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.
in truth this is an ancient argument and i have seen nothing here that i have not seen before.
i have not learned anything new and that is why i was ready for the end of this thread.

controversy for controversy's sake is empty.

i think it's interesting that the 2 main people involved in this have the least to say while others seem determined to keep this thread going.

joe
 
Roger Hicks said:
Are those who want it closed afraid of debate? Antipathetic to debate in general? What?

Cheers,

Roger
Click to expand...


I LOVE a good and heated debate. To that end I monitor two political forums where there are no holds barred.

But what do you want to see here, a Rangefinder discussion forum or a political debating society?

There is a reason for the dictum that in civil company, you do not discuss religion or politics. I was hoping that this place would remain civil.

Tom

PS: There is a world of difference between photographs *about* politics and a *political* picture.
 
Dear Tom,

There is no dictum against discussing religion and politics: it is a regional preference. Indeed, religion and (more usually) politics are the very meat and drink of conversation in most of the world.

To separate politics from anything -- including, or perhaps especially, photography -- strikes many of us as incomprehensible. As Umberto Eco said in Travels in Hyperreality it is regarded as the duty of a European intellectual to discuss the world in which he lives and therefore politics -- and before anyone interprets that as an anti-American comment, I have numerous American friends who second his view.

William's comment on what one might call 'due paranoia' certainly has merit, as we have all seen nasty things happen on other forums -- but doesn't that make it even better if we can discuss grown-up topics like grown-ups?

And I can't really accept Joe's argument about 'the two main people on the thread'. Those who start a conversation need not necessarily be those contribute most to it, or indeed finish it. Clearly some people do find it interesting, or it wouldn't continue. Elsewhere I started the 'what is creativity' thread, based on ideas lifted from others' posts on this thread, and yet others have contributed more than I.

For me, one of the attractions of photography is that it helps me to understand the world better, and the viewpoints of other people. Exactly the same is true of politics, which is why I find it so odd to separate them.

Cheers,

Roger
 
Last edited:
this thread keeps popping up on my followed threads. I agree with Joe. I'm signing off on it, so good luck to all interested. I'm going to shoot film instead of writing because that is what interests me.

jan
 
I don't get the "offended by swastika" argument too. I've seen Klan documentary pictures posted here; do black people here find them offensive and worth removal?

That said, I fully understand that this is a privately run (and excellent) forum where the owner has the last say. Still I don't agree with this act of censorship. I can't post protest shots on the photo sites in my country due to self-imposed censorship, and this case exibits the same symphoms.
 
I can't post protest shots on the photo sites in my country due to self-imposed censorship, and this case exibits the same symphoms.

Eugene,

You are missing an important difference. Pictures of protests or other political situations are fine. The swaztika shot seemed to many, at first glance ,to be simply a political statement, which many people find offensive on several levels: the use of the swaztika as the primary picture element, and by American Conservatives, for starters.
 
Frank,

Unless the photographer painted the swastika themselves it is just a documentary shot of a political opinion. You can argue about it aesthetic deficiences or that the opinion itself is too extreme, or silly, or overstatement, but I can't blame the photographer for uploading the image. Such an opinion exists and I see no guilt in documenting it.
 
Regarding the image in question, it SEEMED as if the PRIMARY function of the image was to PROMOTE a political message rather than present a photographer's interpretation of a politiacally charged scene or event. This point was discussed in this thread.

I've got a few protest shots myself:
 
FrankS said:
Regarding the image in question, it SEEMED as if the PRIMARY function of the image was to PROMOTE a political message rather than present a photographer's interpretation of a politiacally charged scene or event.
Click to expand...

Ok.. I didn't see it in that light, maybe because am not a US resident. But was the shot removed merely for perceived promotion of a political message?

As to swastika sensitiveness I can only suggest to grow a thicker skin. I see them popping on the walls from time to time here, and this is the country that lost nearly 1/3rd of population in that war.

I've got a few protest shots myself:
Click to expand...

They look badly overexposed but good catches.. what the protest was about? The first shot look helloweenish 🙂
 
varjag said:
I don't get the "offended by swastika" argument too. I've seen Klan documentary pictures posted here; do black people here find them offensive and worth removal?
QUOTE]


I think most people of all races would be offended if the image were a cropped view of the words on a sign that said "Kill N*ggers". If the photo lacks any context beyond the political message, then it is a political message itself. That is the issue.

(egjp's image DID contain a context, but it was so subtle that it needed to be pointed out and explained.)
Click to expand...
 
varjag said:
Ok.. I didn't see it in that light, maybe because am not a US resident. But was the shot removed merely for perceived promotion of a political message?

That is correct.

As to swastika sensitiveness I can only suggest to grow a thicker skin.

That's more than a bit insensitive, IMHO.


They look badly overexposed but good catches.. what the protest was about? The first shot look helloweenish 🙂
Click to expand...

Bad scans.
 
I'm with varjag. A lot of people need thicker skins.

