Written poorly by a reporter who clearly doesn't have a grasp of the issue. Lead is wordy and confusing. Passive voice -- I can't tell who made this 'decision' and why until late in the story. This information should be clear up front.

You get a little context on the IWF, an organisation I'm unfamiliar with. I would have liked a broader scope on internet censorship in Britain. Judging by the way it's written, I'd say the article is merely get the issue out.

This is a badly written news article. You have to get to the bottom to understand that the censorship is totally independent of the British government.

A rather unidirectional article that describes shortly the IWF decision for the reason of "potential illegality." The ending Open Rights Group is not very context-anchor. It's like the writer speaks to a reader already familiar with certain realities. As an outsider, you can't say if it's neutral, pro or against. Lack of fluency and clear bottom line.

When "citizens'" groups are allowed to do govermental work over reaction seems to be the norm not the exception.

Not much to look through....