
[Quote:]
This might be one of the ballsiest moves I’ve ever seen.
KopBusters rented a house in Odessa, Texas and began growing two small Christmas trees under a grow light similar to those used for growing marijuana. When faced with a suspected marijuana grow, the police usually use illegal FLIR cameras and/or lie on the search warrant affidavit claiming they have probable cause to raid the house. Instead of conducting a proper investigation which usually leads to no probable cause, the Kops lie on the affidavit claiming a confidential informant saw the plants and/or the police could smell marijuana coming from the suspected house.
The trap was set and less than 24 hours later, the Odessa narcotics unit raided the house only to find KopBuster’s attorney waiting under a system of complex gadgetry and spy cameras that streamed online to the KopBuster’s secret mobile office nearby.
To clarify just a bit, according to Cooper, there was nothing illegal going on the bait house, just two evergreen trees and some grow lamps. There was no probable cause. So a couple of questions come up. First, how did the cops get turned on to the house in the first place? Cooper suspects they were using thermal imaging equipment to detect the grow lamps, a practice the Supreme Court has said is illegal. The second question is, what probable cause did the police put on the affidavit to get a judge to sign off on a search warrant? If there was nothing illegal going on in the house, it’s difficult to conceive of a scenario where either the police or one of their informants didn’t lie to get a warrant.
Cooper chose to bait the Odessa police department because he believes police there instructed an informant to plant marijuana on a woman named Yolanda Madden. She’s currently serving an eight-year sentence for possession with intent to distribute. According to Cooper, the informant actually admitted in federal court that he planted the marijuana. Madden was convicted anyway.

[Quote:]
Six British ISPs are filtering access to Wikipedia after the site was added to an Internet Watch Foundation child-pornography blacklist, according to Wikipedia administrators.
As of Sunday morning UK time, certain British web surfers were unable to view at least one Wikipedia article tagged with ostensible child porn. And, in a roundabout way, the filtering has resulted in Wikipedia admins banning large swaths of the United Kingdom from editing the “free encyclopedia anyone can edit.”
[..]
At it stands, the article includes an image of the album’s original cover, which depicts a naked prepubescent girl. The cover was banned in many countries and replaced by another when the album made its 1976 debut. And apparently, the image is now on a blacklist compiled by the Internet Watch Foundation, a government-backed organization charged with fighting online child pornography in the UK and Europe.

Cooper the cat roams his Seattle neighborhood.
Seattle PI article, Seattle Weekly article. Moar Cooper cam pics.
That album cover is banned in the U.S. although you could at one time buy it as an “import” from Amazon.com and maybe some other sites but that was long after the album was released. I have it but I have the alternate “safe” cover. Big fan of freedom of expression but not a big fan of this image.
I’m not a fan of the image either, but this censorship is going too far. Also, they’re blocking the entire page instead of just the image. At the same time, Blind Faith by Blind Faith and Houses of the Holy, also depicting nude underage persons, are still readily available in any high street CD store in the UK.
Under UK law, an image of a naked child is usually considered child pornography; context is irrelevant, making this web page illegal as well. Pure idiocy.
Let me quote Hitler on this, anno 1943: “The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation”
“they’re blocking the entire page instead of just the image”
John, they are blocking the entire SITE:
due to technical reasons (depending on how providers deals with the massive traffic in an out of wikipedia), blocking the image blocked the editing process for the whole website in the whole UK area (and some northern europe too).
While registered users are incurring in minor issues, anonymous editing is being totally blocked by the goofy lock enabled by the IWF.
Please check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/2008_IWF_action
And what about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:TrangBang.jpg
Are they blacklisting that too?
There seems to be no difference any more between under age nudity and under age “porn”, so I guess they’ll block that as well.. idiots..
Oh, and now underage nude cartoons are taboo as well.