Facebook blasted for censoring iconic 'napalm girl' photo


spaminator
#1
Facebook blasted for censoring iconic 'napalm girl' photo
Jan M. Olsen, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
First posted: Friday, September 09, 2016 02:25 PM EDT | Updated: Friday, September 09, 2016 06:00 PM EDT
COPENHAGEN — Facebook on Friday reversed its decision to remove postings of an iconic 1972 image of a naked, screaming girl running from a napalm attack in Vietnam, after a Norwegian revolt against the tech giant.
Protests in Norway started last month after Facebook deleted the Pulitzer Prize-winning image by Associated Press photographer Nick Ut from a Norwegian author’s page, saying it violated its rules on nudity.
The revolt escalated on Friday when Norwegian Prime Minister Erna Solberg posted the image on her profile and Facebook deleted that too.
Initially, it stood by the decision, saying it was difficult to create a distinction between allowing a photograph of a nude child in one instance and not others. But late Friday it said it would allow sharing of the photo.
“In this case, we recognize the history and global importance of this image in documenting a particular moment in time,” Facebook said in a statement. “Because of its status as an iconic image of historical importance, the value of permitting sharing outweighs the value of protecting the community by removal, so we have decided to reinstate the image on Facebook where we are aware it has been removed.”
Politicians of all stripes, journalists and regular Norwegians had backed Solberg’s decision to share the image.
The prime minister told Norwegian broadcaster NRK she was pleased with Facebook’s change of heart and that it shows social media users’ opinions matter.
“To speak up and say we want change, it matters and it works. And that makes me happy,” she said.
The image shows screaming children running from a burning Vietnamese village. The little girl in in the centre of the frame, Kim Phuc, is naked and crying as the napalm melts away layers of her skin.
“Today, pictures are such an important element in making an impression, that if you edit past events or people, you change history and you change reality,” Solberg told the AP earlier Friday, adding it was the first time one of her Facebook posts was deleted.
Solberg later reposted the image with a black box covering the girl from the thighs up. She also posted other iconic photos of historic events, such as the man standing in front of a tank in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square in 1989, with black boxes covering the protagonists.
Like its Scandinavian neighbours, Norway takes pride in its freedom of speech. It’s also a largely secular nation with relaxed attitudes about nudity.
Several members of the Norwegian government followed Solberg’s lead and posted the photo on their Facebook pages. One of them, Education Minister Torbjorn Roe Isaksen, said it was “an iconic photo, part of our history.”
Many of the posts were deleted but Isaksen’s was still up Friday afternoon. The photo was also left untouched on a number of Facebook accounts, including the AP’s.
It would be physically impossible for the company to comb through the hundreds of millions of photos posted each day so it relies on user reports and algorithms to weed out pictures that go against its terms of service.
Photos are often automatically removed if enough people report them. Facebook usually does not proactively remove photos, with some exceptions, such as child pornography.
Because of this, what photos are and aren’t removed can sometimes be inconsistent, and sometimes leads to Facebook reinstating the photos after removing them.
Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten published the photo on its front page Friday and also wrote an open letter to Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg in which chief editor Espen Egil Hansen accused the social media giant of abusing its power.
Hansen said he was “upset, disappointed — well, in fact even afraid — of what you are about to do to a mainstay of our democratic society.”
The uproar also spread outside of Norway, with the head of Denmark’s journalism union urging people to share Hansen’s open letter. Germany’s Justice Minister Heiko Maas, who has previously clashed with Facebook over its failure to remove hate speech deemed illegal in Germany, also weighed in, saying “illegal content should vanish from the Internet, not photos that move the whole world.”
Facebook’s statement said it will adjust its review mechanisms to permit sharing of the image going forward.
“We are always looking to improve our policies to make sure they both promote free expression and keep our community safe, and we will be engaging with publishers and other members of our global community on these important questions going forward,” it said.
Paul Colford, AP vice-president and director of media relations, said: “The Associated Press is proud of Nick Ut’s photo and recognizes its historical impact. In addition, we reserve our rights to this powerful image.”
Before it was published 44 years ago, AP also had a discussion about the image because it violated the news agency’s policy on full-frontal nudity.
Hal Buell, then AP’s executive news photo editor in New York, said he received a message from Saigon photo editor Horst Faas saying a “controversial picture” was coming up.
“Maybe we discussed it on the desk for 10-15 minutes,” said Buell, who is now retired. “But there is nothing about this picture that is prurient. How can we not publish this picture? It captures the horrors of war. It captures the terrible situation of innocents caught in the cross-fire of the war.”
AP published the image and media worldwide used it, though some chose not to, Buell said.
Facebook blasted for censoring iconic 'napalm girl' photo | World | News | Toron
 
petros
+1
#2
Fascistbook.
 
PoliticalNick
#3
What is the can-con policy about such an image?
 
Frankiedoodle
+1
#4
I thought that they talked to the woman (whose picture it was of) and she had no objection. I cannot remember all of it but it was on last nights news here.
 
spaminator
#5
'We don’t always get it right'; Facebook apologizes for removing iconic 'napalm girl' photo
The Associated Press
First posted: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 08:32 AM EDT | Updated: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 08:44 AM EDT
HELSINKI — Facebook’s chief operating officer has apologized to Norwegian Prime Minister Erna Solberg for deleting a photograph from its pages and conceded that “we don’t always get it right.”
Sheryl Sandberg said in a letter that Solberg had raised important issues about Facebook’s decision last month to remove postings of an iconic 1972 image of a naked, screaming girl running from a napalm attack in Vietnam. The image, taken by Associated Press photographer Nick Ut, won a Pulitzer Prize.
On Friday, following protests in Norway and elsewhere, the tech giant reversed its decision and allowed the photo, known as “Terror of War,” to be seen on its pages. Solberg, who said she’d never before had a Facebook post deleted, had reposted the image with a black box covering the girl from the thighs up and other iconic photos of historic events with black boxes covering the protagonists.
Sandberg said that Facebook had “global community standards” to adhere to but that it had learned from the mistake.
“Sometimes, though, the global and historical importance of a photo like ”Terror of War“ outweighs the importance of keeping nudity off Facebook,” she said in a letter to Solberg dated Sept. 10. “After hearing from you and other members of our community, we have decided to restore the photo.”
Like its Scandinavian neighbours, Norway takes pride in its freedom of speech. It’s also a largely secular nation with relaxed attitudes about nudity.
Several members of the Norwegian government followed Solberg’s lead and posted the photo on their Facebook pages. One of them, Education Minister Torbjorn Roe Isaksen, said it was “an iconic photo, part of our history.”
Sandberg described decisions facing Facebook as “difficult.”
“We don’t always get it right. Even with clear standards, screening millions of posts on a case-by-case basis every week is challenging,” she said. “Nonetheless, we intend to do better ... Thank you for helping us get this right.”
'We don’t always get it right'; Facebook apologizes for removing iconic 'napalm
 
TenPenny
#6
It might be an iconic photo, but it clearly falls into the category of child pornography.
 
Ungern
#7
People move only with the shock of the pictures ,and not with the fact's analysis .
After 200 years of school obligations, It's certainly "tragic" but it's so.

If the shock pictures are forbiden,then there will be no shock into the people ,and all will be possible because the people's opinion can then be neglicted .
Without the shock pictures, it's the end of the democraty and the begining of fascisme .
 
Tecumsehsbones
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPenny View Post

It might be an iconic photo, but it clearly falls into the category of child pornography.

Maybe in Canada, not in the U.S.
 
PoliticalNick
+2
#9  Top Rated Post
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPenny View Post

It might be an iconic photo, but it clearly falls into the category of child pornography.

You would have to be one sick f^cker to get aroused from that photo. There is a fine line between art/journalism and porn at the best of times. I do not think this falls into the porn side.
 
taxslave
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPenny View Post

It might be an iconic photo, but it clearly falls into the category of child pornography.


Hardly
 
TenPenny
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalNick View Post

You would have to be one sick f^cker to get aroused from that photo. There is a fine line between art/journalism and porn at the best of times. I do not think this falls into the porn side.



If you think the defining categorization of child porn is that someone gets aroused by it, then you're sadly mistaken.
 
PoliticalNick
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPenny View Post

If you think the defining categorization of child porn is that someone gets aroused by it, then you're sadly mistaken.

Well actually the definition is "sexually suggestive". If you think a young girl screaming from napalm burns is sexually suggestive you should be seeking help or being locked up...just saying.

Quote:

Images of child pornography are not protected under First Amendment rights, and are illegal contraband under federal law. Section 2256 of Title 18, United States Code, defines child pornography as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor (someone under 18 years of age). Visual depictions include photographs, videos, digital or computer generated images indistinguishable from an actual minor, and images created, adapted, or modified, but appear to depict an identifiable, actual minor. Undeveloped film, undeveloped videotape, and electronically stored data that can be converted into a visual image of child pornography are also deemed illegal visual depictions under federal law.

Notably, the legal definition of sexually explicit conduct does not require that an image depict a child engaging in sexual activity. A picture of a naked child may constitute illegal child pornography if it is sufficiently sexually suggestive.

https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceo...ld-pornography
 
Tecumsehsbones
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPenny View Post

If you think the defining categorization of child porn is that someone gets aroused by it, then you're sadly mistaken.

You failed. Take your lumps and move on.

 
gerryh
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPenny View Post

It might be an iconic photo, but it clearly falls into the category of child pornography.



no, it doesn't. Try again.
 
WLDB
+2
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPenny View Post

It might be an iconic photo, but it clearly falls into the category of child pornography.

It does not. Even Facebook has since acknowledged this. Nudity is not inherently sexual. Context matters. Being in a war zone with napalm burning your clothes off is in no way sexual.
 
gerryh
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by WLDB View Post

It does not. Even Facebook has since acknowledged this. Nudity is not inherently sexual. Context matters. Being in a war zone with napalm burning your clothes off is in no way sexual.




Obviously, to a sick fu ck like ten penny, it is sexual.
 
PoliticalNick
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

Obviously, to a sick fu ck like ten penny, it is sexual.

Could just be that TP is such a prude any nudity is automatically porn. It's still a bit of a twisted view but not totally sick.
 
TenPenny
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

You failed. Take your lumps and move on.



No I didn't fail, because that isn't the definition of child pornography. as confirmed by your buddy, above.

Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

Obviously, to a sick fu ck like ten penny, it is sexual.



Obviously, you're an idiot, because I never said it was 'Sexual'. You're even more of an idiot than you pretend to be.
 
Tecumsehsbones
+1
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPenny View Post

No I didn't fail, because that isn't the definition of child pornography. as confirmed by your buddy, above.





Obviously, you're an idiot, because I never said it was 'Sexual'. You're even more of an idiot than you pretend to be.

Since the definition of child porn is that it is "sexually suggestive," and you called it child porn, clearly you find it sexually suggestive.

Either that or you were ignorant of what child porn is until some of the brighter lights hereabouts smartened you up.

Take your pick, pervert or mouthy ignoramus.