th3ranger Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Your Rights Online: Flickr Yanks Image of Obama as Joker posted by timothy on Wednesday August 19, @02:49PM from the such-treatment-is-only-for-the-old-boss dept. censorship An anonymous reader writes "An interesting article yesterday about the unmasking of the recent creator of the controversial and iconic Obama/Joker image that has been popping up around Los Angeles with the word Socialism under it. The Los Angeles Times has identified the images' creator as Firas Alkhateeb. Even more interesting though is the fact that after getting over 20,000 hits on the image at Flickr, Flickr removed the image from Alkateeb's photostream, citing 'copyright' concerns. The image in question is clearly both an independent derivative work and unquestionably a parody of the President and Time Magazine which would be covered under fair use. It has appeared on many other sites without issue on the Internet." According to the same reader, "Flickr also recently nuked an entire user's photostream over negative comments on President Obama's official photostream." Read More... 591 comments damn....right on schedule Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lonely Rationalist Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/08/19/183...oker?art_pos=12 damn....right on schedule Um...This isn't censorship. This is a private business choosing what it allows on its website. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grames Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 It's Slashdot. They don't accept property rights there, so they don't belong here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
th3ranger Posted August 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Um...This isn't censorship. This is a private business choosing what it allows on its website. Just like how newspapers and cable news channels are private? Excuse me does the First amendment say only "public companies" have to allow free speech? The question you have to ask yourself is "Did Flickr choose to remove the image freely because of controversy, or did someone in power lean on them a bit now that they knew who's account to end?" If you would persist in this statement, it might pay to note that Flickr is owned by Yahoo, a company currently on the ropes. As it just so happens, Yahoo makes money by selling ads. Content that draws attention makes Yahoo money. Controversial content especially makes Yahoo money. So Yahoo, would end content that makes money, voluntarily? Perhaps you could also ask yourself "Does the Obama administration have a history of pushing private businesses around like they own them?" Maybe you might even go a bit more basic and ask yourself "Does this government respect property rights really at all?" Honestly, if this picture wasn't so political, I would assume like you are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
th3ranger Posted August 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 (edited) It's Slashdot. They don't accept property rights there, so they don't belong here. Sorry? That's where I read the article. Did you want me to remove the link? Just make it a credit-less article written by no one? spelling edit Edited August 20, 2009 by th3ranger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEgoist Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Just like how newspapers and cable news channels are private? Excuse me does the First amendment say only "public companies" have to allow free speech? Private entities have every right to ban any speech they want from their property. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grames Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Sorry? That's where I read the article. Did you want me to remove the link? Just make it a credit-less article written by no one? If you agree with perspective of Slashdot on this issue that Flickr is trodding upon someone's rights you are wrong. You'll find no sympathizers here. Only force can enforce censorship, which means governments. If you'll read the comments in the thread at Slashdot you'll find the relevant section of the flickr users agreement quoted for your convenience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake_Ellison Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Who's rights were violated here, Ranger, and by whom? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 (edited) The picture on Flickr was not the same as the one on the poster. The Flickr picture that Firas made was a TIME magazine cover, with Obama, that he changed to look like the joker. Someone else found that, took it, changed it to remove the other details of the TIME cover, and added the word "Socialism". The news article said that Flickr removed the photo because it might have been a violation of IP law: an over-stepping of "fair use" rules. It is likely that Flickr contains thousands of photos that are questionable from an IP point of view, but when everyone knows of the existence of a particular one a company feels it has to act. Nevertheless, as others have said even if their reason was political, it is okay. For instance, suppose the owner of Flickr is an Obama fan, and to decided to take it down, that would be his prerogative. th3ranger: Of course, if there was some political pressure on Flickr, which got them to remove it, then that is a "free-speech" violation. No real evidence has been reported. Given the number of such photos that are floating around (click here), in all sorts of versions, I doubt anyone in the administration would go after one photo. Of course, apart from this particular incident, there are important people in the administration who would love to stifle free-speech. They realize that without Fox News and right-wing talk radio their health-care law might have had a much better reception. They would like to stifle talk-radio, if they can get away with it. Edited August 20, 2009 by softwareNerd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
th3ranger Posted August 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 I realized minutes after posting that if flickr wanted to remove the photo, whatever the reasons, they are completely within their rights to do so. To me though, it just seems wrong somehow that the original (or at least the most well known) image critical of Obama and the mystical image he is trying to maintain just gets shut down as well as the account it was on. Now, a popular image, once let loose on the Internet, is completely impossible to stop, but shutting down the original creator's account on flickr (oh btw I do realize this is not the altered "socialism" image) goes a long, long, way in maintaining the level of fear businesses have of the Obama administration, and of the media in general of criticizing his policies. I guess I reacted to this seeming censorship (though it may very well not be) like I knew facts that I have no reason to suspect. I'm just waiting, waiting, to catch the moment that this is no longer a free country so I may plan accordingly. I've been expecting the first real censorship to be handed down from on high any day now, although I imagine, realistically, if done effectively, I should never know about it, but being new at it, it also occurs to me that Obama's henchmen might not completely blackout a story so well. So! false alarm for now, but I would not put something like this past the looters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'kian Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 So! false alarm for now, but I would not put something like this past the looters. Yes and no. You got the wrong culprit, but there is censorship in America, carried out by the government. There are three instances: 1) Campaign finance laws. The reform passed recently, McCain-Feingold (I think), regulates what private citizens can say through some media during political campaigns. For example, if you place an add against candidate X, the law considers that a contribution in kind to the other candidate in that contest. Likewise if you try any kind of private campaign for or gainst ballot measures. There's a push to extend such repressive actions to blogs. 2) There are plenty of advertising restrictions that are violations of free speech. Granted it's impropper to show ads for condoms or cigarettes during certain types of shows (like those emant for kids or whole families), it's also stupid since you miss your target audience (that which is interested in such products); but it shoulnd't be against the law. This is regulated as being "commercial speech," therefore it is not deemed deserving of free-speech protections. 3) It's been repealed, but the "Fairness" Doctrine endured an awful long time, and many in the Democratic party want it back. Essentially the doctrine bans presenting editorials on air, be it radio or TV, unless all viewpoints are shown. That sounds "fair" but it isn't. It prevents the owners of broadcasting businesses from promoting a political viewpoint if they so choose (no such doctrine was ever enforced on newspapers or magazines). Besides, since ther eis already a liberal bias on broadcast news, that viewpoint gets to be aire without opposition. Of the three, the last is by far the most dangerous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jill Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 Private entities have every right to ban any speech they want from their property. What would happen in a country with no public property? A remember a disabled person complaining, that if it wasn't for government enforcing, shops and etc would never provide access to disabled people. Is this right? I guess because it's not profitable to change one's shop to a few random costumers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'kian Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 A remember a disabled person complaining, that if it wasn't for government enforcing, shops and etc would never provide access to disabled people. Is this right? I guess because it's not profitable to change one's shop to a few random costumers? Maybe, maybe not. We didn't get a chance to find out. I can tell you that in the 70s plenty of businesses did acommodate diabled patrons. Airlines, theaters and hotels foremost among them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.