If it looks like a duck,.....

[carl_madson]

What's next? Maybe we can remove/flag photos that feature swastikas or portray a hate based message, how about blood, guns, violence, or religous content? Censorship is censorship PERIOD. Only the individual looking at the photo has the ability to determine if it is offensive to them. If you don't like it then move on with that photo or with your life. There are plenty of internet sights out there where you and your kids can find porn. <P>

Chris, As for your title: <I>"Response to If it looks like a duck,....."</I> I think the passage below is most appropriate:<P>

<CENTER><B>From Monty Python's the search for the Holy Grail</B></CENTER>

In a small medieval village, where a group of peasants turned mob have brought a woman accused of being a witch to a local knight for permission to "BURN HER!" The knight uses some interesting logic to determine if she is a witch:<P>

[Knight]There are ways of telling whether she is a witch.<BR>

[Peasant]What are they? Tell us! Tell us! (Do they hurt?)<BR>

[Knight]Tell me: what do you do with witches?<BR>

[Peasant]BURN THEM!!!<BR>

[Knight]And what do you burn apart from witches?<BR>

[Peasant]MORE WITCHES!!![smack]Wood!<BR>

[Knight]So, why do witches burn?<BR>

(long pause)<BR>

[Peasant]...cause they're made of wood...<BR>

[Knight]Good...<BR>

[Knight]How can we tell whether she is made of wood?<BR>

[Peasant]Build a bridge out of her.<BR>

[Knight]Ah, but can you not also make bridges out of stone?<BR>

[Peasant]Oh yes.<BR>

[Knight]Does wood sink in water?<BR>

[Peasant]No. No, it floats. It floats! THROW HER INTO THE POND!<BR>

(having settled down crowd)<BR>

[Knight]What also floats in water?<BR>

[Peasant]Bread, apples, very small rocks, cider, gravy, churches, lead...<BR>

[King]A duck.<BR>

[Knight]Exactly! So logically...<BR>

[Peasant]If she weighs the same as a duck, she's made of wood.<BR>

[Knight]And therefore....<BR>

[Peasant]A WITCH!!!<BR>

<P>

I am sure most of us here at photo.net will be able to use our senses of humor to replace witch with porn (etc.) to better understand the logic behind this thread. As a footnote to this message I don't think we will solve this age old debate here at photo.net.

For an interesting read on censorship from the 16th following this link:

<A HREF="http://www.progettomose.it/eng/pdf/mostra_la_censura_eng.pdf">Michelangelo and Censorship</A>

<P>

-Carl

[carl_madson]

The last line should read:

For an interesting read on censorship from the 16th century follow this link:

Michelangelo and Censorship

 

Sorry, it is late. -Carl

[bobatkins]

Censorship is censorship, that's true. We already have censorship on photo.net. There are images and messages that will be and have been removed because of their content. This is NOT an "anything goes" website. The only issue under discussion is where the line is drawn, not whether or not there is a line. There is a line. We hope it's a reasonable line that equally troubles both the "anything goes" group and the "no nudes is good nudes" group. Only when you get equal complaints from both sides do you know you are doing a good job.

[kelly_flanigan1]

<a href="http://censorware.net/essays/obscene_jt.html"><b> " "Pornography" is a layperson's term,</b> with no particular legal significance. Jones may believe that Penthouse is non-pornographic, while Smith believes that it is. Neither is incorrect."</a>

[bobatkins]

But this is a layperson's website. It's not a court of law. We don't need a legal definition of "pornography". Unacceptable images are unacceptable by whatever definition we decide to use. We don't even need a definition. We just need a few reasonable, fair minded moderators. We don't need to define reasonable and fair minded either. That's a decision that's up to the people who run the site.

 

Just as the editors of magazines decide what content is acceptable, so the editors of photo.net can and do make the same decisions. We could be "Lenswork" or we could be "Playboy" or we could be "Hustler" when it comes to defining acceptable content.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Bob; I agree; I just thought the "legal" twist was interesting.<BR><BR>In photo shoots for Playboy; many different poses; croppings; body parts are included and excluded. There/were are at least six different magazine versions of the same girl's layout; which are used and edited for the tastes & restrictions of the different versions sold around the world. At one time I had six different Playboy magazines; of the same girl; to learn what the differences were. Many times the overseas version is a month later. In one issue I had from Asia; it had less than what is seen in a Cosmo cover; in a typical USA checkout line. In some areas; the navel must never be seen; others the bottom of ones foot is totally taboo. <BR><BR>While working in Japan; I thought it was interesting that the traditional "American girlie" magazines sold there had very little skin; but the subways were filled with middle age men looking at the ink drawing booklets of extremely graphic sexual acts. I guess it is ok if triple XXX stuff is drawn; but "soft porn" photos equal to a 1968 Playboy are banned. This was in 1990; so maybe Mr time has changed this.

[bobatkins]

Pornography and obscenity laws vary a lot - and it's really pointless to try to define what is and isn't acceptable since it varies by community as well as by country! Even the supreme court has a very difficult time with this one.

 

Basically, when it comes to a magazine or website you trust an editor to apply Justice Potter Stewart's view that while pornography and obscenity is hard to define, you know it when you see it. If you pick the right editor you get a fair balance, if you pick the wrong one you don't.

[jhenry]

Take a long breeze and look at that, personnaly I think that is Art! may be pornography is seen face expression at the same time as body expression, may be pornography is when you can see hard action or red flesh exposed, may be pornography is when the picture is not beautiful enough to be taxed of erotic,.... may be pornography is just in the mind of those who are watching and who cannot adjust their excitement to their background of education and culture...

[jhenry]

Sorry in my "excitment" I forgot to load the file, here it is:

http://www.photo.net/photo/990480

[jhenry]

IMHO, this A.Dumas picture is nor really erotic nor really pornographic to me. Just a plain 'amateur' picture of a nice lady showing some of her assets to the camera. I term of erotic picture I much prefer some other pictures of this photographer where the play with light, skin and and body are more obvious and successful; in term of pornographic picture I know much better sites on the web.

[chris_hawkins]

Jacques: I would not call the image you linked as pornographic. It is an unusual abstract using the human body.

[dustinhenry]

I find it very interesting that the people who argue that the material (such as what Chris Hawkins mentions in the original post) is pornography don't follow up with anything.

<br><br>(Forgive me if I overlooked this, but the thread is getting quite long) What does it matter if it's porn or not? What do you propose is done? Does it offend you? Do you want to have it removed? Do you like it and want more?

<br><br>Simply pointing out something you think is "bad" isn't going to solve what you consider to be the problem. That's like watching somebody break into a car and steal it, and to only respond by saying "Wow...people like that are bad."

<br><br>Or it could be compared to the hundreds of individuals here on Photo.net who say "That sucks" or "I hate the rating system." It isn't very productive for the recipient to receive such advice.

<br><br>Again, I haven't read every single response to this thread, I'm only offering my own opinion based on the initial "question."

[chris_hawkins]

<I>What does it matter if it's porn or not? </I> It would keep some people from being able to access the site because photo.net would get blocked by some of the Net Nanny filters. It would discourage many folks from participating because they are offended.<BR> <BR>

 

<I>What do you propose is done? </I> The moderators delete the images that are pornographic. This is a judgement call and I would like them to delete some of the nudes currently in the image critque gallery. How many? I don't know, but maybe 5% of them.<BR> <BR>

<I>Does it offend you? </I> It depends on the image, but that really isn't important. I want others to experience the joy I experience through photography. The joy I feel is proportional to the quality of the images I produce. Photo.net can help people learn how to make better images and therefore I believe they will feel greater joy. If pornographic images keep people from participating in photo.net and learning how to make better images, this detracts from their joy. The overall community is degraded because a potentially valuable contributor doesn't contribute. <BR> <BR>

<I>Do you want to have it removed? </I> Yes.<BR> <BR>

<I>Do you like it and want more? </I> No.

[bobatkins]

I agree with Chris, but would add one point.

 

You can't always judge images in isolation. Each image needs to be seen in the light of the collected work of the photographer, so that an image which might be seen as "questionable" when seen on its own might well be seen to have additional merit in the context of a body of work.

 

Even so, some images may still go over the line and require removal.

 

Also, I still think we need a content rating scheme (or sooner or later we will, so why not start now) via which people need to make an affirmative decision if they want to view nudes. The default condition should be that these images are not presented. Checking a box in your workspace preferences would enable viewing of all images.

[chris_hawkins]

I agree.

[Guest]

I keep accidentally hitting "Notify me of new responses" on various threads. There is no way to undo this (link doesn't work).

 

Thank God I didn't hit on this one...!

[critter]

Wow - this discussion just saddens me. People who should know better just

towing some party line that dismisses a huge chunk of what it is to be human -

our sexuality - as somehow an invalid enterprise for artistic discussion,

because, gasp, it might be seen as pornographic.

 

And this was triggered by a nude shot that "ooooo" shocking, was boring in

it's attempt to conform to "fine art nudity" and violated the rules of the game

because it mistakenly showed a shaved genetalia. I hate the "fine art"

aesthetic that feels no compunction with violently lopping of the heads of the

nudes portrayed and blathering on about shape and texture. But be so bold

as to photograph eyes and genitals in the same image (and sorry, most

women I know shave, without my proclamation on whether I approve) and

suddenly there is turmoil over it's appropriateness as an image worthy of a

presence here????? Is this not the same stupidity of Elizabethian morality

that objectified woman as an object put on a pedastal to protect them from the

reality of the world (and their own Hysteria (gotta laugh - it inspired the

vibrator as medical cure for restlessness))?<BR><BR>

The women I know fart, burp and get horny. It has everything to do with who

they are. The violence of pornography is it's reducing the individual to a

cliche. Having read this whole thread, most reponses are just as obscenely

reductionist. Isn't part of art the honest challenge it offers to our

suppositions?<BR><BR>

A lot of people mistake critique with judgement. But the point of critique is to

engage the image and respond. Not decide whether it's worthy of

discussion.<BR><BR>

This reminds me of the protective BS I grew up with. The lack of faith in the

individual to encounter something and process it. At all cost's, divert the

discussion towards the proper conclusion. What tripe. Knowledge is power

and how dare anyone presume to place their opinion over the interaction of

honest indulgence that informs most sweetly?<BR><BR>

I've been a participant here for many moons. I've enjoyed a lot of heated

debate. But the current parental tone of what is worthy for me to appropriately

consider is obnoxious. I have no problem with discussing why I don't find this

image pornographic (not to mention the concept of pornography vs art), but

the suggestion that the discussion is invalid is just sad.

 

Some more particular responses:

 

Brian - Didn't I once give you advice on rope bondage? Since when is purient

interest in conflict with art or the impulse to comment on life?

 

Sandy - No desire to critique your parenting, but I will reveal a bit of my

growing up. The image you skip is precisely the one your son will seek out.

Taboo is ultimately a reverse psychology intrigue. It strikes me that a

discussion about the image is more productive than skipping it and leaving it

to his own imagining and confusion. Most obnoxious male attitudes towards

women are long on informed by porn and short on any understanding of

woman as people who jill themselves off on occasion, but aren't reduced to it.

 

Bob - not sure we could find much common ground, but what I liked about

photo.net was the maturity that requested a (nude) demarcation by the site to

allow people to avoid it as a topic if desired. As the resident flaming perv, I

have no problem with a checkbox. Believe it or not, the discussion of

whether the erotic is valid art is fairly boring for those who assume it. It gets

particularly annoying when the discussion always flounders at such a basic

point, rather than discuss the nuance of it. Not all of us are cut out for

activism. We're just jealous that bitching about a banal flower shot doesn't

cause such a stir of controversy by those uninvested in taking a good one,

simply because they feel the need to be outraged.

 

Chris - Since when does a visible labia equal porn? That's such an

adolescent assumption. Having lived with many women, labia takes on a

variety of shades. Sometimes it's a hunkering down bit of yum. Sometimes

it's a bloody mess. Sometimes it's awash with a rather unerotic discharge.

 

<BR><BR>So where in all of this, is the pornographic? My girlfriend has a

particular soft spot for clinical, rather base pornography. It gets her off. <BR><

BR>

Remind me again why this is a less valid exploration of humanity than your

(frankly) pedantic view of what is acceptable art? How, again, am I

supposedly being inauthentic by demonstrating faith in knowledge exposed?

And how is her experience obscene, while your teenage romantic notion of

arousal is somehow sophisticated and refined (despite it's uncourageous

urge to avoid)?

<BR><BR>Oh, yes, yes, I know - My aesthetic is mingled with my hand on my

dick. Because we all know that arousal is an evil indulgence, certainly not

common experience and most definitely not the stuff of elevated art. Why the

hell would we want to discuss something so lizard like. We are refined -

breasts are shapes and plays of light. Never mind that they are connected to

a person who thrills in the fondle. That would be just base. And certainly

unworthy of artistic investigation.<BR><BR>

I'll reiterate - Grow the fuck up.<BR><BR>

 

Mark - thank you for bringing rationality to this discussion, Despite the

unpopularity of your voice.<BR><BR>

 

To summarize, a lot of you dance around the idea that an image taken as

purient by some is still valid as art. I challenge the notion of Mr. Hawkins.

