Virgin Killer controversies - Revision history

The Admins at 18:43, 9 August 2023

2023-08-09T18:43:15Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:43, 9 August 2023
Line 59:		Line 59:
	Wikipedia was removed from the IWF blacklist <ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20081210121750/https://www.iwf.org.uk/media/news.251.htm (IWF statement)]</ref>.		Wikipedia was removed from the IWF blacklist <ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20081210121750/https://www.iwf.org.uk/media/news.251.htm (IWF statement)]</ref>.

	Quoted on Channel 4 News,<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20081228055333/https://www.channel4.com/news/articles/science_technology/wikipedia%20may%20challenge%20iwf%20ban/2877057</ref> [[Jimmy Wales]], the founder of [[Wikipedia]] reflected on the controversy:		Quoted on Channel 4 News,<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20081228055333/https://www.channel4.com/news/articles/science_technology/wikipedia%20may%20challenge%20iwf%20ban/2877057</ref> [[Wikipedia:Jimmy Wales\|Jimmy Wales]], the founder of [[Wikipedia censorship of MAP related topics\|Wikipedia]] reflected on the controversy:

	:''"My first thoughts when I was told that the Internet Watch Foundation had blocked the Wikipedia page was that we should take them to court. But because they're not a statutory body, I've been told we can't necessarily challenge their decision.''		:''"My first thoughts when I was told that the Internet Watch Foundation had blocked the Wikipedia page was that we should take them to court. But because they're not a statutory body, I've been told we can't necessarily challenge their decision.''

The Admins: /* References */

2023-01-23T19:45:01Z

References

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:45, 23 January 2023
Line 82:		Line 82:
	==References==		==References==

	[[Category:Official Encyclopedia]][[Category:Censorship]][[Category:Child Pornography]][[Category:Hysteria]][[Category:Art]][[Category:Law/Crime]][[Category:Law/Crime: British]][[Category:Law/Crime: American]][[Category:History & Events]][[Category:History & Events: British]][[Category:History & Events: American]][[Category:History & Events: 2000s]]		[[Category:Official Encyclopedia]][[Category:Censorship]][[Category:Child Pornography]][[Category:Hysteria]][[Category:Art]][[Category:Law/Crime]][[Category:Law/Crime: British]][[Category:Law/Crime: American]][[Category:History & Events]][[Category:History & Events: British]][[Category:History & Events: American]][[Category:History & Events: 2000s]][[Category:History & Events: Moral controversies]]

The Admins at 00:56, 23 August 2022

2022-08-23T00:56:29Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:56, 23 August 2022
Line 1:		Line 1:
	__NOTOC__[[Image:Schilling.jpg\|thumb\|Chelsea Schilling]]The '''Virgin Killer controversies''' were two (almost certainly) related internet censorship disputes, firstly involving Chelsea Schilling, [[Wikipedia]] and the [[FBI]] (In [[America]]), and then Wikipedia, the [[IWF]] and various other media outlets that covered the controversy (in the [[UK]]).		__NOTOC__[[Image:Schilling.jpg\|thumb\|Chelsea Schilling]]The '''Virgin Killer controversies''' were two (almost certainly) related internet censorship disputes, firstly involving Chelsea Schilling, [[Wikipedia censorship of MAP related topics\|Wikipedia]] and the [[FBI]] (In America), and then Wikipedia, the [[IWF]] and various other media outlets that covered the controversy (in the UK).

