Talk:Internet censorship in the United Kingdom
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Internet censorship in the United Kingdom article.|
||It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in the United Kingdom may be able to help!
The Free Image Search Tool may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 UK ISPs are filtering Wikipedia
- 2 Dubious
- 3 Possible mandatory censorship
- 4 title
- 5 Bt Yahoo and Yahoo censoring posts
- 6 New UK lawsuit to censor proxy to The Pirate Bay
- 7 Porn
- 8 Analysis of site blocking categories
- 9 Web blocking in the United Kingdom - done, what to kill from this page?
- 10 Incorrect cover?
UK ISPs are filtering Wikipedia
I just found these fascinating links which indicate that UK ISPs are blocking access to certain wikipedia pages; Virgin Killer is one example:
- This may be the reference you're looking for,  and this wikipedia page offers an awful lot of details Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/2008 IWF action--Aled D (talk) 20:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- Users in the UK trying to access the Sucralose article or any other page mentioning Sucralose on the Mercola web site get a message with the text: 'Attorneys acting on behalf of the manufacturers of sucralose, Tate & Lyle PLC based in London, England, have requested that the information contained on this page not be made available to Internet users in England.
- I think I may have misunderstood this. I went to the site mercola.com and searched there for sucralose, and the first result, http://products.mercola.com/sweet-deception/, displayed fine for me -- possibly an oversight, as it does indeed contain critical statements about sucralose. The next couple of result pages displayed an annoying registration form over the top of the content, but seemed to work OK; no "not available" message visible. However, looking carefully under the registration form, I can see part of the "not available" message quoted. This is not at all what I thought the article text meant. I thought that it was saying the page was suppressed, and the "not available" message inserted, by a third-party such as an ISP, which surprised me greatly, hence the "dubious" tag. In fact, the message is generated by the mercola.com site itself. This is a different ball game altogether, and nowhere near so surprising. I wonder if the article could make this clear somehow? 22.214.171.124 (talk) 18:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC).
- Of course it is. BBC and Hulu have contracts with the content providers and they would be breaking copyright if they were distributing the content outside the agreed area. Well based comments about consumer products or ingredients, or comments about an old popular album cover, beloved prophet or a convicted criminal in court are all a different matter altogether, but none of them are breaking any contracts. Suppressing such commentary however goes against freedom of speech. --126.96.36.199 (talk) 18:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Possible mandatory censorship
Internet providers face child porn crackdown quotes a leaked letter saying 'a clause in the Police, Crime and Private Security Bill in the Queen's Speech would "compel domestic ISPs to implement the blocking of illegal images of child sexual abuse".' TRS-80 (talk) 14:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Bt Yahoo and Yahoo censoring posts
This needs to go in, but requires organising and padding out:
People who send in cogent and polite responses to United Kingdom BT Yahoo!'s internet news stories have their posts immediately removed if they do not follow the political views expressed in the Yahoo article. This is easily validated. Complaints about Yahoo! censorship have been going on for years as a quick google search can verify.
I am very surprised that such active censorship has gone unmentioned in this article on UK censorship of the internet.
- I think this would be more appropriate for the article Yahoo! News. Moderation of the comments section is not necessarily censorship though. --Atlasowa (talk) 09:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
New UK lawsuit to censor proxy to The Pirate Bay
|An edit requested by an editor with a Conflict of Interest has been implemented.|
Since the section 2011 and 2012 Court orders to block websites linking to potentially copyright infringing materials mentions the Pirate Party, the following seems like relevant information to add:
- Lee, Dave (10 December 2012). "Pirate Party threatened with legal action over Pirate Bay proxy". BBC News. Retrieved 12 December 2012. "The UK's music industry body is set to take the Pirate Party UK to court in a dispute over offering access to banned site The Pirate Bay."
- "Music Industry Threatens to Sue UK Pirate Party over Pirate Bay Proxy". TorrentFreak. 10 December 2012. Retrieved 12 December 2012. "Music industry group the BPI is sending its lawyers after the UK Pirate Party after they refused to take their Pirate Bay proxy offline."
- Smolaks, Max (10 December 2012). "Pirate Party UK To Be Sued By Music Copyright Holders". TechWeek Europe. Retrieved 12 December 2012. "Now, BPI is said to be preparing its lawyers for a legal battle."
- "BPI set to sue Pirate Party over Pirate Bay proxy". Complete Music Update. 11 December 2012. Retrieved 12 December 2012. "record label trade body the BPI is now preparing to go legal."
- Lee, Dave (29 November 2012). "Music industry group BPI demands pirate proxy closure". BBC News. Retrieved 12 December 2012. "The UK's music industry body is demanding that a service offering a workaround to access banned site The Pirate Bay is shut down by its owner."
- "BPI To UK Pirate Party: Shut Down Your Pirate Bay Proxy". TorrentFreak. 30 November 2012. Retrieved 12 December 2012. "Yesterday, TorrentFreak received a tip that the BPI would issue the Pirate Party with a demand to shut down their Pirate Bay proxy service."
- Meyer, David (30 November 2012). "Pirate Party UK rebuffs record industry demand for The Pirate Bay proxy shutdown". ZDNet. Retrieved 12 December 2012. "The BPI has asked the UK wing of the Pirate Party to remove its blockade-busting proxy for the notorious file-sharing site, but the fledgling political party has refused."
- Brian, Matt (30 November 2012). "British music industry body puts pressure on UK Pirate Party to pull popular Pirate Bay proxy". The Next Web. Retrieved 12 December 2012. "Kaye shows no sign of complying with the request"
Of course, due to the conflict of interest disclosed on my user page and the fact that this is a legal issue involving my colleagues, it is not right that I add this to the article myself and a disinterested editor should check this for NPOV etc. -- M2Ys4U (talk) 06:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- I think this is well cited, neutral in tone and relevant to the article, so i made the edit. Thanks! --Atlasowa (talk) 09:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, the UK just banned pornograhpy again.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/06/isps-to-include-porn-filters-as-standard-in-uk-by-2014/ "New and existing customers will have to opt out of filtering program."
- It's not just porn! It's very important that people understand that the UK Government are moving to ban "adult content." This includes violence, smoking, alcohol, drug-use, "extremist" material and anything the government finds "objectionable." That last part should be ringing alarm bells. This is a blanket censorship of the internet. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Analysis of site blocking categories
Hey all. I have done a meta analysis of site blocking stuff I put together. It contains some original conclusions and walks through the various categories of site blocking in effect:
I'm not posting anything from them due to NPOV but if anyone is in interested in doing so, please feel free!
Web blocking in the United Kingdom - done, what to kill from this page?
I just finished the first iteration of Web blocking in the United Kingdom
I've done a lot of include-backs to this page so as not to remove too much content. But now web blocking elements can be radically reduced. But what's the best practice for this? I don't know :( Deku-shrub (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- I think the question is 'how long should this page be'? and I edit down from there Deku-shrub (talk) 20:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
The section marked "The controversial cover that caused Wikipedia to be blacklisted by the IWF" has a link to the alternate cover (which wasn't censored), whereas the other pages on this subject have a link to the correct cover. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 18:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)