[DanBC]

The Internet Watch Foundation are the people who do the stuff about images of child sexual abuse (and criminally obscene images hosted in the UK, and non-photographic obscene images of children hosted in the UK).

ISPs tend to block content suggested by the IWF quickly, because it's in their best interests to do so. The IWF has a tight focus. Their clear about only wanting to keep the blocking they do separate from other forms of blocking - preventing children seeing adult content, for example. (http://www.iwf.org.uk/about-iwf/news/post/366-iwf-response-t...)

> We welcome the Prime Minister making the clear distinction between the fight against online child sexual abuse content and efforts to prevent legal material being viewed by those who are underage. It is critical that these debates are kept separate.

So it seems that the court blocks are only about forcing ISPs to block the Pirate Bay or Kickass Torrents and the various proxies used to evade those blocks.

The article supports this:

> Once a judge has decided that a website deserves to be blocked under Section 97A of the Copyright Act, each ISP is sent a court order describing the actions they must take to block the website. It specifies the kind of blocking to be undertaken. The court order contains other important information, including the name of the organisation responsible for mistakes and changes to the lists of clone sites to be blocked.

[jheriko]

interesting. thanks for the info :)