amacal1 Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
I'm not sure that a lawsuit may have been her goal, but a storm of drama and publicity certainly wasn't necessary. Especially if her reasonin involved the child's well-being and embarrassment.
I disagree with the idea that the offending image only concerns the child, and that if he's happy then there's no problem. In many ways, the photo is more for the parents than for for the child. And if the parent is disturbed by the image, then it is a problem.
However, she is far too quick to feel discriminated against. And WAY far too quick to publicly claim discrimination. She's free to feel however she likes, but her behavior is frankly more inappropriate than the offending image. And the saddest part of all is how her behavior has been condoned, and even congratulated, by a large part of society.
An ad nauseum argument could be as such: What if a child's shirt looks a little untidy in the picture? What if he's just an average little boy, and like average little boys he just played a little dirty or rough and now he's untidy? What if the child's family also happens to be poor? Could the family claim that the photo represents discrimination? Should it be the photographer's responsibly to position the rest of the class around the child with the untidy shirt so that it's not as visible that he's "different"? What if his family is not poor? As a parent, I wouldn't be happy if I saw my child was obviously untidy in the picture and it was "ruined". If it was bad enough I would even insist that something should have been done before the picture was taken to improve the situation. But, "discrimination" would be a terribly inappropriate emotion to feel. I don't see these two situations as being that different. Just a guy doing his "job" and not really paying attention to how it looks and might make people feel.
|