| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/11/2015 01:57:09 PM · #1 |
On 7 January 2015 occurred the deadliest act of terrorism in France of the last 50 years. Two gunmen killed 12 persons in the offices of a satirical newspaper, for the sole reason the cartoons and jokes were not up to their taste. 5 other persons were also killed in the manhunt and hostages crisis that happened after. If you wish, you can learn more about this tragedy here.
Today, millions of people (including many countries leaders) walked through Paris, as an historical act of protestation against terror, against censorship. As a citizen, as an artist, freedom of expression is surely something you believe in. This week, create an image to support your convictions.
Expert editing. |
|
|
|
01/11/2015 02:06:37 PM · #2 |
Sure, why not.
Plus it would be good to have a special rule to get rid of this bullshitâ€Â¦
You may not: submit a photograph depicting male or female genitalia, or acts of sex deemed inappropriate by a majority of the Site Council.
Message edited by author 2015-01-11 15:18:12. |
|
|
|
01/11/2015 03:02:54 PM · #3 |
Clive has identified the rub: a celebration of freedom of expression by a community substantially predicated on limiting it.
Most, probably all, of the national leaders parading in Paris head governments that actively limit freedom of expression, and have in many contexts criminalised the exercise of it.
Almost all of the newspapers publishing the tribute cartoons ( bloodied pencils etc) and declaring 'Je suis Charlie' are anything but. They will not publish the Charlie Hebdo cartoons themselves, even in the context of news rather than commentary.
Freedom of expression is absolute, otherwise it's not freedom. As we will see when the SC get to grips with this excellent challenge suggestion. |
|
|
|
01/11/2015 03:31:42 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by ubique:
Freedom of expression is absolute, otherwise it's not freedom. As we will see when the SC get to grips with this excellent challenge suggestion. |
That's kind of insulting to SC, friend. Wildly insulting, in fact. But the good news is, we won't censor your statement :-)
Seriously, though, we're just moderators, we aren't responsible for SETTING those policies, that was done by Drew, Langdon, and their lawyers way back when. Even so, call me naive but I can't see how DPC would be in any way enhanced by removing all content restrictions in the interests of "free expression". We should allow people to insult each other without restriction in the forums? Race-baiting should be OK? We should permit the depiction of any and all acts of violence and sexuality, regardless of how many members left the site in protest?
Now, we have a perfectly viable challenge suggestion (Thank you Christophe, I like it!) even if we DON'T change the rules for the challenge. Are we going to be pilloried if we let the rules stand? Seems rather self-defeating to me. |
|
|
|
01/11/2015 03:44:57 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Now, we have a perfectly viable challenge suggestion (Thank you Christophe, I like it!) even if we DON'T change the rules for the challenge. |
No, we don't though do we. That's kind of the point. Christophe has suggested the challenge because of the horrible recent events where people were killed by people 'for the sole reason the cartoons and jokes were not up to their taste.'. So a challenge celebrating freedom of expression and non-censorship in which anything is permitted apart from certain things which might not be up to other peoples taste would be a ludicrous sham.
I've no problem with the site's rules as they are but to have this challenge with them in place would be quite ridiculous and embarrassing.
Message edited by author 2015-01-11 15:54:39. |
|
|
|
01/11/2015 04:00:19 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by rooum:
[quote=Bear_Music]
I've no problem with the site's rules as they are but to have this challenge with them in place would be quite ridiculous and embarrassing. |
Sorry you feel like you have to post porn in order to have this challenge. |
|
|
|
01/11/2015 04:00:36 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by rooum:
So a challenge celebrating freedom of expression and non-censorship in which anything is permitted apart from certain things which might not be up to other peoples taste would be a ludicrous sham.
I've no problem with the site's rules as they are but to have this challenge with them in place would be quite ridiculous and embarrassing. |
Would a photograph depicting an illegal act, such as an obscene gesture directed at a child be acceptable for this challenge, say a composited composition where the event did not actually happen? |
|
|
|
01/11/2015 04:05:36 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by Elaine:
Sorry you feel like you have to post porn in order to have this challenge. |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Would a photograph depicting an illegal act, such as an obscene gesture directed at a child be acceptable for this challenge, say a composited composition where the event did not actually happen? |
I feel you guys are missing my point. Although Elaine has helpfully helped illustrate them.
I'm not for one second seriously suggesting that the challenge run without the rules. I'm just pointing out the glaring inconsistency if it runs with them.
