Egyptian girl strips to protest; western media censors her photos

[Bells]

Hey, you're the one here who thinks religion is just dandy, not me. After feeling certain that Christianity was on the way out in America, as it now seems to be in Europe, Australia and New Zealand, the Religious Redneck Retard Revival is in high gear and Christians once again are imposing their strange idea of morality on the rest of us.

Yes, I know you're a Muslim, and you can identify some very subtle differences between Islam, Christianity and Judaism that the rest of us simply can't see. They're all bullshit, they all want to return us to the happy days before the Industrial Revolution, and the sooner we're rid of them all, the better.

In the meantime, it's ridiculous of you to complain about some other country's religion-based laws, considering that the religion-based laws in many Muslim countries are far more evil than our censorship, which only applies to certain media. I'd rather live in a country that makes me spend ten seconds logging onto a free website if I want to see full frontal nudity (and much more), than one that requires my wife to hide her face in public, prevents her from driving, and punishes HER if she is raped.

As for photos of mutilated corpses, I don't ever want to see shit like that. If I were not a Moderator I would put you on my ignore list in case you pull a stupid stunt like that again. Don't try it on one of my boards or your worthless ass will be banned for as long as I can get away with it. Photos like that are not on broadcast TV or in family newspapers or magazines any more than nudity is. Once in a great while they'll print a photo like the one of the little girl running away, just to remind us of the horrors of war. I get it. It's okay, once in a great while. But the people who need to see those are the morons in our government who believe that violence is an acceptable way to resolve a disagreement--and the parents who allow (or even encourage!) their children to volunteer for military service, so they can go off and murder some other grieving parent's children.They did NOT rule that it was "fine." Once again, you are lying in order to support a fraudulent assertion. This is your trademark: intellectual dishonesty, the worst offense that can be committed in a place of science and scholarship.

They decided that the network did not show it on purpose, that it may actually have been a "wardrobe malfunction" (in America one is always innocent until proven guilty), and since it lasted for only a fraction of a second there was nothing they could have done about it. They did NOT rule that it was okay for the network to do this, and if it happens again it won't be okay that time either. They simply decided that it was not done in deliberate or even negligent violation of the rules, so they suspended the fine. Big difference between suspending a fine and repealing a rule.

This happened several years ago, and events like this are the reason so many "live" programs are now shown on a five-second tape delay, giving the engineer just enough time to hit the blackout button. Every broadcaster understands that they were expected to learn from this incident and make it less likely to occur again. Next time the fine will not be suspended.

But of course you wouldn't know that. You're not really an expert on American life. You just pretend to be.

It's a good thing we don't judge all Muslims by your behavior. I actually know several Muslims personally, so I know that you are not all lying, cheating, intellectually dishonest manipulators. There are a few bad apples in any group.

Maybe you should stick to threatening and insulting members you have a personal issue with in your own sub-forum and not come in here and do it? We have a standard of rules that all moderators must work with and through. I am fairly sure stalking across forums to insult people's religions, religious beliefs, threaten members with bans for as long as you "can get away with" because you dislike said member is not included in those rules. Perhaps you should go back and revise said rules before you make a bigger fool of yourself in public and tarnish all of us with your inane ramblings on this forum. Just perhaps.

 

[quadraphonics]

Perhaps you should go back and revise said rules before you make a bigger fool of yourself in public and tarnish all of us with your inane ramblings on this forum. Just perhaps.

Right, because the drag on Sci's reputation here is not the blatant trolling and flame posts, but Fraggle's distaste for such.

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

for you bells http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTD7kELMRPM

 

[Pineal]

I think the title of the thread is misleading and it even affects the OP. Her blog was not censored. The photos, per se, were not censored. I don't think this is censorship issue in that sense.

The muddled ideas about how much body a women gets to show in Western society, that is highlighted here.

 

[Bells]

I think the title of the thread is misleading and it even affects the OP. Her blog was not censored. The photos, per se, were not censored. I don't think this is censorship issue in that sense.

The muddled ideas about how much body a women gets to show in Western society, that is highlighted here.

