So a page on Wikipedia showing a “potentially illegal child sexual abuse image”, has been blocked by many ISPs in the UK on the advice of the IWF. The blocked page shows an album cover of German heavy metal band Scorpions, released in 1976. According to the BBC News site many UK users are angered by the block. The whole page has been blocked not just the image.

Now the blockage itself doesn’t bother me, in fact I applaud anyone doing stuff to protect children. But this ban is not equal. Other sites that show the album cover are not blocked by the ISPs and the IWF has not said they should be.

Now this smacks of double standards to me. Sites like Amazon are not blocked but sites like Wikipedia are. Is this to do with the ability of the site to afford to legal action? Perhaps. But if the safety of our children is the aim then all images of the album cover should have been banned no matter which site they are shown on.

Out of interest I went to the Amazon UK site and looked at the cover in question. It shows a naked family, man, woman, child (circa 10/11) and a baby. The woman has one breast showing, the other covered by the baby, the man is showing nothing and the girl has her back to the camera. Outside the cage are a lot of wild animals. A bit like a zoo in reverse. I would have put up a copy on this blog but don’t want the IWF banning my site too but here is a link

I have to say I did not think it at all pornographic, the images weren’t sexual in a pornographic sense, and I think the IWF should spend time on the real problems of child abuse on the Internet. Or perhaps they will go and tae down all the pictures from the grand masters in the art galleries too. Get real IWF and tackle the real issues.

What do you think?