Message edited by author 2015-01-11 16:39:33. |
|
|
|
01/11/2015 04:17:05 PM · #9 |
Edited.
Message edited by author 2015-01-11 17:08:29. |
|
|
|
01/11/2015 04:29:13 PM · #10 |
Are you such an absolutist as to condone the "right" of people to yell "fire" in a crowded theater or to post "We should kill all the s" or other "expression" which has the intent of harming others?
Besides, freedon of expression is a right not to be limited by governments -- and that freedom includes the freedom of voluntary private associations to set whatever limits they want.
Message edited by author 2015-01-11 16:29:55. |
|
|
|
01/11/2015 04:30:27 PM · #11 |
if freedom of expression were a blanket statement - we wouldn't have work handbooks with violations, we wouldn't learn how to hold our tongue in certain situations. we would slowly lose our ability as humans to understand the subtle nature in which we all know each other.
there is an outlet - legal - for almost any form of expression - it's a matter of knowing and using that outlet - not expecting everything is proper everywhere.
i have had a female workmate say so and so is a major c*nt at work. the thing is she new i wouldn't be offended. had she said the same thing to someone else in the workplace - she could have been fired.
everything doesn't fly everywhere - and it never will. do you go and shoot down a dozen plus people when something offends you ? not unless you're f'n crazy !
Message edited by author 2015-01-11 16:31:25. |
|
|
|
01/11/2015 04:39:01 PM · #12 |
I would have replied to the personal message, in a personal message, requesting clarification; as opposed to a public outing. Some see it as poor manners to publicly posting private messages.
However, the question does arise in my mind as to what we are playing at? Are we serious about protest? I mean really serious? Are we ready, as a group, for a firestorm of backlash? Are we ready for our favorite ox to be gored? Are we ready for our beliefs on religion, race, gender, sex, and things we haven't even thought of, to be skewered in a public forum?
Assuming it only refers to the events in France, are we ready to subject Lamgdon and company to retaliation from radicals? Are they ready for us to do this to them?
I am not arguing against such a challenge. I am saying we need to be sure that this is what we want to do, and to stand together and be a part of. This is not a game. Freedom comes with a price. Are we ready to pay? Charlie Hebdo was, can you say the same? |
|
|
|
01/11/2015 04:39:44 PM · #13 |
| For the record, before this spirals off on its blossoming tangent, the Challenge is in the queue. |
|
|
|
01/11/2015 04:44:28 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by ambaker:
I would have replied to the personal message, in a personal message, requesting clarification; as opposed to a public outing. Some see it as poor manners to publicly posting private messages. |
Good point. Have edited.
Message edited by author 2015-01-11 17:09:19. |
|
|
|
01/11/2015 04:48:10 PM · #15 |
Where to begin...
First of all, I like the challenge suggestion. Let's do it.
But - the rules thing is intriguing and challenging. First of all, I'd like to give a general commentary - especially in relation to this:
You may not: submit a photograph depicting male or female genitalia, or acts of sex deemed inappropriate by a majority of the Site Council.
Last time I remember a shot that got taken down it was of a semi with strawberry balanced on the end. It wasn't unreasonable to take it down, some people would have been offended. Now, we can defend someone's right to take such a picture and even share it, but that image would be illegal in many countries (even the UK - given that it failed the Mull of Kintyre test). It's not really viable to create a situation that would see members viewing images that are illegal in their country would it? OK - I know, we could talk about political satire that would be illegal in North Korea or Saudi Arabia or UAE and we have members there. There isn't a clear line. But you get the gist.
Now lets consider the way people vote on images - each time we vote on a challenge we effectively get ambushed by each image; a lucky dip buffet of unknown delights. Freedom of expression must (I think) go hand-in-hand with freedom of choice. We simply don't give people a choice. Now of course I could say that I'm mightily offended by 600th picture of a milky waterfall I've just been ambushed with (I haven't - but you get my point) and I don't get a choice to avoid that one, but it's not the same. We are a community and we try to find a balance. Our images form part of our social discourse. There is an etiquette. Just as I'm not going to drop my trousers in public and likely won't feel oppressed by conforming in that way, so we won't be supporting the uploading of pornographic content onto DPC - even to make a (highly important) point.
Now of course, I don't get to choose for the community - but I don't need to, that rule is in already place. We have to actively decide to rescind it. Personally, I wouldn't support that.
