I think the BBC make everything available on their site for a week. Someone recording it and putting up an ogg would be nice! 2008/12/7 John Reaves <johnjreaves(a)gmail.com>om>:

2008/12/7 David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>om>: Nice, sure, but isn't that illegal? I'm sure I read a Wikipedia article on something called "copyright" one time...

Gregory Maxwell wrote: I'm not sure that would send the right message. On the radio interview: I thought David sounded unfair, espousing some unlikely conspiracy theories suggesting that the IWF chose Wikipedia for any other reason than the fact that some disgruntled Wikipedian submitted it to their tip box a few days ago. On the wider issue: I'm sure the IWF would not mind at all if the police started raiding music stores. And there are elements of the wider community that would support them in that. Australians are in the privileged position of having seen this all before, in the form of the Bill Henson controversy six months ago. An art gallery was raided by police and explicit photographs were seized. Journalist David Marr gave us an incisive analysis of the motivations of the prudes, both at the time, and at length in a book published in October. Why is it that this cover image has been around for 30 years, but only now do we see moves for censorship? Marr was asked a similar question in a TV interview regarding the Bill Henson case, and he said "It's the Internet". "The Internet has changed the way we view photography. There is a sense in which no photograph can actually be corralled anymore. Everything is potentially available to anybody anywhere in the world, once it gets on the Internet. We still have to deal with that, that apprehension of the Internet, because it's changing the way we consider art, photography, all sorts of things. Part of the purpose of my book is to look at the history of that fear of the Internet, and try to work out whether in fact we need to be so afraid. I don't think we do." http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2383376.htm -- Tim Starling

An under 18 naked in an erotic pose, even without sexual activity, would qualify as "indecent" by my understanding of how that word is usually interpreted. The key thing with the Virgin Killer cover is that the pose isn't erotic. It's clearly designed to show off her nudity, but that's all.

2008/12/8 Owen Blacker <owen(a)blacker.me.uk>uk>: That sounds about right. No, that doesn't work. If it only becomes indecent once found so by a jury then no-one could ever be convicted on child pornography charges because the image wasn't indecent when they made it. A jury determines whether or not it is indecent, that determination doesn't *make* it indecent. (Yes, there is the principle of "innocent until proven guilty", but that applies to people, not the facts of the case - a person that makes an image is innocent until proven guilty, but the image isn't decent until proven indecent, it simply is what it is.)

If hasn't been proven in a court of law not to be illegal to view. However, it is not illegal to view simply because the image is not sexual as is plain to any reasonable person. So, as you say, the IWF has gone overboard in blocking it.

I agree that David did well, but I wonder whether we are fighting the right battle. I wouldn't want to defend that image as being nude but not erotic. Amazon don't seem to have the image up - I've just searched for scorpion killers and got half a dozen hits, a couple with a photo of the band and the rest with "no image available". See: http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_ss_m_h_?url=search-alias%3Dpopular&fie… Would be better off replacing the photo of a naked 10 year old girl with the image of the band? Regards Jonathan Cardy dahsun(a)yahoo.com --- On Mon, 8/12/08, joseph seddon <life_is_bitter_sweet(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

2008/12/8 Alison Wheeler <wikimedia(a)alisonwheeler.com>om>: Amazon.com currently has the surreal situation where if you search for "virgin killer" in CDs, the third hit has a thumbnail of what's clearly the same cover. As soon as you load the page, though, it changes to "no image available..." -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

At 22:17 +0000 9/12/08, Gordon Joly wrote: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/IWF_reverses_censorship_of_Wikipedia?curid=1179… -- "Think Feynman"///////// http://pobox.com/~gordo/ gordon.joly(a)pobox.com///