Pornography - ie - that which is intent on arousal is a valid image. Arousal is

a huge component of what it is to be human. Rather than dapple on the

fringe and the absurdity of the reasons Mr. Hawkins found the particular

image pornographic (which are just silly and demonstrate a wierd sense of

the tawdry - Please - had her breasts been real and she had an unshaved

bush, we apparently wouldn't have violated the 4 point pornography and

presumably, wouldn't be having this discussion. Not.) Perhaps the

discussion is better focused on why or how arousal as a photographic goal is

or isn't a valid photographic exploration.<BR><BR>

Just a suggestion. Far be it from me to interupt the handwringing over

whether artificial tits and a glimpsed, shaved vulva are pornographic. But

please, can we actually discuss something that isn't merely a rehash of the

same silly argument that worms it's way into any revealing of naked bodies?

Am I the only one who fucks and adjusts technique based on the individual?

Am I so odd that a chunk of my time is concerned with the unspoken dialogue

of bodies and sex and thrilling???

[bobatkins]

Critter

 

I find some of your language offensive and totally out of place in this forum - which is about photography and art, not what you get up to in your own bedroom.

 

As far as I'm concerned, consenting adults can do whatever they want to in private and can take whatever pictures they want.

 

However photo.net doesn't have to show them to everyone, nor will we. If you want porn, rent a video. Millions of people do. If you want erotic art, buy a book.

[critter]

Bob,<BR><BR>

Sorry you were offended. They're just words and last I checked, all in my

dictionary. Perhaps you are used to an expunged version.<BR><BR>

I believe I was adressing photography and art in general and the inane

conclusion Mr. Hawkins drew about the photo that triggered this discussion.

The presence of a vulva in an image, let alone the absurdity of the surgical

status of breasts determining the pornographic nature of an image, caused

me great ire. He failed to make his case, based on his own nebulous

criteria.<BR><BR>

Photography and art involve an often uncomfortable examination and

expression about the life we find ourselves in. Part of my larger point was

that often what postures as a higher aesthetic is often just a ritualized civility

that fails at what it is attempting - expressing the mystery and magic of our

experience. Art and photography are an evolving dialogue. And truly great

art (and photography as a subset with an emphasis on craft) often challenges

our immediate suppositions. Commentary that inspires growth. Truly bad art

is derivative and doesn't move us forward. It's just gladhandling and playing

within the rules. Yawn.<BR><BR>

If Mr Hawkins had simply stated the photograph was a boring nude, I would

have agreed. But he didn't. He sought to invalidate the photographers effort

by applying a rather stupid moral argument. Frankly, to me, his observation

was innappropriate to a civilized discussion. And I answered him in kind. He

offered no information on how he'd improve it, or what he felt was lacking. He

just said boo and then referenced this forum discussion as proof. (I came

here from the photograph itself.) To me, that is an inappropriate response to

an image, especially one posturing as a critique. As I said, we probably won't

have much common ground on this.<BR><BR>

As to what I do in the bedroom, that is a part of my experience and seems

utterly appropriate as support for my argument in a discussion about

photography and art. It is, afterall, the empirical data upon which my more

abstract and philosophical notions are formed.<BR><BR>

Photo.net has every right to censor images as they see fit. This is a private

community. Aside from bemoaning briefly what I see as an unfortunate

attitude from an administrator, I most certainly didn't challenge that right. My

post had nothing to do with an argument about what photo.net will or won't

allow. It was adressing a notion in photographic categorization that I thought

was erroneous and explaining the larger reason I found the assertion patently

absurd. You know, ideas about photography and art.<BR><BR>

So thank you for the shopping tips, (I'm covered in both) but I wasn't

discussing what this web site will allow. If I objected to a specific shift in

policies of posting, I would simply, (and regretably - as I've enjoyed

participating here for quite some time) leave. So , please, spare me the

lecture over the rights of a private site to dictate standards. <BR><BR>Until

the time my voice is unwelcomed here, I will continue to express my opinion

as I honestly see it. It may be percieved as obnoxious by some, but then I

posted because I found someone else obnoxious in their opinion. It strikes

me that challenging another's opinion, you disagree with, is the point of a

forum. Perhaps I'm mistaken.

[bobatkins]

There are two points of view:

 

(1) Absolutely anything goes. Any image is OK and we should not censor or remove ANYTHING, EVER. Nobody is qualified to judge the merit of anything, and even if they could, it wouldn't matter.

