The whole wide hips and large breasts constitutes a women, while figures like the one I shot are considered to “look under 18″ and therefore classed as child pornography (under Australian law anyway, while flickr is U.S.) based and therefore are illegal as it’s “real” C.P. while exceptions include art, history, medical, scientific categories etc.

In any case this comment has nothing to do with the flickr thing, but an individuals interpretation of a young nude image is useless. Everyone is going to be different. There is no stable reference. So in the case of actual under 18 nudes, you’d have to look at the environment it was created in, and the intention of the creation. It’s a lot easier to to divide child pornographers from artists this way. As art doesn’t have to be high class, aesthetic, beautifully lit, and all that. It can simply be ‘ugly’ as well. Art doesn’t need to be good art, it can be poorly executed by an amateur artist too with like no experience. Labelling someone who made crappy art as a child pornographer because of the quality of the image would be out of line as well as I think. Etc etc.

None of that actually has to do with anything the reason why it’s not suitable for moderate according to flickr.

Moderate is an acceptable category for nudes. And Restricted is listed for full frontal nudity, which is exposed genitalia.

Consider that pubic hair can be seen in the most extreme depiction of nudity (which is what full frontal nudity is) and mild nudity to no nudity.

Then consider the flick safety guidelines are only listing nudity as a safety content level categorising tool. There is no mention of pubic hair.

So there is no logical connection of pubic hair to nudity level or restricted in itself unless there is information stating pubic hair is restricted.

There is no information stating pubic hair is restricted. That piece of information was communicated to me in private by staff after I had received consequences for it already.

If pubic hair is simply restricted, they can list it in the guidelines simply enough. It would have avoided me getting a “last strike” per se.

The whole “think of the children” argument is really tired old and useless. That line is always used as a justification for the worst of things. In any case, content filter rating doesn’t stop people from looking at some things, it allows them to choose what they want to see. Moderate includes nudity.

People using the guidelines to categorise their stuff are not conservatives, as they are the ones shooting nudes etc like me, they will likely apply logic to the guidelines and interpret them the correct way, until they get burned for it and start interpreting it the ‘conservative make your own definition up for everytthing based on your sensibilities’ way.

Given who needs the guidelines (the people shooting nudes). They should be constructed correctly for them to act within flickr’s intention of what goes where. You cannot abide by such a rule you do not know about until you get burned by it.

That was said to me after my account was restricted, after I asked for a personal review rather than the auto-bot response of “naughty boy go look at the guidelines your account is now restricted” <– they dont tell you what's wrong you have to try and figure it out. So AFTER the fact I find out what's wrong and with which image.. funny they singled out one image out of a bunch that has pubic hair on them :/

So if she were shaved (more risque I would think) it'd be fine, if you couldnt see genitalia, from that angle and coverage by the leg you wouldn't.

In any case these are private rules not listed in the guidelines. These rules are not available to the flickr community.

If I break any more rules, my account is forever restricted. I could do that by accident even by forgetting something or accidentally changing something… on top of that I may accidentally break a rule I never heard of that’s simply not in the guidelines.. how are you supposed to know?

If that happens, my account might even been erased along with my years of history if a staff reviewer looks at the previous warning and is in a bad mood or is conservative moralist or something.

A flickr friend is permanently set to moderate and I have no idea what she did. All she posts are vacation pictures, must have been a topless beach in europe or something…

Anyways, what a lot of people do is get a second flickr account for their nudes. Set it to restricted by default and keep your regular stuff separate. I know it sucks but better safe than permanently restricted.

To use your public street analogy, if you walked up to someone in the street, were holding some kind of demonstration, or simply having a stand in the city talking about your ideas (such as the religious types do) you wouldn’t get dragged off by authorities and censored for your ideas because your ideas disagree with the state (at least in this country).

The basic foundation of a free society is the right to hold your own beliefs without imposing your will onto others – which works in the reverse direction, people cannot impose their will onto you, because it is their right to individual beliefs as well without imposing their will onto others the same rights as yours that stop them from doing so.

Obviously I cannot have that their, since their will is to shut me up so others don’t read my ideas, so I will take it where I can have that.

This comment came after events of being followed into private message to start an argument with, which has a track record of, so rather than getting into debating specifics I left that there after I saw “The Wright Brothers” was involved, I didn’t post my written response and posted that. That was erased, so I followed it up with a more full response after that, which again was censored in the interest of business.

Scott Shepherd asked in private what was misinformation on their site and in his words to give him my recommendation which could be added, so I did, obviously they didn’t like it since it flew in the face of what they have already written as a marketing point. If they wan’t to ignore that and lead people to believe what is on their site is accurate and censor anyone who challenges it when they are treating the public group of peers as a marketing list.. well I ain’t gonna stand for that.

Again, after simply leaving this as they were, I was hassled in private. You never see these guys treating people like this in a public space such as the group where others can see it, otherwise I’m sure other people would get riled up at it, and again probably bad for their new business.

Yet they do it to private to me, and probably others that simply disagree with them, who knows who and what else gets censored and erased since it does so so quickly. Wrong or right in such a debate becomes less important of an issue as they start attacking your character, saying you’re stupid, can’t take photos, don’t know shit about anything (especially when they were gathering information on the very subject from you in the first place, and basically to shut up and not participate in discussions anymore), and yet again can talk down to you in front of your peers, and you simply get censored without recourse of being able to respond because they are in a position of power.

Well that my friend is simply wrong and reprehensible, so I will certainly violate any privilege to privacy and confidentiality to share this with other people publicly and show their real colours when you get stripped of your right to share your voice in front of your peers.

It is an oligarchy that now has a business interest, and business rules.