|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/23/2002 10:04:13 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by drewmedia:
The site's terms of use on offensive/obscene material (specifically pornography) is generic because something like 'pornography' is so difficult to define. Much as bamaster suggested, we have to rely on the submissions themselves to define the limits of offensive or obscene.
That said, I think it's necessary for us to try to continually develop a definition of offensive/obscene, so you'll see in the near future an attempt at a definition in the challenge rules. I must stress, however, that this site is one that displays art... and the bounds of art certainly stretch into nudity or even suggestive-erotic photographs.
The shot that this thread is referring to (it's no secret) has been disqualified as a result of a Site Council vote. As an administator of the site, I still have one vote like the rest of the Site Council members, but I will say that my vote was narrowly for disqualification. Even though I don't personally like looking at this photograph (certainly attributable to the fact that I'm a heterosexual male), this type of close-up, full-framed photograph (vagina or penis alike) wouldn't even make the pages of a semi-tasteful magazine like Playboy/Playgirl. I decided that this is a level at which I'm personally comfortable at for drawing the line of 'obscene or offensive' as it pertains to this site.
I very much welcome opinions on how any clause related to obscenity/offensiveness in the challenge rules should be stated.
Drew |
And so ends another day of Peyton Place!
Drew and to the council, a very tough call, congratulations. Like I said before, what a ride. Too bad it is far from over. I have lived with this subject for more than 25 years in the broadcasting world, and we have yet to find a suitable solution. People keep changing the standards. What was totally unacceptable in the 70s was suddenly fine in the 80s. The 90s were a quantum leap over the 80s. Now, we are in the 00s. So, were will we all be on this issue by the end of this decade? Think about it? All you can do is go with the popular vote for the day.
In the 70s, TV families never even had bathrooms and the parents never even slept in the same bed. Now fast forward to today. We have advertisements for personal items that were never even discussed in private 30 years ago. The world just keeps on changing folks. Mind you, Star Trek still does not have bathrooms on the Enterprize! And, Hugh Hefner is now an old man in his 70s, but he is our moral standard for today - WOW, what a change in 30 years!
I like art, and this was not it. But, I am afraid for the next time when it may not be so cut and dried.
Also, consider the numerous production crew members that are now out of work at Christmas because of this DQ - make-up, lighting, set design, props, animal handlers, grips, production assistants, interns, etc. ;-0 LOL Puns intended - Always smiling.
The very best wishes for the holiday season to everyone in the DPC community, it is a blast! - Michael
|
|
|
|
12/23/2002 11:22:36 PM · #77 |
Wait everyone! Come back! I just got here!
Turn the lights back on! Ya can`t quit now. It was just getting good!
Where did everyone go???
|
|
|
|
12/23/2002 11:26:13 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by PTLParsons:
Originally posted by hokie:
The adult body parts are fine by me but I would suggest before you put child body parts on the site you might want to CYA.
There is a shot of what appear to be under age kids that might get some folks here in some serious trouble. I am one of the more hardcore folks here and don't care what I see if its good. But from a legal standpoint I would advise the site owners and moderators to look into this issue asap. :-) |
I already did advise the to check it out legally. We don't know if it is mixed company or not and the one head that was not cropped out completely is obviously looking at the other's privates, as the title suggests. The laws are very tight about child pornography. I thought there were several nudities that were handled artfully, but there is one that is obviously not tasteful at all and is pure smut. And it is now gone from my voting site. So more than one of us recommended it for disqualification. PTL |
Although as others have mentioned, I've probably seen more 'child nudity' in nappy/diaper adverts on television in the UK and Europe. Much of the 'pornographic' content of an image is in the eye of the beholder...
The penis shot looked like it had had a lot of thought and effort (misguided though it may be) given to it. Quite why I can't fathom but it certainly wasn't 'obscene' it might not be tasteless, but I doubt anyone could seriously find it pornographic, by any sane definition. |
I, and a lot of other people consider me sane. Do you have to revert to name calling when you know you are wrong. It's the same as "cussing is the sign of an empty mind trying to express itself forcefully". You can talk to me without calling me names. This is not the "Rant" forum either.
