Can you justify posting links to photographs of dead children on an internet forum ?

Joe10000

It's a fairly straight forward question, can you justify posting links to photographs of dead children on an internet forum even if they are in context with the story ?

My opinion is that it they should not be posted even if there is context.

JJayoo

Oh yes AH is the correct place for this thread, prepare yourself for the logic.

keelanj69

Why not? It carries the point far better.

gg2

This is part of the reason I deleted my facebook account..... Pictures of dead children or adults is totally wrong in ny opinion... Honestly why would anyone want to see them?

Also the amount of pictures that where circling on facebook of children with serious burns, tumours, children that had been beaten.... I just don't get what people get out of it

Cody Pomeray

who does that?

I've never come across this problem, on facebook or any place else. I wasn't aware it was even a 'thing'.

In rare circumstances, yes.

maxwell smart

Can you clarify what you mean....

Do you mean pictures of actual dead bodies or pictures of the 'in memoriam' type?

krudler

gg2 wrote: »

This is part of the reason I deleted my facebook account..... Pictures of dead children or adults is totally wrong in ny opinion... Honestly why would anyone want to see them?

Also the amount of pictures that where circling on facebook of children with serious burns, tumours, children that had been beaten.... I just don't get what people get out of it

I'm in two minds about it, I don't know why anyone would post pics of dead kids, their own in particular, on facebook. But the "photos that shook the world" thread on boards can often serve as a reminder of how much we taken life for granted. Anyone who has never read it do yourself a favour and set aside some time to go through it, it's one of the best threads on this site, there are some amazing photographs on there, some absolutely horrific and some stunningly beautiful:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055750426

Christ the Redeemer

Well, it's complex. If it's a child killed by US military aggression it is never okay. If, however it's a child maimed or killed in America by terrorism and there's political propaganda to be had, absolutely.

ScumLord

Shock photos like those are sometimes put in front of the public so they can see the consequences of their actions. Nations that send their war machines should for example see the actual effects on real people instead of just listening to the war rhetoric of the people sending out the troops and statistics on the news.

We should be forced to see starving children pulling electronics materials out of mines so that we can have a new phone every year.

The really shocking thing is we would just rather block it all out and continue abusing our position while a huge majority suffer in front of our faces.

Peregrine

Well it depends..

I mean I don't want to come on boards tomorrow and see a 'Dead children pictures' thread but if it's like a thread about some horrific crime then yes by all means attach pictures with adequate warnings.

Vito Corleone

I feel it's disrespectful to the person and their family members so it isn't something I would do, however it doesn't offend me when others post such links.

MickFleetwood

I wouldn't mind links. However, posting pictures (I've seen these sort of pictures whilst scrolling through a thread, shocking to say the least) in a thread without a warning beforehand is shítty.

GarIT

IMO it should be illegal to have any identifiable pictures of the dead.

PizzamanIRL

No, I don't see why anyone would want to see a dead body, let alone a dead child. If someone was murdered or whatever, leave it at that, don't go looking for photos of the body as proof.

Spunge

sometimes u gotta shock people to get points through to them.

Ten of Swords

Joe10000 wrote: »

My opinion is that it they should not be posted even if there is context.

Let it go, the thread that I assume this one directly relates to went quiet nearly 2 weeks ago, and it had gotten quite petty by page 4;

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056985746

floggg

Vito Corleone wrote: »

I feel it's disrespectful to the person and their family members so it isn't something I would do, however it doesn't offend me when others post such links.

If I was an innocent child killed in some sort of violent incident (particularly one carried out by a country, political or religious group) I'd feel far more disrespected if the incident was ignored because people would prefer not to be confronted with the consequences of such acts.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Spunge wrote: »

sometimes u gotta shock people to get points through to them.

Thank you Rupert Murdoch.

Seriously, is this not just a little bit voyeuristic? I mean, if you can't understand the facts of a story by reading it, surely you should just back to shcool?

lkionm

Ten of Swords wrote: »

Let it go, the thread that I assume this one directly relates to went quiet nearly 2 weeks ago, and it had gotten quite petty by page 4;

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056985746

oh he got so bad in that thread. The 2 week ban must be up and still cant leave it go.


Just to re-iterate the points in the last thread.

Get over yourself, no one is forcing you to look at them.

lkionm

GarIT wrote: »

IMO it should be illegal to have any identifiable pictures of the dead.

