Online Advertising

Re: Has the Internet Watch Foundation gone too far?

anton rush — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 08:53:10 GMT

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!

Re: Has the Internet Watch Foundation gone too far?

Peter Hayes — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 19:28:45 GMT

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.

Re: Has the International Watch Foundation gone too far?

Richard Hayter — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 08:58:00 GMT

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.

Re: Has the International Watch Foundation gone too far?

James Byrne — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 19:30:14 GMT

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

Re: Has the International Watch Foundation gone too far?

Richard Hayter — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 09:31:44 GMT

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.

Has the Internet Watch Foundation gone too far?

Forum Admin — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 09:11:34 GMT

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?

[Please visit the site to access the poll]