Becoming a porno site?

[melissa_eiselein]

<i>"Sexual harrassment suits can arise from a nude photo being viewed on the Internet."... Not unless your courts have finally released their fragile grip on reality. What one person looks at fleetingly on their screen does not harrass another.</i>

<P>James, I am "one of those Christian types" and even I am shocked by the PC police. After 13-years as a homemaker I returned to work. It was a rude awakening to see how political correctness had become such a major issue in the workplace. There was a guy at my job who was disciplined for looking at pornography on his computer...and his cubby hole was in a corner where nobody saw his computer. Apparently, more companies (including where I am) monitor their employees Internet viewing.

<p>To get a better idea of what we're dealing with, take a look at link: <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel022502.shtml"> http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel022502.shtml</a>

[fuck]

<I>Apparently, more companies (including where I am) monitor their employees Internet viewing.</I><P>

 

Let's hope so. At least they'll know I can write good.<P>

 

Ha!

[bobatkins]

<em>"No. They would have a lower probability of seeing nudes, but that probability is not zero." <br>

You are correct Bob. But, a "lower probability" sure beats whats up there now IF you prefer the no nudes option. Agreed?</em>

<p>

Yes and no. Yes for the individual, no for the corporate watchers.

<p>

The potential downside is someone surfing at work with the "no nudes" option on, feeling safe and secure when his/her boss walks in and at the same time photo.net supplies a non-categorized not-yet-moderated nude/porn image to his/her monitor. Oops!

<p>

You can bet we'd hear loud and long screams. Better to have no "no nudes" option and not give people a false sense of security.

[root]

Put a disclaimer on it. If you explain on the sort option page just the point you've made, that should be sufficient.

[bobatkins]

Yeh, like people actually read disclaimers - and like they have much legal standing. McDonalds tell you their coffee is hot, yet you can spill it on yourself and sue for the burns you get.

 

Basically you need to CYA as a business these days.

[vincetylor]

Guess we shouldn't drink hot coffee then, since there is the risk we just might spill it. Guess we should not drive our cars either, since there is the chance that we just might get into an accident. And I guess we shouldn't use a no nudes filter at all either, because a few nudes just might get through!

 

Sure Bob, I'm now fully convinced.

[root]

Since we can't promise 'no nudes', don't call it that.

[Spearhead]

Call it "fewer nudes." Then someone can try and justify that to their employer.

[mottershead]

Bob, while it is off-topic, let me take the opportunity to relate a few facts about the McDonald's scalding case, since that case comes up a lot, and people never seem to know the full story.

 

1. The woman had second and third degree burns over large parts of her abdomen and had to be hospitalized, even though she spilled the coffee mostly on her clothes, not directly on her skin.

 

2. The McDonald's restaurant in the case was heating the coffee to levels significantly higher than the temperature recommended by the national restaurant association, and considerably higher even than McDonald's Corp standards. At the temperature at which the coffee was being served, it was capable of producing third degree burns if spilled, which is not normally the case.

 

3. It was proven in the court case that the McDonald's restaurant in question had received literally hundreds of consumer complaints about the coffee being too hot, which it had ignored.

 

Contrary to the way it is normally used in arguments, this was not a case of the legal system gone crazy and rewarding some ditzy woman for minor burns after stupidly spilling coffee on herself. That particular McDonald's was operating in a fashion where eventually someone was going to get seriously hurt due to their negiligence and disregard for the safety of their customers. When it eventually happened, they got sued, and they lost, as they should have.

 

Contrary to the way this story is generally told, every little restaurant owner is not exposed to a lawsuit if he sells coffee and someone spills it. But if you sell coffee that is scaldingly hot -- way above what normally passes for "hot" coffee -- you are liable if someone spills it on himself.

[bobatkins]

Thanks Brian for setting the record straight on the McDonalds case.

 

A better example is the case of a self proclaimed "psychic" in Philadelphia who went in to have an MRI CAT scan,

and she claimed that when she got through the CAT scan she had lost her

psychic powers. She sued her doctor and collected $800,000 from the court

for loss of psychic powers. The case was appealed and the award was thrown out and the jury verdict vacated for lack of evidence, but even so I imagine the doctor lost a lot of time and money in the case (or at least his insurance company did).

 

Another one is the case of Robert and Carolyn Wells who sued retailer JC Penny, seeking $600,000 in damages for injuries. Mrs. Wells claimed that while shopping during the store's after-Christmas sale, she was attacked by another customer during an argument over two crystal bear figurines. Wells alleges she was verbally assaulted by the women who also wanted to buy the figurines.

Wells alleged that JC Penny should have protected her from the other shopper and sought damages for injuries to her shoulder, back and neck. Her husband also sued, claiming loss of her earnings, society, service, company and consortium. They didn't win.

 

 

 

 

I guess my point was that we are a litigious society, and if someone was to lose their job due to viewing nudes on photo.net and photo.net had a box you could check so as not to have nudes appear, but in fact nudes did appear, there could be a law suit. It might not have merit, but it might be expensive to defend.

 

If on the other hand there is no "no nudes" option, then nobody can complain if they see nudes. If you view the gallery you will see nudes. If you don't want to see nudes, don't view the gallery. It doesn't stop a law suit I guess, but it makes it easier to defend against one.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Some companies actually want you to work too; and not be waiting for an Ebay auction to end; during work hours. Or have you constantly following the stock market; weather; surfing; fishing reports. Also there is online gambling; sports; videos. Then there is the Kazaa type P2P bandwidth hogs; that download DVD's during work hours. Alot of you are focusing on a nipple being seen; and not who is paying you to goof off. One can monitor the IP addresses; the bandwidths; and who always has excuses for being late with assignments. Many folks today think nothing of spending hours everyday on the net; stuff not related to work at all. <BR><BR>Lawsuits have also created blocks on sites deemed "bad"; or whatever your employer wants to block; to get you actually doing real work. <BR><BR>Before the internet; I have worked at places that had folks dialing up BBS's on high buck longdistance rates; and they would download boobs at 2,400 or 9,600 bps. <BR><BR>

[._._z]

Judith Haimes of Philadelphia was awarded more than $1 million by a jury because they

believed she lost her psychic powers after having a CAT scan performed on her at

Temple University Hospital, but the unamused judge reduced the award to $1.

 

In Ocober 2002, a Tennessee Court of Appeals judge upheld a lower court's rejection of

a $600,000 lawsuit by Carolyn and Robert L. Wells

 

Bob needs to stop reading those email chain letters.

[james_oneill]

<b>Vincent</b>, give up will you. We had the argument before, you didn't win anybody over and it degenerated into abuse (some from me I'm ashamed to say). Unless you think a filter labelled "Fewer nudes" / "More Nudes" is helpful. <p>

 

<b>Brian</b> With all this revamping going on would it be possible to do TRP with categories as the criteria, AND make it bookmarkable. If people want to see top rated flowers (or whatever) and not top-rated everything then it would give those people with an interest in a few areas the chance to avoid what they don't like (be that nudes or anything else.

[ian_griffiths]

I browse photo.net at home in a family room.

 

I would certainly appreciate something being done to reduce the number of nude images that can appear while browsing photos, giving critique etc.

 

I appreciate that any such scheme would not be infallible, and I also appreciate that it is the prerogative of site staff to either put this in place or not.

 

I for one, would like to see it.