yann_r. Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 I've read many people complaining about "nude against porn" censorship, I've read many hot - it's not a pun - threads. I've just find a new hot subject...<p> Sorry, I don't know if I have to feel interested by the way (it's not by hiding this truth that this anachronism will be fought) or disturbed by the topic...<br> Whatever, I think the debate can be hot.<p> <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/photo/4430886">Here's an example of what I called "Nazism connotation"</A><p> <b>Please note that I don't go against the photographer</b>, photojournalism way doesn't always show nice and candid shots, but I'd like to read some objective opinions, as well from members, than from admins about this topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emre Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 What law would that picture be breaking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yann_r. Posted May 10, 2006 Author Share Posted May 10, 2006 <i>What law would that picture be breaking?</i> This picture? No one I think, did I write it?<p>Photojournalism is a photography way (a great one), that's not the problem here, I'm just wondering where are the censorship limits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emre Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 The problem with Jock's picture is that it was a legal liability for the site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnicholson Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 No law, and more importantly, no rule or guideline in the TOU for this site. It's a disturbing scene as are many found in photojournalitic shots but it fits within the TOU. It's important to remember that the actions taken by the administrators of this site have been in an attempt to keep the content of the site within its TOU. At least the actions I've seen. Kudos to you Yann for adding a note to the photographer alerting him of this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottershead Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 What is your point? Are you suggesting that the site should be censoring this photo, or that it is inconsistent somehow in not censoring it? Why? Or are you just trying to start an argument (otherwise known as trolling)? Please be a bit more clear. As long as you have posted this, I don't see anything in that photo in which the moderators of the site need to take any interest at all. What section of the Terms of Use do you think it violates? The portfolio includes some documentary shots of a gathering, apparently, of some fascist-type organization, with captions suggesting strong criticism by the photographer of his subjects. A moderator might want to monitor the discussion to make sure that it stays on-topic (that is, the photos) and does not become a political flame war. But apart from that, what is there about this photo to concern a moderator? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johncrosley Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 Yann, As a former photojournalist, and one who takes any kind of 'shot' whenever it presents itsself, and having reviewed the photographer's portfolio, I am left wondering what point it is you are trying to make by starting this thread. The depiction of facism/neoNazism is a standard of photojournalism, but it hardly ranks in this photographer's portfolio, and clearly is demarked 'photojournalism' and there is no indication it represents proselytizing on his part or that he even in any way agrees with the possible point of the demonstrators or even is sympathetic. So, as Brian said, what is the point? (With all due respect, since generally you make very good points.) John (Crosley) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yann_r. Posted May 10, 2006 Author Share Posted May 10, 2006 what is my point? No one special, just a simple one: <b>to read an interesting debate</b>, but looks like simplicity isn't a current notion. Brian, please don't feel attacked, THAT wasn't at all my point.<p> As I wrote it as well, I have read so many debate about nude and porn shots (the last one looks a bit surreal for me even if -<i> right</i> - the rule is clear: no nudity under 18) that I was wondering how different people could react front of one showing neo-nazist scene.<p> What else? Isn't it possible to launch such an opinion sharing? Believe that I find much interesting to speak/read about the possible impact of such a picture than about genitals.<p> As I wrote it (again), this kind of photojournalism is interesting. Then, maybe this forum isn't the place for such a debate? If it's the case, forgive me and move it.<p> A last point: look at the ratings and the comments received by this good photojournalist shot... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottershead Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 Yeah, yeah. But I'm still not getting what the debate is supposed to be about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yann_r. Posted May 10, 2006 Author Share Posted May 10, 2006 er!... I don't know... what about this new caption: " does a photojournalism shot about neo-nazism have to be posted with a short text of explanation or can it be posted alone, with just its 'power' of picture? "<br> <i>It's becoming philosophical...</i><br> I don't want to be an agitator (by the way, what does the word 'trolling' mean? sorry, I'm french) but don't you understand that a post about neo-nazism can bring some ideas? Do you imagine a post showing an ill-treated animal or why not a child? or a man burning an US flag? All of these examples could open debates... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent_tolley2 Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 I think there is some misunderstanding because English is not Yann's native language. On top of that he hasn't been very direct and that makes it hard to understand him. I'm guessing (a dangerous thing I realize) that Yann thinks the neo-NAZI pictures are offensive and should be censored like pornography. Or at a minimum that they should be accompanied by a disclaimer that they do not promote the activities of neo-NAZI groups. <BR><BR> Personally I believe that the neo-NAZI rallies and activities should be widely shown. It's the best way to get the message out that these groups exist. Witness it, shoot it, and show the world. People are not stupid for the most part and can make up their own minds about this issue. I can't find any romanticizing of the subject by this particular photographer that Yann is talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevemarcus Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 An Internet Troll is someone who submits posts (or e-mails) on the Internet intended to provoke an indignant response in the reader(s). Troll can also refer to the actual post or e-mail submitted by the troll. "Trolling" is what one does when one is being a troll. On the surface, your original post seemed like a good candidate to be a troll, which is why Brian asked whether you were "trolling". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kai_griffin Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 <i>" does a photojournalism shot about neo-nazism have to be posted with a short text of explanation or can it be posted alone, with just its 'power' of picture? "</i><p> OK, I'll bite. Without a caption, this photograph could just as well be of a bunch of football fans. Or drunks. Or both. They could be angry French cheese makers protesting the European Union's new standard for Camembert. They could be illegal immigrants, some of them unwilling to be photographed. So the answer to your question above is: no, without a caption, this photograph could be any number of things, including a neo nazi rally. With a caption, it at least puts it in some kind of context. With <i>or</i> without a caption, it is an <i>uncontroversial</i> photograph... and I think that is the real reason why there has been none of the "hot debate" about it that you were hoping for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprouty Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 <I>"There is no reason whatsoever to ascribe what you see in (a) photograph to the photograph itself. This makes as basic a fault as anything I have known. I don't know how to stress this: The fact that you may not like what is depicted in the photograph is not a reason to dislike the photograph. The photograph could very well condemn what it depicts."</I> ﾖ Eugene Scherba <P> I really don't think I could say it better than Eugene. Does this answer your question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keith turrill Posted May 11, 2006 Share Posted May 11, 2006 The most similar situation in the US would probably be the occasional KKK / skinhead demonstrations. Frequently with lengthy court battles over parade permit applications and security costs. From a demonstration that I remember 1994 near Cleveland, the news media tried to downplay the event so as not to give too much publicity to a bunch of inbred morons. My recollection is that there was about 6 kluckers inside a fence and 5000 protesters outside. In summary, photojournalism of idiots looking for publicity does have some complexities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted May 11, 2006 Share Posted May 11, 2006 <BR><BR><b> Hail!</b> to the victors valiant <BR> <b>Hail! </b>to the conqu'ring heroes <BR><b> Hail! Hail!</b> to Michigan the leaders and best <BR><BR><b>Hail! </b>to the victors valiant <BR><b>Hail! </b>to the conqu'ring heroes <BR><B>Hail! Hail!</b>to Michigan, the champions of the West! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yann_r. Posted May 11, 2006 Author Share Posted May 11, 2006 Good. Let me some time with my english dictionnary and I'll be back soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yann_r. Posted May 11, 2006 Author Share Posted May 11, 2006 You're right, English isn't at all my native language and French people aren't well known to be great foreign language learners... I do my best but I think it's not enough to build a great discussion. At least, I'm learning and I acknowledge that my post doesn't look like the clearest one.<br> Let's talk about this non-debate.<br> Yes, I find this picture offensive. Disturbing in its own cause it clearly shows one of the most dreadful faces of human kind. But no, personally, I didn't ask for a censorship of this photo. I was asking "how do you feel it?", "can it be censored?", then "is there a debate possible?".<br> I think as well that hiding neo-Nazism activity would be wrong. Such an aberration must be shown, silence and <i>"I-don't-see-what-is-happening"</i> way works for this kind of groups. Besides, I think you're over-estimating nationalism and racism when you said that people can make up their own minds: us, French people, lived a strange experience in 2002 and nationalism is a growing up feeling all over the world. Right, it's not neo-Nazism.<p> <i>I'm also wondering if the title of the folder wasn't "people" instead of "photojournalism" when I posted my thread... could be interesting to know.</i> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yann_r. Posted May 11, 2006 Author Share Posted May 11, 2006 Thank you for the explanation. Yes, I wanted a debate about the impact of this picture cause ﾖ as I said ﾖ I find that could be more interesting than these endless debates about porn or nudity censorship (I don't say that I'd censure all or nothing, there's some rules to follow). But no, I don't feel myself like a troll even if a "hot" (then interesting) debate can bring indignant responses.<p> Maybe I look a bit offensive but Iﾒm not looking for being censored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yann_r. Posted May 11, 2006 Author Share Posted May 11, 2006 Thank you for sharing your opinion. For me this photograph could be any number of things, <b>especially</b> a neo nazi rally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yann_r. Posted May 11, 2006 Author Share Posted May 11, 2006 <i> [...] The fact that you may not like what is depicted in the photograph is not a reason to dislike the photograph [...]</i><p> I agree, I didn't write that I dislike this photograph, neither the photographer, neither photojournalism... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yann_r. Posted May 11, 2006 Author Share Posted May 11, 2006 Some skinhead demonstrations exist as well in France even if this problem is more vicious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yann_r. Posted May 11, 2006 Author Share Posted May 11, 2006 Is you right arm up when you're singing that?<br> Not sure, then please donﾒt think I'm stupid enough to believe that "Hail!" written under such a photo is just showing a sport supporter group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tholte Posted May 11, 2006 Share Posted May 11, 2006 Yann, you may want to move on from this subject, the more you say, the more confused you appear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yann_r. Posted May 11, 2006 Author Share Posted May 11, 2006 thank you to be so franck. Sure a discussion in French around a table would have been more productive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now