Illegal???????

Vito Corleone

floggg wrote: »

If I was an innocent child killed in some sort of violent incident (particularly one carried out by a country, political or religious group) I'd feel far more disrespected if the incident was ignored because people would prefer not to be confronted with the consequences of such acts.

You can speak for yourself but you cannot speak on behalf of thousands of children and their families.

krudler

GarIT wrote: »

IMO it should be illegal to have any identifiable pictures of the dead.

Whut

floggg

Nobody gave a **** about the Ethiopian famine in the 80s until they were suddenly confronted with the image of dying children.

Nobody gave a **** about the genocide in Rwandan because instead of showing footage of the horrible atrocities, they showed Madeline Albright tripping over herself trying not to say the word genocide.

Ironically the world was only moved to act when they say streams of Hutus (many of whom were responsible for the genocide) fleeing the advance of the liberating Tutsi troops (whose relatives had been hacked to death with machete) - I.e. the bad guys fleeing the (relatively) good guys.

That was ok for the 9 o clock news - though at that stage it was too late. Ironically people gave money in response to the footage which ended up in the murderers pockets.

If western news had shown the first 10 days of slaughter, the subsequent 80 could have been prevented.

When a Palestinian child is killed, the relatives carry the body in front of the news cameras. They want the world to see what is being done to them.

The world just doesn't want to see it.

That whole respect crap is nonsense. People just don't want to be confronted with the evidence of mans failings.

username123

I dont have a problem with pictures of dead people, children or not. Particularly the pictures in the thread linked to, there was a warning so you knew what you were going to be seeing before you clicked in.

floggg

Vito Corleone wrote: »

You can speak for yourself but you cannot speak on behalf of thousands of children and their families.

Tell me then why did the survivors of Auschitz insist that it be made into a museum, that graphic evidence of the war crimes committed be displayed, including photos of dead children.

Why did the resistance try and smuggle photos of the camps out.

If they world had been confronted with what was happening sooner things may have been different.

The hope is that if the world is confronted with the evidence now, a similar event might not happen again.

Vito Corleone

floggg wrote: »

Tell me then why did the survivors of Auschitz insist that it be made into a museum, that graphic evidence of the war crimes committed be displayed, including photos of dead children.

Why did the resistance try and smuggle photos of the camps out.

If they world had been confronted with what was happening sooner things may have been different.

The hope is that if the world is confronted with the evidence now, a similar event might not happen again.

I already stated that these photos do not offend me, I just don't feel comfortable linking to them as I know that I would not want my relatives or myself taken advantage of like that.

I feel your post is arguing against a point I did not make if I'm perfectly honest. My point was that your post holds no weight as it is just what you would want, and to try and pass that off as how every family may feel is illogical.

Honest answer. God forbid that something was to happen to a family member of yours, would you feel comfortable if a photo of their dead body was free for anyone to see throughout the world?

I abhor internet censorship by the way, and am not for one moment saying that it should be illegal like other posters. However, ethically I would not feel comfortable linking to these type of photos myself.

username123

Vito Corleone wrote: »

Honest answer. God forbid that something was to happen to a family member of yours, would you feel comfortable if a photo of their dead body was free for anyone to see throughout the world?

I cant say it would bother me to be honest.

floggg

floggg wrote: »

Nobody gave a **** about the Ethiopian famine in the 80s until they were suddenly confronted with the image of dying children.

Nobody gave a **** about the genocide in Rwandan because instead of showing footage of the horrible atrocities, they showed Madeline Albright tripping over herself trying not to say the word genocide.

Ironically the world was only moved to act when they say streams of Hutus (many of whom were responsible for the genocide) fleeing the advance of the liberating Tutsi troops (whose relatives had been hacked to death with machete) - I.e. the bad guys fleeing the (relatively) good guys.

That was ok for the 9 o clock news - though at that stage it was too late. Ironically people gave money in response to the footage which ended up in the murderers pockets.

If western news had shown the first 10 days of slaughter, the subsequent 80 could have been prevented.

When a Palestinian child is killed, the relatives carry the body in front of the news cameras. They want the world to see what is being done to them.

The world just doesn't want to see it.

That whole respect crap is nonsense. People just don't want to be confronted with the evidence of mans failings.

This times a billion. Of course you can justify seeing these things, but only with adequate warnings. It's the only way to hammer a point through.

Vito Corleone wrote: »

Honest answer. God forbid that something was to happen to a family member of yours, would you feel comfortable if a photo of their dead body was free for anyone to see throughout the world?

It would largely depend on how the child died.
If a child was killed by a drone strike, like you often see happening in the news, then of course I would, to show the country that caused it exactly what was really happening.
There was a story a while back (maybe a few years now) about an English family who lost their daughter due to a a drugs overdose. The family gave their permission to use the photo of her body, bent double on the ground with the needle in her veins, as part of a huge anti-drug campaign. I'm not sure how many it saved.

Femme_Fatale

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

who does that?

I've never come across this problem, on facebook or any place else. I wasn't aware it was even a 'thing'.

It's fizzling out now - thank fuk - but up to a few months ago there were regular pictures popping up on Facebook, think they originated from some auto-bot thing, of horrifically disfigured, abused etc children, with the caption "Like if you're against this" etc (No I won't like it, because I'm totally in favour of it! :rolleyes:) Reams of people then shared them - some naively well intentioned, some getting off on demonstrating their outrage.

krudler wrote: »

I'm in two minds about it, I don't know why anyone would post pics of dead kids, their own in particular, on facebook. But the "photos that shook the world" thread on boards can often serve as a reminder of how much we taken life for granted. Anyone who has never read it do yourself a favour and set aside some time to go through it, it's one of the best threads on this site, there are some amazing photographs on there, some absolutely horrific and some stunningly beautiful:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055750426

Yeh that's the way I see it too - there are warnings, you know what you're letting yourself in for, there is no harm in learning about the wider world now and again. Unfortunately there are people who love indulging their need for horror porn though, so sometimes the line can be a bit blurred.

Christ the Redeemer wrote: »

Well, it's complex. If it's a child killed by US military aggression it is never okay. If, however it's a child maimed or killed in America by terrorism and there's political propaganda to be had, absolutely.

Sadly there are people with your view and the opposite view. Thankfully rational people dislike either scenario. "Terrorism", "military aggression" - what's the difference?

ScumLord wrote: »

We should be forced to see starving children pulling electronics materials out of mines so that we can have a new phone every year.

The really shocking thing is we would just rather block it all out and continue abusing our position while a huge majority suffer in front of our faces.

Presume you're including yourself in that "we"?

floggg wrote: »

Nobody gave a **** about the Ethiopian famine in the 80s until they were suddenly confronted with the image of dying children.

Nobody gave a **** about the genocide in Rwandan because instead of showing footage of the horrible atrocities, they showed Madeline Albright tripping over herself trying not to say the word genocide.

Ironically the world was only moved to act when they say streams of Hutus (many of whom were responsible for the genocide) fleeing the advance of the liberating Tutsi troops (whose relatives had been hacked to death with machete) - I.e. the bad guys fleeing the (relatively) good guys.

That was ok for the 9 o clock news - though at that stage it was too late. Ironically people gave money in response to the footage which ended up in the murderers pockets.

If western news had shown the first 10 days of slaughter, the subsequent 80 could have been prevented.

When a Palestinian child is killed, the relatives carry the body in front of the news cameras. They want the world to see what is being done to them.

The world just doesn't want to see it.

That whole respect crap is nonsense. People just don't want to be confronted with the evidence of mans failings.

Or... they just find it too upsetting to see such a sight, which is their natural reaction that they can't help? It doesn't mean the same thing as denial. I can't cope a lot of the time with reading about/viewing pictures of atrocities. It doesn't mean I deny they're happening or that I don't investigate as much as I can.
And the "Nobody cares" stuff - speak for yourself. People didn't know about the Ethiopian famine prior to the BBC footage in 1984 - and how could they have known? Should they be psychic? Similarly with Rwanda 10 years later. Prior to the atrocities going on there being brought to attention, these were remote places to the western world.

These "Nobody cares" wild allegations are always made by people who are no better than the anonymous people they castigate.

Ruudi_Mentari

Is this in relation to the pictures that weren't particularly graphic anyhow, or the atrocities that leave them that way. Which would you rather cover up

Femme_Fatale

Ten of Swords wrote: »

Let it go, the thread that I assume this one directly relates to went quiet nearly 2 weeks ago, and it had gotten quite petty by page 4;

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056985746

lkionm wrote: »

oh he got so bad in that thread. The 2 week ban must be up and still cant leave it go.


Just to re-iterate the points in the last thread.

