Internet censorship

Internet censorship is generally considered to be the denial of access to certain websites or services on the internet, though attempts to ban internet anonymity could be considered to fall under this category.

Censorship can be as local as a parent installing software on the computer their child uses to attempt to prevent them from seeing 'undesirable' content, or as global as the methods China uses to prevent a whole population from accessing content their government deems undesirable.

Both of the methods mentioned above are usually arbitrarily imposed on the audience concerned (the child in the first instance, the population in the latter.)

However, until recently, it has been assumed that in 'The West,' the public are generally allowed to view sites or use services without censorship - with a few exceptions - usually activities that are against the law 'in real life.'

For example in the UK it is illegal to access 'child pornography,' or 'terrorism' sites though there are a few anomalous areas - such as in the UK where 16 year-olds are old enough to have sex, but not old enough to photograph each other while they do it.

More recently, however, the list of 'illegal' things to view on the internet has included things that aren't illegal in real life, such as 'extreme (adult) porn.' For example, the case of Simon Walsh, previously a barrister until the trial, who was arrested for possessing 'extreme pornography' (6 photos attached to emails; 3 of the consensual and sexual use of a urethral sound, two of anal fisting and one in which the age of a young man was in doubt) was a very public and embarrassing one for Mr. Walsh, however he was acquitted of all charges.

Parental Internet Controls - UK - 2012

Consultation

http://www.education.gov.uk/a00211052/parental-internet-controls

Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 - Pornography - United Kingdom

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/4/section/63

Prosecutions

Matthew Woods - April Jones - 6 Oct 2012

Matthew Woods (20) was arrested for posting on Facebook a sick joke about April Jones - a schoolgirl who had recently gone missing - shortly after comedian Frakie Boyle wasn't arrested for posting a similar joke on twitter:

Jimmy Savile did an incredible amount of charity work towards the end of his life, just to be sure he could shag Madeleine McCann in heaven..

Woods was accused of sending a public electronic communication which is grossly offensive and charged under section 127 of the Communications Act. He pleaded guilty on 8 Oct 2012, and was jailed for 12 weeks, the maximum permitted, less a third for an early guilty plea

Naturally, the joke was so heinous that it cannot ever be repeated, at least not on the news channels:

Wood[sic] has pleaded guilty to sending by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive.

Were you offended? We’d show you what Wood said but it’s so offensive that the media and courts have not included it in official reports. The news has been censored. You – you slack-jawed fool – cannot hear what Wood says. You might repeat it. And that would be awful. You could cause offence, even unwittingly.

Not that it stopped lots of people from posting similar jokes on Sickipedia. With no arrests.

It appears that Woods' major faux-pas was to post the joke on the Find April Jones' Facebook page.

Daniel Thomas - Tom Daley,Pete Waterfield - 20 Jul 2012

After coming in 4th in the men's synchronised 10m Platform diving event at the Olympics, Daniel Thomas (17) tweeted some homophobic abuse to Tom Daley. Thomas was arrested on suspicion of malicious communications.

He was subsequently released without being prosecuted after Daley and Waterfield indicated they didn't want to press charges

Liam Stacey - Fabrice Muamba - 17 Mar 2012

On 17 Mar 2012, Fabrice Muamba suffered cardiac arrest during a FA Cup quarter final. Moments after Liam Stacey (21) started posting some allegedly "racially offensive" comments on twitter. However there is some confusion about what charge he actually faced:

He was initially charged with a “racially aggravated public order offence”, but after this was withdrawn – the minor problem being that his comments did not actually mention race – he is being charged instead, under the Communications Act 2003, with “sending a message that was grossly offensive.”

There have been some inaccurate reports in a number of places about the offence with which Liam Stacey was charged. He was charged with, and pleaded guilty to, a Racially Aggravated s4A Public order Act 1986, and not inciting racial hatred.

The end result is that Stacey pleaded guilty, and received a 56 day prison term.

Paul Chambers - Robin Hood Airport - 6 Jan 2010

During the winter of 2009/2010, cold weather had affected many airports in the UK. On 6 Jan 2010, Paul Chambers (26), posted the following to twitter:

Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!

He was arrested on 13 Jan 2010 and charged initially charged with making a bomb threat. This was subsequently changed and he was charged under Section 127 of the Communications Act for the offence of sending a menacing message..

He was found guilty in May 2010, and fined a total of £2,000.

A Nov 2010 appeal in Doncaster Crown Court was dismissed, as was a High Court appeal in Feb 2012.

A second High Court appeal in Jun 2012 finally overturned the conviction in Jul 2012

Internet Watch Foundation - Scorpions album - 5 Dec 2008

The IWF proceeded to block a single Wikipedia article covering 'Virgin Killer,' a 1976 album by the Scorpions, because it featured an unaltered image of the cover of the LP album which depicted a naked prepubescent girl. The block affected a large part of the UK's internet population. The block was later rescinded with the IWF stating

the image in question is potentially in breach of the Protection of Children Act 1978. However, the IWF Board has today (9 December 2008) considered these findings and the contextual issues involved in this specific case and, in light of the length of time the image has existed and its wide availability, the decision has been taken to remove this webpage from our list.