That's not the point.

The point is that we censor nudity in the news media but images of torture, beatings, killings, etc, are not censored. Why is that?

While a link was provided in the stories about her protest, the media did fuzz out her breasts. There is an image posted earlier of someone being tortured and do you know what was censored in that image? Not the torture itself but the man's genitals. Why is that? What makes torture and death less offensive than a man's penis or a woman's breasts?

Right, because the drag on Sci's reputation here is not the blatant trolling and flame posts, but Fraggle's distaste for such.

Irony coming from you and him for that matter.

 

[Pineal]

That's not the point.

It's the point of the title of thread and the OP. I just joined the discussion.

The point is that we censor nudity in the news media but images of torture, beatings, killings, etc, are not censored. Why is that?

Because we are more terrified of the issues raised by sex than we are of those raised by violence.

While a link was provided in the stories about her protest, the media did fuzz out her breasts.

I assume, if one came at it via the link.

Or did they actually censor her blog?

There is an image posted earlier of someone being tortured and do you know what was censored in that image? Not the torture itself but the man's genitals. Why is that? What makes torture and death less offensive than a man's penis or a woman's breasts?

see above. And note, my answer is my sense of why it is this way, not my approval of it being this way.

 

[Repo Man]

At one of my former employers, all internet activity was logged, and periodically reviewed by the IT department. They wouldn't care if it was playboy or natgeo, viewing nude images at work was grounds for termination...as these images could easily lead to an expensive sexual harassment lawsuit. They were very strict about the policy. The general manager of my lab was fired for viewing inappropriate images and websites at work.

As I stated earlier, it is common courtesy and good "netiquette" to hide NSFW images behind links...which would include pretty much every image in this thread.

I think it would be a good idea for a mod to change the title to include a NSFW warning...just to be courteous to those who do view at work, and can make the choice to avoid this thread until they get home.

I didn't see one of them. I'll let you guess why.

 

[Michael]

Apparently you don't understand because if you did you would have edited your post to replace the inline picture with a link (your disclaimer is of no value at all).

If you actually cared about others you would do so.

You clearly don't care so don't say you do.

Arthur

Well, you are entitled to your opinion. Even if it is utterly asinine.

There's nothing wrong with nude art. There's nothing wrong with her photograph. It is not pornographic. There is nothing at all wrong with a *gasp* full frontal nude woman. It is not immoral to look at her. Every day any woman walks around without a Burka that woman is taking away other people's choice NOT to see her nude face. Walking around without a Burka in public is making a "Dictatorial" choice FOR others. "Ooooohhhh my virgin eyes have been de-flowered! I saw some ankel and a cheek bone!" *rips out eyes*
That's asinine

The ONLY argument that can be made is that someone may be fired for seeing a nude image at some draconian employer's discretion. Unfortunately, some places may confuse nude art with pornography. As a comprise I have "hidden" two photos. One a photo of Aliaa and another of a photo of a nude statue.

Spoiler

Spoiler

Because we are more terrified of the issues raised by sex than we are of those raised by violence.

That's interesting. I don't think we are TTYTT. I think we're more terrified of violating taboo. The fear of being ostracized for violating religious taboo. Seeing a nude??? I don't think that is all that terrifying. Violence OTOH, that is terrifying. Innately terrifying. Arts, like Aliaa, I think they're attuned to that (whether well thought out or otherwise) and they know somethings' wrong with society and they want to see it changed, righted. I think she's very brave. In a way 20 year olds sometimes are.

 

[Michael]

Society for the Suppression of Vice

M.J.D. Roberts writes that the Jacobin ideas, from the French Revolution, raised fears of atheism, which led establishment people to set up organizations like the Society for the Suppression of Vice, to campaign for tough application of the law against indiscipline by the radicals. The Obscene Publications Act was introduced in September 1857 (superseding the 1787 Proclamation). One effect of the Act was to forbid the distribution of information about contraception and human biology to the working classes.

Luckily someone stood up a hundred years ago and said: WTF?!?!

