Censor Watch logo

 Censor Watch
  Home Censorship News Latest Melon Farmers
  Links Daily UK Ratings from the BBFC Thai-Anxiety
Religious Watch

22nd October

 Update: Where there's a buck there's a way...

Facebook sees a good future as people's news provider and so has announced that it will let up on its strict censorship policies when posts are considered newsworthy
Link Here  full story: Facebook Censorship...Facebook quick to censor
Facebook logo Facebook's VPs Joel Kaplan and Justin Osofsky wrote in a blog:

In recent weeks, we have gotten continued feedback from our community and partners about our Community Standards and the kinds of images and stories permitted on Facebook. We are grateful for the input, and want to share an update on our approach.

Observing global standards for our community is complex. Whether an image is newsworthy or historically significant is highly subjective. Images of nudity or violence that are acceptable in one part of the world may be offensive -- or even illegal -- in another. Respecting local norms and upholding global practices often come into conflict. And people often disagree about what standards should be in place to ensure a community that is both safe and open to expression.

In the weeks ahead, we're going to begin allowing more items that people find newsworthy, significant, or important to the public interest -- even if they might otherwise violate our standards. We will work with our community and partners to explore exactly how to do this, both through new tools and approaches to enforcement. Our intent is to allow more images and stories without posing safety risks or showing graphic images to minors and others who do not want to see them.

As always, our goal is to channel our community's values, and to make sure our policies reflect our community's interests. We're looking forward to working closely with experts, publishers, journalists, photographers, law enforcement officials and safety advocates about how to do better when it comes to the kinds of items we allow. And we're grateful for the counsel of so many people who are helping us try to get this right.


22nd October

 Update: But for the moment...

Facebook promises to relax censorship but Swedish cancer group still has to illustrate its message with stylised square breasts to get round Facebook censorship rules
Link Here  full story: Facebook Censorship...Facebook quick to censor
stylised breats for facebook Facebook is notoriously terrible when it comes to censorship of the naked human body, especially when it comes to pieces of the female anatomy. So it's not surprising that a non-profit's breast cancer awareness video was taken down because it featured stylised female nipples.

So the Swedish Cancer Society countered with a replacement ad, which featured square breasts instead of round ones. The organization posted the video earlier this week, but it was removed because, as Facebook said the:

Ad can not market sex products or services nor adults products or services.

The organization wrote up an open letter to Facebook, in which it introduced the shape-based compromise:

We understand that you have to have rules about the content published on your platform. But you must also understand that one of our main tasks is to disseminate important information about cancer -- in this case breast cancer.

After trying to meet your control for several days without success, we have now come up with a solution that will hopefully make you happy: Two pink squares! This can not possibly offend you, or anyone. Now we can continue to spread our important breast school without upsetting you.

Facebook later apologized for its crap censorship rules being found out:

We apologize for the error and have let the advertiser know we are approving their ads.


22nd October

  Freedom of expression under worldwide attack...

United Nations Human Rights Special Rapporteur warns in new report
Link Here
un human rights logo There is no question that governments worldwide are wielding the tools of censorship, warns the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the freedom of opinion and expression, David Kaye, in a report on the widespread global assault on the freedom of expression to be presented to the UN General Assembly. Kaye said:

Governments are treating words as weapons, adopting vague laws that give officials massive discretion to undermine speech and opinion. They are punishing journalists for their reporting, silencing individuals for posting opinions on social media, shutting down debate and the flow of information on grounds of counter-terrorism, protecting public order, sheltering people from offense.

Censorship in all its forms reflects official fear of ideas and information, the expert noted. And it not only harms the speaker or reporter or broadcaster, it undermines everyone's right to information, to public participation, to open and democratic governance.

The report involved a survey of hundreds of official communications the rapporteur has issued to governments, which resulted from allegations of violations of well-established international human rights law received from individuals and non-governmental organizations worldwide. The trend lines are stark, Kaye said:

I am especially concerned that many governments assert legitimate grounds for restriction, such as protection of national security or public order or the rights of others, as fig leaves to attack unpopular opinion or criticism of government and government officials, he stated. Many times governments provide not even the barest demonstration that such restrictions meet the legal tests of necessity and proportionality.

The Special Rapporteur drew attention to increasing instances where governments assert rationales having no basis in human rights law. He said:

For example, it has become routine for governments to explicitly target political criticism, journalism, and the expression of singled-out groups such as LGBTI communities and artists.