	Both controversies centre on Wikipedia's use of an image called "Virgin Killer", which depicts a naked prepubescent girl from the cover of a 1976 Scorpions (rock) album. Whilst the girl in the image has not developed breasts, and her vulva is deliberately concealed, it has been argued that the image is provocative and may in fact be [[child pornography]]. Despite the image being freely available on the internet, we do not display or link to it for legal reasons. Chelsea Schilling follows in a fine tradition of congressional staffers who have attempted to censor Wikipedia<ref>https://politics.slashdot.org/story/06/01/29/1732238/wikipedia-entries-cleaned-by-political-staffers</ref>.		Both controversies centre on Wikipedia's use of an image called "Virgin Killer", which depicts a naked prepubescent girl from the cover of a 1976 Scorpions (rock) album. Whilst the girl in the image has not developed breasts, and her vulva is deliberately concealed, it has been argued that the image is provocative and may in fact be [[child pornography]]. Despite the image being freely available on the internet, we do not display or link to it for legal reasons. Chelsea Schilling follows in a fine tradition of congressional staffers who have attempted to censor Wikipedia<ref>https://politics.slashdot.org/story/06/01/29/1732238/wikipedia-entries-cleaned-by-political-staffers</ref>.
Line 7:		Line 7:
	===May 06, 2008===		===May 06, 2008===

	Chelsea Schilling, a former<ref>[http://www.legistorm.com/person/Chelsea_L_Schilling/9855.html Chelsea Schilling profile]</ref> and at the time aspiring writer for the ultra-conserative, [[American]] "pro-family" website [[World Net Daily]] publishes a provocative editorial entitled "''[http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=63590 Is Wikipedia wicked porn?]''". In it, she attacks Wikipedia for hosting informative images that may otherwse be seen as pornographic, listing a number of inclusions that she, as an anti-gay/ultra-conservative, is offended by:		Chelsea Schilling, a former Congressional Staffer<ref>[http://www.legistorm.com/person/Chelsea_L_Schilling/9855.html Chelsea Schilling profile]</ref> and at the time aspiring writer for the ultra-conserative, American "pro-family" website ''World Net Daily'' publishes a provocative editorial entitled "''[http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=63590 Is Wikipedia wicked porn?]''". In it, she attacks Wikipedia for hosting informative images that may otherwse be seen as pornographic, listing a number of inclusions that she, as an anti-gay/ultra-conservative, is offended by:
	<blockquote>		<blockquote>
	*Recordings of women experiencing orgasms		*Recordings of women experiencing orgasms

The Admins: /* December 9, 2008 */

2022-05-13T19:32:12Z

December 9, 2008

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:32, 13 May 2022
Line 67:		Line 67:
	:''"As a result of their actions, the image is actually being seen by more people, it's appearing on thousands of blogs today. It will continue to be passed on. What are they going to do? Are they going to block all of the web if it continues to be spread?"''		:''"As a result of their actions, the image is actually being seen by more people, it's appearing on thousands of blogs today. It will continue to be passed on. What are they going to do? Are they going to block all of the web if it continues to be spread?"''

	The IWF has said that it "might yet add Amazon US to its list of 'blocked' sites for hosting the picture", which could cause major disruption to the site just before the festive season. This incident has also had an effect on Australian internet censoring plans. In the wake of this event Telstra and Internode Systems said they will no longer participate in the trials. Electronic Frontiers Australia vice-chairman Colin Jacobs said that "yesterday's incident in Britain, in which virtually the entire country was unable to edit Wikipedia because the country's Internet Watch Foundation had blacklisted a single image on the site, illustrated the pitfalls of mandatory ISP filtering".<ref>http://www.smh.com.au/news/home/technology/labor-plan-to-censor-internet-in-shreds/2008/12/09/1228584820006.html?page=2</ref> ''The Sydney Morning Herald'' has commented that "Ironically, the banning of the image has only made it visible to more people as news sites publicise the issue and the image spreads across sites other than Wikipedia." This is known as the <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect Streisand effect</ref>.		The IWF has said that it "might yet add Amazon US to its list of 'blocked' sites for hosting the picture", which could cause major disruption to the site just before the festive season. This incident has also had an effect on Australian internet censoring plans. In the wake of this event Telstra and Internode Systems said they will no longer participate in the trials. Electronic Frontiers Australia vice-chairman Colin Jacobs said that "yesterday's incident in Britain, in which virtually the entire country was unable to edit Wikipedia because the country's Internet Watch Foundation had blacklisted a single image on the site, illustrated the pitfalls of mandatory ISP filtering".<ref>http://www.smh.com.au/news/home/technology/labor-plan-to-censor-internet-in-shreds/2008/12/09/1228584820006.html?page=2</ref> ''The Sydney Morning Herald'' has commented that "Ironically, the banning of the image has only made it visible to more people as news sites publicise the issue and the image spreads across sites other than Wikipedia." This is known as the Streisand effect.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect Streisand effect</ref>.

