Reply to: ISPs blocking stuff ?

[NotAllThere]

The discussion page for virgin killer on wikipedia makes quite interesting reading. Nirvana's Nevermind shows a baby bow swimming naked. With the comment "If you're offended by this, you must be a closet paedophile."

[thunderlizard]

Also Bow Wow Wow or Haircut 100. Can't be bothered to check.

ht notreally h
tl

[Peoplesoft bloke]

My ISP (three) has blocked access to the aviation safety network for some time. I think it's them being totally crap rather than a deliberate policy

[minestrone]

I have that blind faith album. Always though it was a bit odd.

I'm sure Grace Jones has a picture of herself naked as a teenager on one of her album's gatefolds.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

Assuming your access to Wikipedia hasn't been censored by your elected goverment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_Faith_(album)

According to the article she was in fact 11 (which I find very hard to believe), and clicking the above link may land you in jail. I'll see you there - I've suddenly realised I've had this bit of child porn in my posession for at least 20 odd years.

Speaking as a geek (again) the "sculpture" she's holding is very very similar to the hood (bonnet) ornament on my 1956 Chevrolet 210.

[VectraMan]

Almost. It was Blind Faith (Claptons new "Supergroup" after Cream). The cover caused controversy at the time, but it's still available and you can view it at Amazon.

Assuming your access to Wikipedia hasn't been censored by your elected goverment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_Faith_(album)

According to the article she was in fact 11 (which I find very hard to believe), and clicking the above link may land you in jail. I'll see you there - I've suddenly realised I've had this bit of child porn in my posession for at least 20 odd years.

[ratewhore]

No. Wikipedia notes that one also as being "controversial"

Only a mere controversy? Chewing gum is a bugger to get off...

[Platypus]

Is this the 'chewing gum' album cover?

No. Wikipedia notes that one also as being "controversial"

[ratewhore]

Is this the 'chewing gum' album cover?

[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"

[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.

[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'?

[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.

[Platypus]

That is what you meant right?

(mumble) yes of course

[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?