Egyptian girl strips to protest; western media censors her photos

[wynn]

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.

My suggestion remains that you take a course in critical thinking.
You are still unable to adequately interpret a person's position.
If you continue to misrepresent my stance, I will report you for intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Enmos]

Yes and we blur out genitals or hair or shoulders...

Seriously? Perhaps in the 1930's..

Why don't we have a taboo on violence?

Huh?

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Enmos, SAM can't answer.
She's serving a ban.

 

[wynn]

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?

The ethics of journalism have changed over time, under different influences and differently in different countries, rendering the issue of what is blacked out or distorted, much more complex.

Decades ago, it was the norm not to print or televise any pictures or parts of pictures of dead human bodies, no matter how they died.
Then some time later, the norm was to print and televise such pictures, but to black out the faces of the deceased, and also injured parts of the bodies.


Originally, one of the reasons for witholding or editing pictures was to preserve the dignity of the people depicted.

It had nothing to do with not offending the sensitivities of the audience as far as being shown pictures of dead human bodies, injuries or genitals is concerned.

There was a sharper line between that which is private, and that which is public.
That which was deemed private, was to be kept private.

But nowadays, this line is becoming more and more blurry.
If you google "line between the private and the publicy" you get plenty of results.

 

[Bells]

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.

Yet if she called you an "asshole" for being an "asshole", she'd be banned.

Quite arseholish, isn't it?

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?

This isn't garbage though. Do you think censoring a girl's photo because she showed her bits in it, in a country known for its bad treatment of women and censorship, in protest against how her country and her religion views and treats women is "garbage"?

Do you think the images that came out showing the illegal torture of prisoners is "garbage"? Do you think showing people being murdered or injured is "garbage"?

Maybe it is your old age Fraggle, but you seem to think that the horrors of real life in war is "garbage". Do you think those men being tortured, would appreciate someone like you deeming their treatment as "garbage" because the images that the soldiers from your country took offends your delicate sensibilities? What about Phan Thi Kim Phuc? Do you think she is "garbage" as well?

Your country and mine perpetrated half the violence shown in those images. If you think they are "garbage", maybe you should contact your local politician and tell them to cease and desist in murdering and torturing innocent civilians lest their images offend your delicate and fragile sensibilities.

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.

Ah yes. Don't you get it yet? Fraggle will forget his "in a place of science and scholarship" when it comes to his insulting Sam and her religion and Muslims and other religions in general. Good luck asking him for evidence.

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 would be surprised.

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?

As above.

Women can barely get away with breastfeeding in public in many parts of the Western world now. The Western media, as do all media, do partake in quite a bit of censorship. Look at the Wikileaks issues where many in the media refused to even provide the link, just in case.

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?

But it is hypocritical though. The fact that images of torture is not censored but their penis was censored, just in case someone became offended at the image of a man's penis, ignoring the fact that he was being tortured, and this young woman's protest, in a country that could see her severely punished for doing so because of the laws and religious beliefs there should be something that is celebrated by the supposed free West. Not covered up because 'dear god we can see her tits and her pubes'.. But an image of a guy setting himself on fire? No issues there.

I think we do have an issue with nudity and we are hypocritical in what is printed and what is not. I don't think we are that free after all. And that is somewhat disturbing.

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

I think we are.

This thread is a prime example of just how prudish we have become.

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.

Where did she declare what her prefered system was? What I saw was her criticise the Saudis for their censorship and their forcing women to dress as the men in society wanted them to dress. That does not point to a "prefered system" to me. What it points to is a lot of finger pointing because she is a Muslim.

Would be like me saying your "prefered system" was one that supported men who raped young boys because you are Catholic, so you really have no place in commenting on anything regarding child abuse, because the comparison would be made. Do you see how wide and far that reach is?

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.

Do you consider this girl's protest against her oppression to be akin to the "Mohammed cartoons"? The Mohammed cartoons were not that censored. In fact, some Imam's actually added and altered them to make them more offensive and misrepresented what they actually were and it blew out of proportion. Censoring it after that made it worse.

We do have an issue with nudity though. It's become dirty and instantly sexual. The reactions of posting her image here uncensored is a prime example of which direction we are heading into.

 

[wynn]

I don't think I've ever seen full frontal nudity in any American movie.

I assure you there is, and with mainstream actors in mainstream enough films.

Ah, Kevin Bacon ... then that other one walking naked across the room ...

 

[Bells]

My suggestion remains that you take a course in critical thinking.
You are still unable to adequately interpret a person's position.
If you continue to misrepresent my stance, I will report you for intellectual dishonesty.

Don't you have some victim of rape and abuse you have to berate? I have received enough complaints about you to feel quite comfortable saying to ask you about it Signal. So you can report me all you like. I can assure you, I will respond to said complaints with many links and quotes.:m:

Now back on ignore you go.

 

[wynn]

Why don't we have a taboo on violence?

Huh?

On principle, there is no taboo on reporting about crime.

When a newspaper prints pictures of tortured prisoners, this can be understood as reporting on crime.
If they black out or distort the prisoner's faces or intimate parts, this is with the intent to preserve the prisoner's dignity.
But since they are reporting on a crime, they must depict the crime or what points to it - the injuries and the objects with which the torture was performed.

 

[James R]

Bells,

This isn't garbage though. Do you think censoring a girl's photo because she showed her bits in it, in a country known for its bad treatment of women and censorship, in protest against how her country and her religion views and treats women is "garbage"?

I'm not sure which country you're talking about here. This thread is ostensibly about the "western media" - at least according to its title. Are you talking about the USA then? Is it "known for its bad treatment of women and censorship"? I'm confused. Please clarify.

Do you think the images that came out showing the illegal torture of prisoners is "garbage"? Do you think showing people being murdered or injured is "garbage"?

I think that showing images of Abu Graib torture in a thread about an Egyptian girl's nude blog protest is gratuitous in the extreme, an attempt to mount a parallel attack on the US (and presumably, by association, "the West" in general), and deeply offensive to the victims of Abu Graib. So, in that sense, those images in the context of this thread are "garbage", in my opinion.

I guess this is to be expected from SAM, though, when the entire thread is intended as yet another attack on the evil West. SAM is nothing if not blinkered, and mind-numbingly repetitive to boot.

Maybe it is your old age Fraggle, but you seem to think that the horrors of real life in war is "garbage". Do you think those men being tortured, would appreciate someone like you deeming their treatment as "garbage" because the images that the soldiers from your country took offends your delicate sensibilities? What about Phan Thi Kim Phuc? Do you think she is "garbage" as well?

I think you've been hooked on SAM's line here. This is exactly the kind of argument she hoped to start, I'm quite sure.

Your country and mine perpetrated half the violence shown in those images. If you think they are "garbage", maybe you should contact your local politician and tell them to cease and desist in murdering and torturing innocent civilians lest their images offend your delicate and fragile sensibilities.

I think you need to ask yourself exactly how torture at Abu Graib is at all relevant to an Egyptian girl's nude protest against the Egyptian authorities.

Ah yes. Don't you get it yet? Fraggle will forget his "in a place of science and scholarship" when it comes to his insulting Sam and her religion and Muslims and other religions in general. Good luck asking him for evidence.

I'm sure that Fraggle honestly believes what he writes when he says "Religion is anti-science". Personally, I disagree. Some religious people are anti-science, but that's quite a different thing.

SAM, on the other hand, is consistently intellectually dishonest. This thread is quite a good example. Why start a thread on the evils of Western censorship of the Egyptian girl's protest instead of, say, a thread on the evils of the Egyptian society and/or government that makes this girl want to protest in such a manner in the first place? Why not talk about Egyptian censorship? That's what the girl herself is on about.

To twist this story into yet another anti-west rant is boringly predictable behaviour from SAM. Fraggle has a lot of things right about her. I don't agree with him on all points, but he's no fool when it comes to SAM.

But it is hypocritical though. The fact that images of torture is not censored but their penis was censored, just in case someone became offended at the image of a man's penis, ignoring the fact that he was being tortured, and this young woman's protest, in a country that could see her severely punished for doing so because of the laws and religious beliefs there should be something that is celebrated by the supposed free West. Not covered up because 'dear god we can see her tits and her pubes'.. But an image of a guy setting himself on fire? No issues there.

Ah, we get to the topic of the thread. Good.

First, I would say that the US is not a place-holder for "the west". "The western media" includes the media in Italy, the UK, Australia, the US, France, Germany, etc. I don't think that all these nations have the same attitudes to things like nudity or violent imagery or images of death. It might be an interesting exercise to check back and see exactly which Abu Graib images were published in the various countries' mainstream press, and how (if at all) they were "censored". I am quite sure that SAM has not done this, and nobody else here has either.

Having said that, I agree with you in general terms about the US. Its mainstream media tends to be prudish about nudity, which reflects the views of its citizens. It is less concerned about imagery of violence. I don't think the same can be said about certain other nations of "the west". For example, if we look at nudity, consider for example Italian TV or French film.

As an Australian, if I was editing a daily newspaper and I wanted to print the Egyptian girl's photo, for a start I probably wouldn't choose to print her nude protest photo at all. Rather, I would print her story, perhaps accompanied by a clothed shot of her. Why? Partly because taking her image out of its intended context (the internet, in Egypt) makes its reproduction potentially gratuitous (just as it was when reproduced unedited in this thread). The protest message itself gets lost behind the fact that a picture of naked women is being printed. Secondly, adoucette made the point that readers of media ought to have a choice about what they read. Over a long time reading a particular newspaper, for example, they come to expect a certain set of standards. The publication of a full-frontal nude photo of a woman in an Australian newspaper would be frowned upon by most readers as unnecessary and inappropriate for the publication. The story can be told just as well without that particular image.

If, as an editor, I did decide that publication of the actual image was important, then I would most likely pixellate the image as in the opening post. I have yet to hear a good argument from anybody about why this would be the wrong thing to do in this case. It seems to me that pixellating the image in such an instance would be sensitive both to the girl protesting and to the readership of the newspaper.

I think we are [becoming more prudish].

This thread is a prime example of just how prudish we have become.

I'm not convinced. And who is this "we", anyway?

We do have an issue with nudity though. It's become dirty and instantly sexual. The reactions of posting her image here uncensored is a prime example of which direction we are heading into.

Some people will look at the image of this girl in a sexual way, regardless of how she intends it. We've already seen several comments in this thread already from men saying lasciviously "I'm all for women posting their nude photos. More please!" To deny that naked images have a sexual impact is naive.

"Dirty" is different. And that's what this girl's protest is really about.

 

[GeoffP]

You would be surprised.

So surprise me.

Women can barely get away with breastfeeding in public in many parts of the Western world now. The Western media, as do all media, do partake in quite a bit of censorship. Look at the Wikileaks issues where many in the media refused to even provide the link, just in case.

I'm sure that they do, although the latter strikes me more as a potential lawsuit issue over the publication of items covered under the Official Secrets Act. But I don't think it's true that women barely get away with breastfeeding. My wife breastfed in public, and the only problem I ever encountered was scaring off potential creeps...who, in retrospect, probably didn't deserve their treatment.

But it is hypocritical though. The fact that images of torture is not censored but their penis was censored, just in case someone became offended at the image of a man's penis, ignoring the fact that he was being tortured, and this young woman's protest, in a country that could see her severely punished for doing so because of the laws and religious beliefs there should be something that is celebrated by the supposed free West. Not covered up because 'dear god we can see her tits and her pubes'.. But an image of a guy setting himself on fire? No issues there.

I think we do have an issue with nudity and we are hypocritical in what is printed and what is not. I don't think we are that free after all. And that is somewhat disturbing.

I still consider us at the least quite free, and certainly more so than most other cultures. You have a point regarding differences in violence. My comment is this: there is a certain cultural anxiety regarding nudie bits in Western society, but there's also a much more clear limit on what is considered offensive nudity: nipples, groin, rear end. Violence, however, strikes me as a more quantitative scale, from blood on up. So how extreme would a display of the effects of violence have to be to be equal to full-frontal nudity? Presumably it would encompass pieces of organs all over the place, and that you don't see in the newspaper either.