 

[S.A.M.]

Seeing a nude??? I don't think that is all that terrifying. Violence OTOH, that is terrifying

Yes and we blur out genitals or hair or shoulders because impressionable young people should not be exposed to skin, but violence is literally poured down everyone's throats

Why don't we have a taboo on violence?

They decided that the network did not show it on purpose, that it may actually have been a "wardrobe malfunction"

Do you know Fraggle I do believe you are missing the point here. Care to argue about the legal basis of forcing women to veil in Saudi Arabia as well? Its not about whether they censored ONLY Aliaa's photos. I picked the Daily Mail, which is NOT an American newspaper, btw, but an English one. The irony is that the difference in censorship of the nude female body - which, after all, is the WHOLE PURPOSE of Aliaa's stripping - is a matter of degree. So no matter how many nude European films are out there, no matter how many topless beaches or page 3 models, when it comes to a simple 20 year old saying, the human body is not obscene, you don't find any media except the internet which will agree with her, and we already have rules on the internet where people can lose their jobs if they even read about her protest because there are obscene body parts accompanying it.

So how long do we have this freedom left on the internet? And when that is taken away, where will Aliaa strip to protest?

There's nothing wrong with nude art. There's nothing wrong with her photograph. It is not pornographic. There is nothing at all wrong with a *gasp* full frontal nude woman. It is not immoral to look at her. Every day any woman walks around without a Burka that woman is taking away other people's choice NOT to see her nude face. Walking around without a Burka in public is making a "Dictatorial" choice FOR others. "Ooooohhhh my virgin eyes have been de-flowered! I saw some ankel and a cheek bone!" *rips out eyes*

And what about the flip side of it? What if a woman wants to cover up? Is it then justified to have laws that forbid her to cover up?

France caused a stir in the Muslim world in 2004 with a law barring the hijab (headscarf) and all other religious clothing from state primary and secondary schools. Earlier this month, a Paris swimming pool refused entry to a young Muslim woman wearing a burqini, a swimsuit that covers most of the body. Earlier this week, Société Générale, one of France's largest Banks, refused to let a 24-year-old female Muslim customer enter the bank, unless she removed her headscarf. The hijab-wearing woman said that her face was visible and she posed no security risk to the bank. She also said that she will be suing the bank.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/27/france-woman-wearing-hija_n_270436.html

The flip side of Aliaa in Egypt is Princess Hijab in France. She expresses her protest against the suppression of women's right to choice by painting veils on adverts

Princess Hijab: underground resistance

The Paris metro system is under attack - by graffiti artist extraordinaire Princess Hijab, who provocatively adds veils to billboard advertising

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/gallery/2010/nov/10/princess-hijab-graffiti-france-metro

Its not just women in Egypt who are forced to conform

 

[Tiassa]

Not Quite ....

Did I get it right?

Nope.

American gore is controversial. Like Julie Jacobson's photo of an American Marine mortally wounded in Helmand, Afghanistan. Showing the realities of war is apparently disrespectful to our troops.

Disrespectful? Lance Cpl. Joshua Bernard, mortally wounded Aug. 14, 2009,
at Dahaneh, Helmand, Afghanistan.​

Americans are so hypocritical about their prudishness that while the news media is anxious to show the body of Col. Qadafi, reporters had to fight the Bush administration to show photographs of the caskets of American soldiers coming home to their final rest.

Controversial? Such pictures were deemed by the Bush administration
to be too invasive for American dignity.​

____________________

Notes:

Associated Press. "Associated Press says photo of Lance Cpl. Joshua Bernard shows realities of war". St. Petersburg Times. September 4, 2009. TampaBay.com. November 22, 2011. http://www.tampabay.com/incoming/article1033549.ece

Mackey, Robert. "A Glimpse of the Iraq War That Cost a Military Contractor Her Job". The Lede. February 11, 2009. TheLede.Blogs.NYTimes.com. November 22, 2011. http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/20...-war-that-cost-a-military-contractor-her-job/

 

[S.A.M.]