	==Chelsea Schilling==		==Chelsea Schilling==

JohnHolt at 04:31, 13 October 2021

2021-10-13T04:31:18Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:31, 13 October 2021
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~__NOTOC__The~~ '''Virgin Killer controversies''' were two (almost certainly) related internet censorship disputes, firstly involving [[Chelsea Schilling]], [[Wikipedia]] and the [[FBI]] (In [[America]]), and then Wikipedia, the [[IWF]] and various other media outlets that covered the controversy (in the [[UK]]).		__NOTOC__[[Image:Schilling.jpg\|thumb\|Chelsea Schilling]]The '''Virgin Killer controversies''' were two (almost certainly) related internet censorship disputes, firstly involving Chelsea Schilling, [[Wikipedia]] and the [[FBI]] (In [[America]]), and then Wikipedia, the [[IWF]] and various other media outlets that covered the controversy (in the [[UK]]).

	Both controversies centre on Wikipedia's use of an image called "Virgin Killer", which depicts a naked prepubescent girl from the cover of a 1976 Scorpions (rock) album. Whilst the girl in the image has not developed breasts, and her vulva is deliberately concealed, it has been argued that the image is provocative and may in fact be [[child pornography]]. Despite the image being freely available on the internet, we do not display or link to it for legal reasons. Chelsea Schilling follows in a fine tradition of congressional staffers who have attempted to censor Wikipedia<ref>https://politics.slashdot.org/story/06/01/29/1732238/wikipedia-entries-cleaned-by-political-staffers</ref>.		Both controversies centre on Wikipedia's use of an image called "Virgin Killer", which depicts a naked prepubescent girl from the cover of a 1976 Scorpions (rock) album. Whilst the girl in the image has not developed breasts, and her vulva is deliberately concealed, it has been argued that the image is provocative and may in fact be [[child pornography]]. Despite the image being freely available on the internet, we do not display or link to it for legal reasons. Chelsea Schilling follows in a fine tradition of congressional staffers who have attempted to censor Wikipedia<ref>https://politics.slashdot.org/story/06/01/29/1732238/wikipedia-entries-cleaned-by-political-staffers</ref>.
Line 7:		Line 7:
	===May 06, 2008===		===May 06, 2008===

	[[Chelsea Schilling]], a former<ref>[http://www.legistorm.com/person/Chelsea_L_Schilling/9855.html Chelsea Schilling profile]</ref> and at the time aspiring writer for the ultra-conserative, [[American]] "pro-family" website [[World Net Daily]] publishes a provocative editorial entitled "''[http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=63590 Is Wikipedia wicked porn?]''". In it, she attacks Wikipedia for hosting informative images that may otherwse be seen as pornographic, listing a number of inclusions that she, as an anti-gay/ultra-conservative, is offended by:		Chelsea Schilling, a former<ref>[http://www.legistorm.com/person/Chelsea_L_Schilling/9855.html Chelsea Schilling profile]</ref> and at the time aspiring writer for the ultra-conserative, [[American]] "pro-family" website [[World Net Daily]] publishes a provocative editorial entitled "''[http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=63590 Is Wikipedia wicked porn?]''". In it, she attacks Wikipedia for hosting informative images that may otherwse be seen as pornographic, listing a number of inclusions that she, as an anti-gay/ultra-conservative, is offended by:
	<blockquote>		<blockquote>
	*Recordings of women experiencing orgasms		*Recordings of women experiencing orgasms
Line 68:		Line 68:

