What is 'offensive'?

[Rich Silfver]

You guys are pretty sane so I thought I'd run this by you.

I posted the photo below at a photo critique site - in their critique forum - only to had it taken down within a few hours. The moderator there sent me an email telling me not to post offensive material.

Is it 'offensive' and should I just burn the negative so it doesn't get into the wrong hands?

Leica M3 and Summicron 50/2.0

 

[bmattock]

It's an 'offensive' poster that the person in the photograph is carrying - and obviously, he intends to offend. However, you're the photographer, not the protester - you're documenting (I presume) not demonstrating or protesting or voicing a political point of view. I believe that in the absense of any other information, the person who took down your photo made a mistake - but they have their rules, they can if they please, I suppose.

Now, if you posted a photo like that and went on at great length on your opinion of President Bush and anyone who voted for him, etc, etc, then yes, I'd find that pretty offensive. The difference is that you took a documentary photograph of a protester - and that I can certainly deal with.

It seems to be - without being drawn into a politcal discussion and taking NO SIDES here, that this particular US election is full of strong emotion on both sides - and a lot of moderation has flown out the window along with common sense - so posting something like this might be seen as incendiary - who knows?

I've been getting a lot of that myself - nothing to do with photography. Just things. I have relatives who come from a long line of Democrats who just assume that since I married into their family and they seem to think I have two brain cells to rub together, I must therefore find their 'amusing' jokes about Bush entertaining - I don't. I had a manager who told me that a co-worker was 'dumber than Bush' and I guess he thought I would laugh at that. I'm not offended by your photo - but I guess you can't just assume that everyone's going to like it.

Anyway, why did you post it? Just testing the waters, or did you see it as a legitmate documentary piece? Or did you actually want to put a hot poker down Repub's pants? (grin)

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[Rich Silfver]

It seems to be - without being drawn into a politcal discussion and taking NO SIDES here, that this particular US election is full of strong emotion on both sides - and a lot of moderation has flown out the window along with common sense - so posting something like this might be seen as incendiary - who knows?

I can see that point. Quite honestly I ended up liking the effect the strong California sun had on the man - obscuring his face almost making him anonymous.

I've been getting a lot of that myself - nothing to do with photography. Just things. I have relatives who come from a long line of Democrats who just assume that since I married into their family and they seem to think I have two brain cells to rub together, I must therefore find their 'amusing' jokes about Bush entertaining - I don't. I had a manager who told me that a co-worker was 'dumber than Bush' and I guess he thought I would laugh at that. I'm not offended by your photo - but I guess you can't just assume that everyone's going to like it.

I can take that not everyone is going to like it. It's a free country. It was the 'censoring' that I felt was a bit...odd.

Anyway, why did you post it? Just testing the waters, or did you see it as a legitmate documentary piece? Or did you actually want to put a hot poker down Repub's pants? (grin)

Oh come on Bill - I've posted photos of people demonstrating outside of Macy's, of Gay pride parades, of my own damn, dog, beer cans and grafitti. It's a photo 🙂 It ended up in front of my lens. I snapped. Had it been a protester carrying a sign showing Kerry as Frankenstein I would have taken that as well - and posted it had I liked the way it came out 🙂

 

[back alley]

i like the photo. what i like most is that the face of the holder of the sign is in shadow.

do i find it offensive?
no.

but i can see many people who might, if they looked at it from a purely political/national pride viewpoint.
as bill said, it's a photo of a protestor, not necessarily a protest in it's own right as a photo.

it is provocative though.

 

[Laika]

Re: What is 'offensive'?

You guys are pretty sane so I thought I'd run this by you.

I posted the photo below at a photo critique site - in their critique forum - only to had it taken down within a few hours. The moderator there sent me an email telling me not to post offensive material.

Is it 'offensive' and should I just burn the negative so it doesn't get into the wrong hands?

Leica M3 and Summicron 50/2.0

I don’t see anything offensive in your picture or the guy’s poster. I agree the poster aim it to get a rise out of someone but it isn’t me or anyone I know that I can think of. I think it got pulled because the moderator thought too many people would take the bait (not that you were fishing right 😀) and it would very quickly turn into a political argument with nothing to do with photography.

Critique - I like the picture a lot, the obscured face does add to the impact. If it was me I'd crop it into a portrait and maybe tweak the levels, I think a tighter shot would make it more dramatic, the area from the middle to the right isn’t adding anything for me… Nice one.

 

[MP Guy]

In my opinion, its what a photographer captured on film. Had it been staged, I would find it offensive. But I doubt it was. So, its just art 🙂

However, a heads up to all. I dont have time to read every thread. But if I find a political or religious post, I will remove it. Everyone here seems to get along and I am sure we are all from different religions and political affliations. Should we spark a debate over an opnion of such nature, It would be a shame to disrupt our harmony on the forum.

JT

 

[Doug]

I think Bill is 100% right in his analysis. Some viewers will read the photo as equivalent to the sign rather than as a document of the displaying of the sign.

As to strong feelings on the candidates, that's nothing new, nor even rather nasty personal comments on the candidates.

I recently watched a History Channel program exploring the events leading up to the duel of Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr that resulted in the death of Hamilton and accusations of treason against Burr, who was at the time Vice Pres. of the USA under Pres. Jefferson.

