British ISPs blocking access to Wikipedia

[Z0MBiE]

Wikinews has learned that at least six of the United Kingdom's main Internet Service Providers (ISPs) have implemented monitoring and filtering mechanisms that are causing major problems for UK contributors on websites operated by the Wikimedia Foundation, amongst up to 1200 other websites. The filters appear to be applied because Wikimedia sites are hosting a Scorpions album cover which some would call child pornography.

[click here for more]

i really don't see how that image is classed as "pornography".

[Seiyuuki]

ehhhh?
BT had better not mess with my wiki-ness over this. I really couldn't care less about that image being up there, so long as it isn't causing me problems viewing other pages.

[Neil]

I'm with Virgin Media, and I can't access the Virgin Killers article on Wikipedia.

I'm quite annoyed now. Richard Branson can stick his 3-for-£30 offer.

[Z0MBiE]

I'm with Virgin Media, and I can't access the Virgin Killers article on Wikipedia.

I'm quite annoyed now. Richard Branson can stick his 3-for-£30 offer.

i'm with them too.

but that won't stop moi.

http://translate.google.com/translat...hl=en&ie=UTF-8

google comes in handy.

[Greed]

People will fap to anything nowadays. Might as well post a fetus holding a banana and call that CP.

Although, after seeing the pic, I can understand the controversy of it but that doesn't seem like CP. To me at least.

[Mofo]

I've seen nude minors in school books, those that count as CP as well? LOL

[Ronin]

Protection of Children Act 1978 (c.37)

1.
Indecent photographs of children.
— (1) It is an offence for a person—
(a)
to take, or permit to be taken [F1 or to make], any indecent photograph [F1 or pseudo-photograph]of a child F2 . . .; or
(b)
to distribute or show such indecent photographs [F3 or pseudo-photographs]; or
(c)
to have in his possession such indecent photographs [F3 or pseudo-photographs], with a view to their being distributed or shown by himself or others; or
(d)
to publish or cause to be published any advertisement likely to be understood as conveying that the advertiser distributes or shows such indecent photographs [F3 or pseudo-photographs], or intends to do so.

Well, it is definitely falling under the definition of "indecent".
It depicts clearly a stance and nudity.