Comments on: Internet Censorship: What do Amazon and Wikipedia have in common? http://securityandthe.net/2008/12/09/internet-censorship-what-do-amazon-and-wikipedia-have-in-common/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=internet-censorship-what-do-amazon-and-wikipedia-have-in-common News and opinions about security, the internet and more Mon, 20 Dec 2010 21:40:29 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: DJ Feel http://securityandthe.net/2008/12/09/internet-censorship-what-do-amazon-and-wikipedia-have-in-common/comment-page-1/#comment-2755 DJ Feel Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:50:53 +0000 http://securityandthe.net/?p=749#comment-2755 I seem to be having a hard time , subscribing to your RSS feed. It comes up with error 451. Let me know if its a known error or if its just me . Ive tried firefox and IE. Im using AVG Firewall and im not sure if its turned on . Im not educated with Netbooks. Ill bookmark your site and see if you have responded. all the best I seem to be having a hard time , subscribing to your RSS feed. It comes up with error 451. Let me know if its a known error or if its just me . Ive tried firefox and IE. Im using AVG Firewall and im not sure if its turned on . Im not educated with Netbooks. Ill bookmark your site and see if you have responded. all the best

]]> By: Videogamer http://securityandthe.net/2008/12/09/internet-censorship-what-do-amazon-and-wikipedia-have-in-common/comment-page-1/#comment-2548 Videogamer Thu, 22 Oct 2009 02:37:22 +0000 http://securityandthe.net/?p=749#comment-2548 When was this album art made? If made before 1978 (when the law was made) then it can't be illegal. While making that specific image these days would be legally questionable, there is no way that a new law can outlaw something that was made BEFORE that law was passed. If the law made the cover art illegal, then it would make the CD being sold (which was recorded with the intent this art would be the cover art) would Become illegal for stores to sell. As you know, this CD can be found in almost any music store. If it was an outlawed CD it would have been pulled from store shelves. The music stores would lose money, and eventually the music store industry would lobby congress enough to get the law repealed. The congressmen making the law (the Child Protect Act) knew this and made the law ONLY apply to stuff that would be made AFTER the law was passed. Making it so the ban would criminalize album art for currently sold albums would be political suicide. The music industry (including the musicians, cover art artists, and the music store industry) would make such a stink that the law would have to be repealed later anyway (plus the moron that voted for a law that would have this effect would never get reelected). It therefore does NOT ban this album art, or ANY such album art(or otherwise art) that was made in the past. TRUE child porn has always been illegal. This 1978 law just added "underage nudity" (even non pornographic nudity, even if all the "important parts" are censored or covered) to the list of what's illegal. But the KEY is that law applies to ONLY stuff that was made AFTER the passing of the law. Stuff that was produced that was legal BEFORE the law was passed (nudity as long as it wasn't porn), these specific works made BEFORE the passing of the law are still legal. This means music stores do NOT have to (under force of law) throw away these CDs, or even change their cover art (though in some cases, the cover art has been switched to something that many would feel was more appropriate). However with this law in effect any FUTURE attempts to make such nude art involving an underage person (even if not pornographic) would be met with fines, and arrests of anyone involved in the making of this art, or at the VERY LEAST would result in the police confiscating and destroying any copies of this illegally made art (or requiring the maker of the art to destroy it under threat of arrest if the art wasn't destroyed). What does this mean? It means that since this album art is PERFECTLY LEGAL (it was made before 1978) there is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON for Amazon.com or Wikipedia to feel the need to remove, block, etc it from their website. If they do, it means they are being wusses who can't stand to see a bit of nudity. When was this album art made? If made before 1978 (when the law was made) then it can’t be illegal. While making that specific image these days would be legally questionable, there is no way that a new law can outlaw something that was made BEFORE that law was passed. If the law made the cover art illegal, then it would make the CD being sold (which was recorded with the intent this art would be the cover art) would Become illegal for stores to sell. As you know, this CD can be found in almost any music store. If it was an outlawed CD it would have been pulled from store shelves. The music stores would lose money, and eventually the music store industry would lobby congress enough to get the law repealed. The congressmen making the law (the Child Protect Act) knew this and made the law ONLY apply to stuff that would be made AFTER the law was passed. Making it so the ban would criminalize album art for currently sold albums would be political suicide. The music industry (including the musicians, cover art artists, and the music store industry) would make such a stink that the law would have to be repealed later anyway (plus the moron that voted for a law that would have this effect would never get reelected). It therefore does NOT ban this album art, or ANY such album art(or otherwise art) that was made in the past. TRUE child porn has always been illegal. This 1978 law just added “underage nudity” (even non pornographic nudity, even if all the “important parts” are censored or covered) to the list of what’s illegal. But the KEY is that law applies to ONLY stuff that was made AFTER the passing of the law. Stuff that was produced that was legal BEFORE the law was passed (nudity as long as it wasn’t porn), these specific works made BEFORE the passing of the law are still legal. This means music stores do NOT have to (under force of law) throw away these CDs, or even change their cover art (though in some cases, the cover art has been switched to something that many would feel was more appropriate). However with this law in effect any FUTURE attempts to make such nude art involving an underage person (even if not pornographic) would be met with fines, and arrests of anyone involved in the making of this art, or at the VERY LEAST would result in the police confiscating and destroying any copies of this illegally made art (or requiring the maker of the art to destroy it under threat of arrest if the art wasn’t destroyed).

What does this mean? It means that since this album art is PERFECTLY LEGAL (it was made before 1978) there is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON for Amazon.com or Wikipedia to feel the need to remove, block, etc it from their website. If they do, it means they are being wusses who can’t stand to see a bit of nudity.

]]>