 

(2) There are things which should be removed from photo.net.

 

I favor the latter. The only discussion is where the line is drawn and who draws it.

 

As for being offended by language or images, well I'm offended by many things. I don't like people spitting in the street, or performing other bodily functions in public. Quite natural actions I may add. I don't particularly want to see you vomit, and I'd rather you did it in private whenever possible.

[nikos]

Bob, I do not believe Critter's expression of views can be compared to performing bodily functions in public or vomiting. Far from it, and indeed I am dissapointed to see you draw such a comparison, even indirectly. His postings, in my view, address topics about the nature and purpose of photographic art and art in general much more directly, and much more interestingly, than the 'this is porn, does not belong here' posts. Whether I agree with his view or not (for the record I don't, at least not completely) is not an issue - the fact is that he has a mature opinion about art and artistic expression, and he is voicing it amongst people interested in the subject. His voicing of opinion may be somewhat articulate and immodest, but it is interesting nevertheless and adds value to the conversation, in the same way that any ideologically founded opinion would do.

 

You don't have to remind us on every occasion that photo.net is a private site and has every right to choose what is published here. We are intelligent people, and we can figure that far on our own. Nobody here seems to challenge this right - except perhaps for the self-proclaimed arbiters of taste and ethics who start the pornography witch-hunts, as is Mr. Hawkins in this particular case. (I totally respect his opinion, but I don't aknowledge his claim to elevate his personal opinions to the status of acceptable standard)

 

While I respect your contribution to photo.net and your, usually balanced and sober, moderation/steering of the photo.net fora, in this case I find your latest post offensive, uncalled for and certainly not within the sphere of artistic discussion. I am absolutely confident you can do (as you have in the past) better than that.

[chris_hawkins]

Critter: If you want to have an intelligent debate, you would do well first to understand the other person�s point of view and not misrepresent it. When you misrepresent someone�s ideas, you reveal either a weak mind or a desire to deceive.<br><br>

 

 

<I>�If Mr Hawkins had simply stated the photograph was a boring nude, I would have agreed. But he didn't. He sought to invalidate the photographers effort by applying a rather stupid moral argument. Frankly, to me, his observation was innappropriate to a civilized discussion. And I answered him in kind. He offered no information on how he'd improve it, or what he felt was lacking. He just said boo and then referenced this forum discussion as proof. (I came here from the photograph itself.) To me, that is an inappropriate response to an image, especially one posturing as a critique. As I said, we probably won't have much common ground on this.� </I> You have totally misrepresented my posts and position. I didn�t pretend to critique the photo. I said it is porn and not appropriate on photo.net. I also provided a dictionary definition of pornography and stated in very clear terms why I believe it met the criteria. If I�m wrong, show me my error. Here is a challenge for you. If you believe the image is not pornographic, use accepted references to defend your position.<br><br>

Your observations regarding women�s biological functions and anatomy are not new or noteworthy. Your crudeness doesn�t show that you that you have a greater understanding of women or how to please them.<br><br>

[critter]

Chris,<BR><BR>

Whether or not this is an intelligent debate is not completely in my hands. But

please - I don't think I misrepresented your opinions at all. I won't indulge the

semantics of comments versus critiques, but to me, your "simply pornographic

- this doesn't belong here" is rude and certainly violates the spirit of a site

geared towards people improving their photography. As I said, It's essentially

a Boo and I find that disrespectful to the artist. Had you made your initial Boo

as a forum post (a place to discuss ideas about art vs pornography) instead of

as a comment on the picture, you would have avoided a great deal of my ire.

<BR><BR>To quote you <I>Art tries to reveal something about the human

condition, teach us, challenge our assumptions, make us think or appeals to

the brain due to its geometry, color, texture, etc. The image fits none of my art

criteria.

<BR><BR>

 

Porn is sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary

purpose is to cause sexual arousal. The image does meet the porn criteria

due to the explicit nature of the photo, the bed in the background, the

subject�s breast implants and her shaved public area. Any of these things by

itself would not make an image pornographic. However, in combination they

convince me that the photographer�s primary goal was to cause sexual

arousal in the viewer.</I><BR><BR>

 

I believe I've already adressed why I found this silly but let me be more

specific. By your "criteria" of "primary purpose is to cause arousal" a swimsuit

calendar is pornographic. <BR><BR>I also object to your catagorizing a

view of genitalia in the context of a shot of a person as explicit. Nothing about

the shot focused on the genitalia. It is simply there, well, because that's what

naked people look like. And I found futher ridiculous the assertion that the

presence of implants and a shaved pubic (although nice freudian slip) area

somehow are significant "tells" for why this is pornographic. Women modify

their bodies - they pluck eyebrows, use makeup and shave their legs. Some

do, some don't. Exactly how is that more suggestive? My guess is that the

subject of the photo finds her particular modifications aesthetically pleasing.

