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.
Such a long discussion about censorship, a favorite subject of mine!

From what I can gather, free speech and censorship are mutually exclusive - you have either one or the other.

The internet, in fact, is a highly censored place already. Ian Clarke wrote an interesting article about this subject and later wrote a dandy piece of software to circumvent the internet's ease of censorship control. Read more here if this divergent topic and technology interest you fine rf-photographers:

http://www.freenetproject.org/papers/freenet-ieee.pdf

As far as that picture goes, I am sure Henry Makow would have a thing or two to say about it. As for myself, I am trying to stay positive.
 
As an historian I note that half of the world seems to take the image of a cross as a return to an ideology dating to the crusades. Hatred of this familiar symbol has endured far longer that of the backward cross of Hitler and has proved especially fraught with peril. Hatred, in any form, dies slowly as many of us embrace it with fervor.
Just a comment

Johne
 
Closing youir eyes will not make it go away.

but it does not mean that i want to talk about it here either.

i am an active participant in the politcs of canada, alberta and edmonton. i pick a candidate and work on their campaign.
i go door to door, talk with those who want to engage in political discussion and share my views and the views of the candidate.

i do way more than spout from the pulpit that is the internet.
i'm in the trenches.

joe
 
This is a debate that will go on forever, just like it does in so many different places in our day to day lives. But again, this is Jorge's site and if he feels the need to remove certain elements to keep his vision and intent of the RFF, then so be it.
 
Dear Chuck A,

"If someone complained..."

Won't wash. Anyone can complain about anything. If I complained about all the images I find distasteful (tacky, jingoistic, stupid...) I could complain about a lot. But I don't. Brian Mattock was spot on in another thread where he said that pictures don't offend him. I suspect he's a 'high verbal' like me: pictures hurt us less than some people. The only difference between us (and this is not a personal attack) is that I suspect I can handle verbal attacks slightly better too.

Cheers,

Roger
 
Roger,

It's 'Bill' Mattocks. But that's ok. And you're right, you can undoubtedly handle verbal attacks better than I can. At least from you. No one else gets up my sleeve the way you, I'll say that. And here we let the matter rest, presuming you're alright with that.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks (Bryan is my middle name)
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Chuck A,

"If someone complained..."

Won't wash. Anyone can complain about anything. If I complained about all the images I find distasteful (tacky, jingoistic, stupid...) I could complain about a lot. But I don't. Brian Mattock was spot on in another thread where he said that pictures don't offend him. I suspect he's a 'high verbal' like me: pictures hurt us less than some people. The only difference between us (and this is not a personal attack) is that I suspect I can handle verbal attacks slightly better too.

Cheers,

Roger
Click to expand...

Of course I realize that but what I am talking about is if someone is truly offended by it. On moral or religious grounds, for example. This is not the same as finding something distasteful because it is tacky or stupid. I am talking about photographers using self restraint when posting and viewers to give some latitude and only complain when a photo is truly objectionable. I don't see what the problem is with this sort of arrrangement. It is merely respecting others.

Nobody likes verbal attacks and in my opinion they are uncalled for on a forum like this. Even if we don't agree, We can be civil. :bang:
 
Dear Bill,

I am extremely sorry. That's even worse than the 'Rodger' spelling I regularly get. Put it down to the wine (I'd just finished dinner when I wrote that). Not unforgivable, but close. I beg your forgiveness.

Cheers,

Roger
 
Dear Chuck,

Yes, but how do you tell when someone is REALLY offended? You have to exercise your own value judgement on that one and decide whether they are being (a) reasonable or (b) thin-skinned or (c) an out and out whinger or (d) a troublemaker. Also, what REALLY offends one person may seem entirely reasonable to someone else, even someone on the same side.

Cheers,

Roger
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Bill,

I am extremely sorry. That's even worse than the 'Rodger' spelling I regularly get. Put it down to the wine (I'd just finished dinner when I wrote that). Not unforgivable, but close. I beg your forgiveness.

Cheers,

Roger
Click to expand...

Not to worry, life is good. Enjoy the wine - my tipple is beer.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
Dear Bill,

Can't afford good Belgian beer (oh dear, risk of being anti-American here...) but a very drinkable French rose is 1.19 euros a litre. Alas that's now pushing $1.50 and it was under $1.10 a couple of years ago. Vote for a stronger dollar!

Cheers,

Roger
 
Chuck A said:
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.
Click to expand...


See, and that's the problem I have with this photo having been removed from the gallery - even if Jorge did not intend it this way, implicitly by choosing to remove exactly this picture (an not one from a whole slew of others that I - and probably many others, too - find offensive in the gallery), Jorge has been taking sides in a discussion that had not even started (at least I have not seen anyone complaining); I think, if the picture had not been removed, this whole lenghty thread would not have been started, and most people who did not like the photo (or its message) would have simply ignored it (just as I ignore those pictures that I, and others, find offensive - I have not yet seen any mudslinging, wars, etc. been started here on RFF over a picture posted in the gallery).

Basically, what I'm trying to say in my muddled style - if you censor only one side in an argument, you are being partisan, and unfair; if you are censoring both sides, well, pretty soon we're only going to see pics of fluffy animals any more (until someone finds those offending for whatever reason); once you start with censorhip, you're on a slippery slope, going downhill...


Roman

PS: Roger, what a coincidence, I had just opened a bottle of cheap French rose (from Corbieres) a few minutes ago...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Roger Hicks said:
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
Click to expand...


Don't confuse jingoism for partriotism (pride of country), I support my country but I'm not blind. If you were to visit my house you would see a large American flag flying in my front yard, does that make me a "flag-waiver", it's part of our culture.


I think the reason this long and boring thread still exists can be found in it's title "RangeFinderForum Censorship: Good or Bad", I mean really, who wants to be the one to close that one down 😉.

Todd
 
Todd,

Good point. Who indeed?

But the point about flying the the flag is interesting. Many non-US cultures just wouldn't do that. National flags are all too often associated with far-right looney nationalist groups in Europe. This is not to decry their use in the USA but rather to illustrate the way in which parallel symbols can have different meanings in different cultures.

Semiotics may be tedious and often worthless but it is not an irrelevant field of study. All too many people are unaware that the messages they send are not necessarily the ones they think they are sending.

Cheers,

Roger
 
Last edited:
I agree with the Semiotics comment, tedious for sure but not totally irrelevant, which brings us full circle back to the swastika eh?

Todd
 
I suppose for the EU to work, the European Countries must rid itself of the old-style Nationalism that has set its member nations at each others throats since the fall of the Roman Empire. The US has mostly rid itself of "State Pride" after one horrific war. You do not get the fights of "Damn Yankee" vs "Johny Reb" , even into the 1960's. Another Horrific War seems to have washed that one away. Perhaps European pride will replace "French Pride", "English Pride", "German Pride". A lot of wars would have been averted had Europe been under one combined flag.

And with that, I shall stick to discussing RF's.
 
I've been thinking about this one and it seems that no-one objects to the swastika on fake Leica's, yet the picture does appear to have upset some people here. Could the context rather than the actual symbol be the issue?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom