dwndrgn

This recent article http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...home-headlines
talks about a man who's being charged with obsenity. I've just read the whole thing and the one thing I found obscene? This man was a former police officer. I don't care what he puts on the web, or whatever, but all I can think is "was he doing this while he was an officer?" wouldn't that be a little hypocritical? I'm not sure how I feel about the obscenity issue either. On the one hand, people should have the right to share photographs if they like. On the other hand, on a website like this, it would be very easy to post photographs of people who have not given permission for them to be posted publicly.

Princess Ivy

i find it hard to believe he didn't know what was on his site! bah. that's what good staff are for.

littlemissattitude

I agree with, you, Ivy. His excuse that he wasn't aware of what was on the site bothers me a bit. Whether or not this guy can personally look at every picture posted, it's his site. So, it's his responsibility. He's probably making money off the site, so perhaps he should have hired someone to monitor the posts if he can't do it all himself. If there is anything up there that is illegal, I do think he should be held responsible. The real question is, considering that porn is in fact legal in the US, is there anything illegal there.

I don't agree with the court rulings that "community standards" should apply to the internet, simply because the vast majority of people cruise the net in the privacy of their own homes. I think at most, community standards could be used to argue for anti-obscenity filters on public computers - in libraries, for example. Allowing "community standards" to apply allows a few people with very conservative tastes to control what the majority are allowed to view, and that's not right.

I do have a couple of concerns about the site in the article, based on how it is described in the article. For example, it says that the site allows "people to post risque photographs of girlfriends and wives" on the site. This indicates to me that women are being treated as possessions of their boyfriends and husbands, and have not necessarily given heir own permission to have their photos posted on the site in all cases. And that is a real problem, in my opinion.

My other concerns has to do with the pictures from the war in Iraq. Again, it is a problem of permission. I don't think it's appropriate for photos of those who cannot give their permission to be posted. Anyway, that sort of sensationalism - posting snapshots of the dead and injured in war - is not appropriate on a private website, in my opinion. It fosters a climate in which some of these guys are going to try to find photos more graphic than the last one posted, in sort of a gross-out contest.

Leto

On the obsenity part, as long as the pic don't despict illegal acts, there's no problem with me.
However, as Ivy and LMA, the real problem is permission. You can't allow on your website pics of people who didn't give their consent, even if it happens all the time, even here in Who I Am or Hugh Jackman thread. Does it means we're illegal ? I don't know, but as the pics are from public display of public personnality and in no way offensive, we shouldn't have any trouble.
In his case, it was private display and some people didn't obviously have give any permission. As the owner of the site, he's responsible for this lack of permission.

caladanbrood

Ignorance is never a defence in a case such as this. It's his responsibility to administrate the site properly. The content itself is irrelevant.

Princess Ivy

as you say Leto, the pic's we're showing are on public display. although any of the males depectided are more than welcome to visit us.
right, i'm on the reception commitees for most of them, who is taking the rest :biggrin: