Discussions (18)

Girl Becomes Woman deleted!

view profile

My Sister's Keeper says:

The paid Pro account was active for over a year but was deleted on Monday, November 22, 2010, and Yahoo also deleted the email account which was active for 12 years. GBW’s 200+ Photostream contained no genital nudity, but several images of top-free children as many European Flickr members do.

His last upload on the previous Friday evening included a fully-clothed 11-year-old, painting her toenails, with a brief discussion of Nabokov’s novel and the two film versions of the story. Nothing “suggestive” in the image and no mention of sex or nudity in the text.

Flickr staff said someone clicked on the "Report Abuse" link, and they decided that Yahoo Services rules had been violated. Anything that is "objectionable" is prohibited, without specifying what that includes or excludes. Was there some organized campaign by hysterics to seize any excuse to send a barrage of mail complaining about their ideological enemies, as they did to author Judith Levine when she published “Harmful to Minors,” (University of Minnesota Press)?

Now that his descriptions, comments and discussions have been deleted the really destructive individuals on the web can make false accusations about what GBW supposedly said or did – because many people are so superficial or dishonest that they believe accusations without evidence they can verify with their own eyes.

GBW contributed a lot of important information to the Flickr community in his many descriptions, comments and discussions, calling attention to the ill effects of breast shame on children’s health (sometimes fatal).

He blocked contacts with profanity in their names, and deleted obscene comments that others made on his photos. The only real criticism that may be made against him is that his contributions were politically incorrect. Are the 600+ people who added GBW as a contact asking why that account was deleted?
6:15AM, 4 December 2010 PST (permalink)

long-term pull [deleted] says:

Actually, yes we are - and we're getting stonewalled by Flickr.

Nietzsche got it right when he asserted that "There are multiple interpretations for everything. Which interpretation holds sway is a function of power, not truth."
Originally posted 110 months ago. (permalink)
long-term pull edited this topic 110 months ago.

view photostream

meredith markleigh is a group administrator meredith markleigh says:

It's sad to hear this news. I was a fan of GBW's work. Their images were beautiful and tasteful.
110 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

My Sister's Keeper says:

Why would anybody find images of top-free little girls “objectionable”??? Here are some possible explanations:

The most common argument is that such images might stimulate some people to commit sex crimes against children. Images of nudity or partial nudity are not necessarily “pornographic” (conversely, images of fully-clothed children could be “pornographic” depending on the context). Calling any and all nudity “pornography” is sex-baiting no less reprehensible than red-baiting or race-baiting. We can agree that we shouldn’t stimulate anybody to commit sex crimes, but there is evidence that even outright pornography might actually have the opposite effect. Several countries where pornography was formerly legal and then became illegal have found an increase in sex crimes against children after child pornography became illegal. Other countries that have legalized some forms of child pornography have experienced a decrease in sex crimes against children. eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-11/s-lcp113010.php

Another argument (less commonly expressed) is that some people find images of top-free little girls “objectionable” because of the traditional religious belief in the need to encourage spiritual values rather than the “pleasures of the flesh.” Although disguised as rhetoric about “moral decency,” such religious considerations should be irrelevant because most countries have constitutional protection against church interference in public policy, although history offers many examples of such constitutional protections being ignored. See: “Forbidden History: The State, Society, and the Regulation of Sexuality in Modern Europe” by John C. Fout Ed. (Univ. Chicago Press, 1992).

Another explanation is almost never voiced openly: The multi-billion-dollar bottle formula industry promotes breast shame as well as other dirty tricks to discourage mothers from breastfeeding in order to sell breast milk substitutes. We must be suspicious of critics of breast pride who never mention this huge special interest group that profits from breast shame. As someone once said, the best form of propaganda – even better than lying – is omission. See “The Politics of Breastfeeding: When Breasts are Bad for Business,” 3rd ed. by Gabrielle Palmer (Pinter & Martin, London, 2009).
109 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

--THX1138-- says:

I've heard of earlier deletions, but this is by far the most rediculous one I've heard so far.

Time to give the people at Wikileaks a call. See if they can help ;)
109 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

Matre says:


"…because many people are so superficial or dishonest that they believe accusations without evidence they can verify with their own eyes."

You nailed it. That's the root of all evil … shallow, gullible people who let others think for them. Follow-the-leader. It's also why the concept of "Majority Rules" is flawed. For the concept to be legitimate, it depends on critical thinkers, each making a decision based on their own research. 100 lies do not make a single truth.

I do not know of the member who had his account deleted, but truly anyone is at risk. It only takes one lie spread by ignorant followers. "Ignorant" contains the word "ignore"… they ignore truth.
109 months ago (permalink)

long-term pull [deleted] says:


That's the root of all evil … shallow, gullible people who let others think for them. Follow-the-leader. It's also why the concept of "Majority Rules" is flawed.


"Democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin


For the concept to be legitimate, it depends on critical thinkers, each making a decision based on their own research.


"If we can't think for ourselves, if we're unwilling to question authority, then we're just putty in the hands of those in power. But if the citizens are educated and form their own opinions then those in power work for us." - Carl Sagan


100 lies do not make a single truth.


"The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or politics, but it is not the path to knowledge." - Carl Sagan


It only takes one lie spread by ignorant followers.


"When even one American - who has done nothing wrong - is forced by fear to shut his mind and close his mouth - then all Americans are in peril." -- Harry S. Truman <- This holds just as true if you substitute "person" for "American".
Originally posted 109 months ago. (permalink)
long-term pull edited this topic 109 months ago.

view photostream

My Sister's Keeper says:

The rule of law requires clear definitions of what behavior is prohibited, otherwise the laws may be applied arbitrarily. Vague rules that prohibit anything “objectionable” are an invitation to abuse of power. Yahoo Services is a private company, so from a libertarian point of view the owners may establish any rules they like – even vague ones. Do companies hope to find more paying customers by having vague rules?

