Observations on some photos

[kiev4a]

I understand the desire to be a strict constructionist in favor of free speech (which always seems like an especially good idea when somebody else is paying for it, i.e. Jorge in this case.)

But I think there's a certain amount of sophistry going on here. Suppose I am running for the office of dogcatcher here in Dogpatch. And there are some "documentary images" posted in my gallery:

-- One is a distant view of a man holding a sign.
-- The next is a little closer. You can see that the sign says, "JLW For Dogcatcher."
-- The next one is closer, so that ALL you can see is the sign.
-- The next one is closer yet, so you can't even see that it IS a sign; all you see is the text "JLW For Dogcatcher."

At which "zoom level" does this stop being a document, and simply become an advertisement?





As Justice Robert H. Jackson didn't quite say, the Constitution is not a suicide pact, and neither are RFF's terms of service. If it's considered mandatory for RFF to carry ANY type of message as long as it's communicated in a photograph, we're going to be in for a long, long nightmare of spam of all sorts.

Amen -- Sorry, didn't mean to get political🙂

 

[jlw]

Refusal to be a soapbox for anyone or anything isn't actually censorship. Doesn't Jorge have freedom of expression in deciding reasonable limits for the forum he provides?

Frank, if you believe that refusal to distribute someone else's message for them constitutes undesirable "censorship," then please send me your address, as I've got some signs I'd like for you to put up in your yard and a T-shirt I want you to wear. What, you don't want to? How dare you censor my views?

 

[dkapp]

I don't like censorship in any form.

That being said, I did take the time to look at the "edited' gallery and then the "full" gallery. I don't think any should have been removed. While some are stronger than others, they are still a part of a series.

Dave

 

[MP Guy]

Just keeping these at the bottom so they dont get burried with whta may turn outto be a long thread.

I do not remember all the ones I removed. But I do remember removing these:

http://gallery.leica-users.org/album87/UPJ_March_RNC04_054
http://gallery.leica-users.org/album87/UPJ_March_RNC04_034
http://gallery.leica-users.org/album87/UPJ_March_RNC04_031
http://gallery.leica-users.org/album87/UPJ_March_RNC04_049

 

[einolu]

Anybody that has had some kind of website knows that there needs to be some kind of control. my blog gets spammed with 100 ads for poker and porn every day. I need to delete these.

The internet is a pretty bad place over all, so there need to be rules and people with 'admin' powers. I dont think we are arguing for sensorship vs. no sensorship. of course there will be sensorship of some kind. what if someone were to come to this forum, starts spamming and posting copyrighter material in their gallery?

what is being argued is how far the sensorship would go.

 

[RayPA]

All, I do not want to use the excuse of this is my forum and I do what I want...

Unfortunately, Jorge, this seems to be exactly what you're doing. These photos have not caused flaming or discontent, except here in this thread. It's obvious your censorship is politically biased. This is really an unfortunate occurrence. I can understand your wanting to ban swastikas (and I was in agreement with that image deletion), but this is too much. I can't stand with you on this one.

~

 

[jlw]

I don't like censorship in any form.

That being said, I did take the time to look at the "edited' gallery and then the "full" gallery. I don't think any should have been removed. While some are stronger than others, they are still a part of a series.

Dave

Well, although I still don't think this is a censorship issue, I'll concede that the argument about breaking up a series is legitimate in terms of its bearing on the artistic integrity of the series.

I'd also have to say that, even though I strongly support what the U.S. military is trying to accomplish in Iraq and Afghanistan, seeing pictures like these doesn't affect me one way or another. I already know these smugly comfortable "lifestyle protesters" exist and am familiar with the kinds of stuff their media advisors think up for them to put on their signs; seeing a few photos of them doesn't bother me. It's certainly not going to change my mind, and I don't think it's intended to; in that sense, I guess you can't really describe the pictures as "political advocacy."

But I think we all can see that Jorge, or any proprietor of a public forum, would be put in a difficult position by this situation.

-- If you decided to provide a totally unlimited forum for anyone to publish anything, you've lost control of an environment for which you're responsible. You'll be hosting everything from pro-life advocates putting up "documentary" images of aborted fetuses to neo-Nazis, pedophile-rights activists, you-name-it, posting "documentary" images of their propaganda materials. Anywhere you try to draw the line, you'll be accused of hypocrisy.

-- If you try to avoid rule-making, and simply enforce what you consider to be reasonable limits on a case-by-case basis, you'll open yourself to accusations of imposing your own biases on others.

-- If you try to draft hard-and-fast rules to screen out potential "problem" content, you'll be at risk of also having them screen out desirable content.

In this type of situation, the safest thing would be simply to decide not to offer the forum at all. Kudos to Jorge for not making this "safe" choice; I feel we all should demonstrate respect for his dilemma even if we don't feel he's making the right choice. (And hey, if you think your choice is better, what's stopping you from buying some server space and putting up your OWN forum?)

 

[DougK]

If the images had been posted by themselves, I'd say yes, remove them. Whether I agree with that or not, the precedent has been set here on the forum and I support Jorge's right to make that call.

However, in this case, there were clearly enough photos posted along with the deleted images to establish them in a photojournalistic context, so in this particular case I think were it my decision I would let the photos stand.

It's not my call, but that's my opinion for what it's worth.

I'm glad I mostly shoot landscapes and buildings.

 

[MP Guy]

Ok, lets continue this over here. I will close this thread not in censorship but to continue it on a different thread and not split it up.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11684