| Author | Being too sensitive? |
HMS
Member
Posts: 14
Joined: 14.11.06
 | | Posted on 21-12-2007 05:34 | |
|
I guess I might be, but this one still ruffles my feathers. On the one hand, censoring it might convince the creator that there is indeed a "Jewish Conspiracy" but on the other hand, I don't want more people believing this.
http://www.millionmasterpiece.com/profile-442362 |
|
| Author | RE: Being too sensitive? |
Sarah Edwards
Super Administrator
Posts: 161
Joined: 03.01.07
 | | Posted on 07-07-2008 15:48 | |
|
This is another freedom of speech issue isn't it? This is definitely hurtful and offensive, but deleting it could send out the wrong message.
I don't think there is much worry about fuelling wories about a Jewish conspiracy because I doubt he would really come back and check if his square is still there... |
|
| Author | RE: Being too sensitive? |
Sam Law
Member
Posts: 21
Joined: 18.01.07
 | | Posted on 11-07-2008 01:15 | |
|
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Voltaire.
People believe what they believe. I don't agree a wit with what the artist is saying, but they have just as much right to say it as we do to disagree...
Sorry, I was going to be more tactful and verbose with this, and I understand its rashness, but I'm being useless today. |
|
| Author | RE: Being too sensitive? |
Sirah
Member
Posts: 2
Joined: 14.08.08
 | | Posted on 15-08-2008 03:26 | |
|
| Honestly, I am offended that this propaganda image was entitled "World Peace." It is inflamatory and anti-World Peace in the strongest sense. IF the piece was entitled something not contradictory to it's purpose and message then perhaps I would be just fine with this... as another example of idiocy in action. This person couldn't respect the stucture of this website to even provide any information at all! and is zazazaza a snickering sound written out... looks like an individual who wants to cause as much trouble as possible as quickly as possible. & I'm pissed it works. |
|
| Author | RE: Being too sensitive? |
Sarah Edwards
Super Administrator
Posts: 161
Joined: 03.01.07
| | Posted on 19-08-2008 17:33 | |
|
The whole profile is contradictory. For one thing, the "artist"'s name is Leon Trotsky from Stalingrad, yet in his about section he writes "Hi, I'm Tom and I live in a small village in Wales with my dog Brian." Calling this world piece yet saying such an inciting message which only aim could be to cause more trouble as Sirah says does annoy me a lot because people searching for images which match a search for "peace" would then come across it, but this type of thing annoys me anyway, although as Sam says he does just have as much right to his opinions as we do.
I wonder, does the obviously false information on his profile reason enough to delete it anyway? |
|
| Author | RE: Being too sensitive? |
Stacey Dirickson
Super Administrator
Posts: 137
Joined: 23.01.07
 | | Posted on 19-08-2008 19:46 | |
|
I think false information on profile should be reason enough.
I honestly don't know about the rest of the world but I know that here, if you put false information on forms there are consequences, even for forms filled out over the internet.
I don't see why this should be different, seeing as we are going for a world record and we can't have a bunch of false information being entered.
I'd also like to point this out, taken from (the very bottom of the page): http://www.millionmasterpiece.com/about-legal
Images created that depict or transmit a message which can be construed as
(i) pornographic, obscene, indecent or of an "adult" sexual nature;
(ii) violate or infringe upon the rights of any third party;
(iii) be libellous;
(iv) advocate or promote violence or conduct that constitutes a criminal offence;
(v) promote discrimination based on race, sex, religion, nationality, disability, sexual orientation, age or otherwise;
(vi) be harmful to children;
(vii) give rise to a civil liability or
(viii) otherwise be illegal are not permitted.
Such Images will be removed without warning at the sole discretion of The One Million Masterpiece Ltd.
Recognizing the global scope of the Internet, you further agree to comply with all applicable laws regarding the transmission of electronic data exported from the country in which you reside.
So I think this profile, and a few others should be deleted based on those rules.
Edited by Stacey Dirickson on 19-08-2008 20:55 |
|
| Author | RE: Being too sensitive? |
Sarah Edwards
Super Administrator
Posts: 161
Joined: 03.01.07
| | Posted on 20-08-2008 12:34 | |
|
It seems that there is definitely reason enough to delete it then. Most of the squares up for debate in this forum are issues about pictures of genitalia, and generally the consensus is that we should not delete them and I am not sure if any of them have been deleted even if they are obscene, even if they could be deleted under part (i). Some say that nothing should be deleted to make it a true snapshot.
But this case is a more difficult one. Although some people say that genitalia is offensive, it does not cause personal offence. This is a much more serious case of anti-semetic propoganda and while leaving images of a secual nature in can cause annoyance and perhaps be awkward if children see it, this square could actually do much worse.
So, what I am trying to say is, although at the moment OMM is not really using its right to delete squares, and although people say that they do not think anything should be deleted, should this square (and squares like it) be an exception? What is more important, our ideal of freedom of speech and keeping the OM as a true snapshot or getting rid of images which are truly offensive?
Edited by Sarah Edwards on 20-08-2008 12:42 |
|
| Author | RE: Being too sensitive? |
Stacey Dirickson
Super Administrator
Posts: 137
Joined: 23.01.07
| | Posted on 21-08-2008 06:29 | |
|
I see what people are saying about a true snapshot, as those problems do exist in this world today, but does that mean we should go against the rules and allow it here?
I think that the rules are rules. They were put in place for a reason, shouldn't we follow them? If not, then why have any at all?
I'm not against nudity in art, but some of those are not artistic at all and this is an art project after all. It just seem that the only intention with some of them was to be obscene. So I think the obscene ones should be deleted along with this anti-semetic one.
Definitely the Anti-Semetic one.
In my opinion, squares like those that break the rules, are as if someone was coming along and painting crude things over a beautiful work of art..
Also, I like that we (everyone, not just Admins) talk about deleting images first, instead of just going out and deleting images. 
Edited by Stacey Dirickson on 21-08-2008 06:30 |
|