This isn't about not signing up to freedom - this is about acknowledging that freedom is a socially constructed phenomenon that has its own rule set built by its community. To undershoot that is to support anarchy and anarchy is a meritocracy for the strong, the bullish, the inconsiderate and the selfish. It isn't freedom. Freedom is a negotiated position.
Now, I'm not one of those people who votes 1s on nudes (I know who they are though!) - I've probably shot more nudes that any other member. I'm no prude AND I get pretty outraged by censorship and the ludicrous way in which illegal acts of murder can be portrayed as graphically as you like and broadcast to millions while sex-acts, part of every day life, are deemed as offensive. I get that. I really do.
But, we are a community. We are a diverse community. Our freedom of expression is (somewhat) socially constructed. We are a multi-national community. Rightly or wrongly sexually explicit images are illegal in a number of our members' countries. 'Inflicting' such images on them would be to oppress and even endanger them.
And Clive - I understand that not having the rule and people actually posting offensive material are two different things - and yes we could just trust people but to quote Monty Python (probably inaccurately):
"Can't we just defend Stan's (sorry Loretta's) right to have a baby even if he (sorry she) can't have a baby?"
"What's the point? Where's the foetus going to gestate - in a box?"
Fighting for a right for something people have little intention of doing seems a little gratuitous.
Now I've spent an age writing this - I'm probably behind the curve of the conversation - I'll post and catch up. |
|
|
|
01/11/2015 04:52:27 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by ambaker:
However, the question does arise in my mind as to what we are playing at? Are we serious about protest? I mean really serious? Are we ready, as a group, for a firestorm of backlash? Are we ready for our favorite ox to be gored? Are we ready for our beliefs on religion, race, gender, sex, and things we haven't even thought of, to be skewered in a public forum?
Assuming it only refers to the events in France, are we ready to subject Lamgdon and company to retaliation from radicals? Are they ready for us to do this to them?
I am not arguing against such a challenge. I am saying we need to be sure that this is what we want to do, and to stand together and be a part of. This is not a game. Freedom comes with a price. Are we ready to pay? Charlie Hebdo was, can you say the same? |
Very good points. Not being a french reader i've never read any of the Charlie Hebdo magazines in person and from what i've seen, taken out of context, many of the illustrations are really quite horrible and racist. The key thing here is 'taken out of context'. I think there is a lot that is problematic by doing this and what would a DPC Freedom of Expression challenge contain. A lot of great images i'm sure but even, perhaps, some unpleasantly racist and offensive ones.
Anyway, i'm not against the challenge and i think i've made my points clear of what i feel is ridiculous about it (Hooray! We can take photos of burning Korans because we are FREE! No, we promise we won't take photos of our penises, we understand that is unacceptable)
Message edited by author 2015-01-11 16:55:33. |
|
|
|
01/11/2015 04:58:22 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by rooum:
Originally posted by ambaker:
However, the question does arise in my mind as to what we are playing at? Are we serious about protest? I mean really serious? Are we ready, as a group, for a firestorm of backlash? Are we ready for our favorite ox to be gored? Are we ready for our beliefs on religion, race, gender, sex, and things we haven't even thought of, to be skewered in a public forum?
Assuming it only refers to the events in France, are we ready to subject Lamgdon and company to retaliation from radicals? Are they ready for us to do this to them?
I am not arguing against such a challenge. I am saying we need to be sure that this is what we want to do, and to stand together and be a part of. This is not a game. Freedom comes with a price. Are we ready to pay? Charlie Hebdo was, can you say the same? |
Very good points. Not being a french reader i've never read any of the Charlie Hebdo magazines in person and from what i've seen, taken out of context, many of the illustrations are really quite horrible and racist. The key thing here is 'taken out of context'. I think there is a lot that is problematic by doing this and what would a DPC Freedom of Expression challenge contain. A lot of great images i'm sure but even, perhaps, some unpleasantly racist and offensive ones.
