RangeFinderForum Censorship: Good or Bad

RangeFinderForum Censorship: Good or Bad

  • Good

    Votes: 24 55.8%

  • Bad

    Votes: 19 44.2%
  • Total voters
    43
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
I will stay active in the board but have removed all my shots. If someone wants to see what I am shooting then they will just need to click on the link in my signature.

Hey Jorge, tell us the truth, this is because of the Patriot Act! A little big brother action moving in on ya?! 😛

For those of you who can not figure the last statement out (I know you are out there) I was making a joke about the situation. Not putting Jorge on the spot only poking fun. Thank you! 😀
 
Whenever a group of people want to get along peacefully with each other, like a husband and wife, or the folks on this forum, it cannot be done successfully if one acts with out consideration for the other(s). There is a certain amount of individual compromise involved in making a relationship work. One cannot live without compromise in a relationship.

As to the definition of art: neither art can't be defined, or art is whatever a person says it is, are very useful definitions. This may be a good topic for another thread. I stand by my opinion that a straight on photo documentation of a peice of art is not a work of art in itself because there is no creativity demonstrated by a photographer doing this, only technical competence. So my definition of art would have to include "creatiivity demonstrated by the artist." I will back off on my earlier statement that egpj's photo is not art, because egpj has pointed out the context of the painted-over heart which I had not noticed. I agree with egpj when he said his image was not effective in portraying this context.

We are clearly just discussing a single image here. This is in no way a criticism of the photographer.
 
Oldprof said:
I don't understand what censorship is supposed to protect us from. I think most of the members of this Forum are adults who recognize the world is an imperfect place and contains things that will be offensive to some people. I can deal with being offended. I don't want censors trying to defend my sensibilities. I think I am better off knowing what is going on in the world than being protected by some well meaning censor.
Click to expand...

I think what Jorge is trying to do is protect the forum. Some photos can cause very devisive arguements. Just look at the arguements on most of the other photo forums to see what I am saying. I don't visit most of them much anymore because of this. And it isn't even just photos but political discussions and agendas.

Also, I don't see the problem with some censorship. Seriously, what makes us think that we have the right to post whatever kind of work we want on someone elses site. This is not a site to learn about world events. This is a discussion forum where members are graciously offered the right to post some photos. But, like I said before, some self censorship is required unless we want problems. Adults or not there will be arguements if we don't have some self restraint. I believe that art should push some boundaries but sometimes thing do go too far. Part of the problem is that photos posted on a site are seen as being endorsed by the site and in general most people don't like conflict. If you want to push the boundaries then by all means do it on your own.
 
Last edited:
RFF is perhaps the nicest group of people on the internet in a photography forum. Please dont spoil it. Whining about a decision of the owner or moderator in front of everybody is just bad form, as is spreading it to other threads.
 
FrankS said:
Red Green (a famous Canadain) defined art this way: If I can do it, it isn't art. 🙂
Click to expand...

ROTFLMAO

You're too much, bro.

If everything is art, nothing is art. One way we define things is to say what they aren't. Duchamp's urinal is only art in the context of modern art (or maybe at a plumbers' convention). By itself, it's not art.
 
After reading the thread, I have to agree with Oldprof and Roger on this one. I'm not sure I see where this image violated the rather informal and loose rules on posting photos we have.

BTW, nice work on your site, egpj, good photos. Please stick around 🙂
 
XAos said:
RFF is perhaps the nicest group of people on the internet in a photography forum. Please dont spoil it. Whining about a decision of the owner or moderator in front of everybody is just bad form, as is spreading it to other threads.
Click to expand...

While I don't find the photograph offensive, I could not agree more with the statement above - it's one of the things that made PN unenjoyable for me.
 
I find the vote useless. In principle I don't agree with censorship but, as said by others, in this case I can see why Jorge wanted the shot gone. As this site is a private site I don't think there's much to say against or for censorship: Jorge decides.
 
Posting Photographs on this site is a privilige, granted by Jorge, Jorge has rules for the forum and gallery, and "The Rules" have long been posted.

As to the original photograph, many people find the use of the Swastika in this fashion as insulting. Of course these days, the Swastika is used to label anyone who disagrees with certain points of view. That certainly trivializes the evil that the Third Reich stood for. Most of the people who use the term Nazi, Fascist, and the associated symbols in such a trivial manner certainly are ignorant of their true meaning.

This forum practices a lot of self-control. Sometimes external control is required. Otherwise it goes the way of photo.net. I quit photo.net completely as it was so far out of control. Photo.net banned a photo similar to this one as well.
 
Yje bottom line is, it's Jorge's website. If he wants to make rules, that's his business. If I don't like his rules, I don't have to play in his sandbox
 
Indeed, many who use the terms 'Nazi' and 'fascist' are ignorant of both their historical and philosophical connotations. But many who refuse to use the same words are equally unwilling to spot parallels.

I do not wish to suggest that Bush is either a Nazi or a facist. But both evils do exist in the world today. So do bullying, insensitivity, cultural ignorance and many other evils. How much head-burying do we do? How far do we pretend things don't exist? You may or (more likely) may not agree with the sentiment expressed by the original graffitist. But then to blame the photographer for recording that there are people who think this way?

As for the sentiment 'we don't have to play in Jorge's sandbox', this sums up to me a fundamental problem. This isn't a sandbox. We're adults. PN to the contrary, we don't have to settle all our disputes by throwing our toys -- or by taking them and going home.

As Aristotle said, man is by nature a political animal. To eschew all political debate is to deny a part of our humanity. This is NOT an personal attack on Jorge: he is entitled to do whatever he wishes with hisd own site. But to aim to suppress all debate, or to accuse debaters of 'whining', seems to me a rather sad and lacklustre yet authoritarian world-picture.

Cheers,

Roger
 
Last edited:
A side remark: In Switzerland the use and publication of this sign is prohibited, you won't get sued by an offended person but from the state. I think it's the same legal situation in Germany.
 
Dear Schaublid,

That must put rather a damper on those magazine articles that seek to publicize the vileness of neo-Nazis. Tattoos, graffiti, uniforms -- you can't portray these symbols of hate for what they are?

Cheers,

Roger
 
There is a difference between showing/using the sign and documentation, quite easy to understand.
 
Not that easy to understand, or at least to frame laws for (I have a law degree). It's down to common sense, which barely exists in any legal system I am aware of. Which, for example, was the deleted picture? Showing or using? No matter what the answer, it would be fruitful ground for a lawyer to prove it/dispute it.

Cheers,

Roger
 
My personal opinion: documentation; bad photography and taste. Not worth the discussion going on, there are more interesting things to talk about.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is not a sandbox, it is a privately run and maintained website. It has rules and conditions of use associated with it. If you cannot abide by those rules, you can have your photographs, postings, and account deleted by the owner. If you do not like it, there are other sites with "less rules". I doubt that most people would prefer those sites over this one. Some of the PN Leica Forum malcontents formed such a site. RFF is much better, but others do exist.

As for labeling a person as a Nazi, if they are proud to be called such then it is time to worry. If they get elected into office, it is time to be afraid. David Duke lost the election a long time ago.
 
I find this thread interesting from the point of view that censorship happens every day in our lives yet we seem to either be unaware of it happening or choose to accept it.

I gave up shooting for local rags when they rejected perfectly good story pictures because they didn't want to upset the local company it involved as they advertise job vacancies through the local papers.

Yet one picture has caused quite a debate here with many taking sides. From the positive side I'd say that it proves the power of photography has not diminished over they years which I find very refreshing.
 
Manolo Gozales said:
Hey🙂

Just say no! To censorship, that is.

Alot of the pro-removal arguments posted so far could quite easily be applied to THIS photograph, which IMHO is quite pointless, especially given the way it is presented/titled etc. Will this be removed? I doubt it.

I think that in order to avoid any recurrence of this, the gallery should be limited to being a showcase for pictures of bunnies and other fluffy animals.

Regards

ManGo
Click to expand...


Hoi! Fluffy animals are my speciality!

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=12100&cat=500&page=1
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom