God forbid we offend anyone... Isn't this what art is about? If art doesn't cause discussion or provoke heated conversation what good is it? Francois, your images are wonderful. As with every photographer, I don't like every single one of them. That said, every single one of them left an impression on me and effects how or what I choose to shoot. I just joined this forum and have yet to post a single image, but I enjoy viewing all of the images posted here. I would hate to be censored or feel like I couldn't post something here because someone would be offended. If I'm not mistaking, Francois labeled the image as "nude/violent", if that's not something you want to view then don't click through. Don't view the image and complain about it afterwards. This is truly a loss.
fb101 wrote:
To my European eyes it is an amazement to see the USA, land of the first amendment, living in fear of cultural shock and being led by those who want to protect themselves from it. The implications of the collapse of the towers are much more far-reaching than I ever thought they would be....
Two quick points just for clarification sake:
1) The 1st Amendment begins with "Congress shall make no law..." As such it only prohibits the government from restricting speak, not private individuals. Private individuals are generally able to prohibit speak any way they see fit. This issue has nothing to do with 9/11 but rather with our country's puritan roots.
2) The US still has a relatively large religious and conservative population* that believes nudity to be objectionable and/or immoral. As a Frenchman it is probably hard for you to have perspective on this issue as I've seen French soap commercials on television that would cause riots here in the US.
* - Not all religious people but some subset of the larger religious population.
friscoron wrote:
Is the direction of this forum going to be led exclusively by those who complain?
As the saying goes, the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
It would be nice to know if Fred's current policy is based on his personal beliefs or a reasoned business decision. If it's the former, nothing is likely to change. If it's the latter, those who support people like Francois need to speak up. Either way I'll stick around but at least knowing Fred's rationale for the current policy might put an end to this whole debate once and for all.
fb101 wrote:
Well, I'm really touched by all those manifestations of support.
Let one thing be clear : Fred Miranda is the manager of this place and as such, he can do whatever he feels is right for his organization. I don't know him personnaly but he seems like a good guy.
The only reason I leave is not the suppression of this image, but the fact that it was an unpredictable one. I see no rules here that would have allow me to know I wasn't authorized to depict such scenes. All I received as a justification for the suppression was the fact that FM has received " too many complaints ". So if FM is a place where liberty of expression is a function of how many people are shocked by a visual, we are back to the famous Picabia ( Mexican origin artist, surrealist ) imprecation : " bunch of fools, you only like what you know ".
To my European eyes it is an amazement to see the USA, land of the first amendment, living in fear of cultural shock and being led by those who want to protect themselves from it. The implications of the collapse of the towers are much more far-reaching than I ever thought they would be....
Again, thanks to all and thanks to Fred for sheltering me all those years......Show more →
********************
As a fan of much of your work, I mean this as something to provoke thought, not as an insult or to provoke argument.
Another prespective on Picabia ... he may not be right in ALL cercumstnces ... pehaps there is a point when we are so open minded our brains fall out.
Nov 20, 2012 at 12:22 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
jeraldcook wrote:
Two quick points just for clarification sake:
1) The 1st Amendment begins with "Congress shall make no law..." As such it only prohibits the government from restricting speak, not private individuals. Private individuals are generally able to prohibit speak any way they see fit. This issue has nothing to do with 9/11 but rather with our country's puritan roots.
2) The US still has a relatively large religious and conservative population that believes nudity to be objectionable and/or immoral. As a Frenchman it is probably hard for you to have perspective on this issue as I've seen French soap commercials on television that would cause riots here in the US.
I agree with your 2nd point 100% but with a clarification. Not all people who are religeous and/or conservative object to nudity. I certainly am both religeous and conservative but I clearly do not object to nudity. I do object to images that show a disrespect for the body.
Here are two intersting articles for you to consider that explains the views of many conservative religeous people who are not by any means puritanistic prudes. I don't expect to "convert" you, but I do hope you will at least gain some open-minded understanding of people such as myself.
jeraldcook wrote: For those outside the USA....this is hyperbole...
How about this...Francois has posted hundreds, if not thousands of pictures on this forum. He's had ONE deleted. His said he didn't know the forum boundaries, now he does.
He is still free to post, he has not been banned from the forum. Instead of leaving, why not continue to keep posting, as he has, but with the boundaries in mind.
It matters not to me either way. I stopped looking at his posts many months ago.
My take though is that instead of being appreciative of the forum that has given him an opportunity to post his work, he has chosen to publicize his host's actions....Show more →
Why not create a sub-forum with a clear warning that this is for 18+ and contains nudity, possible violence, gore, drug use...whatever.... Move all the NSFW posts there and anyone that visits - cannot later complain of the images.