	The IWF has said that it "might yet add Amazon US to its list of 'blocked' sites for hosting the picture", which could cause major disruption to the site just before the festive season. This incident has also had an effect on Australian internet censoring plans. In the wake of this event Telstra and Internode Systems said they will no longer participate in the trials. Electronic Frontiers Australia vice-chairman Colin Jacobs said that "yesterday's incident in Britain, in which virtually the entire country was unable to edit Wikipedia because the country's Internet Watch Foundation had blacklisted a single image on the site, illustrated the pitfalls of mandatory ISP filtering".<ref>http://www.smh.com.au/news/home/technology/labor-plan-to-censor-internet-in-shreds/2008/12/09/1228584820006.html?page=2</ref> ''The Sydney Morning Herald'' has commented that "Ironically, the banning of the image has only made it visible to more people as news sites publicise the issue and the image spreads across sites other than Wikipedia." This is known as the <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect Streisand effect</ref>.		The IWF has said that it "might yet add Amazon US to its list of 'blocked' sites for hosting the picture", which could cause major disruption to the site just before the festive season. This incident has also had an effect on Australian internet censoring plans. In the wake of this event Telstra and Internode Systems said they will no longer participate in the trials. Electronic Frontiers Australia vice-chairman Colin Jacobs said that "yesterday's incident in Britain, in which virtually the entire country was unable to edit Wikipedia because the country's Internet Watch Foundation had blacklisted a single image on the site, illustrated the pitfalls of mandatory ISP filtering".<ref>http://www.smh.com.au/news/home/technology/labor-plan-to-censor-internet-in-shreds/2008/12/09/1228584820006.html?page=2</ref> ''The Sydney Morning Herald'' has commented that "Ironically, the banning of the image has only made it visible to more people as news sites publicise the issue and the image spreads across sites other than Wikipedia." This is known as the <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect Streisand effect</ref>.

			==Chelsea Schilling==

			Chelsea L. Schilling is a conservative journalist from California who writes editorials on the moral "dangers" of the internet for the religious-right website ''WorldNetDaily''. Schilling's work is largely critical of alternative sexuality and free expression. Her employer tells of academic excellence, experience in the army and multiple awards.<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=59335</ref> Schilling has also been awarded a scholarship<ref>http://www.writersleague.org/scholarships/awardees.html</ref>, and worked as a congressional staffer in 2005<ref>http://www.legistorm.com/person/Chelsea_L_Schilling/9855.html</ref>

	==External links==		==External links==

JohnHolt at 04:27, 13 October 2021

2021-10-13T04:27:19Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:27, 13 October 2021
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~The~~ '''Virgin Killer controversies''' were two (almost certainly) related internet censorship disputes, firstly involving [[Chelsea Schilling]], [[Wikipedia]] and the [[FBI]] (In [[America]]), and then Wikipedia, the [[IWF]] and various other media outlets that covered the controversy (in the [[UK]]).		__NOTOC__The '''Virgin Killer controversies''' were two (almost certainly) related internet censorship disputes, firstly involving [[Chelsea Schilling]], [[Wikipedia]] and the [[FBI]] (In [[America]]), and then Wikipedia, the [[IWF]] and various other media outlets that covered the controversy (in the [[UK]]).

	Both controversies centre on Wikipedia's use of an image called "Virgin Killer", which depicts a naked prepubescent girl from the cover of a 1976 Scorpions (rock) album. Whilst the girl in the image has not developed breasts, and her vulva is deliberately concealed, it has been argued that the image is provocative and may in fact be [[child pornography]]. Despite the image being freely available on the internet, we do not display or link to it for legal reasons.		Both controversies centre on Wikipedia's use of an image called "Virgin Killer", which depicts a naked prepubescent girl from the cover of a 1976 Scorpions (rock) album. Whilst the girl in the image has not developed breasts, and her vulva is deliberately concealed, it has been argued that the image is provocative and may in fact be [[child pornography]]. Despite the image being freely available on the internet, we do not display or link to it for legal reasons. Chelsea Schilling follows in a fine tradition of congressional staffers who have attempted to censor Wikipedia<ref>https://politics.slashdot.org/story/06/01/29/1732238/wikipedia-entries-cleaned-by-political-staffers</ref>.

