Warning: The article includes a picture that may be offensive.
This article talks about a man's Flickr.com account being completely deleted after he posted some not-so-decent comments on the official White House's Flickr photostream. Shepherd Johnson's flickr account, along with his 1,200 pictures, was deleted without warning after he posted his politically charged comments. In one if his comments, he included a link to another flickr user's Abu Ghraib torture photo.
While I think he may have gotten out of control, posting so many comments within a short amount of time, I still think his intellectual freedom rights were broken. Yahoo, the owner of Flickr, issued a statement arguing that Johnson disregarded the online community's guidelines, and if a person does so, Yahoo maintains the right to take action against them. The article did not state whether or not the other user with a tortue photo was deleted from the website. However, if Yahoo believes that the photos Johnson posted in his comments were offensive to others, then the other user should have been reprimanded as well.
This situation is similar to political protests. We have the right to protest... there are numerous protests against the President and against the Abu Ghraib torture events. There are protests concerning the release of the Abu Ghraid photos. The government cannot simply "delete" these protests, can they?
How far do intellectual freedom rights extend? Can someone truly say what he or she wants to whomever he or she wants and not be censored?
6 comments:
interesting situation. Your last question is a good one. I think that we live in a society where a double standard is held up much of the time. Its almost one of those do as I say, not as I do situations. Everyone talks about freedom of speech but in many situations, especially dealing with the government, it tends to the "yes you have freedom of speech but don't talk badly about us".People in general will go on about how they believe in the first amendment and then be the first ones to say "you can't say or write that"
I am and avid user of Flickr and as such I hope that they stick to there policies. As for the guys Flickr account, i can only hope that consequences were passed around equally. I would hope that the site would be fair in its dealings and not have a double standard. what is against policies for one user should be so for the others. At the same time, I think he should be able to express his viewpoints. maybe he just needed to find another way to do it. After all this blogging I'm ready to tell everyone to start a blog! There's no place better to get your rants out! ;)
Wow. I wonder who on Yahoo's side thought it was a good idea to censor this man so drastically? The comments he posted should certainly be protected by the First Amendment, unless they constituted "fighting words" or libel or something of this sort. Perhaps it was the linked Abu Ghraib photo, which could be construed to be misuse based on Yahoo's Terms of Service. But, like you said, wouldn't the censoring then be done on whomever posted that photo, not the guy who linked to it? An interesting case, thanks for sharing!
Kirsten, I agree. He should have been able to say what he wanted to say, but perhaps he chose an unfavorable way to do so. He could have posted his comments on his own account, or like you said, a blog. The way he went about things can easily be seen as somewhat of an attack, which I'm sure is against the Terms of Service.
In regards to Flickr.com deleting the horrific and insulting photos, I felt they had the rightsby all means. Once a person has signed a written agreement or policy, than violate it, the company has the rights to take the necessary actions against that person. On the other hand, if a person created their own website and posted insulting photos or harmful language and their information were deleted by the government, then the government acted unconstitutionally and violated that person’s rights. Since Shepherd Johnson had an account with Flickr, he violated the company’s policy with clearly stated, “all of our members be respectful of the community and flag content that may not be suitable for "safe" viewing.”
LaKea- I respect your opinion, and you're right... Johnson violated the Terms of Use. However, his entire account was deleted, without warning. 1,200 pictures were deleted, some of which could have been personal, family photos. Also, Johnson was not the only Flickr user who had these offensive photos... He linked another user's photo in one of his comments. I'm sure many other users have photos that can be construed as offensive... are their entire accounts being deleted?
This is disturbing, Allison and I'm glad you brought it to our attention, as I completely missed it. I don't understand why Yahoo over-reacted by removing all 1200 of his photos, but then, I've not understood why Yahoo has been complicit with government censors in China by revealing identities of reporters, who are now imprisoned.
The point for me has been that while I feel very much attached to my Flickr stream and my Facebook page, this situation reminds me that they are not mine. In terms of privacy violations by using my images as advertisements and in terms of censorship over what I say and show, web applications own my 2.0 spaces more than I do. Disturbing.
Post a Comment