Anyway, i'm not against the challenge and i think i've made my points clear of what i feel is ridiculous about it (Hooray! We can take photos of burning Korans because we are FREE! No, we promise we won't take photos of our penises, we understand that is unacceptable) |
I think we are all on the same page - if different parts of it. We all seem to be agreeing that freedom is never really there and that a Christophe's challenge in its purist form would necessarily be difficult. I think it is the interpretation of 'necessarily' that might be floating among us.
|
|
|
|
01/11/2015 04:58:58 PM · #18 |
| The whole point is that saying something offensive IS an exercise in free speech. If no one objects to what you're saying, you don't really need to have the right to say it because no one cares. |
|
|
|
01/11/2015 05:02:49 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by Paul:
I think we are all on the same page - if different parts of it. |
I think we are as well really. Perhaps i wasn't making myself clear and people were thinking i was just railing against the site rules because it was a bugbear of mine and i wanted to post porn. |
|
|
|
01/11/2015 05:05:06 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by rooum:
Originally posted by Paul:
I think we are all on the same page - if different parts of it. |
I think we are as well really. Perhaps i wasn't making myself clear and people were thinking i was just railing against the site rules because it was a bugbear of mine and i wanted to post porn. |
I got that you weren't in your last post - but not before. But when I read yours and Ubique's comments more closely (and later), I got that you were both just pointing out the limitations of freedom in a socially constructed world with the DPC rule being a microcosm of that phenomenon. |
|
|
|
01/11/2015 05:07:23 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by Paul:
But when I read yours and Ubique's comments more closely (and later), I got that you were both just pointing out the limitations of freedom in a socially constructed world with the DPC rule being a microcosm of that phenomenon. |
See, if i'd put it like that in the first place no one would have had any problem getting my point at all! |
|
|
|
01/11/2015 05:51:02 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by rooum:
Not being a french reader i've never read any of the Charlie Hebdo magazines in person and from what i've seen, taken out of context, many of the illustrations are really quite horrible and racist. |
Believe me, these guys were anything but racists. Think of it as a French version of "South Park", if you like: they were mocking everyone and everything (every religion - not only Islam, every political parties, every celebrity, etc.) in voluntarily immature ways. Why? Mostly because they had the right to do so, and believed that using that right was actually important for it not to disappear. Of course, the content is clearly not suitable for everyone, and IS offending: it is the whole purpose. Agreeing with such content is not important, defending the right to create it, is. IMHO. |
|
|
|
01/11/2015 06:00:21 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by gyaban:
[quote=rooum]
Believe me, these guys were anything but racists. |
Oh, I know that. My point was that some of the cartoons and illustrations, when taken out of context, might appear to be racist and I think that is the case for a lot of satire. And in that situation it can become racist.
Message edited by author 2015-01-11 18:02:01. |
|
|
|
01/11/2015 06:53:48 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by rooum:
My point was that some of the cartoons and illustrations, when taken out of context, might appear to be racist and I think that is the case for a lot of satire. And in that situation it can become racist. |
Considering these drawings as racist is a convenient way to disregard them. Again, I totally understand that this kind of humor is not going to make smile everyone. No one is actually forced to buy that newspaper nor to look at those illustrations. They are not particularly clever, are massively irreverent, and provocative. Some are even frankly stupid, and could have been drawn by drunk teenagers.
However, blasphemy as a way to denounce religions excesses is currently a right around here. In doubt, justice courts are there to be used. I refuse some crazy men to dictate their version of the law with assault rifles. This is what is at stake: these drawings are not really important as such, it is about the symbol. |
|
|
|
01/11/2015 07:20:12 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by gyaban:
Originally posted by rooum:
My point was that some of the cartoons and illustrations, when taken out of context, might appear to be racist and I think that is the case for a lot of satire. And in that situation it can become racist. |
Considering these drawings as racist is a convenient way to disregard them. Again, I totally understand that this kind of humor is not going to make smile everyone. No one is actually forced to buy that newspaper nor to look at those illustrations. They are not particularly clever, are massively irreverent, and provocative. Some are even frankly stupid, and could have been drawn by drunk teenagers.
However, blasphemy as a way to denounce religions excesses is currently a right around here. In doubt, justice courts are there to be used. I refuse some crazy men to dictate their version of the law with assault rifles. This is what is at stake: these drawings are not really important as such, it is about the symbol. |
I totally agree but the situations I'm talking about are when they are taken out of the context of a humorous French satirical magazine and placed elsewhere, such is being done in many non French speaking places in the world with the call to publish them as often as possible.
An example is the Boko Haram slaves on welfare cartoon. I'd seen the cartoon but not being able to speak French I couldn't get what was going on at all. Even after translating the caption and speech bubble I couldn't get it....all I could see was a particularly unpleasant and racist image but knowing some of the history of Charlie Hebdo I knew that racism wasn't the intent but not being able to place the image properly in context I was at a loss. Helpfully a friend had posted this on facebook which helped clarify the French media stories which the cartoon was satirising along with Boko Haram. |
|
