Posting of Graphic Images - Reminder, page 1

As we all know the crisis in Gaza is a very hot topic at the moment, and new threads are started on the topic(s) as events unfold. With the rise of threads on the topic we've seen a rise of graphic images being posted in threads.

This is NOT allowed as stipulated in the Terms & Conditions Of Use:

1a) Offensive Content: You will not post links to images or use avatars and signatures that are offensive, abusive, disruptive and/or hateful. You will not use images, avatars or link to domains that contain gore, mutilation, pornography or illegal(2e) content. Doing so will result in removal of your post(s) and immediate termination of your account.

Please refrain from posting images that may be upsetting to sensitive members - we are a family-friendly site after all.

Ask yourself "Is this image productively contributing to the discussion or am I just pointing out the horrors of war/trying to make a point with the shock effect?"

Please review the following threads as well:
Image Linking Policy
Wars are not won and lost on ATS, they are discussed

reply to post by Gemwolf

---

Dumb question: Does that mean that you can not post the pictures in your post or that you can not even link to sites that contain them? Perhaps a parenthetical with the link that says something like, "*link contains graphic images*"

I can see where that wouldn't be proper for porn or illegal activities but, I'm unsure if that works the same way for "gore" (as it could be on-topic with respect to war and the like.)


I don't have the stomach for that stuff myself, just curious. I seem to remember posts in the past having links to graphic images with the appropriate *warning* accompanying the link.

reply to post by Rren

---

Some members post images of war victims (i.e. people hurt during a bomb blast, etc.) to make a point. We all know what these images look like, and they're upsetting to say the least. There is no need to post the images in a post as in most cases they don't contribute to the discussion (this is a discussion board after all - not an "image board" ).

Some links contain graphic images along with articles with the relevant content that is to be discussed. It's in these cases that we typically add a **Graphic Images** tag. Every post/image that raises concern is discussed by the staff and a decision is made whether an image/linked page is beneficial to the discussion, after which the necessary action(s) is taken. Thus it's a "case to case" decision.

The bottom line is - don't post gory pictures. Ask yourself "Do members really have to see this?". If the answer is no, then don't post it. If yes, then ask yourself "would I show this to a kid?". If the answer is no, then add a warning to the thread title. Don't post the actual image in the thread, simply link to the image in your post - this would allow sensitive members to participate in the thread without having to look at the gruesome stuff.

If you’re unsure - ask a staff member. They'll gladly help out.

reply to post by jam321

---

That was meant to be tongue in the cheek. Obviously a lot of our discussions are around images. For example the aliens/UFOs forum would be very boring without images.

As long as an image is within the Terms & Conditions, is on topic and is accompanied by your own thoughts/opinion, it's fine. If you feel that a posted image does not fall within these limitations, then you're welcome to alert the staff and the image/post will be reviewed.

reply to post by Gemwolf

---

I worry that this is sort of a common sense issue, and that many lack common sense. Is it advisable to contact a Mod before posting any link with graphic images? If so, would you mind posting a way to contact a Mod on duty? I'm glad this issue was addressed, I'm not sensitive to graphic images but as of late I have been worried members that are may be in for a shock when clicking some links.

reply to post by Raustin

---

As I said - if you're unsure if an image is allowed or not, ask away. The easiest way to contact Mods is to create a complaint/suggestion through your MemCenter. This way all online mods can see it, and discuss the issue.

Alternatively you can look at the board main page for mods that are online - although your name appears on the list for as long as an hour after you've logged off.


[edit on 5-1-2009 by Gemwolf]

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

---

I'm not sure how showing pictures of dead/dismembered people is denying ignorance either? Does looking at violent/gruesome images of war victims really make one less ignorant?

reply to post by blupblup

---

Some of those images are so gruesome as to create an emotional register that induces opinion/reaction regardless of the flow of the conversation and encourages reactive spouting as people deal with their own detached rage regarding their own personal projections... and it is just a messy messy process.

People aren't objective enough to deal with those images. Yes people need to stop killing each other. But ATS does not have any duty nor obligation to post what would invariably be a basis for further division amongst the members.

In fact, ATS is intended to promote civil discussion...something that is very difficult if we were to encourage and insist on the posting of these disturbing images.

Most of those images are inappropriate in my opinion and antithema to looking and discussing facts...which there are many beyond images of death.

I agree that war is atrocious...but shoving it down peoples throats isn't a valid answer...in my opinion.

I think seeing the consequences of war is crucial for making sound judgments about the necessity of war. How in any reasoning process can you make sound judgments about something that you have no real understanding of? "3000 dead" does not mean anything to a person. It is a number, on a piece of paper, and compared to the larger numbers of people killed in previous wars, it seems to some to be not that big a sacrifice.

However, as Joseph Stalin is reported to have said;

"The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic."

I have seen studies, that I cannot currently find online, but have read in journals, that show that human beings do not respond emotionally in the same way to overwhelming numbers of victims , but rather to people, individuals, that they can identify with. In the study, someone was much more likely to help if a story was told about ONE person or families suffering than if they were just given information about large numbers of victims of war, or a natural disaster.

Seeing individual people, individual bodies, knowing that these are humans just like us, that have families, hopes, dreams, feelings, suffering, driving that knowledge home to those of us who have never experienced the horror of war and its aftermath IS important.

There is a very good psychological reason these images are not shown in the news media. A "mistake" was made in the Vietnam war as far as the PTB are concerned. Images of death and suffering American soldiers and Vietnamese were all over the media and this allowed the American people to identify with them as people. And, this in turn led to activism on the part of the people to stop it.

www.digitalhistory.uh.edu...

Photographs have the power to capture an event and burn it into our collective memory. Photographs can trap history in amber, preserving a fleeting moment for future generations to re-experience. Photographs can evoke powerful emotions and shape the way the public understands the world and interprets events. Each of these pictures played a role in turning American public opinion against the Vietnam War. But pictures never tell the full story. By focusing on a single image, they omit the larger context essential for true understanding.

Although pictures can be used to distort public opinion, the omission of images of the "other side of the issue" is also a distortion of public opinion. The mainstream media had no problem showing over and over and over again people jumping from the Twin Towers, or the suffering that caused. It suited them to do so. But it sharply curtailed images of the suffering we caused in the Iraq war either to our own people, the soldiers, or the population there.

That is my objection. I flinch too when I see a mutilated body. But if I pay the taxes that support the military might that causes the mutilated body, I feel that I SHOULD see what my money and my vote is paying for. We should be aware of what our government does, or the governments of our allies. My objection is that by censoring images you allow people to read threads about war, and discuss war, in protected ignorance. The careless and callous comments about how "they" get what they deserve, is, in my opinion the outcome of letting victims become statistics rather than humanizing them.

I dont expect that my opinion will change policy, but I feel it is my duty as a human being to speak out against the sugar coating of violence. Obviously I will abide by the T&C, but I am making my protest known, and thank you for asking for reasoning instead of just telling me to suck it up and deal with it. I know you do not make policy, and this is not an attack on you or anyone individually. I know you get pressure from individuals who WANT to live in ignorance rather than face the discomfort of reality.






[edit on 7-1-2009 by Illusionsaregrander]