	==Timeline==		==Timeline==

	~~'''~~May 06, 2008~~'''~~		===May 06, 2008===

	[[Chelsea Schilling]], a former [http://www.legistorm.com/person/Chelsea_L_Schilling/9855.html ~~congressional staffer~~] and aspiring writer for the ultra-conserative, [[American]] "pro-family" website [[World Net Daily]] publishes a provocative editorial entitled "''[http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=63590 Is Wikipedia wicked porn?]''". In it, she attacks Wikipedia for hosting informative images that may otherwse be seen as pornographic, listing a number of inclusions that she, as an anti-gay/ultra-conservative, is offended by:		[[Chelsea Schilling]], a former<ref>[http://www.legistorm.com/person/Chelsea_L_Schilling/9855.html Chelsea Schilling profile]</ref> and at the time aspiring writer for the ultra-conserative, [[American]] "pro-family" website [[World Net Daily]] publishes a provocative editorial entitled "''[http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=63590 Is Wikipedia wicked porn?]''". In it, she attacks Wikipedia for hosting informative images that may otherwse be seen as pornographic, listing a number of inclusions that she, as an anti-gay/ultra-conservative, is offended by:
	<blockquote>		<blockquote>
	*Recordings of women experiencing orgasms		*Recordings of women experiencing orgasms
Line 21:		Line 21:
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>

	~~'''~~May 07, 2008~~'''~~		===May 07, 2008===

	Schilling continues her outburst against Wikipedia, publishing a new editorial ("''[http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=63722 FBI investigates 'Wikipedophilia]~~'''")~~ based on the following revelation:		Schilling continues her outburst against Wikipedia, publishing a new editorial "FBI investigates "Wikipedophilia""<ref>[http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=63722 FBI investigates "Wikipedophilia"]</ref> based on the following revelation:

	:''"In the wake of WND news coverage, the FBI is now reviewing a Wikipedia photo of a nude adolescent that could violate federal child-pornography laws. [...] The album's cover was banned in the United States due to its extremely controversial nature and was later replaced with a photo of the band. When WND brought the image to the attention of several Wikipedia representatives, they denied any knowledge of it.		:''"In the wake of WND news coverage, the FBI is now reviewing a Wikipedia photo of a nude adolescent that could violate federal child-pornography laws. [...] The album's cover was banned in the United States due to its extremely controversial nature and was later replaced with a photo of the band. When WND brought the image to the attention of several Wikipedia representatives, they denied any knowledge of it.
Line 41:		Line 41:
	Over the following days, Wikipedia editors discuss whether to censor the image or retain it in the face of conservative uproar. Despite deletion attempts by editors including [[Richard Weiss]], a consensus to keep the image eventually develops.		Over the following days, Wikipedia editors discuss whether to censor the image or retain it in the face of conservative uproar. Despite deletion attempts by editors including [[Richard Weiss]], a consensus to keep the image eventually develops.

	~~'''~~May 08, 2008~~'''~~		===May 08, 2008===

	Schilling's final editorial, entitled ''"[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=63770 ~~Wikipedia debates kiddie porn action]"''~~ mocks the nuance with which the editors approached the topics covered in her two previous articles.		Schilling's final editorial, entitled "Wikipedia debates kiddie porn action"<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=63770</ref> mocks the nuance with which the editors approached the topics covered in her two previous articles.

	The FBI refused to prosecute Wikimedia for these alleged violations.		The FBI refused to prosecute Wikimedia for these alleged violations.

	~~'''~~December 5-8, 2008~~'''~~		===December 5-8, 2008===

	The [[Internet Watch Foundation]], a British watchdog group, added Wikipedia's article ''Virgin Killer'' to a blacklist of websites it deems "potentially illegal". The Virgin Killer image page depicting the cover art was also blacklisted (but not the image itself). The IWF said they were first notified of the Wikipedia URL on Thursday, 4 December 2008. This followed the May 2008 reporting of the cover image by Schilling.		The [[Internet Watch Foundation]], a British watchdog group, added Wikipedia's article ''Virgin Killer'' to a blacklist of websites it deems "potentially illegal". The Virgin Killer image page depicting the cover art was also blacklisted (but not the image itself). The IWF said they were first notified of the Wikipedia URL on Thursday, 4 December 2008. This followed the May 2008 reporting of the cover image by Schilling.