Those who carry out physical threats, particularly to journalists and writers and bloggers, are rarely held accountable, Mr. Kaye added. Online, threats to expression are getting worse. Advances in technology have triggered new forms of repression and censorship that undermine everyone's ability to hold opinions or seek, receive and impart information and ideas.

One of the biggest threats to online expression is the use of Internet kill switches. More than a dozen network shutdowns have been recorded in the last year. Internet shutdowns are just one form of digital censorship among many adopted by governments today.

The report notes areas of positive developments as well. The Special Rapporteur welcomes, for instance, examples where governments, legislatures, and domestic and international courts have taken strong steps to promote freedom of expression or carefully evaluate restrictions.

In his study, the human rights expert urges all governments to review their national laws to ensure strong protection and promotion of the freedom of expression, in particular to limit the discretion officials may enjoy to restrict the flow of information. He stressed:

The approach that many governments adopt towards freedom of expression today is abusive and unsustainable. Governments must not only reverse course, but also take the lead in ensuring its protection.


22nd October

 Commented: Outrageous truth...

Police chief in Australia defends elements of truth in a cartoon that 'outraged' the PC community
Link Here
bill leak Australian cartoonist Bill Leak drew an Aboriginal drunk who did not remember his son's name. Inevitably PC censors were 'outraged'.

The heraldsun.com.au wrote that The attacks were astonishing. Even the Turnbull Government's Indigenous Affairs Minister called the racist and tasteless . The Race Discrimination Commission branded him a racist.

But as with all good humour the cartoon played on an element of truth. No doubt the PC mob will be even more 'outraged' that Western Australia's top cop has commented that the cartoon is an accurate reflection of what police see in the field daily.

Commissioner O'Callaghan spoke of an example this last weekend. Four boys were charged with trashing a high school after which the police revealed one of the children accused of causing the damage, a 10-year-old boy, was taken home where his father refused to take responsibility for him. O'Callaghan said:

So we ended up, for many hours, looking after that child, trying to find a responsible adult. I will say though, as bad as it sounds, it's not an unusual thing for police to have trouble finding responsible adults for children that we find in trouble or on the streets late at night.

From my perspective, Bill Leak's cartoon is actually an accurate reflection of what our officers see on a day-to-day basis, when they're dealing particularly with kids from Aboriginal communities or Aboriginal families who are in trouble.

It happens repeatedly, and I think what Bill Leak was doing was trying to indicate a broader problem for the community to sort out.

Update: Censored whilst claiming to be uncensored

22nd October 2016. See  article from spiked-online.com by Matthew Lesh

Spiked logo Leak's cartoons are not for the faint-hearted. I often find them disagreeable. But that's no reason to put Leak before a government tribunal. Even if the case is eventually dismissed -- by the commission itself, or later in court -- it is still damaging to have gone through the process. It is costly, and hurtful to the reputations of all involved. The case also encourages people to stop talking about controversial issues, stifling freedom of expression. The use of the law against someone you disagree with is always an authoritarian response.

See  article from spiked-online.com


22nd October

  An Explosive Streisand Effect...

The manufacturer of exploding phones tries to censor their use as a weapon in YouTube video game parodies
Link Here
note 7 weapon video Samsung appears to have filed copyright claims against YouTube videos mocking its recalled Galaxy Note 7 handset.

Many gamers have showcased a modification to video game Grand Theft Auto V, in which sticky bombs were switched with exploding Samsung phones.

But some have reported that their videos have been blocked on YouTube following a copyright complaint.

Some viewers warned that Samsung was at risk of invoking the Streisand Effect - a term used to denotes increased publicity as a result of attempts to remove embarrassing online content.


22nd October

 Offsite Article: Anti-Kodi Cisco...

Link Here
cisco logo Cisco says it has developed a system to disable live pirate streams. The network equipment company says its Streaming Piracy Prevention platform utilizes third-party forensic watermarking to shut down pirate streams in real-time

See article from torrentfreak.com


21st October

 Update: Miserable Bastards...

A few puerile whingers gripe about Emmerdale and Coronation Street
Link Here  full story: Coronation Street...Complaints and whinges

Misery DVD James Caan A few people have whinged to TV censor Ofcom about an Emmerdale story line based on the film Misery starring James Caan and Cathy Bates.

The episode saw Emma Barton drug her husband James, before killing a chicken, cooking it, and feeding it to her husband, who was tied to a chair. When James did finally break free, he whacked her over the head with a wine bottle.

Seven viewers didn't enjoy the scene and whinged to Ofcom, claiming it was unsuitable for showing at 7pm.

An Ofcom spokesman said: We will assess these complaints, before deciding whether to investigate or not, which seems to be Ofcom speak for the complaints being consigned to their rightful place in the wastepaper bin.

Meanwhile a few more people have been wound up by the soaps, this time, Coronation Street . The character David Platt screamed the word bastard in a pre-watershed episode this week.

The Sun reported that 20 people whinged to Ofcom who again commented: We will assess these complaints, before deciding whether to investigate or not.

The Mirror dragged up a few trivial tweets from angry viewers. eg:

Didn't realise coronation street was an over 18 programme swearing before 8 tut tut @ITV

I've just heard the word 'bastard' on Coronation Street and I'm honestly shocked!


21st October

  Stupid and Backwards Malaysia...

Minister notes that decision to ban the phrase hot dog does nothing for Malaysia's credibility
Link Here

auntie annes pretzel dogs The Malaysian Islamic Development Department -- the Malay government's religious authority -- has become the object of ridicule after it ordered food outlets to drop the word dog from hot dogs.

Those who do not comply, according to this report , risk being refused halal certification as dogs are considered unclean in Islam and should not be linked to food.

However Nazri Aziz, the Minister for Malaysian Tourism and Culture, called the decision stupid and backward, telling reporters that as a Muslim he was not offended.

Hot dog is hot dog lah. Even in Malay it's called hot dog -- it's been around for so many years. It comes from the English language. Please do not make us seem stupid and backward.

US food chain Auntie Anne's, which has dozens of outlets across Malaysia, was given a no halal certification warning unless it renamed its Pretzel Dog line to Pretzel Sausage .

The company said the pretzel chain had no problem with changing the name, saying it was a minor issue .


21st October

 Offsite Article: Reflections of Henry...

Link Here
Henry Portrait Serial Killer Special An interview with John McNaughton to celebrate the 30th Anniversary re-release of the iconic censorship movie, Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer

See article from iconvsicon.com


20th October

  A blackmailers, hackers, spammers, phishers charter...

Open Rights Groups notes that the Digital Economy Bill offers no meaningful protections for the ID data handed over to porn sites or age verifiers.
Link Here
open rights group 2016 logo The Digital Economy Bill mandates that pornographic websites must verify the age of their customers. Are there any powers to protect user privacy?

Yesterday we published a blog detailing the lack of privacy safeguards for Age Verification systems mandated in the Digital Economy Bill. Since then, we have been offered two explanations as to why the regulator designate , the BBFC, may think that privacy can be regulated.

The first and most important claim is that Clause 15 may allow the regulation of AV services, in an open-ended and non-specific way:

15 Internet pornography: requirement to prevent access by persons under the age of 18  

  1. A person must not make pornographic material available on the internet on a commercial basis to persons in the United Kingdom except in a way that secures that, at any given time, the material is not normally accessible by persons under the age of 18
  2. [snip]
  3. The age-verification regulator (see section 17) must publish guidance about--

    (a) types of arrangements for making pornographic material available that the regulator will treat as complying with subsection (1);

However, this clause seems to regulate publishers who "make pornography material available on the internet" and what is regulated in 15 (3) (a) is the "arrangements for making pornography available". They do not mention age verification systems, which is not really an "arrangement for making pornography available" except inasmuch as it is used by the publisher to verify age correctly.

AV systems are not "making pornography available".

The argument however runs that the BBFC could under 15 (3) (a) tell websites what kind of AV systems with which privacy standards they can use.

If the BBFC sought to regulate providers of age verification systems via this means, we could expect them to be subject to legal challenge for exceeding their powers. It may seem unfair to a court for the BBFC to start imposing new privacy and security requirements on AV providers or website publishers that are not spelled out and when they are subject to separate legal regimes such as data protection and e-privacy.

This clause does not provide the BBFC with enough power to guarantee a high standard of privacy for end users, as any potential requirements are undefined. The bill should spell out what the standards are, in order to meet an 'accordance with the law' test for intrusions on the fundamental right to privacy.

The second fig leaf towards privacy is the draft standard for age verification technologies drafted by the Digital Policy Alliance. This is being edited by the British Standards Institution, as PAS 1296 . It has been touted as the means by which commercial outlets will produce a workable system.

