Categories See All →
Search Articles
Recent Articles
Recent Comments
-
Failed prosecution for Garden Naturism
10 May 2013 03:58 PM
-
Failed prosecution for Garden Naturism
02 May 2013 12:47 PM
-
Failed prosecution for Garden Naturism
29 Apr 2013 07:20 PM
-
Psychology of Questions
22 Apr 2013 03:23 AM
-
Online Protection Bill becomes "Censorship...
16 Apr 2013 02:58 PM
-
INF Youth Rally
15 Apr 2013 09:29 AM
1
Big business censorship
31 Dec 2011 05:28 PM |
Malcolm Boura
in Current Issues
Big business is almost entirely unaccountable. Some of the worst offenders are US corporations exporting harmful attitudes from the USA to the rest of the world. We suspect that some of them are driven by religious prejudices largely alien to Europe.
If any of the organisations listed here would like to send us links to objective evidence justifying their policy on nudity then we will be delighted to add them. NB evidence that some people are prejudiced does not provide justification. It doesn't matter how deeply held a prejudice may be, or how popular it may appear to be, it is still nothing but a prejudice.
Amazon
Amazon randomly censoring ... The important point of this article is not what Amazon censored, but how arbitrary, unaccountable and inconsistent that censorship was.
Apple
The picture is part of the response by Ekstra Bladet, a Danish tabloid, to the decision by Apple to censor them (translate) The vandal on the step ladder is Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple. Meanwhile the equivalent UK publication, The Sun, is acceptable to Apple. Presumably Apple are less worried that a Danish newspaper (1/3 million readers) will sue them than one the size of The Sun (8 million readers).
British fashion magazine Dazed & Confused has made an iPad version of their magazine. Internally, they call it the "Iran Edition" because they have to censor any nudity, no matter how innocent it is. Gizmodo 5 May 2010.
Again note the recurring theme running through these accounts. Arbitrary, unaccountable and an arrogant disregard for the values of anyone except themselves. There are so many examples of Apple censoring major European media that we can not possibly list them all.
ASDA
This was ASDA, the other supermarkets vary a bit.
Baby's bottom censored by store Asda
A spokesman for Asda said they "don't do nudity" at any age.
A mother who wanted to give a birthday cake to her son featuring a photo of him as a baby was forced to have it censored because it showed his bottom.
Gail Jordan, 41, had gone to Asda in Liscard, Wirral, on 13 June with the photo of her 21-year-old son David taken when he was five months old.
BBC, 26 June 2008
Facebook silly
Facebook is one of the worst offenders. They have an appalling record of arbitrary censorship of positive body image. Take this photograph of Kylie Minogue with teddy bear and microphone, it got banned for nudity!
Censoring a silly teddy bear photograph is rather silly but censoring positive body image and censoring body knowledge is deadly serious, literally.
Facebook cancer
This advert from the Toronto Health Board was refused. Late detection of cancer kills people. How many deaths have Facebook got on their conscience?
As one eminent oncologist said, "People die from embarrassment. Is it acceptable that people should die from Facebook's embarrassment?
Facebook breast feeding
It is well established that fewer babies die (and generally have fewer health problems) when breast fed. Facebook censored these photographs of paintings no less than four times. When an enormous fuss resulted Facebook claimed that they "had made a mistake". Really? The same mistake four times?
but this next picture is acceptable, it complies with the rules.
This website has collected some of the photographs banned by Facebook.
It seems like every few days we hear of yet another Facebook "mistake". This time is was a very large breast feeding support group. Deleted twice, emails ignored, only reinstated when the media became involved.
An example from the UK. What right do Facebook have to impose their American prejudices on us, the British?
Fedex
They refused to distribute a magazine because "they might deliver it to a school by mistake".
Flikr
Better than many but still inconsistent, unaccountable and lacking an objective basis.
Google
Google make searching for the word "nudity" harder by turning off some features of their search engine. That made the research for this page more difficult. We have never heard of any justification for it, any consultation on it or indeed any mention of it from Google. They are yet another US corporation imposing their prudery on the rest of the world and just as unaccountable as all the others.
Google have been very quick to make capital from their opposition to censorship in China but in the western world they are one of the censors, and not just in obvious ways. For example the social networking site, Ning was forced to remove the communities that Google disaproved of. This is what Tech Crunch had to say:
On Tuesday Ning changed its long standing policy … “our ad partners aren’t big fans of the adult networks.” As far as I can tell, at this time Ning has only one advertising partner - Google. Google won’t put adsense on sites that contain “Pornography, adult, or mature content,” so Ning was at risk of being banned by Google despite the fact that only a very small portion of the networks on Ning are adult oriented.
Initially it looked as if naturist sites would be able to continue but before long they closed.