Get over yourself, no one is forcing you to look at them.

I give his trolling on that thread... 3/10 for effort.

Duggy747

With proper context and adequate warning, yes absolutely.

If a person chooses not to see the results of a war within a region, terrorist attack, etc, then that's their choice, and a perfectly reasonable one at that. The pictures that are the result of warfare or whatever are grim and vicious.

This shouldn't be confused with the pictures of dead people / deformed or sick children on Facebook that helped push Likes or Shares, many of which were used to roll out spam.

The Facebook crap is just tasteless whoring, many pictures were used with completely different context to stir people up. Remember when there was a picture of a little girl in a marathon which was spread around and told people she was one of those who died in the Boston Bombing?

Turned out it was just a stock photo.

You see the same in regards to activism on Facebook where many pictures are completely taken out of context to rile people up.

Grayson

I don't get why so many people voted no. I mean, there's an option for "Adequate warning". If you enter a thread, there's a description and then some links which are very clearly labeled, then what's the problem. No-one is forcing anyone to view something.

Photo's, whether of living or dead people, can be incredibly powerful. It was photographic and video footage of the concentration camps that brought the horrors of the Nazis to people who would have otherwise missed it. That photographic evidence demonstrated the horrors of those camps to the world. The same goes for the killing fields, Sabra and Chantilla, vietnam, Srebrenica, Rwanda etc... Without those photo's the world would not have experienced the horror that befell millions.

No-one is forcing anyone to look at them, but everything has a context.

For example,

This photo is of a naked girl. (it's actually an article about what happened to her and includes an interview 40 years on. That photo won a pulitzer and helped change public opinion about the war in vietnam.)

This is a man dying

And this is a man on fire.

The three photo's are all world famous, were published in major news outlets and are all very graphic. Between them they probably changed the publics opinion about vietnam as much as the images of dead GI's arriving home.

Every photo has a story and the photo's bring those stories into our hearts and minds in a way words rarely do. The camera and video has changed our lives for the better. It's a pity some people want to roll back the clock.

Grayson

btw, a lot of those photo's came from this site

http://www.worldsfamousphotos.com/

It's got loads of great photo's. And only some have corpses. It has stuff like Einstein sticking out his tongue, Hitler in Paris etc...

AudreyHepburn

Provided there is a context/reason for doing so,that proper permission has been given and that there are adequate warnings then yes.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

GarIT wrote: »

IMO it should be illegal to have any identifiable pictures of the dead.

Why?

You can read a story, anybody can and be completely disengaged, but a photo is another thing altogether. You can connect a lot better than a story.

GarIT

Rodney Strong Refugee wrote: »

Why?

You can read a story, anybody can and be completely disengaged, but a photo is another thing altogether. You can connect a lot better than a story.

It's disrespectful to photograph a dead person. When someone dies they cover the body for a reason. It is out of respect and to preserve the deceased's dignity. I don't think it should be legal to be in possession of a photograph of a dead person which could identify that person. For example if I get knocked down tomorrow I don't want people taking out their smartphones and taking pictures. Obviously there has to be exceptions for the Gardaí for evidence and stuff but I don't think its right for anyone else to do it.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

GarIT wrote: »

It's disrespectful to photograph a dead person. When someone dies they cover the body for a reason. It is out of respect and to preserve the deceased's dignity. I don't think it should be legal to be in possession of a photograph of a dead person which could identify that person. For example if I get knocked down tomorrow I don't want people taking out their smartphones and taking pictures. Obviously there has to be exceptions for the Gardaí for evidence and stuff but I don't think its right for anyone else to do it.

I disagree. In certain circumstances it can be used to educate people.

Cookie_Monster

yes, they're just people. Obviously context is important but no reason not to in the right circumstances.

GarIT wrote:

For example if I get knocked down tomorrow I don't want people taking out their smartphones and taking pictures.

I doubt you'd care too much about it if you're dead tbh

GarIT

Rodney Strong Refugee wrote: »

I disagree. In certain circumstances it can be used to educate people.

You could also use an actor for the same purpose.

Grayson

GarIT wrote: »

It's disrespectful to photograph a dead person. When someone dies they cover the body for a reason. It is out of respect and to preserve the deceased's dignity. I don't think it should be legal to be in possession of a photograph of a dead person which could identify that person. For example if I get knocked down tomorrow I don't want people taking out their smartphones and taking pictures. Obviously there has to be exceptions for the Gardaí for evidence and stuff but I don't think its right for anyone else to do it.

