How hard is that to understand.
Please, admin, for the love of all things decent, stop all these graphic posts of dead people and violence:
I'm sorry to yell but this is really sickening. This is just a FEW of the posts that litter this forum.
http://www.algeria.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14297
~ BRUTAL : Sniper murders peace activist, Israel boycotts the inquest! ~
Have you got kids?
Should we have a contest to see who can show which side killed more people?
But we don't do that because it's just wrong.
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 5 of 5
Thread: I don't want to see dead people!
-
24th May 2006 06:17 #1
I don't want to see dead people!
Last edited by Sisyphean; 26th May 2006 at 03:41.
-
26th June 2006 23:53 #2
Registered User
- Join Date
- May 2003
- Posts
- 1,160
sysi
If we showed more photos , may be people will stop supporting wars and see what they do to ordinary people . may be there will be more people speaking out against colonialism , occupation and wars and the criminals who benefit from Selling arms to African guerillas groups that kill each other.
-
27th June 2006 00:05 #3
Registered User
- Join Date
- May 2005
- Posts
- 2,321
Yes but one has to be careful when children can also view a site. In my view it's OK where there's a "health warning" first (as I believe there is in those links), but one must be sure that the images are appropriate to the message rather than gratuitous, and are "signposted", as I said already.
To be honest, it's hard to make a post about (say) kids being killed in Iraq look palatable - the only question is how much and how far one "filters" the inevitably distressing imagery.
That would be my interpretation of the rules anyway, albeit that it's quite a liberal one.
V"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it."
-Voltaire

http://www.shirazsocialist.blogspot.com/
Sign the pledge for internet freedom: http://irrepressible.info/
-
27th June 2006 00:18 #4
Super Moderator
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Posts
- 289,708
Two of the threads complained about carry very clear warnings of the type of images one can expect to see if one opens the links contained in the threads - the third actually contains an image of someone who was not dead when the photograph posted in the thread was taken - Tom Hurndall was shot on April 11th 2003 but did not die until January 13th 2004.
In all three instances the images accompanying the posts are perfectly appropriate. In one instance the images were instrumental in overturning lies that had been told about the circumstances of the deaths depicted.
There is no promiscuous posting of images of violence on this site - given the ongoing bloodbaths in Iraq and Palestine, for example, it would be quite possible to post such images every day but that does not occur.
-
28th June 2006 14:51 #5
Registered User
- Join Date
- Nov 2005
- Posts
- 1,096
Agreed Al Khiyal, agreed Nesreen!







LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Bangladesh
Ecuador
Morocco
Nepal
Nicaragua
Puerto Rico
Russia
Scotland
South Africa
Ukraine
Virtual Countries