That was a very odd situation, and rife with "yellow" journalism that repeated innuendo and rumor as fact, and allowed anonymously-writen letters to the editor. It was irresponsible and literally scandalous! What we're seeing now is tame by comparison, though in at least some cases based on as little truth.

 

[rover]

I do not find the image to be offensive, as I feel that you captured a moment as you have the many times before that you mentioned Richard. Unfortunately, the conversation that this image would provoke is a political one and not for this forum.

Looking at the image, because the sign is a satire of President Bush, I will actually disagree with a couple opinions above about the person's face being shadowed. If it were a sign with a picture of the real Osama, then I think the mysterious shadowy figure would be more powerful, in a satire or protest, he needs to be seen to be effective. Just my opinion.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I find the protest sign offensive.

I do not find your posting of it and discussion of it offensive. It was done without using the forum to grand-stand personal politics. The latter case (which was not done here), I would have found offensive.

I remember a photo of John Kerry with Jane Fonda gathered the same reaction on another photo-forum, perhaps the same one you posted on.

 

[charlesfoto]

A photojournalists job is to record events, evoke emotions, without his/her own political viewpoints involved in the presentation. As long as you didn't have this image accompanied by anti-war, antu-Bush, anti-US, anti-anything statements, then the admin of the site was extremely narrowminded and wrong in pulling the image. My opinion, of course.

 

[wierdcollector]

The only thing(s) I find offensive are censorship and flaming of another list member's ideas or opinions. As long as no pro/con political opinion is expressed with the photo, I take it on its own merits. I believe we have a great (not so little anymore) group who enjoys photography and RF's without the internal bickering found in so many other groups. Keep up the good work guys (and gals), I enjoy reading each and every one of you. "There are no wrong opinions, only different ones".

 

[bmattock]

I agree with all that has been said in this thread. I think it has been a very instructive thread as well - no one got bent out of shape, no one took anything personally, and we're all friends here. The discussion remains about the art, not about the statement the protester was making - COOL!

Serves to remind me again just what a cool place RFF is.

Newbies and lurkers, take note! We're into rangefinder photography and all about helping each other out here - we don't 'do' flame wars. All are welcome, just as long as we can all get along like this.

Thanks to all my friends at RFF. Great place to be.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[taffer]

I like the picture and the way the heavily darkened face turns that man into an anonymous 'opinion', as his own personality was transferred for a while to what's on that poster.

Btw you had some heavily striking sun there ! Makes me remember that advice 'avoid taking pictures at midday hours' 😉

And as for me, it's the intention behind it what makes a picture offensive, and I don't see such an intention here, hence I don't find it offensive.

And like Bill says above, I find great that we're commenting on the photo, another example of how great this forum is 😀

 

[Scarpia]

Photographs aren't for just now, they have historical value. Here is a photo that along with many others will give people a look at the 2004 election and its issues long after it is over. It has definite historical value and the administrator somehow totally overlooked that fact.
Be it known that I am a lifelong Republican and have no problem with this photgraph. Richard seems to always grab the the vital moment, I wish I could do the same. Well taken Richard!
Kurt M.

 

[JohnM]

The sign itself isn't really offensive - I don't know if it even rises past the level of silliness. The photograph, however, definitely isn't - it's a picture of a guy carrying a sign.

If I were running the forum you mention, however, I'd take it down. We have a couple of subscription websites that have forums with over 20,000 registered users - something that provocative would instantly generate a nasty series of threads. People would not be able to stop themselves.

I don't think free speech has a thing to do with it - forums have rules and terms of service and the moderators are no doubt within their rights to moderate it as they see fit.

 

[SolaresLarrave]

If I were a moderator (and not taking into account my inclinations to the left), I wouldn't remove the photo. I would, though, ask for a kind of statement warning that the photo does NOT reflect the poster's political beliefs.

BTW, I find it pretty dramatic; the focal center is on an unexpected side (the left), leaving the rest of the image shrouded in dark tones of an intriguing nature (are those shoulders on the right). Here the usually termed "negative space" becomes the atmosphere. Great job, Richard!

 

[Rich Silfver]

Re: What is 'offensive'?

You guys are pretty sane so I thought I'd run this by you.

And how right I was - you really are. Thanks for the comments - this is what makes this forum so great: it's ability to focus on photography and look beyond petty squabbles and differences.

Thanks again.

 

[Todd.Hanz]

Offensive?, not really.
My personal taste would be to see the protestors face and any emotion or lack there of. I like images of protest, the more emotion the better whatever they are protesting.
I am the other "lifelong Republican" member on this site (must be only two of us), I am Pro-Gun, Pro-Life, Pro-Artery Clogging Beef Eater, Pro-Talk Radio, Pro-Shady 527 Groups, and a Religious Right Wing Zealot with Jesus coursing through my veins. When I see photos like this it makes me smile, I am thankful I live in a country where people can protest freely (peacefully) whatever their cause, even if it is making funny pictures of my president to put on a stick and wave around in the air 😀 , what a great place to live!
I think the picture shows nothing worth banning and like others have mentioned is a part of history and therefore should be interpreted as such. Good Job!

Todd

 

[Todd.Hanz]

......did I mention I am also Pro-Carbs! 😀

Todd

 

[Rich Silfver]

I'm Pro-Acros 😀