Maybe you like to look at penises. I don't. Neither do I like to look at women's private parts. Every wonder why they are call "private parts". Ever notice when Adam and Eve sinned God covered them up with clothes, and they were embarrassed at their nudity. Why because that's how God has meant it to be since that day. By the way, you have admitted you have a diviant mind. I happened not to have one. I like this site without the pornorgraphy, just for pornorgraphy sake. And I did not find it humorous because I found it offensive. Maybe you didn't find it offensive, but one with a diviant mind wouldn't find it offensive. How do I know you have a diviant mind - by your web site. If you are without any sin you can throw all the stones you want at me. I still have a right to my opinion, and without an argument from anyone trying to change my mind. I am adult enough to make up my own mind. If all you want is pornorgraphy and lots of it you have plenty of sites you can go to and you won't have to fight anyone there. They will be all in agreement with you. Obviously I'm not the only one who felt this way. They have removed the photo, as well as the one of the 4 nude children. I'm not trying to change how you feel or what you believe, so don't try to change me either. We can just agree to disagree on this subject. But don't stoop to name calling, ok. You only show your ignorance then.
|
|
|
|
12/23/2002 11:27:51 PM · #79 |
| The movie of the same title as "The Picture" is on local braodcast in the Bay Area tonight... |
|
|
|
12/23/2002 11:34:13 PM · #80 |
I have a confession to make... it was my pic.
For those looking for an explaination, here goes nothign.
The limp genitalia represented the fall of mankind. The santa hat seperated mankind from the Higher Being. The 'eyes' represented a view into oneself. The santa theme gives the photo a time/place and represents capitalism.
It saddens me that each of you see a cheap, gratuitous weewee pic. On the contrary it was a deep philosophical attempt at defining the man in the mirror.
I now know that this website lacks depth of vision... you are all a limp one.
Or am I joking?
|
|
|
|
12/23/2002 11:47:29 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by bamaster:
I have a confession to make... it was my pic.
For those looking for an explaination, here goes nothign.
The limp genitalia represented the fall of mankind. The santa hat seperated mankind from the Higher Being. The 'eyes' represented a view into oneself. The santa theme gives the photo a time/place and represents capitalism.
It saddens me that each of you see a cheap, gratuitous weewee pic. On the contrary it was a deep philosophical attempt at defining the man in the mirror.
I now know that this website lacks depth of vision... you are all a limp one.
Or am I joking? |
I know you're just joking, but it's still pretty funny.
|
|
|
|
12/23/2002 11:51:37 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by bamaster:
I have a confession to make... it was my pic.
|
Well, I don't think so, you being just a registered user and not a paid member.
|
|
|
|
12/24/2002 12:03:39 AM · #83 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Originally posted by bamaster:
I have a confession to make... it was my pic.
|
Well, I don't think so, you being just a registered user and not a paid member. |
Good catch! Quite the eye for detail you have there. |
|
|
|
12/24/2002 12:09:48 AM · #84 |
The jig is up! I confess.... it was not me... at least not Bamaster.
*grin*
|
|
|
|
12/24/2002 01:48:51 AM · #85 |
I, and a lot of other people consider me sane. Do you have to revert to name calling when you know you are wrong. It's the same as "cussing is the sign of an empty mind trying to express itself forcefully". You can talk to me without calling me names. This is not the "Rant" forum either.