I don't think that's about prudishness Tiassa, it is the same reason why they fudge the numbers of civilian deaths or report all deaths as insurgents or militants even when its kids they are executing. Thats about morale

 

[Tiassa]

Apparently it's easier this way

I don't think that's about prudishness Tiassa, it is the same reason why they fudge the numbers of civilian deaths or report all deaths as insurgents or militants even when its kids they are executing. Thats about morale

Perhaps, but that only underscores the point, I think. After all, if reality is too great a burden for morale ...?

Of course, maybe that's the point of showing a dead Bin Laden or Qusai Hussein, as well. And in that case, well, suddenly the idea of censoring nude female breasts makes sense. It's bad for morale if people are merely distracted from the wars.

• "The bullets were flying, fast and furious, and maybe he would have made it home if he hadn't stopped to stare at the dead woman's breasts ...."

• "Kill 'em! Kill 'em all! Kill those goddamn towelheads and let God sort out the parts! Kill .... Oh, hey! Titties!"

• "I pledge allegiance to the flag of ... boobies!"

• "This is my rifle. There are many like it, but this one is mine. It is my life. I must master it as I must master my life. Without me my rifle is useless. Without my rifle, I am ... holy gazongas, Batman! Did you see those?"​

You know ... now that I think of it, the problem isn't hypocrisy. It's that you somehow expect Americans to make sense.

That's the whole point of being a world-dominating empire. When you're in charge, you don't have to make sense.

 

[S.A.M.]

I'm not sure how this became about Americans except that Arthur is one and we were discussing his right not to be confronted by nudity - the American press is actually far more prudish than the EU one. The Abu Ghraib pictures for example, appeared in Salon, not CNN and there are no blurred breasts in the US news media, because they have only her headshot.

The National Press Photographers Association Code of Ethics states that the “primary goal” of the photojournalist is the “...faithful and comprehensive depiction of the subject at hand.” and yet not one of the mainstream newspapers showed the pictures of prisoner abuse and there is not a single newpaper which will show Aliaa's protest. Michael speaks of desensitisation to violence but I disagree, how many times have we seen this picture?

Moderator warning: The following image is from Vietnam. It shows a man about to be shot in the head at close range.

http://johnryanrecabar.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/picture51.jpg

Anyone desensitised yet?

Pictures are powerful which is why Aliaa's protest has acquired a global dimension - to me the fact that NO ONE outside the internet can reproduce her protest indicates how widespread is the issue she brought to the fore.

 

[James R]

Moderator note:

Section E.9 of the site rules states:

9. Images that some readers might reasonably find confronting or disturbing should be posted as URL links rather than as images embedded in a post. In such cases, a clear warning should be posted along with the image, including a brief description of the content.​

A number of posters in this thread have embedded images inappropriately in this thread.

S.A.M. has been warned about this before, too many times to count. So she has been banned for 2 days from sciforums. A couple of other posters have been officially warned. A number of posts have been edited.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

I am fairly sure stalking across forums to insult people's religions, religious beliefs,

We are free to insult religion because it is antiscience. I did not single out her religion but clearly lumped it in with all the other Abrahamic faiths.

As for "stalking," SciForums is a small world and we all run into each other periodically. I have engaged in polite conversation with Sam, even collegial, on a number of occasions. But when she behaves like an asshole I call her an asshole. Intellectual dishonesty is her schtick--especially regarding America (among other topics)--and we cannot allow it to stand without comment.

threaten members with bans for as long as you "can get away with" because you dislike said member is not included in those rules.

Now you are being intellectually dishonest and misquoting me. I clearly said that I would ban her if she posted graphic images of violence and its results. That is not an unreasonable warning when it comes to the Arts & Culture subforum. In the past members have felt that anything goes there, and it does not. If Sam felt that it was okay to post this garbage on your board, then how do you suppose she would feel about posting clips or trailers from a slasher flick on mine, if there was a legitimate tie-in to the plight of women in Islamic countries?

Perhaps you should go back and revise said rules before you make a bigger fool of yourself in public and tarnish all of us with your inane ramblings on this forum. Just perhaps.