<BR><BR>So sorry, your keen eye for sniffing out pornographic intent fails to

live up to the scrutiny of your own definition. But let's go further - let's

examine where the picture meets your criterion for art.<BR><BR>I agree the

composition is lacking, but the use of light is nice. The shadows play well

across the skin and the curves. It's an appealing use of light to convey

geometry and texture. Regarding art's attempt to reveal something about the

human condition and challenge our assumptions, this discussion seems to

indicate that the image was sucessful on some small level. Perhaps one of

the photographers intentions was to challenge the very notion that a vulva is

not inherently obscene. Perhaps he was trying to bridge a cultural gap that

focuses on either woman as a person, devoid of sexuality or as a sexual

object, devoid of person. I can certainly say that for me, one of the goals I

shoot nudes with is to try and show the integration of person and their

physicality. Sort of my answer to the ancient dualistic discussion of mind

versus body.<BR><BR>

For some of us, that is the point of shooting nudes - our little jump in the

stream of human thought that drives a wedge between a persons body and

their soul. For some of us, they are inseperable and the perpetuation of that

notion does violence to us as humans. There is a pretentious idea that art

reduces a body (and person) to mere geometry and anything that smacks of

sexuality must be swept under the rug and labeled pornographic. It strikes

me, that although this image fails in many ways aesthetically, it does succeed

in challenging that bias.<BR><BR>

Perhaps you, as a viewer, failed. Made a snap judgement and then offered

up a really shallow definition for why your snap judgement is correct. .<BR><

BR>And finally, I don't need accepted references in order to think. I defend

my position based on my education and experience. I could care less what a

book says. It's called critical thought.<BR><BR>Oh, and crudeness is a social

construct that shifts with time and context. Most attempts at refinement of

dialogue I find simply evasive and arrogant. I'm not sure where I implied

anything about my sexual prowess, but your last line is just pathetic and

completely misses the point of the two hours I've spent discussing this. Your

adolescence is showing...

[chris_hawkins]

Critter: You really need to learn how to use a dictionary and read carefully. The dictionary definition of porn uses the word "and." It must be explicit AND have as its primary intent sexual arousal. What part of this is hard for you to understand? Regarding "explicit," look it up in a dictionary. You obviously don't understand what the word means.

 

Once again your post ignores my repeated statements that indicate I'm not advocating that pornography should be swept under the rug. It just doesn't below on photo.net.

 

Oh please, tell us about your education and experience. I am really looking forward to that. Statements like "I'll reiterate - Grow the fuck up" don't usually come from highly educated folks.

 

You write "I'm not sure where I implied anything about my sexual prowess, ...." How about "Having lived with many women," and "Am I the only one who fucks and adjusts technique based on the individual?"

 

Trying to have a thoughtful discussion with you reminds me of the old advice.... Never mud wrestle with a pig. You will both get dirty and he will enjoy it.

 

Nikos: You say.. "I totally respect his opinion, but I don't aknowledge his claim to elevate his personal opinions to the status of acceptable standard." My second post in this thread contained the sentence "If the moderators say it isn't porn, I'm OK with that, but it is over the line for me." I made no claim that my opinions are the appropriate "acceptable standard." I only drew attention to the image because I feel it damages photo.net in ways I described in previous posts.

[bobatkins]

Please note that this "debate" has strayed well outside what's on-topic for this forum. There may be some pruning of the thread soon.

 

The debate isn't what is and isn't pornography. The question is should photo.net remove images on the grounds they are offensive. Again I'll say that my answer is yes. There are clearly images we don't want. I won't go into detail, but, for example, certain body functions are not suitable for general display. The reference to vomiting was given as an example of images we don't want. People are entitled to vomit, but I don't think many of us actually want to see it as the subject of a photograph that pops up unannounced and at random in the gallery here. There are other body functions that most people would find even more offensive in an image. They would also be removed.

 

So we ARE going to censor images. That's a 100% certain fact. Once you accept this, the only discussion is where the line is drawn and who draws it.