Shock Value

neuro-praxis

There's a big hulabaloo on another bulletin board that I read (such a traitor I am, I know) about the disturbing photographs that organisations such as Youth Defense show of aborted foetuses. (Personally, I hate the photographs and believe that they're unnecessary.)

However a thought crossed my mind (a rare thing, hold on to your hats) with regard to the pictures of prisoner abuse in Iraq and the pictures of the dead bodies in Tsunami...

I have heard it argued on our very own Boards.ie that it is necessary for us to see the Tsunami pictures and the Iraq pictures (in whatever forms) because they are "real life" and "we need to face it".

If this is a reasonable argument, then, could the same not be said about the photographs of aborted foetuses?

I wonder what other people think.

Imposter

I think all the images you mentioned are fine as long as the user is aware of what is coming and they want to see them. What I mean is that news reports say that some of these images will be disturbing etc. but by the same degree using images such as aborted feotuses outside an abortion clinic is wrong as people going in there don't want to see them. Having a pamphlet or something to hand out ot a person if they want to see such things would be fine though once they are made aware of it's contents.

Nasty_Girl

Whenever I read a debate about the need to see such pictures I always remember what my old Geography teacher said, he claimed that "shocking" pictures of famine victims etc contributed to donor fatigue, that people became desenstised to it and didnt give money anymore.

So what do ya think?

In a couple of years will people not bat an eyelid to abortion pictures....if so, what will the protesters do then?

Moriarty

Perhaps they'll start murdering doctors.

Oh, hang on..

Sleepy

I'd very much agree with Imposter here, though I think it should be perhaps more tightly controlled than a mere "some of these images are of a disturbing nature" warning.

People have a right to see these type of images if they choose to see them. They do not, in my opinion, have a right to force others to see them by plastering them on the front page of a newspaper/a billboard/tea-time news.

I think this is one of the many beauties of the internet, that in a news article describing these events you can link to the pictures for those that do wish to see them without forcing others who merely want the information to have to stomach them. With the advent of digital television this is something that could be done through the interactive features of news channels such as Sky News.

I don't think it's necessary for anyone to see these types of pictures. Sure, people need to be aware of reality but they don't need to be slapped about the head with it.

Zombrex

I always though that the pictures of dead foetuses was all a bit redundant.

I mean what did people think a dead feotus looked like? A wooly jumper? To me it has no effect on my position on abortion. I suppose it might make someone think about their position, but I think if someone had such an ill-informed position that they didn't know that an abortion involves the death of a foetus and that inside a person is a lot of blood (ie. abortion = dead foetus + lots of blood) then they should really take more time to reach decissions

cajun_tiger

personaly i disagree with these shock factor photos being displayed on street conners poster boards, or on normal(not news)channels...

example walking from grafton street to westmorlan street with my daughter(4) and stumble apon an abortion prolife campaine!!! my daughter now has had dreams of the "dead babys on the street" that is wrong.. if we are given the option to open a newspaper and look for ourselfs fine... if we turn on sky news to watch it fine but i disagree with the pictures being on the front cover of the newspapers for anyone to see... children esp.!!

Evilution

neuro-praxis wrote:

There's a big hulabaloo on another bulletin board that I read (such a traitor I am, I know) about the disturbing photographs that organisations such as Youth Defense show of aborted foetuses. (Personally, I hate the photographs and believe that they're unnecessary.)

However a thought crossed my mind (a rare thing, hold on to your hats) with regard to the pictures of prisoner abuse in Iraq and the pictures of the dead bodies in Tsunami...

I have heard it argued on our very own Boards.ie that it is necessary for us to see the Tsunami pictures and the Iraq pictures (in whatever forms) because they are "real life" and "we need to face it".

If this is a reasonable argument, then, could the same not be said about the photographs of aborted foetuses?

I wonder what other people think.

We have the choice to turn on the TV and watch the news coverage of the Tsunami, or pick up a paper and read about it.
If you've ever passed the GPO in dublin when the anti-abortion twats are about, you're not given a choice about whether you want to see the pix or not - they're shoved in your face.