Maybe you like to look at penises. I don't. Neither do I like to look at women's private parts. Every wonder why they are call "private parts". Ever notice when Adam and Eve sinned God covered them up with clothes, and they were embarrassed at their nudity. Why because that's how God has meant it to be since that day. By the way, you have admitted you have a diviant mind. I happened not to have one. I like this site without the pornorgraphy, just for pornorgraphy sake. And I did not find it humorous because I found it offensive. Maybe you didn't find it offensive, but one with a diviant mind wouldn't find it offensive. How do I know you have a diviant mind - by your web site. If you are without any sin you can throw all the stones you want at me. I still have a right to my opinion, and without an argument from anyone trying to change my mind. I am adult enough to make up my own mind. If all you want is pornorgraphy and lots of it you have plenty of sites you can go to and you won't have to fight anyone there. They will be all in agreement with you. Obviously I'm not the only one who felt this way. They have removed the photo, as well as the one of the 4 nude children. I'm not trying to change how you feel or what you believe, so don't try to change me either. We can just agree to disagree on this subject. But don't stoop to name calling, ok. You only show your ignorance then.[/quote]texttext
Well, I've noticed a lot of comments are missing, but the one I find most offensive is this one, and it's still here. I will argue that religious beliefs be left out of this discussion. A) because calling somebody a "Deviant" is name calling, something which shows the person who posted this as a hypocrite, and B) because religious beliefs are personal, and not everybody is of the same religious nature.
Why is it that a few people's dislike of a picture have such a big influence on the people in charge to DQ it. The truth is that you cannot please everybody, when you run a site like this, and my advice, as bad or as good as you may think it is, is to set the ground rules firmly. If you don't want any genitalia, then remove all of it, not just one photo of a penis which some people complained about. You cannot just pick and choose, or maybe you can, but then the ethics and the idealism of the site is gone, and you will lose users.
-Annida |
|
|
|
12/24/2002 01:57:24 AM · #86 |
Originally posted by Annida:
Why is it that a few people's dislike of a picture have such a big influence on the people in charge to DQ it. The truth is that you cannot please everybody, when you run a site like this, and my advice, as bad or as good as you may think it is, is to set the ground rules firmly. If you don't want any genitalia, then remove all of it, not just one photo of a penis which some people complained about. You cannot just pick and choose, or maybe you can, but then the ethics and the idealism of the site is gone, and you will lose users.
-Annida |
When the majority speaks out the leaders will listen. I think a system should be established to DQ a photo that people think is "tasteless" or what have you... a number of DQ requests that when reached a tasteless photo be removed. The number could be based on the average number of votes a photo is likely to recieve during the challenge. If a certain percentage of people on this site request to have a photo DQed based on the subject alone, then that photo could be removed.
On a side note, I'd love to have the abilty to block individual photos from my view so I don't have to see them when I browse galleries, or photos based on score. I don't mind most nudes, but some I'd rather not look at. |
|
|
|
12/24/2002 02:00:06 AM · #87 |
Originally posted by Wes:
Originally posted by Annida:
Why is it that a few people's dislike of a picture have such a big influence on the people in charge to DQ it. The truth is that you cannot please everybody, when you run a site like this, and my advice, as bad or as good as you may think it is, is to set the ground rules firmly. If you don't want any genitalia, then remove all of it, not just one photo of a penis which some people complained about. You cannot just pick and choose, or maybe you can, but then the ethics and the idealism of the site is gone, and you will lose users.
-Annida |
When the majority speaks out the leaders will listen. I think a system should be established to DQ a photo that people think is "tasteless" or what have you... a number of DQ requests that when reached a tasteless photo be removed. The number could be based on the average number of votes a photo is likely to recieve during the challenge. If a certain percentage of people on this site request to have a photo DQed based on the subject alone, then that photo could be removed.
On a side note, I'd love to have the abilty to block individual photos from my view so I don't have to see them when I browse galleries, or photos based on score. I don't mind most nudes, but some I'd rather not look at. |
That's hardly a majority, when most of the voting for disqualification happened in one day!
-Annida |
|
|
|
12/24/2002 02:12:11 AM · #88 |
Originally posted by Annida:
That's hardly a majority, when most of the voting for disqualification happened in one day!
