ISPs blocking stuff ?

[PerlOfWisdom]

I don't understand..?

!= means "not equal to"

[Platypus]

!= means "not equal to"

In my geekery I assumed everyone knew that

[expat]

More worrying is that our taxes are paying for some quasi-legal body, the "Internet Watch Foundation", that is having ISPs crudely censor pages that it deems wrong.

If it is illegal, let us see legal action, for example against importers and retailers of the album.

If it is not illegal, desist from preventing people from seeing it if they want to.

[Platypus]

More worrying is that our taxes are paying for some quasi-legal body, the "Internet Watch Foundation", that is having ISPs crudely censor pages that it deems wrong.

If it is illegal, let us see legal action, for example against importers and retailers of the album.

If it is not illegal, desist from preventing people from seeing it if they want to.

But big brother knows best ...

[Ravello]

But big brother knows best ...

Exactly. Chucking 14 chavs in the same house for 3 months and studying them gives you that sort of insight.

That is what you meant right?

[Platypus]

That is what you meant right?

(mumble) yes of course

[Peoplesoft bloke]

!= means "not equal to"

If I may make a geeky observation, != is fine for most SQL but the ANSI standard is <> and != doesn't work in DB2 for example.

[d000hg]

My comment was in poor taste.

As I'm sure you know, there must be something sexual about the image for it to be deemed indecent.

Therefore naked != porn

So if I take photos of your very young kids playing naked in a paddling pool, and post them on the web, that is OK with you? How can a 5-year-old be 'sexual'?

[expat]

ZDNET put the issue quite well:

If this had been a case of pure censorship, then we would have the luxury of discussion over time. It wasn't. It was a direct denial-of-service attack on a third-party web service, sponsored by the state.

[Platypus]

So if I take photos of your very young kids playing naked in a paddling pool, and post them on the web, that is OK with you? How can a 5-year-old be 'sexual'?

Of course not.

But if YOU take photos of YOUR kids and post them on the internet so your relatives in Australia can see how the kids are doing, that's up to you.

I think you know the distinction, and I'm wondering why I bothered to try to make the (legal) point in the first place.

EDIT: I used the wrong word "sexual" should have been "indecent"