Absolam

Our society holds freedom to be a basic tenet of civilisation; be it freedom of expression, movement, whatever. So whilst some images, or facts, or opinions, may be distasteful to some people, to limit anyones' freedom to express them would be wrong (save should they be untruthful attacks upon someone else, or used to limit another persons' freedom). We also have the freedom to disregard what we have the opportunity to see or hear.

To me, occasionally being aware of something I don't want to be aware of is a small price to pay for not having a censor decide what is and is not good for me to know...

Sleepy

But what about a persons freedom to walk down the street without being traumatised? I'd give it another couple of years before some of the more crackpot anti-abortion (there is no such thing as an anti-life movement, therefore calling themselves pro-life is just nonsensical) groups are sued for quite large amounts of money for traumatising some girl who's had an abortion / someone who recently had a still birth / a particularly sensitive member of society. We live in a litigeous society, and freedom of speech is not (as popularly thought here in Ireland) enshrined in our constitution.

Absolam

Actually, Article 40 of the Constitution states:
6. 1° The State guarantees liberty for the exercise of the following rights, subject to public order and morality:

i. The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions.

The education of public opinion being, however, a matter of such grave import to the common good, the State shall endeavour to ensure that organs of public opinion, such as the radio, the press, the cinema, while preserving their rightful liberty of expression, including criticism of Government policy, shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State.

The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law.

Thats freedom of expression right there.

The Corinthian

neuro-praxis wrote:

I have heard it argued on our very own Boards.ie that it is necessary for us to see the Tsunami pictures and the Iraq pictures (in whatever forms) because they are "real life" and "we need to face it".

If this is a reasonable argument, then, could the same not be said about the photographs of aborted foetuses?

A good point. I’d be curious to hear the logic of someone who would argue that the Abu Grabi abuse or Tsunami photographs should have been shown, but those of aborted foetuses should not.

Wicknight wrote:

I suppose it might make someone think about their position, but I think if someone had such an ill-informed position that they didn't know that an abortion involves the death of a foetus and that inside a person is a lot of blood (ie. abortion = dead foetus + lots of blood) then they should really take more time to reach decissions

You’re probably right, however the sad reality is that people often do not take all that much time to reach decisions. For example, public opinion shifted dramatically in Ireland as the result of a single emotive case and hearing individuals mutter “but if it was my daughter” used as an argument or justification was not uncommon at the time of the now infamous X Case. Yet it was ultimately an emotive argument, much like the use of the graphic imagery discussed here or the use of starving children in Africa will be used to prise open peoples purses.

These pictures should be a matter of choice, not luck. I want to be able to choose whether I see a picture of an aborted Foetus, or the three-day dead baby from the tsunami disaster. These images should remain a matter of choice. Sure they should be available, but I don't want some overly enthusiastic human-rights protestor shoving a gruesome picture into my face (Which has happened before).

It should remain a matter of choice to view the Images. Not the choice of the person to show the images to everyone. I don't agree with the indescriminate advertising of those imagery.

neuro-praxis

Hrm.

I would prefer not to have to see those aborted foetus pictures, but I would still fight for the rights of that organisation not to be censored.

As I would fight for the rights of pro-choice organisations not to be censored.

Having said that, if people were showing pornographic movies on the side of the road to express some opinion...I probably wouldn't be fighting for their rights to do that because it would offend my sensibilities too much. I wouldn't be traumatised but I wouldn't be thrilled, especially if my nephews were with me.

Does it really hurt us to see a few pictures? Sleepy, are people honestly traumatised by photographs of disturbing imagery do you reckon?

...I think I'll have to admit that I'm a relativist on this one. !Shock!

Does it really hurt us to see a few pictures?

It depends. I get annoyed when I see ads for charities geared towards Africa at 6 o'clock, when I'm sitting down to dinner. It bugs me because it doesn't help. It just makes me determined to ignore the issue. Sure I'll give charity money, but not as a result of seeing those pictures.

Generally these pictures/movies just de-sensitises (sp?) me. I've found with looking back on my own feelings towards various ad campaigns, that my sympathies have been lessened. In fact i'm more crass about my feelings. In school/college I was aware of famine & war in Africa and felt sympathy and regularly gave money. However, through the last decade I've lost that sympathy. Even the Tsunami diusaster didn't really rise my sympathies that much beyond giving roghly 30 euros in a pub charity.....

