. IWF publishes a blocklist used by ISPs (Internet service providers) to prevent residential Internet subscribers from browsing pages with child abuse images.

However, IWF -- a self-regulatory body composed of ISPs and authorized by U.K. law enforcement -- maintains the album-cover image is potentially in breach of U.K. law. The image is the album cover for "Virgin Killer," a 1976 released by the German band The Scorpions.

If it is illegal, then "to remove the ban from the page on which it appears is a confusing message for most people to understand," said Struan Robertson, senior associate with the law firm Pinsent Masons.

After the Wikimedia Foundation filed an appeal, IWF decided that the image was widely available and been around for a long time, so it dropped the entry from its blocklist.

Robertson questions that rationality: "If the image is illegal, that should not be grounds for excusing it."

The IWF only blocks offensive pages hosted overseas. If an abusive image is on a server in the U.K., IWF will work with ISPs and the police to get it removed, said Sarah Roberts, IWF's communications director.

If the Scorpions' album cover is hosted on a Web site within the U.K., Robertson said on Friday that the IWF could refer it to the police.

However, the attorney Robertson said it's unlikely the police would get involved in such a case, almost for the same reason IWF reversed its decision: that the image has been widely distributed.

"It would be too difficult for the police," he said. "IWF shot itself in the foot when it changed its mind."

The IWF's block was aimed at a very high-profile target: Wikipedia. The online encyclopedia's co-founder, Jimmy Wales, publicly weighed in against the block. And due to a technical problem connected to the way ISPs use the blocklist, U.K. Wikipedia users couldn't edit pages for a few days, fueling criticism of IWF and raising a ruckus over censorship.

The censoring had the unintended effect of drawing unprecedented new attention to the album cover, which was controversial when it was first released. Also, the entire Wikipedia entry, which detailed the controversy about the image over the years, was blocked, not just the image.

But the IWF has the full backing of the U.K. government, which encouraged ISPs to use the blocklist to combat child abuse images on the Internet. IWF's actions, along with that of law enforcement, have had a positive impact. In 1997, the U.K. hosted 18 percent of the Web sites in the world containing child abuse content; now that figure is less than 1 percent.

The brouhaha this week won't change its mission, but may prompt more careful reflection on it, the IWF's Robertson said.

"We're an organization that tries to learn," she said.

2 comments

    Anonymous 3 years ago
    The article states, "And due to a technical problem connected to the way ISPs use the blocklist, U.K. Wikipedia users couldn't edit pages for a few days, fueling criticism of IWF and raising a ruckus over censorship."The real "technical problem" was simply a manifestation of that Saturday morning's typical day-in-the-life of a Wikipedia admin -- blocking editors who they determined were not "helping" the encyclopedia. The only way admins know how to stifle the free speech of unwelcome editors is to BLOCK THEIR IP ADDRESS. What they didn't realize was that the UK ISPs were funneling traffic through a very limited set of IPs. So, Wikipedia brought this on themselves, in more ways than the media has even bothered to scratch.
    Anonymous 3 years ago
    For avoidance of doubt, I think the IWF's first decision, to react to the image, was the right one. If it's of interest, I explain that and elaborate on my view of why the IWF's second decision was wrong at our site. I hope you'll forgive me for linking there and not trying to summarise all those arguments here :)

      Add a comment

      Post a comment using one of these accounts
      Or join now
      At least 6 characters

      Note: Comment will appear soon after you have activated your account.
      Obscene/spam comments will be removed and accounts suspended.
      The information you submit is subject to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.

      ITworld LIVE

      Ask a question

      Ask a Question