The government may believe that PAS 1296 could, via Clause 15 (3) (a), be stipulated as a standard that Age Verifcation providers abide by in order to supply publishers, thereby giving a higher standard of protection than data protection law alone.

PAS 1296 provides general guidance and has no means of strong enforcement towards companies that adopt it. It is a soft design guide that provides broad principles to adopt when producing these systems.

Contrast this, for instance, with the hard and fast contractual arrangements the government's Verify system has in place with its providers, alongside firmly specified protocols. Or card payment processors, who must abide by strict terms and conditions set by the card companies, where bad actors rapidly get switched off.

The result is that PAS 1296 says little about security requirements , data protection standards, or anything else we are concerned about. It stipulates that the age verification systems cannot be sued for losing your data. Rather, you must sue the website owner, i.e. the porn site which contracted with the age verifier.

There are also several terminological gaffes such as referring to PII (personally identifying information) which is a US legal concept, rather than EU and UK's 'personal data'; this suggests that PAS 1296 is very much a draft, in fact appears to have been hastily cobbled-together

However you look at it, the proposed PAS 1296 standard is very generic, lacks meaningful enforcement and is designed to tackle situations where the user has some control and choice, and can provide meaningful consent. This is not the case with this duty for pornographic publishers. Users have no choice but to use age verification to access the content, and the publishers are forced to provide such tools.

Pornography companies meanwhile have every reason to do age verification as cheaply as possible, and possibly to harvest as much user data as they can, to track and profile users, especially where that data may in future, at the slip of a switch, be used for other purposes such as advertising-tracking. This combination of poor incentives has plenty of potential for disastrous consequences.

What is needed is clear, spelt out, legally binding duties for the regulator to provide security, privacy and anonymity protections for end users. To be clear, the AV Regulator, or BBFC, does not need to be the organisation that enforces these standards. There are powers in the Bill for it to delegate the regulator's responsbilties. But we have a very dangerous situation if these duties do not exist.



19th October

 Update: A database of the UK's porn habits. What could possibly go wrong?...

The Government wants people who view pornography to show that they are over 18, via Age Verification systems. by Jim Killock of Open Rights Group
Link Here  full story: David Cameron's Internet Porn Ban...Attempting to ban everything on the internet

open rights group 2016 logo The Government wants people who view pornography to show that they are over 18, via Age Verification systems. This is aimed at reducing the likelihood of children accessing inappropriate content.

To this end the Digital Economy Bill creates a regulator that will seek to ensure that adult content websites will verify the age of users, or face monetary penalties, or in the case of overseas sites, ask payment providers such as VISA to refuse to process UK payments for non-compliant providers.

There are obvious problems with this, which we detail elsewhere .

However, the worst risks are worth going into in some detail, not least from the perspective of the Bill Committee who want the Age Verification system to succeed.

As David Austen, from the BBFC, who will likely become the Age Verification Regulator said :

Privacy is one of the most important things to get right in relation to this regime. As a regulator, we are not interested in identity at all. The only thing that we are interested in is age, and the only thing that a porn website should be interested in is age. The simple question that should be returned to the pornographic website or app is, "Is this person 18 or over?" The answer should be either yes or no. No other personal details are necessary.

However, the Age Verification Regulator has no duties in relation to the Age Verification systems. They will make sites verify age, or issue penalties, but they are given no duty to protect people's privacy, security or defend against cyber security risks that may emerge from the Age Verification systems themselves.

David Austen's expectations are unfortunately entirely out of his hands.

Instead, the government appears to assume that Data Protection law will be adequate to deal with the privacy and security risks. Meanwhile, the market will provide the tools.

The market has a plethora of possible means to solve this problem. Some involve vast data trawls through Facebook and social media. Others plan to link people's identity across web services and will provide way to profile people's porn viewing habits. Still others attempt to piggyback upon payment providers and risk confusing their defences against fraud. Many appear to encourage people to submit sensitive information to services that the users, and the regulator, will have little or no understanding of.

And yet with all the risks that these solutions pose, all of these solutions may be entirely data protection compliant. This is because data protection allows people to share pretty much whatever they agree to share, on the basis that they are free to make agreements with whoever they wish, by providing 'consent'.

In other words: Data protection law is simply not designed to govern situations where the user is forced to agree to the use of highly intrusive tools against themselves.

What makes this proposal more dangerous is that the incentives for the industry are poor and lead in the wrong direction. They have no desire for large costs, but would benefit vastly from acquiring user data.

