I don't know Tuck Loong nor drumma from Adam and have only read the entire thread today. So have no vested interest in helping either party's cause.
I have to agree with Student in this instance, until drumma re-posts the two offending pics Tuck Loong claims he deleted from his flicker site or publically refutes TL's assertions that the two photos were not staged, we should reserve judgement ourselves too.
Otherwise we too will be guilty of the same thing we are branding Tuck Loong for right now. Yes, some people are carrying on like a lynch mob and it is easy to understand their disdain for TL, however, good reason and fair play have gone out of the window as I see it.
Last edited by Tetrode; 24th September 2006 at 10:40 AM.
Felt that there's no offensive afterall except of.. hm.. no idea running in my mind..
So now all photos need to go thru censorship board for approval?? Like all the DVDs with G, NC16, M18 and R21 rating?
Sigh.. what world are we living at?
echo-ing student's and Tetrode's comments here.
but watching with interest.
The most it could do is order the sg ISP's to block the site's address.
You have a choice to view it or not, you must not shove your own choices and opinions down the throat of others just because it offends you.
This is what democracy is about, and it is about choices. No one forces you to view a particular picture, but what most of us here are bothered about, is that particular freedom of choice is being undermined by one crusader who has a cause in mind but does not lay enough cards out on the table.
We live in an age when unnecessary things are our only necessities. - Oscar Wilde
I think the main issue here is the paternal self righteous attitude the thread starter seems to have.
But this issue is getting stale already.
Ok where is the next CS kopitiam controversy? it's about time.
I want to see 10 pages of active debate!!!
haha.. all of this is hilarious. drumma... ive seen all your work. i really dont think you should be giving in..
so what if some think a picture is in bad taste... as long as you had the consent of the model, i dont think theres anything wrong here.
and btw TL, this would not be an offence under the Act that you quoted... so take your scaremongering somewhere else. frankly no one here is interested.
so as to your offer to leave CS... well, good bye good riddance and dont let the door hit you on the way out.
The thread started off beneficial and informative to all regarding the rules and regulations but quickly turned into a tit-for-tat verbal sparring. Let's not shoot anyone over this issue and get back to the discussion on hand.
What is so bad about controversy?
It raises issues. It promotes debate. It can get out of hand but usually that doesn't stem from the controversy itself but the people participating in the debate.
If the pictures in question were taken without consent then it would be criminal but they weren't so that's cleared up. If there are impressionable youth out there who will follow drumma's example and start taking upskirt or downblouse or whatever then :
1) They deserved to be arrested
2) Their parents really haven't given them the proper values to begin with.
I've read the MDA rules and really they can be vague and twisted to suit the needs of whoever is in charge to protect whatever 'public good' they think is appropriate.
I think the first set of people who should be looked at are the newspeople. All of the above is in the news and who decides what is injurious to the public good. Just go check out any of the Chinese nightly newspapers and New Paper, heck even the ST has elements of the above.(a) matters such as sex, horror, crime, cruelty, violence or the consumption of drugs or other intoxicating substances in such a manner that the availability of the publication is likely to be injurious to the public good; or
I think that by extension of the argument that youths will be influenced by drumma's photographs, these same youths should not be reading the newspapers. Heaven forbid that they should start committing the crimes that are mentioned in the newspapers. Let's ban the newspapers since they are such a source of badness.(iii) promotes or encourages criminal acts or acts of terrorism;
Also, sex seems to get a worse rap than violence. The general public has no problem with viewing bloody images but throw in anything remotely naked and it's a big no-no. What is wrong with nudity besides the fact that it's a phobic attitude with judeo-christian origins?
I like this one[SARCASM]. I have generally found that who the authorities deem as 'reasonable' members of the community are likely to be the more unreasonable people you will meet. Who is a reasonable member of the community? I'd like to believe that I am one and I would like to believe that people like me are more numerous than the conservative members of public that the authorities like to highlight whenever there is an issue to liberalise anything (usually the media).(d) the standards of morality, decency and propriety that are generally accepted by reasonable members of the community;
As always I'm reminded of the phrase "The path to Hell is paved with good intentions."
Thanks.Originally Posted by jdredd
Last edited by Reliance; 24th September 2006 at 01:28 PM.
i think he got a lot of accounts.