-Annida |
Actually, the Site Council (mods) voted on whether to DQ or not as well. I think they're a pretty good cross-section of the people on the site, and the majority wanted to DQ it. This could be a reflection of the majority of the people on DPC.
|
|
|
|
12/24/2002 06:55:47 AM · #89 |
Folks, it is not the image that you should be concerned with here. The image is inconsequential.
The censorship question is what really concerns me. It is the ability of someone else, anyone else, or even everyone else, to dictate the morality of the day to a wider group or to an individual. You need to appreciate that this image may be viewed very differently in different parts of the world. In some cultures it is fine, in others, it is not.
What or who gives this photographer the right to submit it in the first place, and for that matter, who granted the council the right to reject it and react in this manner? I would have thought that my American friends would have jumped all over this question, as I understood it to be a core part of their constitution – freedom of speech, etc.?
|
|
|
|
12/24/2002 08:46:06 AM · #90 |
Originally posted by kandyj:
I, personally would like to be able to turn off nudes during the voting rather than afterward, so that I could browse on break at work without being fired for looking like something like the penis picture, that "came up" randomly as I voted. I would also not have liked my teens looking at it, esp. a thirteen year old, even though they likely know what a penis looks like. I thought the photo was a little funny, but due to the fact that it was much more obscene rather than artful which was intensified by the title; I agree with the DQ.
Thanks, moderators for taking a stand on this. You all do a good job trying to make this website a great place to be!! |
Turning off nudes during voting was something we looked at very seriously when the new version of the site was being written. In the end, it was decided that it was a bad idea to turn off nudes during voting.
The most compelling point against turning them off is that only a subset of users would then vote on the nudes, and the ones that voted on them would likely score them higher than those who chose to block them. In other words, having this option would skew the scores on nudes upward, possibly significantly. As users noticed that nudes were beginning to dominate the top rankings, the overall number of nude submissions for the sake of nude submissions would increase.
The reason the feature was to help users who wanted to casually browse the site from work or other similar places. Voting, however, is at your own risk. Before voting it is your responsibility to ensure you are in a place appropriate to do it (actually, surfing is at your own risk as well... we are not perfect, and could miss flagging a potentially offensive photo).
-Terry
|
|
|
|
12/24/2002 10:17:33 AM · #91 |
Originally posted by Morgan:
Folks, it is not the image that you should be concerned with here. The image is inconsequential.
The censorship question is what really concerns me. It is the ability of someone else, anyone else, or even everyone else, to dictate the morality of the day to a wider group or to an individual. You need to appreciate that this image may be viewed very differently in different parts of the world. In some cultures it is fine, in others, it is not.
What or who gives this photographer the right to submit it in the first place, and for that matter, who granted the council the right to reject it and react in this manner? I would have thought that my American friends would have jumped all over this question, as I understood it to be a core part of their constitution – freedom of speech, etc.? |
what culture in this world would embrace that photo? that's lunacy. i have the freedom to disagree with whatever i want to. part of freedom of speech is tolerating other people's intolerance to a certain culture, in this case the culture of people that like to take pictures of penises with santa claus hats. i think you can find this culture in the local mental institutions in your area.
|
|
|
|
12/24/2002 10:29:23 AM · #92 |
Originally posted by achiral:
what culture in this world would embrace that photo? that's lunacy. i have the freedom to disagree with whatever i want to. part of freedom of speech is tolerating other people's intolerance to a certain culture, in this case the culture of people that like to take pictures of penises with santa claus hats. i think you can find this culture in the local mental institutions in your area. |
Look, I don't want to push the idea that people anywhere embrace images of genitals. But your post seems to define anyone who isn't disgusted by penises to be lunatics. This show, "Puppetry of the Penis", was a smash hit in Australia a couple of years ago, to the point that a very funny documentary was made about it. It then took audiences by storm in New York. All it features is a bunch of guys manipulating their genitals in "the ancient art of Genital Origami". There are many people in the world who do enjoy this kind of thing, find it funny, and really don't share your views.