If the government wants to have Age Verification in place, it must mandate a system that increases the privacy and safety of end users, since the users will be compelled to use Age Verification tools. Also, any and all Age Verification solutions must not make Britain's cybersecurity worse overall, e.g. by building databases of the nation's porn-surfing habits which might later appear on Wikileaks.

The Digital Economy Bill's impact on privacy of users should, in human rights law, be properly spelled out (" in accordance with the law ") and be designed to minimise the impacts on people (necessary and proportionate). Thus failure to provide protections places the entire system under threat of potential legal challenges.

User data in these systems will be especially sensitive, being linked to private sexual preferences and potentially impacting particularly badly on sexual minorities if it goes wrong, through data breaches or simple chilling effects. This data is regarded as particularly sensitive in law.

Government, in fact has at its hands a system called Verify which could provide age-verification in a privacy friendly manner. The Government ought to be explaining why the high standards of its own Verify system are not being applied to Age Verification, or indeed, why the government is not prepared to use its own systems to minimise the impacts.

As with web filtering, there is no evidence that Age Verification will prevent an even slightly determined teenager from accessing pornography, nor reduce demand for it among young people. The Government appears to be looking for an easy fix to a complex social problem. The Internet has given young people unprecedented access to adult content but it's education rather than tech solutions that are most likely to address problems arising from this. Serious questions about the efficacy and therefore proportionality of this measure remain.

However, legislating for the Age Verification problem to be "solved" without any specific regulation for any private sector operator who wants to "help" is simply to throw the privacy of the UK's adult population to the mercy of the porn industry. With this mind, we have drafted an amendment to introduce the duties necessary to minimise the privacy impacts which could also reduce if not remove the free expression harms to adults.


18th October

 Update: Internet watershed...

China proposes curfew law to block children from playing online games into the night
Link Here
curfew China has proposed new restrictions for online gaming companies to implement. Major tech companies with significant presence in the region could have to undergo substantial operational changes, reports Dow Jones Business News.

The draft rules posted online by the Chinese government on Sept. 30, would require online-game operators to lock out users under the age of 18 between the hours of midnight and 8 a.m. The rules will apply to all smart devices.

The regulation is vague as to whether companies would have to use Beijing-approved software. The country says it will support the development of web-filtering software to keep children safe online and will determine whether preexisting products comply with the new requirements.

Along with the internet curfew would be a requirement for a number of websites to post warnings for content unsuitable for minors.


18th October

 Offsite Article: Is the Free Porn Era Starting to Fade Away?...

Link Here
xbiz 2016 logo Adult trade group XBIZ analyses the current economies of internet porn

See article from xbiz.com


17th October

  Thousands of reasons...

Thailand censors BBC coverage of the King's death
Link Here
true visions bbc censorship card Thailand's Ministry of Foreign Affairs has issued a statement deploring foreign media who allegedly misreported the number of Thais gathered to mourn the death of King Bhumibol Adulyadej.

The statement, which did not identify any media outlet specifically, deplored some big foreign media for reporting that thousands of Thais had gathered to mourn the loss of the King at the Grand Palace. The statement said the actual number was much higher noting that hundreds of thousands lined the route from Siriraj Hospital to the Grand Palace. It described the alleged discrepancy between thousands at the palace and hundreds of thousands along the route as manipulative and provocative.

After the announcement of the King's death Thursday evening, all television channels, cable channels and satellite channels under Thai control were replaced by a single government broadcast. The channels resumed at midnight on Friday night, but were told not to broadcast entertainment programmes for a month. However the BBFC and Al Jazeera news channels were subjected to additional censorship in that any news items reporting on Thailand were blacked out with a card announcing that Programming will return shortly.

BBC correspondent Jonathan Head confirmed their coverage about Thailand had been blocked in the country several times ever since. Head told news company Khaosod:

Whenever reporting on Thailand comes up our transmissions are blocked. Just now when I was reporting live.

We have received no official complaints, and the MFA has not mentioned any problems with the BBC's reporting. So we do not know why we are being blocked.

Presumably the reason for the blocking is more about discussions of the succession, rather than numbers attending funeral events. It is a very sensitive issue in Thailand.

Khaosod also reported that cable and satellite company, TrueVisions was looking for freelancers to monitor BBC and Al Jazeera news, and to switch out news reports from Thailand.


17th October

 Offsite Article: Internet censorship: making the hidden visible...