I'll take that under advisement. Thanks.

Americans are so hypocritical about their prudishness that while the news media is anxious to show the body of Col. Qadafi, reporters had to fight the Bush administration to show photographs of the caskets of American soldiers coming home to their final rest.

The stated rationale behind that was that it would cause emotional suffering to the bereaved families of those soldiers. I'm sure that in many cases it was true. Nonetheless, it was Backward Baby Bush who sent those soldiers over there to die, in order to distract Americans from the awkward truth that 9/11 was a Saudi operation, not an Iraqi one, and he couldn't have his constituents demanding retribution against his daddy's petroleum-industry buddies. If he really cared about the feelings of the parents of those kids, he might have thought twice before launching his fraudulent war.

The Washington Post prints a multi-page supplement every few weeks, a complete list of all the U.S. troops that have been killed since the last publication, including their bio and a photo of each one. Much as I think people who volunteer to go off to distant lands and kill the folks they find there have a couple of screws loose, I can't help crying over such a colossal waste of potential, at the whim of a President who should have been court-martialed for treason while he was still mentally competent to stand trial. All in all, this is probably a more powerful statement than a photo of the caskets.

Such pictures were deemed by the Bush administration to be too invasive for American dignity.

Rather ironic for that particular loser to be lecturing us about dignity! The man who was photographed holding hands with the leader of the country that provided all of the planning, almost all of the money, and most of the personnel for 9/11.

9. Images that some readers might reasonably find confronting or disturbing should be posted as URL links rather than as images embedded in a post. In such cases, a clear warning should be posted along with the image, including a brief description of the content.

Thank you. Did you send a personal copy of this to Bells? I was acting well within my duty as a moderator to warn Sam that if she ever posted garbage like that on my board I would ban her.

A number of posters in this thread have embedded images inappropriately in this thread.

It happens all the time. We often use our judgment and let it slide, but that's no guarantee that we won't act in egregious cases.

S.A.M. has been warned about this before, too many times to count. So she has been banned for 2 days from sciforums.

You'd better watch out or Bells will accuse you of having a vendetta against Sam too.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

I was acting well within my duty as a moderator to warn Sam that if she ever posted garbage like that on my board I would ban her.

That isn't quite what you said.
You said you'd ban her worthless ass.
You also said she was a lying, cheating, intellectually dishonest manipulator.

Most of the time, you are even-tempered, but when the subject is religion,
your brain goes AWOL.
Maybe you would be best avoiding threads that discuss the subject.
If you weren't an administrator, you would probably be banned yourself for the above inexcusable ranting remarks.

 

[James R]

We are free to insult religion because it is antiscience.

Hmm...

Depends what you mean by "insulting religion". It is one thing to say you don't believe in religion X, Y or Z. That's fine. Then there's stating that religion X is a load of silly nonsense (in your opinion), which is also probably ok but borderline. Then there's saying that in your opinion all members of religion X are offensive personal insult Y, which is absolutely unacceptable.

Opinions about religions should also be backed up with appropriate evidence or argument, as is standard for any topic discussed here.

I did not single out her religion but clearly lumped it in with all the other Abrahamic faiths.

Insulting 3 or 20 religions is no better than insulting one if you cross the line. In fact, if your post can fairly be described as an insult, it's probably questionable, to say the least.

Thank you. Did you send a personal copy of this to Bells? I was acting well within my duty as a moderator to warn Sam that if she ever posted garbage like that on my board I would ban her.

No need to send it. Bells will read this.

By the way, wouldn't this discussion between the two of you (or the three of us, as it may be now) be better had in the Moderator's forum?

It happens all the time. We often use our judgment and let it slide, but that's no guarantee that we won't act in egregious cases.

If I see it, I seldom "let it slide". I always start with a warning to the poster concerned, though. SAM has had at least 5 of those from me on this point. Obviously, the message didn't get through, so I must step to the next level.

You'd better watch out or Bells will accuse you of having a vendetta against Sam too.

I'm sure Gustav will get to that first and make a (further) nuisance of himself.

 

[GeoffP]

I think we are.

As a woman, I see it quite clearly.

Well then, we disagree. There might well be some rollback against the general tide, but that doesn't mean the tide isn't coming in. As I commented before: in which previous media incarnation would they have printed such a picture? Or even given the link? I think you might argue that it's static within certain reaches, but I don't see it becoming more conservative overall.

You mean a society that blanked out a woman's nipples and a society that had a hissy fit because a performer flashed a nipple on stage or the society that deemed a woman's cleavage was inappropriate for a children's show?

How about a society that deems women responsible if wear a mini skirt and are raped? That kind of society? The kind of society that thinks anything revealing on a woman or about a woman, yes, even her eyes, is deemed inappropriate because well, men might feel the sudden urge to fuck her without her consent. That society? That is the society we live in. You live in it as well.

Well, how much of the society are we talking about here? The society au complet? I don't believe you could argue that it was anywhere near so uniform and widespread. Also, what corresponds to 'hissy fit'? That the nipple wasn't shown?

We are?

Heh, could have fooled me. You only have to read through the countless rape threads on this forum to see just how many people deemed the woman responsible if she is raped if she behaved in a manner that was not ladylike (ie was drunk, asleep, passed out from alcohol, dressed in a certain manner, date rape, etc). Just ask Signal.

I've never counted the rape threads so I couldn't say if they were indeed limitless, and anyone suggesting that a woman deserved such handling is a pig and a degenerate. I think we're digressing here a bit. Sam's criticism is that Western media is bad because of censorship, which then is presumed to censor her opinion. The latter isn't true, because her opinion was in fact printed. As for the nude aspect of her protest, you could indeed argue that this was censorship. Yet what is Sam comparing this to? Does she propose a better model? Is she attempting to slam the Telegraph for being hypocritical? Does this really indicate some generalized hypocrisy in the Western media? You realize that one can be more liberal and still have some limits on expression?

Do you know why there are nude protests and nude PETA, etc? Because it shocks and people react to them because people are so unused to nudity in society in general.

As above: sure.

I don't think you quite realise how increasingly prudish society is becoming.

Rather, I disagree with your conclusion that it is becoming more prudish.

But you did not really answer the question, did you? We know how limiting the Saudis are, as well as many other countries. We know they deny women their rights. No one is denying that. No one is saying it is right. Sam isn't. So bringing it up again and again adds nothing to this discussion. We are talking about a so called liberal Western society fuzzing out nipples of a girl who is protesting against the restrictive society she lives in by posing nude. And in response to that, we fuzz out her nipples. The irony is hilarious. Yet, here you are, instead of discussing why the media decided to do this in the West, bring up Muslim block countries that this girl was protesting against and about. Do you see the irony of your argument?

Let me make this simple for you: the argument isn't ironic. In pointing the finger at Western media-cum-society, Sam invites a comparison with non-Western media and sociality. I know this because she included the word "western". So, the correct response is "all right then, is your preferred system any better?" We know what Sam's preferred system is, and so it's a simple process to critique it. The Saudis are one branch thereof, but there are others, and they don't seem to be turning out any better, and certainly are less permissive than the naughty Westerners and their dirty newspapers.

One would expect the media to provide a link to the blog they were reporting on. But why did they blank out her nipples in the photo they showed in the story?

They also blanked her vagina, I note, so it isn't just nipples. But it's pointless to say that "the West" has an issue with nudity and showing nudity to the public: by your standard, one could make the same claim at the very least for most extant human civilizations, and in some other civilizations the reaction would certainly be more extreme. As such, is it worthwhile talking about the censorship of nudity in "the West"? "The West" certainly has and displays more than its share of nudity in art. I'm sorry, but it seems just like more trolling to me: Sam's evocation of the Mohammed cartoons seems, similarly, like a cheap draw-in for the purposes of making a cheap attack.

 

[GeoffP]

right, because the drag on sci's reputation here is not the blatant trolling and flame posts, but fraggle's distaste for such.

+1.