I'm not saying you're wrong to be offended. I do think you're wrong to think everyone else should be. It definitely is a cultural thing. Nudity is nowhere near as taboo in my country as it is in yours. Full frontal nudity is allowed on TV after 9:30pm (and that's free to air, not cable). On the other hand, we're more censorious when it comes to violence, and we have laws against racial villification.
|
|
|
|
12/24/2002 10:31:13 AM · #93 |
i was just really asking what kind of arugment is that. i mean c'mon. everyone here preaches tolerance, yet those same people are intolerant to other people's intolerance
|
|
|
|
12/24/2002 10:33:30 AM · #94 |
Originally posted by Morgan:
Folks, it is not the image that you should be concerned with here. The image is inconsequential.
What or who gives this photographer the right to submit it in the first place, and for that matter, who granted the council the right to reject it and react in this manner? I would have thought that my American friends would have jumped all over this question, as I understood it to be a core part of their constitution – freedom of speech, etc.? |
Probably those Americans who haven't given up their intellectual facilites to a belief in the Magical Sky Pixieâ„¢ are just quietly shaking their heads that it's happened again. 'I don't wanna see this, and you better not show me that. If I see any of those, the Magical Sky Pixieâ„¢, who loves me, will send me to a lake of fire where he'll torture me forever.' Photography seems an odd choice of hobby for folks with such sensitive vision, but I've seen this happen at lots of other sites - the flock move in and start to whinge, and pretty soon it's all kitties, birdies and pretty flowers. It's a shame the members area didn't hold out a little longer - it was starting to look interesting.
|
|
|
|
12/24/2002 10:48:46 AM · #95 |
Originally posted by achiral:
i was just really asking what kind of arugment is that. i mean c'mon. everyone here preaches tolerance, yet those same people are intolerant to other people's intolerance |
Well, tolerance of intolerance is a thorny issue. It comes up a lot in debates about evangelism, censorship, etc. I'm an atheist who thinks all people's religious beliefs are perfectly fine as long as they are lawful and don't impose anything too strongly on other people. However, I've been told many times that I should be able to tolerate the fact that a person's belief system might require them to do everything they can to convert other people, or even impose their values on society.
My stance is that on a site like this I do think the majority (or really the lowest common denominator) should be allowed to impose their views on the rest of the site, otherwise they'll leave and the point of the site will be lost. However, I also think everyone should be able to give their opinion, the topic should be discussed openly and politely, and everyone should have the opportunity to learn from it. There is no point having a site like this if it doesn't have enough users to stay competitive, but equally there is no point if no one's world view is ever challenged. You just can't be a good photographer if you have a closed mind.
That said, objecting to this photo is NOT a symptom of being closed minded. What I mean is that everyone should take the time to listen to all the opinions given, and think about it. Anything that helps you see the world through other people's eyes will only improve your creative vision.
|
|
|
|
12/24/2002 11:25:01 AM · #96 |
There are also laws at play here, since this site is open to minors. In the US, exposing minors to what our laws define as pornography is against the law. I would be worried that since one of the rules is not to submit obscene and/or offensive materials, the owners could be held responsible for accepting this photo. Sometimes I "small-talk" photography with some of the kids I work with (severely abused and neglected children and families)and show them the DPC site hoping that they will become more interested in photography. Esp since my novice photo placed 2nd in my first contest, they get some inspiration that they too can take beautiful pictures. Again, if this penis photo had come up, not only could I have lost my job, I could have been convicted of a crime and most of all the child may have been really re-traumatized. Although nobody to blame but myself as I read the agreement as everyone else regarding nudity.
|
|
|
|
12/24/2002 11:41:37 AM · #97 |
Originally posted by Morgan:
Folks, it is not the image that you should be concerned with here. The image is inconsequential.
The censorship question is what really concerns me. It is the ability of someone else, anyone else, or even everyone else, to dictate the morality of the day to a wider group or to an individual. You need to appreciate that this image may be viewed very differently in different parts of the world. In some cultures it is fine, in others, it is not.