	The IWF described the image as "a potentially illegal indecent image of a child under the age of 18".[http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2008/dec/08/] Users of major ISPs were unable to access the content, despite the album cover being available unfiltered on other major sites including Amazon.co.uk and available for sale in the UK.~~[http~~://www.~~guardian~~.~~co.uk~~/technology/2008/dec/08/~~wikipedia-censorship]~~		The IWF described the image as "a potentially illegal indecent image of a child under the age of 18".<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2008/dec/08/</ref> Users of major ISPs were unable to access the content, despite the album cover being available unfiltered on other major sites including Amazon.co.uk and available for sale in the UK.<ref>https://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2008/dec/08/internet</ref>

	Usually most Internet users have a unique IP address visible to websites. However, as a result of ISPs using the IWF blacklist, traffic to Wikipedia via those affected ISPs was then routed through a small number of proxy servers.[http://www.pcworld.com/article/155112/~~wikipedia_article_censored_in_uk_for_the_first_time~~.html] This caused problems for users of the site. Since Wikipedia allows users to anonymously edit its encyclopedia articles, these individuals are identified only through their IP addresses, which are used to selectively block users who vandalise the site or otherwise break its rules. The proxy filtering makes it impossible to uniquely distinguish users, and to prevent vandalism Wikipedia "instituted a blanket ban on anonymous edits from the six ISPs, which account for 95 per cent of British residential internet users".[http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/web/wikipedia-added-to-child-pornography-blacklist/2008/12/08/1228584723764.html]		Usually most Internet users have a unique IP address visible to websites. However, as a result of ISPs using the IWF blacklist, traffic to Wikipedia via those affected ISPs was then routed through a small number of proxy servers.<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20170421051447/http://www.pcworld.com/article/155112/wikipedia_censored.html</ref> This caused problems for users of the site. Since Wikipedia allows users to anonymously edit its encyclopedia articles, these individuals are identified only through their IP addresses, which are used to selectively block users who vandalise the site or otherwise break its rules. The proxy filtering makes it impossible to uniquely distinguish users, and to prevent vandalism Wikipedia "instituted a blanket ban on anonymous edits from the six ISPs, which account for 95 per cent of British residential internet users".<ref>http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/web/wikipedia-added-to-child-pornography-blacklist/2008/12/08/1228584723764.html</ref>

	~~'''~~December 9, 2008~~'''~~		===December 9, 2008===

	Wikipedia was removed from the IWF blacklist [~~http~~://www.iwf.org.uk/media/news.251.htm (IWF statement)].		Wikipedia was removed from the IWF blacklist <ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20081210121750/https://www.iwf.org.uk/media/news.251.htm (IWF statement)]</ref>.

	Quoted on Channel 4 News,~~[http~~://www.channel4.com/news/articles/science_technology/wikipedia%20may%20challenge%20iwf%20ban/2877057] [[Jimmy Wales]], the founder of [[Wikipedia]] reflected on the controversy:		Quoted on Channel 4 News,<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20081228055333/https://www.channel4.com/news/articles/science_technology/wikipedia%20may%20challenge%20iwf%20ban/2877057</ref> [[Jimmy Wales]], the founder of [[Wikipedia]] reflected on the controversy:

	:''"My first thoughts when I was told that the Internet Watch Foundation had blocked the Wikipedia page was that we should take them to court. But because they're not a statutory body, I've been told we can't necessarily challenge their decision.''		:''"My first thoughts when I was told that the Internet Watch Foundation had blocked the Wikipedia page was that we should take them to court. But because they're not a statutory body, I've been told we can't necessarily challenge their decision.''
Line 67:		Line 67:
	:''"As a result of their actions, the image is actually being seen by more people, it's appearing on thousands of blogs today. It will continue to be passed on. What are they going to do? Are they going to block all of the web if it continues to be spread?"''		:''"As a result of their actions, the image is actually being seen by more people, it's appearing on thousands of blogs today. It will continue to be passed on. What are they going to do? Are they going to block all of the web if it continues to be spread?"''

