Why the IWF was wrong to lift its ban on a Wikipedia page

I don’t agree with the views expressed in this article but cyberlaw.org.uk provides links to all views expressed on the IWF matter. The IWF’s role is NOT comparable to the Advertising Standards Authority and the IWF is an “unaccountable private organization” which assumed the role of “self-policing”. Its powers are not provided by law, its decisions lack transparency, it has a very debatable appeals procedure, and certainly it is not a substitute for the courts of law. Illegality, whether it is child pornography, or extreme pornography, is a matter for the courts to decide, not for an industry organization to decide. [Blog entry by Yaman Akdeniz]

Why the IWF was wrong to lift its ban on a Wikipedia page: “EDITORIAL: The Internet Watch Foundation faced a storm of criticism this week over its decision to add a Wikipedia entry to a blacklist of pages that ISPs block. Under pressure, the IWF removed the image from its blacklist. That decision was a mistake.”

(Via OUT-LAW News.)

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Twitter

Be the first to comment on "Why the IWF was wrong to lift its ban on a Wikipedia page"

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*