I think we are.

This thread is a prime example of just how prudish we have become.

In what way specifically? If we have become so, where did we stand before?

Where did she declare what her prefered system was? What I saw was her criticise the Saudis for their censorship and their forcing women to dress as the men in society wanted them to dress. That does not point to a "prefered system" to me. What it points to is a lot of finger pointing because she is a Muslim.

Well, she does relatively little criticism of such systems, frankly. If the real contrast she was trying to evoke was violence vs. nudity in the media, why include the word "Western"? What other culture has no such taboos on violence and nudity, jointly? Islamic culture is a frequent point of reference for her, and so it's reasonable to make contrasts on this basis.

Would be like me saying your "prefered system" was one that
supported men who raped young boys because you are Catholic, so you really have no place in commenting on anything regarding child abuse, because the comparison would be made. Do you see how wide and far that reach is?

I think it would be a supreme act of hypocrisy if, in commenting on child abuse, someone raised child abuse in Catholicism and I blew that off. Whether she contrasts violence vs. nudity, or Western prejudices against nudity vs. 'Eastern' ones, Sam has created a dichotomy that explicitly involves 'the West' (see the OP). Sam makes few bones about her views of religious and social superiority - Mawdudi springs to mind here - and so it's entirely reasonable to bring that up. I am unable to discern that Catholicism as practiced is in any way superior, and so I do not proclaim it; nor am I a very strident one, if I am one at all.

Do you consider this girl's protest against her oppression to be akin to the "Mohammed cartoons"?

No, but Sam does. She uses it as a comparison. See the OP.

The Mohammed cartoons were not that censored.

No, but they had neither nudity nor real violence. (I can't recall if that bomb-head Mohammed was part of those or not.) As such, it would indeed be accurate to say that they did not cross our own social anxieties.

In fact, some Imam's actually added and altered them to make them more offensive and misrepresented what they actually were and it blew out of proportion. Censoring it after that made it worse.

You've lost me here: how did censoring make that worse?

We do have an issue with nudity though. It's become dirty and instantly sexual. The reactions of posting her image here uncensored is a prime example of which direction we are heading into.

Not in all milieus. And in which way are we 'heading into' this taboo? Appears more like inertia to me.

 

[adoucette]

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

And yet my opinion agrees with the rules of this board.

It's about CHOICE and the right of individuals to make their own choices.

It's about the ability to continue to go to this site on my work computer and not expect to have repercussions because of the content.

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.

And even though I agree with you on all of that, doesn't mean that I can look at them on my work computer and you took away that choice.

I can't make it any simpler for you.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Links to controversial pictures, nudity, torture etc. rather than the pictures themselves.
It's a good rule.

Take for example, the beheading of prisoners by extremist Muslims.
I have never watched one of these Islamist beheadings, and never will.
I don't want those images in my head.
And if I did, I'd want it to be my choice, not someone else's.

I am not burying my head in the sand. (Mmmh.... thinks........sorry, back to the post)
I know what happens.
Should I be forced to watch the grisly business?

With regard to that girl, adoucette, if someone at work had a glimpse of you working at your computer, and you scrolled through this thread, they would think you were accessing child porn. They might not say anything to you, and you'd only notice something was wrong when you were eating alone at lunch.
Or getting shit posted through your letter box. A graphic picture of this follows.

*********************************************************
Warning. Some people may find the content of the following picture offensive.
If you are from Liverpool, please DO NOT view.
*********************************************************

http://paidcontent.org/images/editorial/_original/the-sun-being-delivered-through-letterbox-o.png

Added later.
Did you view it?
Isn't that one of the most disgusting things you have seen in all your born days?

 

[GeoffP]

Links to controversial pictures, nudity, torture etc. rather than the pictures themselves.
It's a good rule.

Take for example, the beheading of prisoners by extremist Muslims.
I have never watched one of these Islamist beheadings, and never will.
I don't want those images in my head.
And if I did, I'd want it to be my choice, not someone else's.

I am not burying my head in the sand. (Mmmh....)
I know what happens.
Should I be forced to watch the grisly business?

With regard to that girl, adoucette, if someone at work had a glimpse of you working at your computer, and you scrolled through this thread, they would think you were accessing child porn. They might not say anything to you, and you'd only notice something was wrong when you were eating alone at lunch.
Or getting shit posted through your letter box. A graphic picture of this follows.

*********************************************************
Warning. Some people may find the content of the following picture offensive.
If you are from Liverpool, please DO NOT view.
*********************************************************

http://paidcontent.org/images/editorial/_original/the-sun-being-delivered-through-letterbox-o.png

That image was positively filled with double meaning.

I will campaign to have you banned forthwith, sicko.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Yes maybe I shouldn't have done that.
People were expecting to see good honest excreta, and then they were subjected to that vile sight. I apologise to anyone upset by the image.

 

[Bells]

I'm not sure which country you're talking about here. This thread is ostensibly about the "western media" - at least according to its title. Are you talking about the USA then? Is it "known for its bad treatment of women and censorship"? I'm confused. Please clarify.

Umm the girl in the image. She is in Egypt. I would have assumed that was quite clear.

I think that showing images of Abu Graib torture in a thread about an Egyptian girl's nude blog protest is gratuitous in the extreme, an attempt to mount a parallel attack on the US (and presumably, by association, "the West" in general), and deeply offensive to the victims of Abu Graib. So, in that sense, those images in the context of this thread are "garbage", in my opinion.

"An attempt to launch an attack on the US"?

Do you think her images contain launch codes for ballistic missiles?

Do you think the images of the girl's breasts are actually buttons for said missiles?

I have to admit, this made me laugh.

She was discussing a British newspaper in actual fact. How that constitutes "an attack on the US", maybe you could clarify?

But in discussing this girl's protest, she is right that the Western media is happy to publish violent images and will only censor nudity. Since when did the human form become more offensive than torturing or killing someone? No one has yet to answer this question. Now, you deem the images to be garbage. They aren't. They are a part of what is now our very violent near history. And yet, the media never saw fit to censor the violence. Just the victim's penis. Just as this girl, who lives in a country that is known for its crackdown on protests and also known for censorship has also been censored by the West because she posted an image of herself naked on her blog. The image is not violent. But it does show that the media is somewhat twisted in its priorities.

Now, you may view the images of those tortured men and of Phan Thi Kim Phuc to be "garbage", but what those images show is just how violent we are and just what we are capable of as a society. Those images will forever be symbolic of our hypocrisy and our nature. I don't think it is "garbage" at all. I think pretending or hiding it and trying to pass ourselves off as saintly and viewing any criticism as the launch of an attack is symbolic of just how inane and in denial society has become.

I guess this is to be expected from SAM, though, when the entire thread is intended as yet another attack on the evil West. SAM is nothing if not blinkered, and mind-numbingly repetitive to boot.

I guess one could say the same for your reaction and Fraggles to "Sam".

You know, this thread had a lot of potential. It is a shame that people such as yourself, Fraggle and others are too blinkered shouting at the messenger than looking at what is actually being discussed.

I think you've been hooked on SAM's line here. This is exactly the kind of argument she hoped to start, I'm quite sure.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how one can state images of people being tortured to death as "garbage". I find it quite repulsive that anyone could view human suffering inflicted because some individuals wanted souvenir photos as being 'garbage'. Especially when one considers the risks and dangers involved in getting those images to the public in the first place. One is currently in jail for leaking it and the other has been charged on some trumped up rape charge. To view it all as "garbage" demeans the very notion of crimes against humanity and torture.

I think you need to ask yourself exactly how torture at Abu Graib is at all relevant to an Egyptian girl's nude protest against the Egyptian authorities.