	The IWF has said that it "might yet add Amazon US to its list of 'blocked' sites for hosting the picture", which could cause major disruption to the site just before the festive season. This incident has also had an effect on Australian internet censoring plans. In the wake of this event Telstra and Internode Systems said they will no longer participate in the trials. Electronic Frontiers Australia vice-chairman Colin Jacobs said that "yesterday's incident in Britain, in which virtually the entire country was unable to edit Wikipedia because the country's Internet Watch Foundation had blacklisted a single image on the site, illustrated the pitfalls of mandatory ISP filtering".[http://www.smh.com.au/news/home/technology/labor-plan-to-censor-internet-in-shreds/2008/12/09/1228584820006.html?page=2] ''The Sydney Morning Herald'' has commented that "Ironically, the banning of the image has only made it visible to more people as news sites publicise the issue and the image spreads across sites other than Wikipedia." This is known as the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect Streisand effect].		The IWF has said that it "might yet add Amazon US to its list of 'blocked' sites for hosting the picture", which could cause major disruption to the site just before the festive season. This incident has also had an effect on Australian internet censoring plans. In the wake of this event Telstra and Internode Systems said they will no longer participate in the trials. Electronic Frontiers Australia vice-chairman Colin Jacobs said that "yesterday's incident in Britain, in which virtually the entire country was unable to edit Wikipedia because the country's Internet Watch Foundation had blacklisted a single image on the site, illustrated the pitfalls of mandatory ISP filtering".<ref>http://www.smh.com.au/news/home/technology/labor-plan-to-censor-internet-in-shreds/2008/12/09/1228584820006.html?page=2</ref> ''The Sydney Morning Herald'' has commented that "Ironically, the banning of the image has only made it visible to more people as news sites publicise the issue and the image spreads across sites other than Wikipedia." This is known as the <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect Streisand effect</ref>.

	~~==Trivia==~~

	~~[[Chelsea Schilling]] follows in a fine tradition of congressional staffers who have attempted to [http:~~/~~/yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/30/2123219&from=rss censor wikipedia]~~.

	==External links==		==External links==
Line 79:		Line 75:
	*[http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/08/12/07/1253228.shtml Slashdot]		*[http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/08/12/07/1253228.shtml Slashdot]
	*[http://www.wnd.com/index.php/index.php?pageId=83160 Schilling on the later UK episode]		*[http://www.wnd.com/index.php/index.php?pageId=83160 Schilling on the later UK episode]

			==References==

	[[Category:Official Encyclopedia]][[Category:Censorship]][[Category:Child Pornography]][[Category:Hysteria]][[Category:Art]][[Category:Law/Crime]][[Category:Law/Crime: British]][[Category:Law/Crime: American]][[Category:History & Events]][[Category:History & Events: British]][[Category:History & Events: American]][[Category:History & Events: 2000s]]		[[Category:Official Encyclopedia]][[Category:Censorship]][[Category:Child Pornography]][[Category:Hysteria]][[Category:Art]][[Category:Law/Crime]][[Category:Law/Crime: British]][[Category:Law/Crime: American]][[Category:History & Events]][[Category:History & Events: British]][[Category:History & Events: American]][[Category:History & Events: 2000s]]

The Admins at 07:02, 28 February 2009

2009-02-28T07:02:50Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:02, 28 February 2009
Line 57:		Line 57:
	'''December 9, 2008'''		'''December 9, 2008'''

	Wikipedia was removed from the IWF blacklist [http://www.iwf.org.uk/media/news.251.htm IWF statement ~~regarding Wikipedia webpage~~].		Wikipedia was removed from the IWF blacklist [http://www.iwf.org.uk/media/news.251.htm (IWF statement)].

