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.
Please do not let this site become another photonet. I am not at all a Bush fan but I have found a place in this site that does not have the rudeness and the arrogance that I can not deal with with the photo net.
 
I realize I'm a bit late - but thanks Roger and Oldprof from me, too!
BTW, I'm much more offended by all that jingoism represented by pics of star-spangled-banners in somebody's backyard (and no, I don't consider myself 'anti-American' in any way at all, I just hate any kind of nationalism - like they say around where I live 'Patriots are idiots!', and nobody in their right mind would display a flag in their home).
So, will we see censorizing of such just as offensive (to many people) images, too, or will this be kept one-sided, only directed against one side of the coin?

Roman
 
schaubild said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, with the exception of arts and reportage and documentation.

That is the reason why the right wing parties and organisations use the Iron Cross and the flag from the german empire befor 1918.

Same goes for some numbers and letters, there is an organisation here which is definitly on the extreme right wing and does security for the, legal, right wing parties. They call themselves "Standarte 88", where everybody knows that 88 stands for the letters hh. They are under oberservation but haven't committed any crimes, yet.

On the other hand, this is a harbour town and we have many connections to many shipping companies all around the world. In a Barge belonging to the Senate of my hometown and used to tour VIPs around the harbour you'll find the swastika on flags from shipowning companies from India.

So the context is ipmortant here in germany.

The picture diskussed here is definitly legal in its documentary context, it would be illegal in a political context. Showing this on a banner protesting against the USA is definitly illegal.
 
Roman said:
like they say around where I live 'Patriots are idiots!',

Roman
Click to expand...


Roman, as a german I'm brought up to be ashamed instead of beeing proud of my country. Actualy I think some patriotism and proudness is a good thing.

But you have to stay open to criticism and accept that not everybody has the same opinion.
 
backalley photo said:
this site will remain civil, i'm sure of that.

this discussion has remained civil but has gone on far too long for my liking.

joe
Click to expand...


Joe,

I've been wondering why the thread wasn't locked LONG ago.

What possible purpose is being served keeping it open? Exactly what is being gained by the "poll"?

😕

Tom
 
schaubild said:
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.
Click to expand...
I would hope it's not the swastika itself which is prohibited. It's an ancient symbol which was used in Tibetan and Navajo art (for example) long before it was appropriated by the Nazis.
 
backalley photo said:
... this discussion has remained civil but has gone on far too long for my liking.

joe
Click to expand...

The discussion in this thread has been civil and I also find it worthwhile - the length of the thread does not bother me as Forum members are expressing their respective views. And so far no one has sunk to ad hominem attacks.
 
T_om said:
Joe,

I've been wondering why the thread wasn't locked LONG ago.

What possible purpose is being served keeping it open? Exactly what is being gained by the "poll"?

😕

Tom
Click to expand...


I started the thread because I was angry. Angry about being censored for taking a photo and posting it because I liked it. I had no intention of making a political statement but saw dual concepts in the image with the heart and the swastika. It flopped. Others have seen the print and liked it but I guess it loses something in the electronic world.

It must have provoked a negative response here on the forum and therefore Jorge removed it (possibly someone complained, I do not know). Maybe Jorge took offense and that is enough. Really, I had no idea that this was Jorge's board as in he owns the digital domain for this board. Since finding that out I have changed my tune and abstained a little from commenting even when I read things that were potentially inflammatory to me. Since there are those who would like to debate the matter then let them have at it until it dies. For me, as the initiator, the matter is settled. Jorge's property therefore his decision because he is the "BIG CHEESE". I'll keep my photo's someplace else and participate on the board for the love of the cameras that we use. I will keep up on this thread if the need arises to restate what I have said above.

By the way, if things do degrade from some individual getting abusive, because this type of thing can raise passions, then I do hope that the moderators step in to keep things civil.

:bang: :bang: :bang:
 
egpj-- I don't know if the following was said clearly enough: please reconsider only showing your images from your personal site. You contributions add to our community.

Bob
 
I gotta say, I think the original photo is not as transparent as some have opined it to be. Most importantly, it doesn't hide the medium, and it would be crude for it to show more context IMHO.

This thread had proved that it's worth something: a few have brought up the fact that the swastika is not a simple symbol with which to make a point. The photo has inspired reflection and dialogue--I can't say that about many of mine.

Having said that, I'm generally in favor of removing photographs in the interest of civility, among other things. It seems like it has worked out OK in this instance, thanks in no small part to egpj's complaint.
 
T_om said:
Joe,

I've been wondering why the thread wasn't locked LONG ago.

What possible purpose is being served keeping it open? Exactly what is being gained by the "poll"?

😕

Tom
Click to expand...

I concur completely. Talk about beating a dead horse.
😉
🙂
🙂
 
RayPA said:
I concur completely. Talk about beating a dead horse.
😉
🙂
🙂
Click to expand...

I feel the poll was worthwhile, at the moment almost all of the posts agree with the decision to remove the picture yet the poll suggests less of a majority.

I thought the picture was good, especially as it was more than just a simple image. However take into account that I feel the greatest ever photograph taken was the portrait of Che Guavara althought I couldn't reduce this into a table of logical arguments that add up to this, I just do.

Perhaps removing the picture had a problem arisen might have been an initial option - however it's done now and I feel the RFF community have together properly debated it in a mature and calm manner.

I still like fluffy bunny shots tho.....
 
I say let the photo stay. Let it stand on its own merit. I have no problem with politics in photography. As long as forums like this can have civil discussions about controversial subject matter, why not keep it going? What is so wonderful about RFF is how many different people from all over the world meet here for one simple reason- the love of rangefinder cameras. A little controversy every now and then only spices things up. There is no harm in that.
 
I'll second Roman -- excessive jingoism makes me uncomfortable too, no matter whose. As Dr. Johnson famously said, patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Far too many people of a jingoistic turn of mind are willing to turn to this argument when all else fails: "If you don't agree with me, you're a traitor!" And as Roman said, this isn't anti-American: it's anti-idiots, anti-flag-wavers, anti them-and-us. This includes English, Scots, Welsh, Chinese, Americans, all sorts... People are motre alike than they are different.

I am also intrigued by those who want this thread closed down. Why? As Oldprof said, it's been civil, and it's intriguing that this much controversy has been stirred by a single image. Are those who want it closed afraid of debate? Antipathetic to debate in general? What?

Cheers,

Roger
 
Roger Hicks said:
I am also intrigued by those who want this thread closed down. Why? As Oldprof said, it's been civil, and it's intriguing that this much controversy has been stirred by a single image. Are those who want it closed afraid of debate? Antipathetic to debate in general? What?

Cheers,

Roger
Click to expand...

I think it has more to do with bad experiances elsewhere - especially at photo.net but also at other forums - where a thread can be civil for some time and then degenerate into a flame war with little to no warning. Since many of the people here want RFF to remain, essentially, as the antithesis of photo.net anything that could lead to it's possibly becoming like photo.net causes nervousness. How valid that fear is, is quite another question, but that's how I see it.

There are many photographic forums on the net, but few that have worked as hard to maintain civility and collegiality as RFF. A bit of paranoia on these issues may not be a bad thing.

William
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom