HMS Victor Victorian <Victor(remove)Victorian@hushmail.com> wrote in
news:olsm14lgp082rindmqejv6d7u713jna9ei@4ax.com:
>
> I present here some relevant information for those of you who are
> disinclined to wade through the jargon of the Internet Watch
> Foundation web site. The following is a direct quote as to the
> expectations imposed upon their full members [no lewd puns, PLEASE!]
>
>
> "In addition, the IWF recommends that Full Members do not provide
> access to particular newsgroups, based on whether the newsgroups
> regularly contain child abuse images or whether they have names that
> appear to advertise paedophile content or advocate paedophile
> activity."
>
> The implicaton is that if the IWF feels any particular group even
> appears to "advocate" (endorse, defend, etc. ad nauseum) child love,
> full member ISPs are pressured to drop them, whether a single image or
> video even remotely scandalous had been posted or not.
>
> One wonders what their specific criteria might be to make such a
> determination, and from whence it is drawn!
Because society hates pedos. Deal with it.
--
Look at that. The one, the only, the original, the stupid Naughty Boy is
back. Who said Usenet couldn't go further downhill?
|
|