What or who gives this photographer the right to submit it in the first place, and for that matter, who granted the council the right to reject it and react in this manner? I would have thought that my American friends would have jumped all over this question, as I understood it to be a core part of their constitution – freedom of speech, etc.? |
But freedom of speech or censorship is only really a 'government' issue. This is a private web site, the owners are allowed to remove content as they see fit. Everyone agreed to this when they joined up. |
|
|
|
12/24/2002 11:44:01 AM · #98 |
Originally posted by achiral:
Originally posted by Morgan:
Folks, it is not the image that you should be concerned with here. The image is inconsequential.
The censorship question is what really concerns me. It is the ability of someone else, anyone else, or even everyone else, to dictate the morality of the day to a wider group or to an individual. You need to appreciate that this image may be viewed very differently in different parts of the world. In some cultures it is fine, in others, it is not.
What or who gives this photographer the right to submit it in the first place, and for that matter, who granted the council the right to reject it and react in this manner? I would have thought that my American friends would have jumped all over this question, as I understood it to be a core part of their constitution – freedom of speech, etc.? |
what culture in this world would embrace that photo? that's lunacy. i have the freedom to disagree with whatever i want to. part of freedom of speech is tolerating other people's intolerance to a certain culture, in this case the culture of people that like to take pictures of penises with santa claus hats. i think you can find this culture in the local mental institutions in your area. |
From a European perspective both of those images are pretty tame. The reaction on here is very extreme for such silly images. Certainly either of them would be acceptable on mainstream television in the UK or Europe, perhaps waiting until after 9pm for the non-erect penis, but the naked children would probably been seen during the day in a nappy/diaper advert, in fact have been in the past. The whole world doesn't have the same puritanical perspective as is prevalent in the US. |
|
|
|
12/24/2002 11:49:19 AM · #99 |
As always "good taste" depends on ones' own background and upbringing.
Regarding this wanker's "Oscar Johnson" photo, would you be proud to show it to your Mother or Father, or your Grandmother or Grandfather, and hold it forth as an example of photographic excellence that you admire? And when you have finished with that, you can exhibit the photo to your five year old child, sister, niece as your idea of fine art. |
|
|
|
12/24/2002 11:49:51 AM · #100 |
Originally posted by kandyj:
There are also laws at play here, since this site is open to minors. In the US, exposing minors to what our laws define as pornography is against the law. I would be worried that since one of the rules is not to submit obscene and/or offensive materials, the owners could be held responsible for accepting this photo. Sometimes I "small-talk" photography with some of the kids I work with (severely abused and neglected children and families)and show them the DPC site hoping that they will become more interested in photography. Esp since my novice photo placed 2nd in my first contest, they get some inspiration that they too can take beautiful pictures. Again, if this penis photo had come up, not only could I have lost my job, I could have been convicted of a crime and most of all the child may have been really re-traumatized. Although nobody to blame but myself as I read the agreement as everyone else regarding nudity. |
I really, seriously doubt that either of those pictures could be considered as pornography, by any court in the US or elsewhere. Do you feel either of those were taken with the intent of generating erotic feelings in the viewer ? I personally really don't think so, but perhaps I'm wrong. If you feel they are motivated by erotica, then perhaps they might be considered extremely mild pornography. Otherwise, they may just be tasteless but certainly not obscene.
For example, UK magazines or television could quite happily display any of those images. I've seen more genital nudity and close-ups on US television or in US museums and art galleries that are open to all ages.
Walk around the Guggenheim Museum and see close-up photographs of penises, or larger than life-size videos of 20 or 30 nude women, with many genital close-ups. Nudity is a large part of all art throughout the ages.
And once again : nudity is not automatically pornography, no matter how hung-up some people seem to be about their bodies. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 05:38:34 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 05:38:34 PM EDT.
|