Link Here
cambridge university logo Censorship on the internet is rampant with 60+ countries engaging in state censorship. A Cambridge University research project is aiming to uncover the scale of this censorship, and how it affects users and publishers of information

See article from cam.ac.uk


16th October

  Innuendo mixed down...

BBFC category cuts required for Little Mix: Get Weird Tour DVD
Link Here
Get Weird Little Mix Little Mix: Get Weird Tour is a filmed music performance by Paul Caslin.
Starring Perrie Edwards, Jesy Nelson and Leigh-Anne Pinnock. BBFC link

UK: Passed PG for mild innuendo after 5:10s of BBFC category cuts for:

  • 2016 Sony Music Entertainment video
The BBFC commented:
  • Company chose to remove a routine featuring moderate sex references and innuendo in song lyrics, accompanied by suggestive dancing, in order to achieve a PG classification. An uncut 12 was available.


16th October

 Offsite Article: Age Ratings Around The World...

Link Here
Mass Effect Trilogy PC DVD A look at how countries rate their games From PEGI to USK, from CERO to ESRB, the countries of the world have a variety of different ways to rate games.

See article from oneangrygamer.net


15th October

 Extract: Ever more extreme censorship demands...

Germany is getting worked up that it cannot get Facebook to adequately censor negative comments about refugees
Link Here  full story: Internet Censorship in Germany...Germany considers state internet filtering
Facebook logo Germanpulse has published an interesting piece about German politicians expecting social media websites to pre-censors posts that the government doesn't like:

We have reported on the German government's war against social media giants Facebook, Twitter and Google many times over the last year as the country tries to rid the popular sites of any signs of hate speech. While the companies have made attempts to appease government officials with stricter enforcement, each move is said to still not be enough. The question is: is Germany taking the fight too far?

Volker Kauder, a member of the CDU, spoke with Der Spiegel this week to say the time for roundtables is over. I've run out of patience, and argues that Facebook, Twitter and Google have failed and should pay 50,000 euro ($54,865) fines for not providing a strict level of censorship.

All major social media sites do provide tools to report hate speech offenders, but Kauder isn't the only one to argue that the tool is ineffective.

Justice Minister Heiko Maas made a statement that only 46 percent of the comments were erased by Facebook, while a mere one percent were taken care of by Twitter.

Maas' solution is not much different from Kauder's, as he told Handelsblatt that the companies should face legal consequences.

...Read the full article from germanpulse.com

Der Spiegel has also published an opinion piece showing a little exasperation with trying to get comments censored by Facebook.

In June, the national body made up of justice ministers from the 16 federal states in Germany launched a legislative initiative to introduce a law which, if passed, would require operators of Internet platforms to immediately disclose the identity of users whose online actions are the subject of criminal proceedings. The law explicitly covers companies that are not based in Germany, but in fact do business here.

Justice Minister Maas must now introduce the draft law to Chancellor Merkel's cabinet, but he's hesitant out of fear of a backlash among a net community that still views Facebook as a symbol of Internet freedom. So far, he has done little that goes beyond appeals. If he wanted too, however, Maas could push for a further tightening of the country's telecommunications law. All that would be needed is a clause stipulating that every Internet company that does business in Germany would be required to name one person within the firm who is a resident in the country who could be held liable under German law.

...Read the full article from spiegel.de


15th October

  Somebody deserves a good kicking...

Churchmen and politicians whinge about an art exhibit at Estonia's new National Museum
Link Here
estonia kick mary The opening of Estonia's new National Museum has been overshadowed by protests from Church leaders and politicians over an exhibit they say mocks religion.

The exhibit is a virtual image of the Virgin Mary in a glass box. Visitors are invited to kick a spot on the plinth of the display, whereupon the image appears to fly into pieces and the word Reformation appears.

The Archbishop of the Estonian Evangelical Lutheran Church, Urmas Viilma, said the image offends the feelings of believers. He wrote on Facebook:

I very seriously doubt that this exhibit is suitable for the permanent collection of the National Museum of Estonia, even if it is interesting from a technical point of view or from the perspective of modern approach to the depiction of historical events.

The virgin Mary for a huge number of believers is not some historical figure or event, gone into oblivion, but a reality today. The ridicule was an insult to the feelings of believers.

The chairman of the opposition Conservative People's Party, Mart Helme added:

The image should be removed as soon as possible because the virtual destruction the authors offer insults the feelings of religious Russian-speaking residents and hinders their integration.