DSLRUsers.com

http://www.smh.com.au/news/entertainmen ... 13023.html

Subiaco Council pulls a photo (linked to above - a couple of 2 - 4 yr olds) then reinstates it. Seems common sense isn't that common.

The mind boggles, common isn't very common anymore Glen it a rare commodiy.

With all due respect, I don't necessarily see a problem with a body reversing a decision. We may argue that the second decision to remove the photo was knee-jerk and unnecessary. However, from the council's perspective, they may have seen it as prudent. The decision to reverse it reflects a different perspective. In the end, we are referring to points of view.

I agree that the reinstatement of the picture was appropriate. The disturbing
aspect is that this photograph caused any concern in the first place. I don't
blame the library person for being cautious, but it certainly reflects on a level
of hysteria which is prevalent.

I like the photo by the way.

As the photographer said

A mother herself, the artist says "(...) if this keeps going in the same direction, it won't be long before our children will be required to wear concealing head scarves - whilst surfing obscene pornographic websites protected by the freedom of speech.

This statement, by the deputy Mayor, bothers me ...

When you are in the public realm a lot of times you make decisions that err on the side of caution

I find that statement to be patently offensive. Inherent on that statement is the view that I am no longer able to make a judgement, for myself, as to what is fit for me to view. Further, it also implies that we must bow to the very lowest common denominator.

I find that attitude to be extremely offensive and overly oppressive. The only thing that appears to have been done here is that somebody has wanted to cover their big fat publicly funded arse.

So much for living in a free bloody society. Will somebody please pass me my shackles?

gstark wrote:So much for living in a free bloody society.

When and why did you think we did?

Interestingly:

Quarter page ad in WA Times: I don't know maybe $5,000
Publicity arising from controversy: free

gstark wrote:So much for living in a free bloody society. Will somebody please pass me my shackles?

No society is ever completely free. The only argument is about where the boundaries should be. Hysteria is not helpful.

Potoroo wrote:

gstark wrote:So much for living in a free bloody society. Will somebody please pass me my shackles?

No society is ever completely free. The only argument is about where the boundaries should be. Hysteria is not helpful.

Hysteria is the council's staff's (over)reaction to this image.

Hysteria is the way that many people, today, react to images that they see That some sick person may behave in an abhorrent manner to an image (or article, or book, or movie, or whatever) is no reason to suppress that image (or whatever).

In espousing suppression, we have lost wall reason, and we may as well go and bury our minds, because they no longer have any value.

In this era of fear, great harm is created by self censorship.
We watch what we say or do , in case... in case it is not politically correct, or we might offend someone...

I have been harassed while taking photos of my own daughters at netball in public....Been told I should get permission... Like hell I'm going to ask anyone's permission....Heaven help us.

and now we have Senator Conroy creating a real nanny state. He is going to censor the web for us in case we might think for ourselves.

We risk let ourselves get sucked into this.

The original decision was a stupid decision. It should be condemned in the loudest terms as a stupid, stupid decision.

Philip

sevencolours wrote:The original decision was a stupid decision. It should be condemned in the loudest terms as a stupid, stupid decision.

Agreed wholeheartedly.

BUT we also need to applaud the council for then showing commonsense and reinstating the image. For them not to have done so would be apalling. For us to criticise the timidity of the removal, but not to praise the reversal would be a bad message in and of itself.

In a free society everyone is entitled to his/her opinion. Just because one person objects to something and another not, does not make either right or wrong.

And please Gary, do not use my words of a free society as a tool for further vilification

I think it should have been removed.....on the basis that it's not that great an image.

stubbsy wrote:BUT we also need to applaud the council for then showing commonsense and reinstating the image.

I agree completely Peter. One of my pet hates is when the media or politicians or others criticise
a government or other body for reversing a decision. "Backflip" they say.

I applaud a reversed decision. Whether they are responding to public concern, or additional information,
or internal reveiw, we have an acknowledgement that a decision or action was wrong, and steps are
taken to rectify. Why this should attract criticism baffles me (other than the opportunity for cheap point
scoring or headlines aimed at the dull). How many times I wanted the previous govt. to just admit they
had done something wrong and fix it, but instead they went to enormous lengths to justify it (Dr Haneef anyone?)

Bastards.

Greg B wrote:Bastards.

Someone has taken the 'shouting at the TV' pills today - two "bastards" and it wasn't even 6am!

gstark wrote:

Potoroo wrote:

gstark wrote:So much for living in a free bloody society. Will somebody please pass me my shackles?

No society is ever completely free. The only argument is about where the boundaries should be. Hysteria is not helpful.

Hysteria is the council's staff's (over)reaction to this image.

Hysteria is pretending that one overly cautious decision by one person, a decision that was quickly reviewed and over-turned, constitutes a fundamental threat the Civilisation As We Know It. No-one was calling for the photographer's head on a platter, no police were called, and the Prime Minister was not on breakfast television declaring his disgust. It was a mistake, but as stubbsie correctly noted we create a problem for ourselves by not giving public officials sufficient room to acknowledge and correct honest errors.

In espousing suppression, we have lost wall reason, and we may as well go and bury our minds, because they no longer have any value.

I simply noted that societies always have boundaries. In this instance it is reasonable to assume this official was influenced by the current climate of uncertainty about images of children. That climate is a concern but that the image in question is back on display shows the war is far from lost. You would expend your energy better by focussing on genuine threats to freedom of expression such as Senator Conroy's net filtering debacle.

Potoroo wrote:That climate is a concern but that the image in question is back on display shows the war is far from lost.

That parents are routinely prevented from photographing their children in everyday activities, such as school swimming carnivals, school plays and musical performances, eisteddfords, surf club activities and the like tells me that the war is far from won.

That one cannot now wander down to the beach and photograph anything that they wish to photograph, in the public domain, for fear of being branded a pervert, or a terrorist, or being approached and accused of engaging in illegal activities by ignorant members of the public tells me that the war is far from won.

That even the constabulary are clueless, as evidenced by the recent incident where a member of the public was engaged by the police and (incorrectly) instructed to cease photographing them engaged in police action is clear evidence that the war is far from won.

That this country passes laws that prevent people from making images in public, such as the laws that were passed prior to the APEC conference not even 18 months ago, tells me that there remains much to be done.

You would expend your energy better by focussing on genuine threats to freedom of expression such as Senator Conroy's net filtering debacle.

With respect, it is not for you to instruct me as to how I should, or should not, direct my energies. For one thing, you have no idea at all as to whether or not I have already taken any action in that debate, and if I have, how that action has been manifested. And I will point out to you that that debate has less than no bearing at all upon this topic.

gstark wrote:

Potoroo wrote:You would expend your energy better by focussing on genuine threats to freedom of expression such as Senator Conroy's net filtering debacle.

With respect, it is not for you to instruct me as to how I should, or should not, direct my energies.

I am perfectly entitled to point out that one approach would be more effective than another. Expending your outrage on the incident in question, where there is no evidence of systemic censorship by the council, is not efficient.

Potoroo wrote:

gstark wrote:

Potoroo wrote:You would expend your energy better by focussing on genuine threats to freedom of expression such as Senator Conroy's net filtering debacle.

With respect, it is not for you to instruct me as to how I should, or should not, direct my energies.

I am perfectly entitled to point out that one approach would be more effective than another.

Please explain to me precisely what Senator Conroy's attempts to nobble the internet have to do with this.

Please explain to me precisely how your off-topic suggestion is relevant to this thread.

You should do those in a PM; as I have now (twice) noted, you are drawing this thread significantly off topic.

Expending your outrage on the incident in question, where there is no evidence of systemic censorship by the council, is not efficient.

This is a photographic forum, not one that is concerned with internet freedoms. Comments relating to the council decisions are relevant. Efficiency - or your beliefs of what may or may not be efficient - has no relevance to this topic.

I would further venture to say that your opinion of what might be efficient for me is not only of less than no relevance, it is also, IMHO, disrespectful to me. I have a great deal of tolerance towards many things. Disrespect, to any member of this forum, is not amongst those things that i tolerate.

long long time lurker first time poster
are peeple crazy the girl is topless!!!!
yes she is young but in some cultures - not oz of course - peeple marry not many years older the internet can be viewed all over the world we shouldnt encurage perverts that was the wrong decision to reverse made by some poofy arty farty city living labour voter

Wow..starting to remember why I stopped coming here over a year ago  PS - I agree with Potoroo, this is actually a positive response to a socially influenced and unfortunate decision, however it doesn't warrant Gary's abhorrent attack on the difficult jobs that public figures have. Yes they screw up, we all do but no one publishes our mistakes in the newspaper.

I think our society is headed down the poo-hole, if we head anywhere near the direction of the UK we're truly buggered but at the same time it's not going to help the situation by calling those people who have to make the tough decisions "big (and) fat"! That may be even more "patently offensive" than the comments made by the "big fat publicly funded arse(s)".

Liam,

With all due respect ...

beetleboy wrote:this is actually a positive response to a socially influenced and unfortunate decision

Yes, but ...

, however it doesn't warrant Gary's abhorrent attack on the difficult jobs that public figures have.

That is one of the funniest things I have seen in a very long time.

The person who made this original decision would not, I suspect, be a public figure. Nor, I suspect, would their job be classed as "difficult". Do they have masses of calculations to perform? Do they have lives dependent upon the application of their skills and training?

Surgeons, nurses, police, firefighters, pilots, and bus and train drivers all have jobs that might be classed as "difficult". The person who made the decision to pull this photo was a library manager.

On a scale of one to ten, with ten being difficult, where would we place "library manager"?

I think our society is headed down the poo-hole,

Absobloodylutely, but it is because of the ability of these petty bureaucrats to meddle in areas that are beyond their spheres of expertise, and it is because of the propensity of people who wish to inflict their own points of view upon those of others, that this will happen.

Why is it that otheres feel the need to interfere in my life? In your life?

You are an adult, Liam, as am I. I respect your point of view, and I respect and accept that it may differ from mine. I also respect and accept this library manager's PoV may be different from mine, but why does this person not respect my right to my own PoV?

THAT is where the problem lies.

butterfliesarefree wrote:are peeple crazy the girl is topless!!!!

So, you wish to discriminate between young boys, and young girls? Why would an image of a young girl be offensive, but one of a young boy not be so?

Where does the point of delineation lie?

we shouldnt encurage perverts

And we can tell which ones would be the perverts by which means?

I think in future these posts should begin with it being locked. Then, through the medium of ESP, the argument discussed and thread unlocked once people arent going to get upset and give more attention to a stupid decision made by a low level council employee.

gstark wrote:The person who made this original decision would not, I suspect, be a public figure. Nor, I suspect, would their job be classed as "difficult". Do they have masses of calculations to perform? Do they have lives dependent upon the application of their skills and training?

I was referring more to Subiaco's Deputy Mayor (Andrew McTaggart) - the initial decision was clearly stupid and "cautious" but we should be focussing on the fact that the establishment reviewed that stupid decision and corrected it - not coming down on a library manager who made their decision based on the current climate of our screwed up society.

I just get tired of people ripping in to people of authority..and the rant about a library manager's job not being as difficult as a bus driver's etc - have you done all of those jobs? How do you know how difficult it is?

I'm just trying to say that your rant seems misdirected in that we shouldn't be judging the library manager, more commending the Council.

Butterflies are free, Welcome. Could you please be put in a meaningful location as requested in the pink bar at the top? Your comments are bordering on racist, please be aware no racist, sexist or otherwise denigrating comments will be tolerated here. I will PM you as well.