So photo's of atrocities shouldn't be shown?

You realise in most eastern countries they're not squeamish about this. They will show dead bodies on the news no problem. But the thing is that when it comes to burial rituals they're even more respectful than we are.

Context is the key. If people are using these photo's as some kind of titillation it's wrong but if the photo's are taken in a context that is fitting and that is how they are presented it's ok.

We in the west have become very squeamish with regards to death in the last century. It's possible for most people to go through their lives and hardly see a body. I think that's a big part of the reason why our society frowns on it.

GarIT

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

yes, they're just people. Obviously context is important but no reason not to in the right circumstances.


I doubt you'd care too much about it if you're dead tbh

It depends on a lot of things, I still don't think any member of the public should be allowed possess such pictures, that in the context of this thread could be posted in a thread on the internet. Maybe for use in education as another poster said such as road safety it's ok, once the family are ok with it.

I probably wouldn't but I'm 99% sure my relatives would. I know if a relative of mine died I'd be annoyed if pictures were taken.

EDIT: I think I seem to be talking about something different to a few people here. I'm talking about a photo of a person that may be used to identify them, a photo of an event or something isn't the same thing.

Cienciano

It's ok if there's context. A dead children photo thread would be wrong.

Context in this photo makes it a powerful image imho.
(Warning: dead children)
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78171837&postcount=1970

floggg

Vito Corleone wrote: »

I already stated that these photos do not offend me, I just don't feel comfortable linking to them as I know that I would not want my relatives or myself taken advantage of like that.

I feel your post is arguing against a point I did not make if I'm perfectly honest. My point was that your post holds no weight as it is just what you would want, and to try and pass that off as how every family may feel is illogical.

Honest answer. God forbid that something was to happen to a family member of yours, would you feel comfortable if a photo of their dead body was free for anyone to see throughout the world?

I abhor internet censorship by the way, and am not for one moment saying that it should be illegal like other posters. However, ethically I would not feel comfortable linking to these type of photos myself.

If my family were killed in a car crash, died from cancer or even murdered by a individual/criminal gang, I'd like privacy. Showing the photos wouldn't achieve anything for me or my surviving family.

If for example though, they were killed by state actors, a religious or political group etc, and their lives could have been saved by state/foreign intervention, or similar atrocities could be avoided, or even attention brought to my people's plight, then yes I most certainly would.

This thread is a delayed hissy fit to somebody posting pictures of drone strike victims and questioning why we allow it.

It's nothing to do with simple voyeurism. They weren't posted for ****s and giggles.

If I was a Pakistani who's innocent family were killed by them I'd want every US citizen to have to look at them and tell me why they deserved to die and why they allowed this to happen.


Also -I don't think you can say my point held no weight and it was just my opinion.

As I said the Auschwitz survivors were the ones who insisted on evidence of the concentration camps being preserved and shown to the public. It's intentionally graphic.

Similarly in Cambodia they have some graphic memorials - including a large collection of human skulls if I recall correctly.

I haven't been but I believe Rwanda also has some fairly vivid memorials.

In the case of atrocities, which is the context we are really talking about here (not some RTA) the victims and the relatives will generally always want the evidence to come out.

The desire for justice and protection for your remaining family is far greater than the desire for privacy.

ScumLord

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Presume you're including yourself in that "we"?

That's generally how the word "we" works.

kylith

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

who does that?

I've never come across this problem, on facebook or any place else. I wasn't aware it was even a 'thing'.

The only place I've come across it is the Photos That Shook the World thread in Cool Vids & Pics. Never seen it on Facebook

username123

kylith wrote: »

The only place I've come across it is the Photos That Shook the World thread in Cool Vids & Pics. Never seen it on Facebook

Ive unsubscribed from dozens of people on FB for sharing or liking pics of tumour ridden babies or other graphic images of that nature.

kylith

username123 wrote: »

Ive unsubscribed from dozens of people on FB for sharing or liking pics of tumour ridden babies or other graphic images of that nature.

I'll count myself lucky on the FB front so. The worst I get is OH's ma posting Deepak Chopra nonsense.

Femme_Fatale

ScumLord wrote: »

That's generally how the word "we" works.

Then you're doing it wrong. Don't you realise "We" on the net means "Everyone else but not me"? :pac: