by Mike Masnick
Wed, Dec 10th 2008 4:54pm
In the wake of the UK Internet Watch Foundation's block of a particular Wikipedia page for what it claimed was illegal child pornography, and the group's subsequent reversal of that decision, the EFF is now asking will IWF be held responsible for the unintended consequences of its unregulated ability to ban websites? In this case, the action lead to a chain of events that blocked a significant number of UK Wikipedia users from being able to edit any page on the site. The EFF points out that the IWF's reversal on the ban was for all the wrong reasons: rather than it being because the image was old or widespread -- the group never should have put up the ban in the first place, recognizing that Wikipedia's open group review process is a lot more effective than IWF's arbitrary and secretive process.
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- Sony Uses Copyright To Force Verge To Takedown Its Copy Of Sony's Spotify Contract
- 9th Circuit Judge Slams His Colleagues For First Amendment Failings In Waiting So Long To Fix Cindy Garcia Ruling
- YouTube Reinstates Metal Gear Video Konami Took Down, Warns Konami Not To Be Jerks
- That Time Hitler Used Copyright Law To Block Future Senator Alan Cranston From Publishing Mein Kampf
- MPAA Gets Court To Block Popcorn Time Websites In UK, Despite Judge Admitting The Sites Don't Actually Infringe