Child nudity concerns see Facebook delete post including Pulitzer Prize-winning photo

[rooster59]

Child nudity concerns see Facebook delete post including Pulitzer Prize-winning photo

 

 

Social media giant Facebook has provoked controversy by censoring an iconic photo over child nudity concerns.

 

The Pulitzer Prize-winning image of a young girl fleeing bombs during the Vietnam War was part of a post by a Norwegian author which was then deleted by the network.

 

His criticism of the move has also drawn support from politicians and the national press.

 

Facebook later backtracked on its censorship decision, according to a spokesperson quoted by AFP news agency.

 

 

-- © Copyright Euronews 2016-09-10

[Ulysses G.]

Political correctness is out of control. Welcome to the Brave New World. 

[Mosha]

They already done a u turn.

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-37318040?ocid=socialflow_facebook&ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbcnews&ns_source=facebook

Sent from my SMART_4G_Speedy_5inch using Tapatalk

[Scott]

This situation is a catch-22.   Many years ago, I think it was in the late 70's, I knew of a young lady who was taking a degree in art.   As part of the photography class they had to take pictures of people in everyday life situations.   She took some pictures of her daughter who was playing in the yard and running through the water sprinkler.   At one point her daughter had taken her swimwear off and that picture was on the roll of film.   The developer called the FBI(?) and she got charged.  I don't know the outcome, but the pictures were never meant for public consumption.

 

Although it is best to keep photographs of children out of the public domain, especially if they are sexual in nature, it will not prevent pedophilia.   The pictures are a symptom.   They do not cause pedophilia.

 

 

[NongKhaiKid]

30 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

Political correctness is out of control. Welcome to the Brave New World. 

It's horrible to have to say that the nightmare, the gravity of the situation was made graphically clear by the sight of a naked child screaming in terror.

Similar to the stark brutality of the Sth. Vietnamese colonel putting a gun to a prisoner's head and executing him.

[edwinchester]

Strange how one of the most iconic photographs of the 20th century gets banned but the child pornography video I reported on Facebook last week was deemed not to violate FB's Community Standards.

[ezzra]

FB and Zucerberg has a holier than thou moral guidance, while disallowing a milestone historic depiction of history, his BF allows diatribes and hate, trash talks against Israel and Jews, he being a jew himself, and other minorities in the world, Every terror group in the world uses his creation to spread hate, fear and loathing of the western world and anybody who they don't like, and Zucerberg see wrong with a Pulitzer prize winning picture,,  what a bigot......

[Lantern]

I remember that pic when it first appeared on the front page of the Daily Mirror.

[NongKhaiKid]

7 minutes ago, Lantern said:

I remember that pic when it first appeared on the front page of the Daily Mirror.

I'll bet that like most of us the feeling of horror and revulsion hasn't changed from then until now.

It tugged at the heartstrings and still does.

[Scott]

I doubt that Zuckerberg personally made the decision about removal.   There are a lot of people who complain about these things.  

 

For the reasonably normal person, they see a tragic, horrible and immensely intense image of child unnecessarily being burned.  

 

One can only wonder what goes on in the mind of anyone who sees anything sexual about the photo.  

[NongKhaiKid]

1 minute ago, Scott said:

I doubt that Zuckerberg personally made the decision about removal.   There are a lot of people who complain about these things.  

 

For the reasonably normal person, they see a tragic, horrible and immensely intense image of child unnecessarily being burned.  

 

One can only wonder what goes on in the mind of anyone who sees anything sexual about the photo.  

Excellent comment !

[stevenl]

8 minutes ago, Scott said:

I doubt that Zuckerberg personally made the decision about removal.   There are a lot of people who complain about these things.  

 

For the reasonably normal person, they see a tragic, horrible and immensely intense image of child unnecessarily being burned.  

 

One can only wonder what goes on in the mind of anyone who sees anything sexual about the photo.  

The censor judges for potentially sexual. And unfortunately there are quite a few people around who will see something sexual in that photo.

I disagree with the censor's decision but do understand it, probably somebody who has never seen that picture before.

[i claudius]

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

The censor judges for potentially sexual. And unfortunately there are quite a few people around who will see something sexual in that photo.

I disagree with the censor's decision but do understand it, probably somebody who has never seen that picture before.

 

Like most of the kids growing up now ,who are fed a PC version of history ,as per left wing dogma .

[chrisinth]

This situation is a catch-22.   Many years ago, I think it was in the late 70's, I knew of a young lady who was taking a degree in art.   As part of the photography class they had to take pictures of people in everyday life situations.   She took some pictures of her daughter who was playing in the yard and running through the water sprinkler.   At one point her daughter had taken her swimwear off and that picture was on the roll of film.   The developer called the FBI(?) and she got charged.  I don't know the outcome, but the pictures were never meant for public consumption.

 

Although it is best to keep photographs of children out of the public domain, especially if they are sexual in nature, it will not prevent pedophilia.   The pictures are a symptom.   They do not cause pedophilia.

 

 

I always remember reading about a similar incident (80's I think) where a mother was arrested getting a film developed showing her 11 yo daughter naked in the bath.

The mother's crime had been keeping a photographic record of the daughter from birth.

This actually went to court and even though it was thrown out, because of the indecency laws, common sense couldn't previal at any stage to stop the stigma of the mother & child. Always remember thinking that although not guilty in anyway, the damage of doubt has been done for the rest of their lives by anyone that remembers them.

Sad world.

[williamgeorgeallen]

is nudity really a crime? societies would walk around without clothes without a second thought. then the morality police came along and made people cover certain parts of the body. if everyone was free to be naked no one give it a second thought.

[PTC]

Images of the naked body, including those of children are not necessarily obscene. Think of a family photo taken at a nudist camp (remember them?). Objectifying and sexualizing images of the naked body is, however, obscene. Distinguishing between the two is very important to maintain a culture of artistic freedom and expression.

 

SCOTUS has made rulings on the issue of obscenity and they have been consistent with the view first expressed in 1973.

 

The Supreme Court's current definition of constitutionally unprotected Obscenity, first announced in a 1973 case called Miller v. California, has three requirements. The work must 1) appeal to the average person's prurient (shameful, morbid) interest in sex; 2) depict sexual conduct in a "patently offensive way" as defined by community standards; and 3) taken as a whole, lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

https://www.aclu.org/freedom-expression-arts-and-entertainment

 

The 1972 photo of Phan Thi Kim Phuc fleeing the napalm attack by South Vietnamese forces is an icon of that era. It contributed to the public views on the Vietnam War and helped bring the American involvement in Vietnam to an end. I cannot conceive of a mind that would sexualize that image.

 

The issue of what constitutes obscenity is tainted now by subjectivity and a skewed sense of morality. It brings to mind the self righteous morons like John Ashcroft wanting the breasts of a statue of a female form covered. This harkens back to the zealots who chopped off the penises of statues of the naked male form. SCOTUS has it correct. If the image is not prurient (to the average person) or does not depict sexual conduct (in the case of an underaged person), then such images should not be restricted irrespective of one's personal tastes or morality.

[Krataiboy]

4 hours ago, NongKhaiKid said:

It's horrible to have to say that the nightmare, the gravity of the situation was made graphically clear by the sight of a naked child screaming in terror.

Similar to the stark brutality of the Sth. Vietnamese colonel putting a gun to a prisoner's head and executing him.

 

 

Or the (highly-selective) refugee picture published in the mass media recently of a drowned little boy.

[Grubster]

1 hour ago, PTC said:

Images of the naked body, including those of children are not necessarily obscene. Think of a family photo taken at a nudist camp (remember them?). Objectifying and sexualizing images of the naked body is, however, obscene. Distinguishing between the two is very important to maintain a culture of artistic freedom and expression.

 

SCOTUS has made rulings on the issue of obscenity and they have been consistent with the view first expressed in 1973.

 

The Supreme Court's current definition of constitutionally unprotected Obscenity, first announced in a 1973 case called Miller v. California, has three requirements. The work must 1) appeal to the average person's prurient (shameful, morbid) interest in sex; 2) depict sexual conduct in a "patently offensive way" as defined by community standards; and 3) taken as a whole, lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

https://www.aclu.org/freedom-expression-arts-and-entertainment

 

The 1972 photo of Phan Thi Kim Phuc fleeing the napalm attack by South Vietnamese forces is an icon of that era. It contributed to the public views on the Vietnam War and helped bring the American involvement in Vietnam to an end. I cannot conceive of a mind that would sexualize that image.

 

The issue of what constitutes obscenity is tainted now by subjectivity and a skewed sense of morality. It brings to mind the self righteous morons like John Ashcroft wanting the breasts of a statue of a female form covered. This harkens back to the zealots who chopped off the penises of statues of the naked male form. SCOTUS has it correct. If the image is not prurient (to the average person) or does not depict sexual conduct (in the case of an underaged person), then such images should not be restricted irrespective of one's personal tastes or morality.