	Quoted on Channel 4 News,[http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/science_technology/wikipedia%20may%20challenge%20iwf%20ban/2877057] [[Jimmy Wales]], the founder of [[Wikipedia]] reflected on the controversy:		Quoted on Channel 4 News,[http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/science_technology/wikipedia%20may%20challenge%20iwf%20ban/2877057] [[Jimmy Wales]], the founder of [[Wikipedia]] reflected on the controversy:

Rez at 00:43, 12 December 2008

2008-12-12T00:43:00Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:43, 12 December 2008
Line 78:		Line 78:
	*[http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikimedia,_IWF_respond_to_block_of_Wikipedia_over_child_pornography_allegations?curid=117877 Wikinews]		*[http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikimedia,_IWF_respond_to_block_of_Wikipedia_over_child_pornography_allegations?curid=117877 Wikinews]
	*[http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/08/12/07/1253228.shtml Slashdot]		*[http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/08/12/07/1253228.shtml Slashdot]
			*[http://www.wnd.com/index.php/index.php?pageId=83160 Schilling on the later UK episode]

	[[Category:Official Encyclopedia]][[Category:Censorship]][[Category:Child Pornography]][[Category:Hysteria]][[Category:Art]][[Category:Law/Crime]][[Category:Law/Crime: British]][[Category:Law/Crime: American]][[Category:History & Events]][[Category:History & Events: British]][[Category:History & Events: American]][[Category:History & Events: 2000s]]		[[Category:Official Encyclopedia]][[Category:Censorship]][[Category:Child Pornography]][[Category:Hysteria]][[Category:Art]][[Category:Law/Crime]][[Category:Law/Crime: British]][[Category:Law/Crime: American]][[Category:History & Events]][[Category:History & Events: British]][[Category:History & Events: American]][[Category:History & Events: 2000s]]

Brian at 03:05, 10 December 2008

2008-12-10T03:05:12Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:05, 10 December 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~[[Image:Vk.PNG\|thumb\|Non-photographic impression of Virgin Killer]]~~The '''Virgin Killer controversies''' were two (almost certainly) related internet censorship disputes, firstly involving [[Chelsea Schilling]], [[Wikipedia]] and the [[FBI]] (In [[America]]), and then Wikipedia, the [[IWF]] and various other media outlets that covered the controversy (in the [[UK]]).		The '''Virgin Killer controversies''' were two (almost certainly) related internet censorship disputes, firstly involving [[Chelsea Schilling]], [[Wikipedia]] and the [[FBI]] (In [[America]]), and then Wikipedia, the [[IWF]] and various other media outlets that covered the controversy (in the [[UK]]).

	Both controversies centre on Wikipedia's use of an image called "Virgin Killer", which depicts a naked prepubescent girl from the cover of a 1976 Scorpions (rock) album. Whilst the girl in the image has not developed breasts, and her vulva is deliberately concealed, it has been argued that the image is provocative and may in fact be [[child pornography]]. Despite the image being freely available on the internet, we do not display or link to it for legal reasons.		Both controversies centre on Wikipedia's use of an image called "Virgin Killer", which depicts a naked prepubescent girl from the cover of a 1976 Scorpions (rock) album. Whilst the girl in the image has not developed breasts, and her vulva is deliberately concealed, it has been argued that the image is provocative and may in fact be [[child pornography]]. Despite the image being freely available on the internet, we do not display or link to it for legal reasons.

Rez at 22:50, 9 December 2008

2008-12-09T22:50:34Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:50, 9 December 2008
Line 78:		Line 78:
	*[http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikimedia,_IWF_respond_to_block_of_Wikipedia_over_child_pornography_allegations?curid=117877 Wikinews]		*[http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikimedia,_IWF_respond_to_block_of_Wikipedia_over_child_pornography_allegations?curid=117877 Wikinews]
	*[http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/08/12/07/1253228.shtml Slashdot]		*[http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/08/12/07/1253228.shtml Slashdot]

			[[Category:Official Encyclopedia]][[Category:Censorship]][[Category:Child Pornography]][[Category:Hysteria]][[Category:Art]][[Category:Law/Crime]][[Category:Law/Crime: British]][[Category:Law/Crime: American]][[Category:History & Events]][[Category:History & Events: British]][[Category:History & Events: American]][[Category:History & Events: 2000s]]