Francois linked the photo in question and labeled it "Nudity and Violence" (to the best of my recollection). So, it was by choice that anyone would follow the link to view the photo.
Sallem writes " His said he didn't know the forum boundaries, now he does.
The point is precisely that : I don't know, even after the censorship where the boundaries are.
I've been told " too many complaints" ... How many grains of sand does it take to make a heap ? How many complaints ( and by whom ) before it becomes unaceeptable; These questions are still pending...
And if a bonded girls creates " too many complaints " today, what tells me a topless girl won't tomorrow ?
Also, seen from where I stand those complaitns are ANONYMOUS. This is the same plague the one Face Book suffers from : anonymous complaints are allowed to result in censorship actions. I think this is really a dangerous direction.
I would a favor a systeme where people could clik on a " I want suppression of this image" button, their name visible; And when you'd reach a certain amount of clicks ( For Fred to say where the right number is ), then off goes the photo...
fb101 wrote:
I would a favor a systeme where people could clik on a " I want suppression of this image" button, their name visible; And when you'd reach a certain amount of clicks ( For Fred to say where the right number is ), then off goes the photo...
And I say that would lead to abuse of people who ever clicked on that hypothetical button. The people who complained certainly aren't anonymous to Fred, since they sent him the complaints.
This isn't a court of law, you don't have the right to face your accusers. You were not censored. Your images aren't even hosted here, so deleting a thread is not censorship since your fans can get to them via other paths.
Nov 20, 2012 at 01:57 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
The point is precisely that : I don't know, even after the censorship where the boundaries are.
I've been told " too many complaints" ... How many grains of sand does it take to make a heap ? How many complaints ( and by whom ) before it becomes unaceeptable; These questions are still pending...
And if a bonded girls creates " too many complaints " today, what tells me a topless girl won't tomorrow ?
Also, seen from where I stand those complaitns are ANONYMOUS. This is the same plague the one Face Book suffers from : anonymous complaints are allowed to result in censorship actions. I think this is really a dangerous direction.
I would a favor a systeme where people could clik on a " I want suppression of this image" button, their name visible; And when you'd reach a certain amount of clicks ( For Fred to say where the right number is ), then off goes the photo......Show more →
****************
In a thought experiment that sounds like a great system, but in reality, it would generate a system of reprisals. Eventually, there would be a smal like-minded group that would dominate by banning anything they did not like ... far less of your work would survive.
Artists have always had to deal with editors and critics. You've done well if only two of your posts have been removed over the years. Even the most open-minded art museums have a curator that decides what gets shown and what does not. The only way for it to be otherwise is to start your own gallery ... you do have a web page, post the image there.
ether1 wrote:
...
Why not create a sub-forum with a clear warning that this is for 18+ and contains nudity, possible violence, gore, drug use...whatever.... Move all the NSFW posts there and anyone that visits - cannot later complain of the images.
I have had a web site for years, André, you should know that.
And the "This isn't a court of law, you don't have the right to face your accusers" is just frightful ! I hope you do'nt have to many guys like this "Alohadave" who, of course, unlike André Labonte, doesn't operate under his real name...
You are entitled to this belief Bert. Still, as long as it is legal, does it have to be suppressed ? If you don't like it, why do you bother to come, to see and to complain ?
Because if allowed to stand, it will further encourage people of like ilk to post and drive away traditional shooters. Your work is impeccable, too bad you enjoy the darker side.
I am with Francois on this; one image or 100 images censored – it doesn’t matter. How would you feel if I was to censor 3 pages of the Holly Bible because they offend me?? You either believe in your right to express yourself or you don’t. You are reading the Bible and there are some of the most disturbing and violent images there….that is another irony of the situation.
BUT – for me the most surprising element is that we are even having this debate.
This is a photography forum. The idea is to present your work; people can critique it and give their feedback on the technical or artistic merits of it. You can contribute and learn. You can explore other’s ideas and grow in the direction that you feel is most suitable to your taste.
If you don’t like something you can voice your opinion and ignore it….
All images that might be uncomfortable for some to view do have the NSFW /Nude warnings but apparently that wasn't enough.
I gave a suggestion of providing a separate forum where all sort of creative / controversial art could be shown...HOWEVER, it is important to understand that the idea was NOT to appease those who complained but rather to continue allowing everyone else to enjoy the freedom of expression and provide support, learning and exchange of ideas for those who chose to express themselves in such a way.
That’s it for me for this discussion – now I am off to other topics to try to improve my skills and learn the art of photography lest all I can see here are HS Seniors.
Bert DeMars wrote:
Because if allowed to stand, it will further encourage people of like ilk to post and drive away traditional shooters. Your work is impeccable, too bad you enjoy the darker side.
We all enjoy the dark side your just too ashamed to admit it......When we finally admit that, that is when it yields no power over us...
