After the IWF had labeled it as “potential illegal child sexual abuse” a number of British ISPs had blocked the image. Very quickly, however, the IWF has been forced to do a U-turn, admitting that since the image is 32 years old and widely available online, there was no point in proscribing the image on the online encyclopedia.
In a statement on its site, the IWF said:
“Following representations from Wikipedia, IWF invoked its Appeals Procedure and has given careful consideration to the issues involved in this case. The procedure is now complete and has confirmed that the image in question is potentially in breach of the Protection of Children Act 1978. However, the IWF Board has today (9 December 2008) considered these findings and the contextual issues involved in this specific case and, in light of the length of time the image has existed and its wide availability, the decision has been taken to remove this webpage from our list.”
“Any further reported instances of this image which are hosted abroad, will not be added to the list. Any further reported instances of this image which are hosted in the UK will be assessed in line with IWF procedures.”
“IWF’s overriding objective is to minimise the availability of indecent images of children on the internet, however, on this occasion our efforts have had the opposite effect. We regret the unintended consequences for Wikipedia and its users. Wikipedia have been informed of the outcome of this procedure and IWF Board’s subsequent decision.”
- Watch Mars landing highlights, including first images from rover
- Trump says he’ll ban TikTok from the U.S.
- YouTube is trying to crack down on QAnon videos. It’s not working
- Amazon bans police from using facial recognition tech Rekognition for 1 year
- What does it take to make a social media network that doesn’t exploit users?