After a day of fevered speculation the Internet Watch Foundation having gone off the deep end and banned a 30 year old art house album cover image has now backtracked and decided that "in light of the length of time the image has existed and its wide availability, the decision has been taken to remove this webpage from our list". Did someone say knee-jerk reaction? Last week no one was really aware of the IWF and this week we know that it is not really fit for the purpose or at least its systems and procedures needs some serious looking at.
The correct course of action should have been for the complaint to be made public and then debated rather than jumping to an immediate ban and getting people worked up over issues of censorship.
Instead the IWF banned the image along with access to editing Wikipedia articles for many UK users and there was even talk of taking Amazon down for Christmas all because someone hit the really large button on the IWF site and reported the 1976 album 'Virgin Killer' from hairy German metalers the Scorpions, which contained the image of a naked young girl.
Clearly it is a serious business and the IWF deals with issues of illegal online child sexual abuse reports and action needs to be swift, but it also needs to be correct as well. It made a bad and very public call.
It even seems to be admitting it made something of an error in its statement: "Any further reported instances of this image which are hosted abroad, will not be added to the list. Any further reported instances of this image which are hosted in the UK will be assessed in line with IWF procedures. "IWF’s overriding objective is to minimise the availability of indecent images of children on the internet, however, on this occasion our efforts have had the opposite effect. We regret the unintended consequences for Wikipedia and its users. Wikipedia have been informed of the outcome of this procedure and IWF Board’s subsequent decision."
The IWF should look to the Advertising Standards Authority for some advice on how to conduct itself. The ASA investigates ads, weighs it all up before making a considered judgement. I think that body has a great track record of making the right call. Look at some of today's rulings from that body such as the ad for the children's charity Barnado's featuring repeated scenes of violence. That ad escaped a ban by the advertising watchdog despite almost 500 complaints. Clearly a lot of people wanted to see that banned, but the ASA ruled in the advertiser's favour. It was the right decision and that's all in a days work for the ASA and the industry it serves.
The IWF has a potentially bigger remit and needs to be act and be run appropriately, which is something the industry it serves needs to look at. Hopefully it will learn something from this shambles and make a better call next time.
Gordon Macmillan
Blogging for:
Member since: 03 Jun 2008
Last login: 20 Nov 2009
Total Posts: 1,616
