Blind Faith: The Slippery Slope To Internet Censorship

Take a good look at this 1969 album jacket for Blind Faith's debut album. It might be the last time this image can be seen before it becomes the next image to be banned from the internet.

The slippery slope to internet censorship just got a lot more slippery.

95% of British internet users have been prevented from accessing an article on Wikipedia because it contains an image -- presented in an encyclopedic manner -- of the jacket of a 1976 heavy metal album that has never been prosecuted or found illegal in any country in the world.

The image is of the album cover created in 1976 for the album "Virgin Killer" by the German heavy metal band Scorpions.

The reason the British internet users cannot access the image is because a well-intentioned -- but entirely self-appointed -- British watchdog group that patrols the internet to root out child pornography (which is a noble endeavor to be applauded) arbitrarily added the webpage to its list of pages that UK internet providers should ban because it was a "POTENTIALLY illegal indecent image of a child". (Emphasis added.)

Not illegal. Not prosecuted. But POTENTIALLY illegal.

The right-wing-nut website WorldNutDaily (sic) has also tried to get the Wikipedia page with the image banned by reporting it to the FBI. The self-styled "Concerned Women for America" -- an extremist group that advocates imposing its interpretation of the bible on the entirety of US society -- has also tried to pressurize Wikipedia to censor the image.

The offending album jacket -- available since 1976 in record stores, in books (accessible in public libraries), -- and latterly on websites -- and never once prosecuted for being illegal

My own take on the album jacket? It's clearly exploitative and tasteless. Designed by the record company to excite maximum attention for the album - THIRTY TWO YEARS AGO.

It has no redeeming artistic merit that I can see. It certainly lacks the poetry and artistic intent behind the Blind Faith cover.

But my opinion is of zero consequence.

All that matters is that these images should not be banned -- nor access to online encyclopedias -- on the whim of self-appointed watchdogs because it is "POTENTIALLY illegal" in the opinion of one or two individuals at that organization.

That is the slippery slope down which we cannot go. Not if we ever hope to clamber back up.

If we slide down that slope -- based on the Blind Faith of zealots however well-intentioned -- we will find that We Can't Find Our Way Home...

Follow Martin Lewis on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheMartinLewis

Comments

[degenerate1991]

If such images are banned from the internet, what's next? The very beauty of the internet is its freedom; it is merely a reflection of our society, and should stay that way.

[ohioan73]

I was a child model in the early 80s and my mother flipped because they put too much eyeliner on me in a photoshoot when I was 7. The controversy of Pretty Baby starring 12 year old Brooke Shields was still fresh in her mind in those days. Mom was willing to get me into the business because dark haired girls were very envogue in those days, but she wa not willing to let me be exploited. Needless to say, my mother got me out of that business quickly. Where were these girls' mothers? I guess Brooke wouldn't have made it if her mom had been like mine. Good on that. Thanks, mom!

[totalliberal]

How many statues of renaissance cherubic little boys peeing into fountains throughout Europe should be torn down and melted? Or naked Cherubs shooting arrows on valentines day cards?

[Jillian York - Huffpost Blogger]

The problem, in my mind, is that the IWF blocked the entire Wikipedia entry straight away, when they could have blocked the image URL (as other countries have done). Now, the historical record of the album is inaccessible when only the image (questionably) should be.

I should also add that there are far more disgusting images on Wikipedia than that one. The others just happen to be there because they don't contain children.

Incidentally, that young girl who posed 32 years ago has already spoken out...agai­nst censorship.

[BenjaG]

This is a "vintage" album cover, good or bad, it should not be censored. The claim that the image perverts people into becoming paedophiles lacks all credibiility. Discussing vinatge album cover design and collecting inciting images of children are two different things. What the "blind faith zealots" from Cambridge (UK) banned was the article, not the image. Any British Internet user affected by this censorship can still look up the image on Wikipedia at upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/33//3/33/Virgin_Killer.jpg

[Stokes]

And well it should be banned from the internet. There are far too many sick perverts on this planet right now who are hurting children. Why try to encourage other sick minds to join this group of misfits. Stop it before it spreads like a cancer. It's this type of exposure that draws the weak into this web of horror. Hurting children is something that needs to be punished whetrher you believe in God or not.

[degenerate1991]

Sick perverts existed before the internet and will continue to exist. The internet doesn't create these "sick perverts" you speak of.

[Figural]

I agree with Mr Lewis, this is a slippery slope we shouldn't go down. It's not for some private individual to rule on what I should or shouldn't see or read. If censorship is thought desirable, our UK political system has a well-established process for gathering opinions, issuing papers for discussion and possible legislation, and an elected legislature for deciding these things. Fortunately my ISP doesn't consider itself a moral police force and I can see this page if I want, which I don't. My ISP is Nildram, if anyone from UK is offended by their ISP censoring their web browsing.

[jsanglier]

I think you pick a bad example to make a case from.

The original album cover was BANNED in several countries at the time and the band themselves are completely embarrassed by it.. Another album cover was used at the time featuring members of the banned.

The fault here lies with the Wikipedia article. The writers could very easily have used the alternative cover and explained that the original cover of a very young girl caused controversy at the time.

There is no need to use an indecent and exploitative image to make a point. It is unnecessary and is a case of bad writing and editing.

Even on the wikipedia page for the execution of Saddam Housain, they stop short of showing the actual moment of execution, leaving that for the horrific viral video sites that are the haunts of sicko 13 year old boys. I haven't heard anyone complain about that omission.

The very existence of the internet has fuelled an explosion in the availability of controversial images. Now people who only vaguely dreamed of obtaining such images can fill their lives with them and get drawn further along a path down which they may otherwise have not trodden.

Protection of society far outweighs the rights of some wikipedia writer to do what he or she likes with no regard for others.

You should remove the above image and stick to your abilities with the written word. It would show you in a better light.