Internet Censorship- Scorpion's, Blind Faith, What's Next?

Internet Watch Dog Groups Ban Images NOT ILLEGAL

Linda StCyr
Internet censorship hits the media once again today. Yesterday's big news was the UK based internet group IWF (Internet Watch Foundation) placed a ban on a Wikipedia page which featured the album cover of the Scorpion's Virgin Killer album. The UK based watchdog group alleges that the cover is child pornography. Today they are attempting to go after the album cover of a 1969 Blind Faith album cover which features a nude model holding an airplane. The questions arise about if internet censorship is going too far and who appointed the UK based watchdog group to act as morality police?

The answer to the latter question is that the Internet Watch Foundation is entirely sole appointed. They patrol the internet in an attempt to report child pornography which is definitely a commendable cause however they are crossing the line when they start BANNING web pages that are not illegal, not prosecuted and only POTENTIALLY illegal. The first image on the Scorpions Virgin Killer album was reported to the FBI in May 2008. It was reported by WorldNetDaily and also an extremist group Concerned Women For America. The FBI did launch an investigation which has not resulted in any decisions or announcements.

What does this type of censorship mean for UK users and US users? Well if this type of ban is allowed then we will be forced to ban plenty of other images that can be found on Wikipedia. It should be noted also here that the images that have been found "distasteful" by these watch dog groups can be found in libraries all over the world. Wikipedia is the internet world's online encyclopedia which is written and updated by the internet public with accurate information and sources for the information. Updates and additions are made as new information comes to light. The UK group that has banned the Scorpions page on Wikipedia has inhibited the UK users who edit the information from doing their job.

If this type of banning is allowed to generate then it will only be a matter of time before we will not be able to view famous artists such as Michaelangelo, DaVinci and Raphael. Consider that some paintings by these artists have nude cherubs (young children models), men and women. Not only will artists be banned but information will be banned as well such as sex education, art history and music history.

Even if the 30+ year old album covers are tasteless and distasteful they should not be BANNED from the public eye without proof that they are illegal. Is the Blind Faith album cover next? What about pictures of The Vetruvian Man? Will Michaelangelo's David be next? Internet users everywhere need to be concerned with what a ban like this will mean for them and what they are censored from.

Published by Linda StCyr

Linda St.Cyr has been a featured contributor for Associated Content from Yahoo!, she is the author of several short stories including the story "Leaving" published in the anthology collection, Elements of Ti...   View profile

10 Comments

Post a Comment
  • Terrie Schultz 6/30/2010

    Good article. I think I read somewhere that the girl on the Blind Faith album cover is Ginger Baker's sister.

  • P.V. Ariel 12/14/2008

    Yet another interesting and informative piece. Thanks for sharing * * * * *

  • Debbie Henthorn 12/11/2008

    Nannyism...When I read this, the album cover for Nirvana's "Nevermind" (I think) comes to...well, mind. The one with the little baby boy swimming naked. Give the nannies time.

  • jpsixbear 12/10/2008

    I guess this could be argued either way, nice job, thought provoking article

  • CJ Mathis 12/10/2008

    I can see why some people would feel that this needs to be done but to monitor everyone and police them up is a little difficult and should not pertain to just ordinary people doing the policing. Thanks for a good clear and concise report.

  • 3lilangels 12/10/2008

    hmmmm interesting, well done!

  • K. Karl 12/10/2008

    Can anyone say "Net Force". Although the original premise behind the book was not to ban websites, it was to monitor illegal activity. How can these self appointed people get the right to ban websites?

  • Charlotte Kuchinsky 12/10/2008

    Hmmmmmmmmmmmm

  • Benjamin Daymon 12/9/2008

    The words "slippery slope" come to mind.

  • Michael Segers 12/9/2008

    Thanks. I hadn't heard about this. You keep me up to date.

Displaying Comments

To comment, please sign in to your Yahoo! account, or sign up for a new account.