ZOMBIE THREAD ALERT: This thread hasn't been posted on for a while.
Was I BU to challenge friend on FB who made horribly prejudiced comment and photo posting?(104 Posts)
An acquaintance on FB surreptitiously took a photo of a very overweight lady sitting opposite him across two seats on the morning commute and captioned the photo with "Fat tax for rush hour trains?!"
I commented on his photo and horrid opinion saying "there ought to be a 'dislike' button on FB, there's no need to be so rude".
He posted a reply which he later deleted asking if the lady in his photo was a friend of mine and there was no need for me to "get all high and mighty". Then he posted that he agreed there should be a dislike FB button for photos that we're disgusting ie the lady in the picture.
I was so angry, poor woman minding her own business on her way to work being secretly photographed and humiliated on FB. BTW, I've no idea who the woman was, but I feel that disgusting attitudes like this need to be challenged as silence in the face of this kind of prejudice just condones it in my view.
Just needed to vent. Going to 'unfriend' the bastard
'photographers are free to use photos taken in public however they wish including for commercial gain'-
Not true. As a photographer you cannot use a picture for commercial gain that has a recognisable face unless the subject has signed a model release.
However, unfortunately you can take candid photos and put them on Facebook and mock the subject as much as you like, but that just makes you an arse-hole.
Doesn't matter if you agree with fat tax or not, a photo of someone taken without their consent did NOT need to be used to make that point.
Rosduk you are correct regarding usage of a photograph of a recognisable person, for commercial gain but there are somewhat tricky nuances. My DP is a professional and leisure sports photographer and he knows someone who took exception to his recognisable photo appearing in a specialist sports publication. He got legal advice about whether to pursue the photographer for damages and was told not to bother, he was on a hiding to nothing these days! Ubiquitous cameras on phones, tablets, SLRs etc makes it so difficult to draw the line between a "face in the crowd" "an innocent, naive bystander" being recognisable, due to pinpoint quality of today's digital imagery. It would make lawyers very rich and the vulnerable individual very poor.
My contention about Hatebook, which I withdrew from over a year ago, is that it is a free-for-all. It is a social media tool, put into the hands of a dangerous mix of idiot people, many of whom are ignorant and haven't got a clue about the concept of ethical guidelines (which are deemed to be overarching rules of decency based upon The Nuremberg Code). People tend to have an innate sense of what feels right, decent, just, but many people have never had that moral compass or boundaries. They are the ones who spring up on Hatebook with filth like coffee highlights in the OP.
Taking photos of people and publishing their images without their consent not only goes against their right to privacy, it contravenes their ability to give full informed consent, and can humiliate them (either knowingly or in absentia) especially if posted with derogatory comments. So that's not one but three ethical guidelines they have ignored. Fakebook proliferates this behaviour by enabling Tagging although they were pressurised into having the additional feature which gives the ability to suppress it. I found it unacceptable and it wound me up having photos of me in a group appearing on other people's profiles without my consent. And tagged, eughhh! After a while I just sucked it up came off the bloody thing and now its ignorance is bliss, I just ignore it, its a circus.
I feel very sorry for that poor woman in the photo, being mocked about her weight by a stupid idiot. For all he know she could have had thyroid problems, how dare he. I am gratified people on here are equally shocked, its the modern day social disease, making fun of people on Fb
AKAK, despite your huffy flounce, on the off chance you come back to this thread I would like to point out a few things which seem to have spectacularly passed you by:
The issue I wanted to raise was the cruel and spiteful targeting of a stranger just for kicks. I am not interested in a debate on paying for two seats, that can be for another thread (if you are brave enough?!)
As a previous poster said, you appear to have no moral compass whatsoever, and as a result I'm not surprised you have developed a thick skin, god knows you seem to need one.
I'm sorry you have medical and health issues and that you have had a rough time in the past but one would think this might make you a little more sensitive to others, no?
You are either emotionally illiterate or extremely obtuse.
AK 'flounced' because she/he lacked the intellectual ability and verbal dexterity to argue coherently. The abusive foul language is her/his only refuge.
A creature to be pitied.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.