Album cover triggers UK Wikipedia ban
An album cover by the band Scorpions (for their 1976 LP Virgin Killer) placed on their Wikipedia page has provoked UK-based ISP’s to block the entry. According to this Live News story:
A Wikipedia article page has been banned by British internet service providers, due to the editors’ refusal to remove an image of a controversial 1976 album cover, featuring an image of a naked pubescent girl.The original cover of the Scorpions’ Virgin Killer featured the image when it was released 32 years ago, but was quickly changed to a less controversial shot of the band.
Both covers feature on the Wiki article about the album.
But British ISPs, which are dedicated to new campaign of blocking child porn sites, have now banned the article page, after Wikipedia’s volunteer editors refused to take down the offending picture.
The free speech versus society standards debate now raging amongst the UK online community has echoes of the Bill Henson controversy in Australia earlier this year.
Wikipedia is an online encyclopaedia which lets anyone submit and edit articles, however it has evolved to be effectively controlled by a group of volunteer editors across the globe.
The question I have is, what is the point? Anyone can google it and see what all the fuss is about for themselves - “23,500 [results] for scorpions virgin killer”. Indeed, Amazon.comsell the album. I think it’s a horrible cover, but I’m not happy with ISPs playing the role of information police. It the cover is illegal, then the real police should be called in. It it is merely tasteless, then they should butt out. I think.
UPDATE: According to the Guardian, the decision has now been reversed.
Comments
| 9 December, 2008, 9:24 pm |
The IWF (set up and funded by ISPs, the Internet Watch Foundation is responsible for listing the Wikipedia page as containing child pornography, and hence its effective banning by the major UK ISPs) has taken on the role of self-appointed censor, with the police in an advisory capacity. A first year jurisprudence student can see that this is contrary to the rule of law, with the executive taking a role that rightly belongs to the judiciary.
However distasteful the cover might be, I do not think it is for the IWF or the police to decide that it is illegal.
What is more worrying, however, is the thought that the IWF may extend its censoring powers into other areas. Its powers need to be reined in.
A small, unaccountable, privately funded body is able to restrict access to sections of the Internet. This is not a concept I am comfortable with.
| 10 December, 2008, 10:47 pm |
If you think this is bad, look what’s happening in Australia!!
| 11 December, 2008, 4:26 am |
For those of who you wondering what the fuss is all about but don’t want to break UK law, here is that cover again, tastefully rendered using a plastic Lego girl.
Write a comment