The State of the Union....

It seems that the World is truly broken.  

Recently, a storm began to brew over "taste and decency" of Wikipedia. On the site there is an article about a band, who used a photo of a naked girl posing.

The problem - the girl in question is obviously younger than 18.

There were many discussions about the image in question, on Wikipedia. Some of those discussions agreed that the image should be replaced with the alternative image for the album cover that the band itself used.

Other discussions overruled the original discussion, which in turn were themselves overruled. Finally, "the people" over at Wikipedia declared that the image wouldn't be replaced under any circumstances, as "We are not censored", and "We are not a democracy".

As the saga continues, "someone" other there in Internet land, reported the page with the article to the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF), a UK non-government body that works with the ISPs out here to "self-regulate" illegal content on the net, and how said content is accessed by the British ISPs.

After contacting and working with the Police here in the UK, the Wikipedia article was added to the IWF blacklist as being "potential illegal"

The guidelines to the Law, here in the UK are:

The law on indecent images of children is clear. It means any images of children, apparently under 18 years old, involved in sexual activity or posed to be sexually provocative.

However, it would seem a simple case; but it is not simple...

Wikiepedia and supports are saying that it's not fair and that there are plenty of images of naked children out there on the net in general and on Wikipedia's on site.

The IWF and supports are saying that the image is a clear violation of the Law, and as the Wikipedia servers are not hosted in the UK, the IWF couldn't issue a take down order, and had to block the page.

So why I am writting this?

Well, it seems that today the World is unable to see the truth of the matter. It's not whether the IWF were wrong to black list the article, it's about whether  the image breaks the Law or not. If it does break the Law, then it should be replaced.

Does the image break the Law? Read the law and decide for yourself.

The law on indecent images of children is clear. It means any images of children, apparently under 18 years old, involved in sexual activity or posed to be sexually provocative.

Personally, it seems that one who influences the world, has blinded it. I am saddened by this, as I guess I placed more hope in mankind