Do I really care if you insult someone of whom I have a higher opinion than I do of you? No. If you insult the Dalai Lama you're probably a fool and it's your problem. Insult Tony Bliar, Howard the Vampire, or even dear old Charlie 'Fond of a Dram' Kennedy and if it's funny I'll forgive a lot. If it's not, well, there may be truth in it anyway. Same goes for Dubbya, Putin, Chirac (remember the slogan VOTE FOR THE CROOK, NOT THE FASCIST) and plenty more. To quote a leading British comedian, "I wouldn't dream of making a joke about our friends the Germans unless I thought it was going to be funny."

And indeed let's not forget Soviet losses in WW2. Sure, I realize that Ukrainians, Russians, Belarusians, citizens of the Baltic States etc weren't willing Soviets but that doesn't lessen the heroism or the losses.

If you're offended or frightened (and I've been frightened by this sort of thing), or if you just want to wimp out, don't blame the messenger. Think about how the world is -- and how to change it. Closing youir eyes will not make it go away.

Cheers,

Roger
 
Frank, my comment wasn't ill-meaning. Sad fact of our life is that we encounter things that offend us but are beyond our possibility to change. Banning a shot with swastika won't remove it from that wall.
 
I've only read a few of the posts. I don't find the image offensive, as I see the photograph as a form of documentation. It documents the political symbols and - what's the word - iconography of protest, etc. I don't think the photo by itself promotes a political message. It certainly documents one.

However, I don't agree that deleting the image somehow crossed a line over to censorship. I fully agree that the moderator is entitled to make the decision as to whether a photo is appropriate. Heck - plenty of people paint and tatoo and pierce their bodies in ways that I consider weird. Documenting those weirdos photographicaly might be very interesting. Posting such images is hardly a matter of right, and deleting them hardly is a portent of the end of free speech.

FrankS said:
Regarding the image in question, it SEEMED as if the PRIMARY function of the image was to PROMOTE a political message rather than present a photographer's interpretation of a politiacally charged scene or event. This point was discussed in this thread.

I've got a few protest shots myself:
Click to expand...
 
I didn't see Eugene's comment as insensitive either (Frank's message was posted as I was writing mine).

With a thick skin you might do something useful. With a thin skin you spend too much time worrying and not enough acting.

Cheers,

Roger
 
Regarding the image in question, it SEEMED as if the PRIMARY function of the image was to PROMOTE a political message rather than present a photographer's interpretation of a politiacally charged scene or event.

I think this sums it up well. A protest sign or political graffitti on a wall promotes a political message. That is its purpose. A photograph (posted in a gallery) of the sign or graffitti with no other context CAN BE SEEN TO PROMOTE THE MESSAGE IT DEPICTS. If the photograph contains a context such as a person carrying the sign or a person painting the graffitti, then it is clear that the message belongs to them, AND NOT THE GALLERY OR FORUM WHICH HOSTS THE PHOTO.

(Sorry for the capitals, that wasn't shouting, it was for emphasis. I should have used italics but I don't want to retype everything.)

Peace out to you, I'm done with this topic.
 
Part of the problem here is how this is being looked at. It is not a matter of whether the original photo should have been taken. That is not the issue. The problem is whether is was appropriate to post on this site. From what I can tell, Jorges decision to remove it was based on trying to keep this site as peacful as possible. In general this type of photo could have caused a detrimental debate that could split the goodwill of the forum. We all have seen this repeatedly on sites like Photo.net and Dpreview. Nobody wants this to happen here. It is just better to be safe than sorry.

I don't know if someone complained or not. But if it really offended someone then what is the problem with having some respect for them and not posting it or removing it. I know that everyone is probably offended by something but most people have tolerance to a certain degree. Even if I found it a good photo, I have no problem removing it if it really offends someone.

These types discussions are different on the internet. When people are not face to face discussions can get heated very quickly. Personal attacks are easy over the internet and these discussions turn into personal attacks most of the time. When you don't have to look into someones eyes and it is easier to degrade them. I am sure that Jorge was just being sensitive to the forums needs or to someones feelings.

Also, I want to congratulate the members of this discussion for keeping it civil. Different points of view from both sides of the spectrum have been voiced with no personal attacks. I am very happy to see this. Because of this the RFF has become my favorite photo forum. 😀
 
FrankS said:
Regarding the image in question, it SEEMED as if the PRIMARY function of the image was to PROMOTE a political message rather than present a photographer's interpretation of a politiacally charged scene or event.

I think this sums it up well. A protest sign or political graffitti on a wall promotes a political message. That is its purpose. A photograph (posted in a gallery) of the sign or graffitti with no other context CAN BE SEEN TO PROMOTE THE MESSAGE IT DEPICTS. If the photograph contains a context such as a person carrying the sign or a person painting the graffitti, then it is clear that the message belongs to them, AND NOT THE GALLERY OR FORUM WHICH HOSTS THE PHOTO.

(Sorry for the capitals, that wasn't shouting, it was for emphasis. I should have used italics but I don't want to retype everything.)

Peace out to you, I'm done with this topic.
Click to expand...

Well said Frank, I have to agree with you here. I was about to write the same thing.
 
I voted yes to the censhorship by accident. I thought we were talkiung about censoring flame wars. When I checked the beginning of the thread I realised it was for censorship of a photo.

You shouldnt censor art, full stop. There was nothing gratuitous in that photo.

Daniel.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom