Brand Republic
 
Edition:
UK |
Asia
 
Digital jobs

Jobs

Find over 3000 jobs
 

Directory

 

Has the Internet Watch Foundation gone too far?

Last post 19 Dec 2008 8:53 AM by anton rush. 5 replies.
Post Rating
Sort Posts:

  • 09 Dec 2008 9:11 AM

    Has the Internet Watch Foundation gone too far?

    Reply Contact
    The Internet Watch Foundation has banned a Wikipedia page, because it features an album cover by a 70s heavy metal band which has a naked child on the front cover.

    Does a self-appointed body such as the IWF have the right to censor what we can see on the internet? Are we on the road to Orwellian thought control?

    Has the International Watch Foundation gone too far?

     

    • No - The image is offensive and illegal (10.3%)
    • Yes - The IWF does not have the right to appoint themselves judge and jury (71.8%)
    • Maybe - I can see why the IWF took this action but they should have banned the image, not the page, and consulted Wikipedia (17.9%)
    • Total Votes: 39

  • 09 Dec 2008 9:31 AM
    In reply to

    Re: Has the International Watch Foundation gone too far?

    Reply Contact
    Nobody has the right to prevent me from seeing anything that is not illegal – particularly not a QUANGO that I had no part in electing or selecting. It's undemocratic and offensive.

  • 09 Dec 2008 7:30 PM
    In reply to

    Re: Has the International Watch Foundation gone too far?

    Reply Contact
    two words - brass eye http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NesjvRihbEg

  • 10 Dec 2008 8:58 AM
    In reply to

    Re: Has the International Watch Foundation gone too far?

    Reply Contact
    Thanks for that James. Laughed so much a bit of wee came out. Anyway, I notice that the self-appointed guardians of our morale fibre – the IWF – have reversed their decision on the grounds that the images has been around since 1976 and it's a bit late to do anything about it. Duh.

  • 11 Dec 2008 7:28 PM
    In reply to

    Re: Has the Internet Watch Foundation gone too far?

    Reply Contact

     The image is offensive in that it is a sexual provective image featuring a child.It is wrong.

    Mind you, one of the most succesful image ever used in advertising was a dog pulling down a little girls underwear to reveal her bare white bottom. Was used to twenty years. I don't think that image would stand much scrutiney.

  • 19 Dec 2008 8:53 AM
    In reply to

    Re: Has the Internet Watch Foundation gone too far?

    Reply Contact
    If it wasn't offensive first time round then why now? People have actually died for personal freedom - the freedom of thought of speech and of action. How many people have done the same for 'political correctness'? This is the thin end of the wedge and hopefully our message will get through in some small way to this lot (another whiny committee counting angels on a pinhead) - back off!
Page 1 of 1 (6 items)