sk Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 Go Muffy! You're saying what you think about it and not holding any punches, but in my opinion you are not attacking anybody. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selkirk Posted February 19, 2008 Author Share Posted February 19, 2008 The photo was not at all lewd or suggestive. She was sitting on column top and smiling at the camera. It looked like every other cragging photo anyone has ever taken in early season at Vantage and she was showing much much much less skin than will be on display in another month. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 After trolling for a while, I've finally decided to comment. The bottom line is this: The climbers who took the picture did so both without her consent, and even without her awareness. She realized after the photo was snapped that it had been done, but, since it was, more than likely, for their own "uses," she didn't see any use in causing conflict (the climbers were weird, and all in our climbing group decided to avoid association unless necessary). Imagine her surprise when, last night, she gets a phone call from a buddy telling her the weirdos at the crag posted a picture of her... ... since she DIDN'T HAVE A CC.COM ACCOUNT, and I do, she asked me to request that the photo be removed. So I did so, mostly with her diction. I asked that the photos be removed, and got sprayed. This is certainly not an issue of "weakness," but is rather an issue of forum and internet (and life?) ethics (hence the appropriate name for this thread). We should be discussing the question of as to whether or not the original post (of her unauthorized photo - which then brought lewd comments with it) was ethical. Which, while it's obvious where I stand, is gladly up for debate. Since you, muffy, don't know the individuals involved - nor do you know many details of the situation, let's keep personal bashes and discussions of personal weaknesses out of the discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 Selkirk, the first post of the thread indicated the author's pleasure in seeing the sport betty's wearing bra tops - or something like that. With that kind of a wind-up, I'm afraid anybody posting the photo that I admit I didn't see should probably have been aware of the fact that a portrait of a woman, whether she was showing less skin than she might show or not, might be thought provocative. Maybe the photo-poster thought he was "inside the line," but it doesn't seem too far fetched to accept the idea that somebody else disagreed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 ...and, to continue with your bar analogy, muffy. The moderators are equivalent to bouncers. When someone says something fucked up in a bar, continually, it is well within your right as a patron of the said bar to - first of all, ask the person to stop; if this doesn't work, you then ask the bouncer to do something about it. And, if the complaint is legit, they take care of it. My complaint was, in the moderators opinion, warranted and legitimate, so the photo was bounced. Simple as that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sk Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 After trolling for a while, I've finally decided to comment. The bottom line is this: The climbers who took the picture did so both without her consent, and even without her awareness. She realized after the photo was snapped that it had been done, but, since it was, more than likely, for their own "uses," she didn't see any use in causing conflict (the climbers were weird, and all in our climbing group decided to avoid association unless necessary). Imagine her surprise when, last night, she gets a phone call from a buddy telling her the weirdos at the crag posted a picture of her... ... since she DIDN'T HAVE A CC.COM ACCOUNT, and I do, she asked me to request that the photo be removed. So I did so, mostly with her diction. I asked that the photos be removed, and got sprayed. This is certainly not an issue of "weakness," but is rather an issue of forum and internet (and life?) ethics (hence the appropriate name for this thread). We should be discussing the question of as to whether or not the original post (of her unauthorized photo - which then brought lewd comments with it) was ethical. Which, while it's obvious where I stand, is gladly up for debate. Since you, muffy, don't know the individuals involved - nor do you know many details of the situation, let's keep personal bashes and discussions of personal weaknesses out of the discussion. i think you need to learn how to read better. I didn't say anying personal about anyone other than myself and my oppinion. period. LIke i said in my post. the best way for women to deal with men who are ass holes is to put them men in a postion where they can not objectify you(us). although i am not sure how calling a bra top a bra top is objectifying anyone... thats what they are called. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sk Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 ...and, to continue with your bar analogy, muffy. The moderators are equivalent to bouncers. When someone says something fucked up in a bar, continually, it is well within your right as a patron of the said bar to - first of all, ask the person to stop; if this doesn't work, you then ask the bouncer to do something about it. And, if the complaint is legit, they take care of it. My complaint was, in the moderators opinion, warranted and legitimate, so the photo was bounced. Simple as that. i have never seen anyone bounced our of a bar for SAYING something. usualy they have to physicaly lay hands on someone for the person to be considered a threat. AND i have never asked a bouncer to remove someone from a bar. if i don't like the situation i remove myself and call it good. My rights only extend so far as they do not interfear with someone elses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minx Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 the difference between having someone say something lewd to you in a bar on the street is that its there for a moment. not permanently posted in a public forum. simple as that. i'm not here to help anyone do anything include growing a backbone. i just don't see what the big deal is. i purposely don't post pics of myself on this board for a large number of reasons. she has hers. why not respect them? if she wanted the pic here she could've posted it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sk Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 i see where you are coming from in ways, i just think this whole tihng would have faded into cc.com obscurity had no one freaked out about it. sometimes ignoring ass holes is really the best way to make them go away. i certinly would not have heard of this thred. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary_Yngve Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 Legally speaking as I understand it (I am not a lawyer), the photo was taken in a public place, meaning no permission required, and the photographer is free to publish it noncommercially as fair-use under the first amendment. That said, I think it is fair for an unwitting subject to ask for a photo to be removed when the subsequent replies associated with the photo are lewd and harassing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 I don't think it would require there to be any lewd comments for it to be fair for someone to request that their photo be removed, Gary. Certainly, the tone of the discussion and maybe some of the specific things said had a lot to do with our various reactions to it, though. And that includes the reactions of those who were sympathetic and unsympathetic with the photo being removed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 Tvashtarketena did something unethical and sleezy? I don't believe it!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary_Yngve Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 I guess what I'm saying is if A posts a fair-use photo of a uniquely recognizable B taken in public, then in my mind, if B asks to have it be removed and A refuses, than neither has the moral high ground. However if the photo of B gets associated with offensive replies and A refuses to take it down, then B has the moral high ground. Now comes in C, the moderators of the site. They can do whatever they feel is right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Off_White Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 bob, why don't you post up some images of YOUR wife and then sit back and not go ballistic. Bob has a wife? Now that's some salacious gossip! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 Gary: might the content of the photo, along with other factors related to the context in which it appears, also have something to do with it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underworld Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 photo speculation thread. what the eff does any of all this matter anyway. how about just being respectful...if they asked for it to be removed, remove it and let it go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary_Yngve Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 i never saw the exact photo and caption, so i can't say for sure. how about the following strawman? if you (or maybe better, the average prudent person) would not say the caption face-to-face to the uniquely identifiable subject being photographed, then it is an inappropriate caption to have on an image posted on the internet, unless the caption is for legitimate journalistic purposes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 bob, why don't you post up some images of YOUR wife and then sit back and not go ballistic. Bob has a wife? Now that's some salacious gossip! I didn't know it was legal to marry sheep in Washington. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenSeagal Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 bob, why don't you post up some images of YOUR wife and then sit back and not go ballistic. Bob has a wife? Now that's some salacious gossip! I didn't know it was legal to marry sheep in Washington. They're "domestic partners", actually... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 I'm not following you. We are not talking about photo captions. But I don't think the test is whether some mythical prudent person would have said whatever it was to her face. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 I, for one, would like to hear more about the paparazzi-like crag-stalker we have right here in our midst. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary_Yngve Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 I'm not following you. We are not talking about photo captions. But I don't think the test is whether some mythical prudent person would have said whatever it was to her face. I think we're both confused about what each other is talking about. So let's start with just someone posting a recognizable photo of someone on the Internet. Say I randomly see Fred Beckey climbing somewhere and take a picture of him and post it. If Fred were to object to the photo and ask me to take it down and I refuse, who is more right ethically speaking? If I had the caption, "Fred's old, but still climbing strong," but Fred was offended by the implication that he's old, and Fred asks me to take it down and I refuse, who is more right ethically speaking? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 I don't know about ethically, but if you refuse to honor his request then you're being a dick, in either case. But this doesn't really relate to the hot burning issue of the moment as nobody refused to take any pictures down, AFAIK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 What if MissNormandy then posted "Fred is so hot and I'd suck his cock in a second?", then, Gary? 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.