I don't think these awareness campaigns (using disturbing imagery)help. All they do is increase the chance that people will turn away and ignore them. There is also the aspect that I get annoyed to being bombarded with the imagery in an attempt to make me change my mind about an issue. It makes me feel that they don't respect my opinions, and need more & more disturbing images to try to change them. I'm pro-abortion in very selective circumstances, but all their campaigns of anti-abortion just makes me more stubborn. <shrugs> I might be unique in my opinions about these ad campaigns and their methods, but i doubt it.

As I would fight for the rights of pro-choice organisations not to be censored.

Is it censorship to prevent them from airing them publicly? I assumed that censorship prevented everyone from viewing the imagery. Regardless, as per my post i'm for partial censorship. The ability to view them, if you wish it. But organisations would not be able to use them for ad campaigns in newspapers, TV, Billboards etc.

omnicorp

I think the constant barrage of these pictures does not help at all, but rather, it does the opposite, all these pictures on our screens all the time fail to shock us. I wasn't shocked at all afer seeing the tsunami pictures.
It is only making us think "yeah, we know it's happening, change the channel this is boring".
Some intelligent debates and images of governments getting active on these matters would help far more.
And disgracing the government doesn't help either.

Tusky

I havent had time to read this thread apart from the first post so forgive me if this point has already been made.

Its one thing saying that maybe its a good thing for us to see these pictures but the way they show them on the street where young children can see them is rediculous as the pcitures are quite shocking and disturbing. These are most likely the same type of people banging on about the damage violence in video games and movies does to the young uns :rolleyes:

simu

Tusky wrote:

Its one thing saying that maybe its a good thing for us to see these pictures but the way they show them on the street where young children can see them is rediculous as the pcitures are quite shocking and disturbing.

Do children even pay attention to things like that? I suspect really young ones don't. And even if older kids do, why not just explain what's going on? A picture of an aborted foetus isn't really much grosser than a picture of raw chicken with the gloopy bits still on.

RampagingBadger

Is anyone suggesting that they shouldn't be allowed to show these pics? I think the conscencus is that they're in bad taste but so are Ug-boots. Censorship = bad.

The thing is in most abortions the foetus is chopped up and yanked out piece by piece so the pics are kinda inaccurate. But they do show reality, the people showing them have a point to make that they feel passionate about. If it disturbs you so much to see it does it not put you off the idea of abortion, ergo achieves their goal. Doesn't affect me personally.

Imposter

RampagingBadger wrote:

Is anyone suggesting that they shouldn't be allowed to show these pics?

... the people showing them have a point to make that they feel passionate about. If it disturbs you so much to see it does it not put you off the idea of abortion, ergo achieves their goal. Doesn't affect me personally.

Imo they could distribute the pics in flyers to people that were told what was on the flyer. Only censored from open view but not from distribution.

Victor

Devils advocate: should we show pictures of child rape to show what really happens?

GuanYin

I for one think that there is a difference between the two categories and do not agree with the images portraying aborted foetuses.

The main difference in my eyes is that where as the tsunami and prison photos are trying to gather support for issues that, more or less, society are at a grand consensus on, aborted foetuses are tools for one side of a fence to press unwanted opinions on the other side.

Secondly, I've always been very curious about where they get the photos from. Do they have the consent of those from whom the foetuses came? I understand the irony of consent in this issue, but one must remember that not all abortions are clear cut cases of not wanting the baby and as such the rights of individduals involved must be respected.

So, no, I think those who use such images to push their agenda on others are selfish and hypocritical. If they want to hold meetings or information seminars and show images to those willingly open to them, fine, but not on the street and not to those who have no interest in hearing or seeing their views.

How's that TC?

Neuro

neuro-praxis wrote:

I have heard it argued on our very own Boards.ie that it is necessary for us to see the Tsunami pictures and the Iraq pictures (in whatever forms) because they are "real life" and "we need to face it".

Someday, when you're driving home late at night and you're the first person to come upon the scene of a bad car accident, there'll be no one there to censor what you'll see.

Someday, when you're driving home late at night and you're the first person to come upon the scene of a bad car accident, there'll be no one there to censor what you'll see

And thats fine, but then there's no stranger shoving your face into the images. The different is that advertising consists of displaying images as much as possible, so that you're constantly seeing them. Ever watch Sky1? Their adverts for their new series of Nip Tuck is on nearly every ad break. Modern Advertising agencies perform the same actions with campaigns that can be offensive.