Google own YouTube and it also has become more prudish. As usual no rational justification, no consultation, no independent appeal and no consideration of what causes harm and what produces benefit. Or if there was they kept very quiet about it. The attitude appears to be "we don't like it so you can't do it" and never mind the harm that results.
Menzies
Together with WHSmith Wholesale they control near enough the entire system for distributing periodicals to newsagents. If they won't distribute it then the cost of distribution rockets and the publishers are at the mercy of companies such as Fedex. See above. Their polices may be sensible but does anybody know what they are? Are they accountable to anyone?
If any of the organisations listed here would like to send us links to objective evidence justifying their policy on nudity then we will be delighted to add them. NB evidence that some people are prejudiced does not provide justification. It doesn't matter how deeply held a prejudice may be, or how popular it may appear to be, it is still nothing but a prejudice.
Amazon
Amazon randomly censoring ... The important point of this article is not what Amazon censored, but how arbitrary, unaccountable and inconsistent that censorship was.
Apple
British fashion magazine Dazed & Confused has made an iPad version of their magazine. Internally, they call it the "Iran Edition" because they have to censor any nudity, no matter how innocent it is. Gizmodo 5 May 2010.
Again note the recurring theme running through these accounts. Arbitrary, unaccountable and an arrogant disregard for the values of anyone except themselves. There are so many examples of Apple censoring major European media that we can not possibly list them all.
ASDA
This was ASDA, the other supermarkets vary a bit.
Baby's bottom censored by store Asda
A spokesman for Asda said they "don't do nudity" at any age.
A mother who wanted to give a birthday cake to her son featuring a photo of him as a baby was forced to have it censored because it showed his bottom.
Gail Jordan, 41, had gone to Asda in Liscard, Wirral, on 13 June with the photo of her 21-year-old son David taken when he was five months old.
BBC, 26 June 2008
Facebook silly
Censoring a silly teddy bear photograph is rather silly but censoring positive body image and censoring body knowledge is deadly serious, literally.
Facebook cancer
This advert from the Toronto Health Board was refused. Late detection of cancer kills people. How many deaths have Facebook got on their conscience?
As one eminent oncologist said, "People die from embarrassment. Is it acceptable that people should die from Facebook's embarrassment?
Facebook breast feeding
It is well established that fewer babies die (and generally have fewer health problems) when breast fed. Facebook censored these photographs of paintings no less than four times. When an enormous fuss resulted Facebook claimed that they "had made a mistake". Really? The same mistake four times?
but this next picture is acceptable, it complies with the rules.
This website has collected some of the photographs banned by Facebook.
It seems like every few days we hear of yet another Facebook "mistake". This time is was a very large breast feeding support group. Deleted twice, emails ignored, only reinstated when the media became involved.
An example from the UK. What right do Facebook have to impose their American prejudices on us, the British?
Fedex
They refused to distribute a magazine because "they might deliver it to a school by mistake".
Flikr
Better than many but still inconsistent, unaccountable and lacking an objective basis.
Google make searching for the word "nudity" harder by turning off some features of their search engine. That made the research for this page more difficult. We have never heard of any justification for it, any consultation on it or indeed any mention of it from Google. They are yet another US corporation imposing their prudery on the rest of the world and just as unaccountable as all the others.
Google have been very quick to make capital from their opposition to censorship in China but in the western world they are one of the censors, and not just in obvious ways. For example the social networking site, Ning was forced to remove the communities that Google disaproved of. This is what Tech Crunch had to say:
On Tuesday Ning changed its long standing policy … “our ad partners aren’t big fans of the adult networks.” As far as I can tell, at this time Ning has only one advertising partner - Google. Google won’t put adsense on sites that contain “Pornography, adult, or mature content,” so Ning was at risk of being banned by Google despite the fact that only a very small portion of the networks on Ning are adult oriented.
Initially it looked as if naturist sites would be able to continue but before long they closed.
Google own YouTube and it also has become more prudish. As usual no rational justification, no consultation, no independent appeal and no consideration of what causes harm and what produces benefit. Or if there was they kept very quiet about it. The attitude appears to be "we don't like it so you can't do it" and never mind the harm that results.
Menzies
Together with WHSmith Wholesale they control near enough the entire system for distributing periodicals to newsagents. If they won't distribute it then the cost of distribution rockets and the publishers are at the mercy of companies such as Fedex. See above. Their polices may be sensible but does anybody know what they are? Are they accountable to anyone?
2 Comments
- 1.5 Advertiser content must not contain any of the following:
- (a) any nudity, lewd gestures or any other material that is threatening, offensive, violent, pornographic, obscene, hateful, discriminatory or that could encourage the commission of a criminal offence;
...They in fact put equal sign between being nude and doing what is put in the second part of the statement.
By doing so they did do the act which is "offensive, violent, (..) obscene, hateful, discriminatory".