Censoring the Forum Gallery?? - Page 4
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 43
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Charleston, WV
    Posts
    1,686

    Default

    I don't look at those kinds of images anyway but I'm not expecting any benefits. You don't have to be a ppa member to be a pro. If Tiger Woods went to a country club he was not a member I bet he would still get the benefits of it just because he is a pro. Any member of this forum should have the right to request to view certain galleries and then Jack or someone else can give them the ok or not ok vote. Segragation is not good for anything whether it be race or photography.
    As I said before, you don't have to be a ppa member to be a pro.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    725

    Default

    That's all fine and dandy, but I think you're missing the point that we're not going to segregate the gallery... I'm sure everybody knows that not all professional photographers are ppa members, and we're not implying that they're not professional if they aren't a member.
    Gregory Aide
    Production Manager

  3. #33

    Default

    Charles,

    You miss the point that in order for this list to be here, SOMEONE must pay the bill.

    PPA members do. Non members do not. They still get the same benefits and SHOULD feel lucky that they don't have to pay.
    Linda Gregory
    www.lindagregory.com

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Starke Fl
    Posts
    4,106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Charles Rollins View Post
    Segregation is not good for anything whether it be race or photography.
    As I said before, you don't have to be a ppa member to be a pro.


    Charles,

    Surely you do not believe Segregation and Membership are the same thing?


    As for being a PRO , my friend Stan is not PPA but he could very well be the poster boy for professionalism in photography.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Charleston, WV
    Posts
    1,686

    Default

    Ok, that is what I gathered from the post.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Schaumburg (Chicago 'burb), Illinois
    Posts
    1,688

    Default

    Thou shall not eat the young with it's mother's milk. Out of this one sentence (paraphrased) comes a complete way of life for some Jewish people and much debate over "dairy" vs "meat" So while it might be technically kosher to have milk and meat together, there is no way to make sure you are not accidentally consuming one drop of "a mother's milk" To make sure this never happens, orthodox Jewish people will not eat meat and dairy products at the same meal. For you see, if you don't ever eat meat and milk together, you'll never even accidentally cross the line of eating a young with it's mother's milk.

    In this case, the powers that be, have decided to make sure we do not cross the line by setting a boundry that is a little further back. For if this line is accidentally crossed, there is a buffer that will protect us from accidentally crossing the real boundary.

    Now I agree that censorship has its place. I censor what my kids see on TV. I also believe an adult should be able to view what they want. What is right for me may not be right for you. But in PPA's case, we are a community. As such we need to conform to community standards.

    There are a great many battles for PPA to fight for us. Copyright protection and Health insurance are two big ones. Yes the censorship is another issue which may need to be fought at a later date. But today, it is not a top priority. I'd rather have PPA working on the issues which impact 100% of the photographer community rather than one which impacts 10% (just an example). As Spock would say "The needs of the many out weigh the needs of a few or even one"
    Regards,
    Howard Kier, CPP Weddings, ABI, MBA and DAD
    Magical Moments Photography

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Charleston, WV
    Posts
    1,686

    Default

    Now that I can agree with..another good way is to do what they are doing now..review the work before it is posted and if there is any nudity in it that do not conform to their standards, delete it and email the poster about it..

    BTW, that is old testament teaching in the bible and has nothing to do with New Testament living which is where we are now..

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Centennial, Colorado
    Posts
    174

    Default

    So is the Decalogue, but it's still being followed today and no one's saying anything.

  9. #39

    Default

    I am coming to this discussion late, and I can see all sides of the debate (except for the silly religious stuff that snuck in at the end). I will only make one more observation.

    By grouping artistic nude photography with porn (the control of which is the intent of the quoted laws, as Mark pointed out), we are de-legitimizing that art form in the eyes of other photographers and the general public.

    Just more food for thought.

    ...Mike

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    725

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeD View Post
    By grouping artistic nude photography with porn (the control of which is the intent of the quoted laws, as Mark pointed out), we are de-legitimizing that art form in the eyes of other photographers and the general public.
    As far as I'm concerned this really has nothing to do with how PPA feels about nude artistic photography. They are not the ones that group nude photography with pornography, that is strictly the law makers decision, and a poor one at that.
    Gregory Aide
    Production Manager

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Live Chat is open