Restriction is the key here. Sure they can display the images, but they need to be regulated to minimise the damage they can do

omnicorp

I think advertisers are getting away with murder and if we try to stop them they'll run to "Freedom of Speech"

I think advertisers are getting away with murder and if we try to stop them they'll run to "Freedom of Speech"

This is one of the things that get me. Take certain newspapers like the Sun and a few others. Sure they don't have the best of reputations, friends look at the sports section and the pics ( ) and try to ignore the content. Invasions of privacy occur regularly, and can also occur in cases of proective custody and such. And in my eyes they're overstepping the bounds of decency, privacy and the law.

People do not have the right to know everything. We all want our own personal privacy, but we're not there to protect others privacy. Sure, they're rich or successful (in most cases), but notice of those non-famous/rich that are caught in the camera's are also being invaded.

I wonder is "freedom of speech" being taken too far. I believe that I should know what my government is doing with my country. I don't believe I have the right to know visually when someones privacy is invaded (i.e. Britney Spears on a beach, etc) I like Porn and I like seeing beautiful women, but I don't have the right to stalk & take pictures of someone.

Freedom of speech..... is it more powerful than the right to privacy?

I didn't mean to wander off the subject but in review I seem to have.

Moriarty

They don't claim freedom of speech, they claim it's "in the public intrest". Which it isn't, but that's beside the point.

Cremmer

Neuro wrote:

Someday, when you're driving home late at night and you're the first person to come upon the scene of a bad car accident, there'll be no one there to censor what you'll see.

If you have an argument here, maybe flesh it out a bit more?

There is no ethical dilemma involved in seeing a tragedy first hand. In that situation, my sensibilities (or anybody's) don't really come into it.

neuro-praxis

Moriarty wrote:

They don't claim freedom of speech, they claim it's "in the public intrest". Which it isn't, but that's beside the point.

I don't think that's beside the point at all - that IS the point, no? Aren't we arguing about whether or not society "needs" to see these pictures?

Klaz wrote:

I wonder is "freedom of speech" being taken too far.

I hear what you're saying in terms of invasion of privacy, but I don't honestly believe that freedom of speech can "go too far". Either you have freedom of speech or you don't. I mean, obviously I'm not in favour of slander, but I am in favour of groups with directly opposing viewpoints to mine being allowed to have their say.

Is it an infringement of freedom of speech on the media if they are prohibited from publicly airing disturbing photographs?

I believe so.

Moriarty

neuro-praxis wrote:

I don't think that's beside the point at all - that IS the point, no? Aren't we arguing about whether or not society "needs" to see these pictures?

Nah, we went off on a tangent about peoples right to privacy versus the right to free speech. It's not relevant to the original question.

neuro-praxis wrote:

I hear what you're saying in terms of invasion of privacy, but I don't honestly believe that freedom of speech can "go too far". Either you have freedom of speech or you don't. I mean, obviously I'm not in favour of slander, but I am in favour of groups with directly opposing viewpoints to mine being allowed to have their say.

I'm not particularly in favour of a universal and all-pervasive right to free speech. There are extremes in numerous political and moral movements which I feel don't deserve the right to express their ideas to a greater or lesser extent, for a number of different reasons.

I don't think displaying pictures of aborted foetuses openly on the street should be legal, as it pushes the images on people who don't want to look at them for whatever reason.

I have no problem with these groups displaying these pictures inside pamphlets which they could hand out on the street where you have a choice of opening and reading them, or displaying them in function halls where they hold meetings etc.

neuro-praxis wrote:

Is it an infringement of freedom of speech on the media if they are prohibited from publicly airing disturbing photographs?

I believe so.

The question isn't whether it would be an infringement of freedom of speech (as it obviously is), its whether we want universal and unfettered freedom of speech or not.

neuro-praxis

Moriarty wrote:

The question isn't whether it would be an infringement of freedom of speech (as it obviously is), its whether we want universal and unfettered freedom of speech or not.

You're right.

So if we all agree that some censorship is necessary, how do we measure what's acceptable and what's not?