What would/should you do?

Which is why we keep away from politics and religion on this site.

There's enough to argue abaout when we stick to photography, so back to photography please guys before we stray too far.

Thank you.

Surely this is simple freedom of speech?

No John, it's the forum's rules and purpose. It's a photography site, pure and simple.

We can talk about whatever we want on facebook or Twitter, bearing in mind the laws of libel and other laws of course.

Hi,

I feel that such shots at least bring these events into light and we can learn a lesson form them. As for the moral responsibility, I don't think one man with a camera can stop a frenzy mob. Mob mentality is very dangerous. There, usually, is no reasoning in a mob attack. Everyone does because the other one is doing. It is better to stay away from mob attacks. We may have the feeling to help, but that would only add one more victim to the count. The greatest help that one can do is to stay alive and show to the world what gory things happen so that one is morally forced to ponder over such events and correct or at least not contribute to such outcomes.

Regards,

Jeeess

Freedom of speech only lets you to say things that are allowed

John simply saw this developing into an argument so asked for it to stop, I can't say that he gets it right 100% of the time but on this occasion I think he did, this is an interesting thread and I doubt most of us want to see it filled with tit for tat posts.

I agree, which is why I was offended at someone being bigoted by calling another country a 'bass ackwards country'.

Take one of the most famous photographs ever shot: link. Was this act legal? Could the photographer have done anything to stop it?

The answer to both is that I do not know. Yet this photograph may have played a major factor in stopping the war in Vietnam.

I'm not saying that this is a case where the photographer could/should have taken action, but there is little doubt that this shot made a difference. You don't need to know anything about the circumstances or which side the subjects were on. It shows the reality of war in a way no other medium could.

Therefore, simply by taking this shot it could be argued that the photographer 'took action'.

There's no freedom of speech on a private forum. For better or for worse the buck stops with the Oligarchy.

Just to be clear, I had no intention of this developing into an argument. I saw bigotry and commented on it. Job done.

It's a classic and poignant photo.

What's not often shown is the other photos in the series. ( warning graphic content )

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?96111-Vietnam-pics-by-Horst-Faas&p=2051841&viewfull=1#post2051841

I disagree. It didn't make the slightest bit of difference. The same atrocities have been going on in many south American countries, Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Syria and soon Iran.

Having said that it's still important to document atrocities as not doing so would mae things even worse.

Don't underestimate the power of a photograph.

I'm not. A photograph is very powerful and I fully support the photographic record of atrocities. However the "powers that be" simply do not care about the loss of life or the photographic record if the loss of life and continue to commit atrocities.

But while we;re talking about the power of the photograph, don't forget the propaganda value of a photograph ....

Here's a famous image of the pulling down of Saddam's statue

http://pkuncensored.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/saddam-statue-1.jpg


.. which was portrayed by the western mainstream media, including the BBC, as the jubilance of the Iraqi people of being liberated from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein.

In reality this was a completely staged event by the CIA in which the 'Iraqi people slapping the statue with slippers' were paid henchmen of the CIA asset Ahmed Chalabi. Ordinary Iraqi people were banned from the square while this event was taking place.

Here's another infamous photograph ( Iwo Jima ), that was staged propaganda

http://www.yourememberthat.com/files/cfa297bf9ed281bd.jpg


So yes photography is powerful and can, and is, used for propaganda purposes

The photographs made me think there are a lot of places in the world I won't be visiting any time soon. I also think many people become inured to violence because of the proliferation of violence constantly shown on the various media.

I agree. Sadly it's not evenly accredited either. The Western governments and the Western media preach that violence is the answer to problems they have created, while they vilify violence by those who they decree are enemies.

We're straying from the point the OP made though.

Smeggypants, would you wade in or would you take the picture? I'm curious as to whether you think trying to stop something would help, or whether you'd be more help carrying the event to where it could be heard by many.

We're talking about personal reaction and the individual responsibilities of the photographer, not whether governments are corrupt or not.

I think effects theory is still under debate, widely debunked and people who purportedly commit acts of violence after influence of "media" are generally unhinged in the first place. It's not like murders increased with the advent of magazines, pacman, moving pictures or colour TV.