Would putting some fuzziness over parts take away from the horror of the situation or what?

[rijb]

Why don't they ask the girl?  She's still alive.

[Psimbo]

5 hours ago, Lantern said:

I remember that pic when it first appeared on the front page of the Daily Mirror.

I did a bit of research into her as I wondered what had happened and had she survived. Turns out she claimed asylum years ago in Canda and is now a citizen. She still suffers terribly from the burn scars and continues treatment.

[slipperylobster]

We come into this world naked, 

What turned it into wickedness?

Just the fear in the minds of the truly perverted.

 

This photo is horror.  I don't believe there is one person on the planet that would think of pornography.

 

 

 

[Prbkk]

That picture played a significant role in changing the course of the war because when it was published it horrified the world and personalised the story. The woman , as she is now, has no problems with the publication: in fact she has welcomed it. Her book , and its message of forgiveness, is very moving. 

I found these new companies like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Pintrest, Amazon, Google , Apple, more than a little bit creepy. This example is Fahrenheit 451 material.

[Prbkk]

58 minutes ago, Psimbo said:

I did a bit of research into her as I wondered what had happened and had she survived. Turns out she claimed asylum years ago in Canda and is now a citizen. She still suffers terribly from the burn scars and continues treatment.

 

Thats true: married with kids, living in Canada, decided about 10 years ago to talk about it, speaks at seminars from time to time, wrote a book ( The Girl in the Photo),

[khonkaen10]

I am glad she is done fine.

[Basil B]

You do not need to post that picture on line... probably one of the most iconic photos of the 70's, it has been emblazoned on my mind for nearly fifty years, I recall a interview with the woman that was that girl a few years back, probably that picture got her the best medical treatment at the time and a new life, not to say the injuries must have been life changing and probably still has the scares and pain today. 

[Thaidream]

To ban an iconic picture like that is to somehow ignore history. The picture represents the results of a war that should never have taken place and its publication at the time actually caused, in my opinion, the war in Vietnam to be viewed for what it was- pure horror for all sides.  I was in Vietnam during that period and the picture brought back memories which I will never forget. Every time I think of it tears swell in my eyes and a revulsion of the events that played out that caused the US entry into Vietnam. So many young people on both sides  died and maimed and none of it needed to happen.

Yet, here we are in the 21st Century and governments continue to lie to people and send our young people on missions to far flung places  with the only result being more death and destruction. Will the human race ever learn?

[FireMedic]

There are lots of pics of the holocaust of naked men, women, and children. To ban them or any other photos of a horrible time in history is as bad as denying the history itself.  

[KhaoNiaw]

One of the main points of this story is being missed here. The issue itself is not the nudity of the child, whether the decision to block it was made by computer algorithms or a human going through a corporate checklist, but the fact that the picture was posted as part of news story which had already gone through an editing process and was published via Facebook. Facebook then took it upon itself to edit, or rather impose its own censorship, on something already written and passed as fit for publication. 

 

Apparently, an increasing amount of news is being consumed via Facebook. Personally I can't understand why people would use it as a news source but this appears to be a growing trend, and as media organizations increasingly use Facebook as a channel to get stories out to the world, they are potentially subject to further editing and censorship before the public gets to read them.

[Guest]

I generally consider Estonia's president Thoomas Ilves as a coolest and most progressive nation leader, but this week Norway's PM Erna Solberg got the spot. 

 

Imgur has a photo story of her involvement to get the iconic photo back. 

http://imgur.com/gallery/IXbXx

She posted these photos to her Facebook feed as a protest to the censorship. 

 

 

[7by7]

Whilst not wishing to defend Facebook, don't use it myself and know nothing about how it works, they are subject to increasing criticism and now legal action for allowing repeated posting of nude photos without the subject's permission;  Naked photograph of girl (14) repeatedly posted on Facebook.

Quote

Her photograph was said to have been posted on a so-called shame page several times between November 2014 and January 2016.

Barristers Edward Fitzgerald QC and Peter Girvan, representing the teenager, claim it was done in revenge and likened it to a method of child abuse. They contended that Facebook had the power to block any republication by using a DNA process to identify the image. Mr Fitzgerald told the court that it should have been a “red-line” issue for the company.

 

I am not tech savvy, but is it possible that the, now reinstated, iconic Vietnam photo was removed by software installed to remove all photos of naked children?