And I think you need to ask yourself how and why the media deems torture and the murder of civilians as being less offensive than a girl's nudity on her blog. That is the whole point. That the Western media and all media in general are happy to post overly violent images but will blank out a girl's nipples in her protest against a violent regime because it might offend. I think you need to ask yourself how and why violence is somewhat less offensive in the media than a girl's nude protest.

When you can answer that, then you might understand why those torture images were brought up in this thread.

I'm sure that Fraggle honestly believes what he writes when he says "Religion is anti-science". Personally, I disagree. Some religious people are anti-science, but that's quite a different thing.

SAM, on the other hand, is consistently intellectually dishonest. This thread is quite a good example. Why start a thread on the evils of Western censorship of the Egyptian girl's protest instead of, say, a thread on the evils of the Egyptian society and/or government that makes this girl want to protest in such a manner in the first place? Why not talk about Egyptian censorship? That's what the girl herself is on about.

To twist this story into yet another anti-west rant is boringly predictable behaviour from SAM. Fraggle has a lot of things right about her. I don't agree with him on all points, but he's no fool when it comes to SAM.

I think Fraggle is a fool period. Since, you know, he can get away with calling her an "asshole" and doing so as a moderator since he came in here with his 'science and scholarship' bullshit to insult her, her religion, threaten her and then completely miss the point of his thread, I would say my calling him a fool falls well within the rules now, since the standard has been set by Fraggle and strongly supported by yourself now it seems. Does that mean I can call people I don't like "asshole" now and threaten them with a ban for as long as "I can get away with it"? The standard has been set.

*Rubs hands with glee*

*Looks at Geoff.. *

The only dishonesty I see here is the hysterical response I am witnessing from you and Fraggle and a few others in this thread. The words and terminology used.. the 'launching an attack'.. seriously?

Her images pertained to the subject matter. That the media is hypocritical in what it censors. The West did censor her images and do censor the penis of men being tortured but don't censor the torture itself. That part is the truth and we have seen numerous examples of it. So what exactly is dishonest about it James? Care to clarify?

Have you actually even read the thread?

Ah, we get to the topic of the thread. Good.

First, I would say that the US is not a place-holder for "the west". "The western media" includes the media in Italy, the UK, Australia, the US, France, Germany, etc. I don't think that all these nations have the same attitudes to things like nudity or violent imagery or images of death. It might be an interesting exercise to check back and see exactly which Abu Graib images were published in the various countries' mainstream press, and how (if at all) they were "censored". I am quite sure that SAM has not done this, and nobody else here has either.

What are you on about?

She was talking about a BRITISH newspaper. I would suggest you go back to page 1 of this thread and scroll down to the third post.

The rest of the West did the same thing. So did the media in the ME.

The point is that the West deems itself to be free and open and in reporting on an Egyptian girl's protest against censorship against her restrictive Government, the supposedly open and free Western media censors her. The images of the torture victims was to point out how the media are free and open to not censor violence and pain, only people's genitals and women's boobs.

Having said that, I agree with you in general terms about the US. Its mainstream media tends to be prudish about nudity, which reflects the views of its citizens. It is less concerned about imagery of violence. I don't think the same can be said about certain other nations of "the west". For example, if we look at nudity, consider for example Italian TV or French film.

Which she also discussed and was discussed in this thread.

As an Australian, if I was editing a daily newspaper and I wanted to print the Egyptian girl's photo, for a start I probably wouldn't choose to print her nude protest photo at all. Rather, I would print her story, perhaps accompanied by a clothed shot of her. Why? Partly because taking her image out of its intended context (the internet, in Egypt) makes its reproduction potentially gratuitous (just as it was when reproduced unedited in this thread). The protest message itself gets lost behind the fact that a picture of naked women is being printed. Secondly, adoucette made the point that readers of media ought to have a choice about what they read. Over a long time reading a particular newspaper, for example, they come to expect a certain set of standards. The publication of a full-frontal nude photo of a woman in an Australian newspaper would be frowned upon by most readers as unnecessary and inappropriate for the publication. The story can be told just as well without that particular image.

If, as an editor, I did decide that publication of the actual image was important, then I would most likely pixellate the image as in the opening post. I have yet to hear a good argument from anybody about why this would be the wrong thing to do in this case. It seems to me that pixellating the image in such an instance would be sensitive both to the girl protesting and to the readership of the newspaper.

Which is the point.

We frown at tits but don't frown at an image of a man being tortured by our allies.

The girl was protesting against the Egyptian Government's censorship of women and nudity in art. If you look at the photo, it is quite artistic. Hence why she used it in her protest. She was protesting because the State took it upon itself to pixillate and censor art and women. The west, in reporting on this brave girl's protest also censors her. But we do not censor violence in the media. If the girl wanted her image pixellated, she would not have posted her photo or would have done it herself. So you aren't protecting this girl's protest or being sensitive. Quite the contrary. Pixellating her image is exactly what she is protesting against and is very insensitive of her and what she is protesting about.

I'm not convinced. And who is this "we", anyway?

You tell me James. You are the one saying that if you were the editor, you would not post the image or you would pixellate it to be sensitive to others.

Some people will look at the image of this girl in a sexual way, regardless of how she intends it. We've already seen several comments in this thread already from men saying lasciviously "I'm all for women posting their nude photos. More please!" To deny that naked images have a sexual impact is naive.

"Dirty" is different. And that's what this girl's protest is really about.

Her image is not pornographic though. The men saying 'more please' would be saying 'more please' if the image was of her clothed.

____________________________________________________________


GeoffP, I will get to your post tomorrow or the day after.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

SAM is like the grain of sand in an oyster.
Occasionally she produces a pearl,
but mainly she just produces irritated oysters.

 

[GeoffP]

I think Fraggle is a fool period. Since, you know, he can get away with calling her an "asshole" and doing so as a moderator since he came in here with his 'science and scholarship' bullshit to insult her, her religion, threaten her and then completely miss the point of his thread, I would say my calling him a fool falls well within the rules now, since the standard has been set by Fraggle and strongly supported by yourself now it seems. Does that mean I can call people I don't like "asshole" now and threaten them with a ban for as long as "I can get away with it"? The standard has been set.

*Rubs hands with glee*

*Looks at Geoff.. *

It's been done.

Keep rubbing if you're looking for a better result. Or try a lamp, even.

 

[birch]

i don't understand the point of this thread either. She is protesting the extreme oppression of women in her own culture, right? so what does it matter to her if her private parts are blurred in western media? seems irrevelant. the main reason it's blurred is because she is probably underage and also to protect her from her 'message' just being twisted into gratuitous lasciviousness.

her image can be viewed gratuitously whether she intends it to be or not and many people will not care but just see a naked girl, which could result in even more exploitation of women. but i do understand her action, though i doubt this type of action will be very effective. she is naive.

 

[adoucette]

Bells, one can show the pictures of torture without further demeaning the people involved by also showing their genetalia.

Indeed that was PART of their mistreatment and in posting their naked images you are just continuing their mistreatment.

Let's consider another scenario, and see how it plays out.

A women is beaten and raped and left naked on the side of the road.

She manages to make it into town, but before she gets there someone takes a full frontal picture of her.

The newspaper prints the story of what happened to her.

Should they also include the full frontal nude picture taken of her?

As you claimed: Her images pertained to the subject matter

Is refraining from publishing her naked image censorship or is it being sensitive to the abuse she has already endured?

And I think you need to ask yourself how and why the media deems torture and the murder of civilians as being less offensive than a girl's nudity on her blog. That is the whole point.

But the point is not true.

The media does not consider them to be less offensive.
To say they do is being intellectually dishonest.
Both stories are covered, and the one of torture of civilians with lots more coverage all the way through the investigations, trials and punishment but that doesn't mean that the media has to republish her picture to cover her story when a link to her Blog site is sufficient.

Arthur

 

[Bells]

It's been done.

Keep rubbing if you're looking for a better result. Or try a lamp, even.

The point is that I would never moderate someone I detested or thought was a douche because it could be viewed as being biased. Ergo I have never moderated you or threatened you with moderation or with a ban nor will I ever.