In many countries little girls don’t have to wear tops if they don’t want to. A casual survey I did on public beaches in two Mediterranean countries found that about 30% of the girls under 11 were top-free. Economical top-free bathing suits are sold in mainstream shops up to size (age) 10.

The web is a precious gift that we should appreciate and protect as a patrimony for future generations. We all have a duty to respect the law and not misuse this innovative technology to promote crime. We should use the web to promote education and health, not censorship to silence minority viewpoints.
109 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

Matre says:


"Democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin

Liberty requires critical thinkers. Why did this country go about business-as-usual when the Supreme Court stepped-in and determined our next president for us, when the popular vote was for the alternative?

The US is not a Democracy. Benjamin Franklin knew that.

The US is a Republic — a government by representation. The US Constitution does not contain the word: "democracy" — not even once.

Carl Sagan is one of my heros.
Originally posted 109 months ago. (permalink)
Matre edited this topic 109 months ago.

long-term pull [deleted] says:

@Matre

Indeed, Benjamin Franklin, when a woman asked what the Constitutional Convention had given the people, is said to have replied "A republic, ma'am, if you can keep it."

Books for Parents said:


The rule of law requires clear definitions of what behavior is prohibited, otherwise the laws may be applied arbitrarily.


Indeed.

But is the rule of law what we have in America anymore? The evidence I see with my eyes tells me, "No, it is not."
109 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

Matre says:

We have so many laws, we've slipped right into 1984 and big brother.

But now I'm off-topic and I'll stop.
109 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

My Sister's Keeper says:

Let's not get off-topic. . Read Pulitzer Prize winner Richard Ofshe's "Making Monsters: False Memories, Psychotherapy, and Sexual Hysteria," on how the psychotherapy industry has brainwashed, milked and devastated countless families.

For centuries primitive rituals have demanded that parents mentally castrate their daughters. As documented in the book "Mutilée" by Khady (Oh! Editions, Paris, 2005), even in some Third World countries where little girls are still physically castrated today, it's the mothers and other women who organize and perform the gruesome operation.

By the way, the topic of this discussion is: Yahoo/Flickr policy on deleting accounts.
109 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

my traces says:

I know the photo of Girl Becomes Woman , I've never seen anything offensive to the dignity of children photographed.
It would be interesting to know the reasons for this complaint !
I think the Flickr Team should admit they made a mistake and apologize.
107 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

nelio filipe says:

hi, i'm new to the group and haven't come in touch with GBW's work, but by the discussion above i have a pretty good idea about the issue. i'm from a latin european country where under 11 girls don't use a top on the beach, except for vanity, even grown up women feel free not to use the top if they don't want to. so, it seems to me that this is a lot absurd, to see something sexual in a prepuber girl's breasts. but the truth is that flickr is global now, not american, not european, global, and administration has to deal with a lot of sensibilities, cultural backgrounds and religious dogmas. you don't know if the complainer is from a western culture country. i'm not saying flickr administration did the right thing, i'm just saying that the issue is a lot more complex than it seems at first sight.
Originally posted 107 months ago. (permalink)
nelio filipe edited this topic 107 months ago.

view photostream

My Sister's Keeper says:

Thanks for your thoughtful input. Some of GBW’s images can be seen at: www.GirlBecomesWoman.com You can also read the Introduction to the documentary there.

It’s about time more Europeans participate in this discussion. I realize there’s a language barrier, but communication is the most important thing. Grammatical perfection is unnecessary. Write in your own language if you like (French, German, Spanish or Italian), and I’ll get it translated. Are you willing to translate Portuguese comments from Portugal and Brazil?

I don’t understand what you mean about the administration having to deal with a lot of sensibilities. Should Flickr delete all accounts that might be objectionable to anybody in the world? Should Flickr members limit their discussions to topics that avoid any possible disagreement? Should there be a Political Correctness Committee to decide such things?

My point is that Flickr should clearly spell out their criteria for deleting accounts, and ideally give a detailed explanation for deleting a paid account. Otherwise, deletions may be inconsistent and arbitrary. A prior warning would also be reasonable.

In GBW’s case, the deletion occurred not after images of top-free little girls were posted (up to six months prior), but after GBW discussed a classic work of literature without making any reference to sex or nudity. A discussion of attempts to censor that book is at dangerouspages.blogspot.com/2009/07/banned-book-lolita.html

We are left wondering if some people clicked on the “Report Abuse” link because they felt certain books or authors should never be mentioned, and the Flickr Team agreed with them?
107 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

threechairs says:

I'm glad I was invited to post to this group and then discovered this discussion, its fascinating.

Flickr's Community Guidelines and TOS are incredibly vague as to what is and is not acceptable. On occasion I've tried to clarify something (regarding adult nudity) and have not been able to get a consistent answer the most simple of questions. Imagine trying to get them to clarify on something complicated. Perhaps their unwritten policy is to just take the easiest route to save money. Cheaper to delete an account than argue it (time and resources wise).

I don't know about other countries (and it would be interesting to hear) but the legislation in New Zealand regarding "objectionable material" is also incredibly vague, and is at the most part left to the subjectivity of whatever governing body oversees the material.

According to NZ definitions, it could be argued that Flickr is awash with objectionable material, but you only EVER hear that term in relation to child "pornography".

At the other end I can fully imagine there are conservative religious and feminist organisations that have armies of volunteers poring over the whole internet looking for "objectionable" material and causing a fuss over it.

The Nietzsche quote above covers it pretty well, I think.
105 months ago (permalink)

Would you like to comment?

Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).