Flickr: Setting limits for online speech

Flickr is renown for their limitations on free speech. But then, they aren't a democracy, but a business.

One of my favorite photographers, Mark Velasquez, has been censored so many times, though his material isn't derogatory at all. http://www.flickr.com/photos/markvelasquez/sets/

Great article.

I've been involved in each of the threads involved here and Shepherd Johnson is in fact a troll. He's not commenting on photographs, he's using the White House photostream as a blog platform and whether or not he crosses a flickr terms of service line, he's out of line with what most people on flickr would tolerate in their photostreams.

His question about whether the White House photostream is public property is a ridiculous red herring. It's a private account on a private photo sharing service.

I have to say, the folks from the White House who monitor the account are incredibly hands-off in moderating the comments and over the months the account has been active there have been plenty of critical comments. None of them cross the lines that Shepherd Johnson has crossed by posting torture pictures and confronting the other flickr members who are enjoying this candid view inside the white house.

Bottom line is that Shepherd Johnson needs his own blog. This photostream is not the appropriate place to do what he's doing.

If you look through that photostream, you will see quite clearly how irritated people are by Shepherds behavior. Constant spamming of diatribes as well as constant attempts to create controversy, and when the vast majority of the posters ask him to stop and show their irritation with him, he respons by threatening them (other Flickr users) with legal action.

Aside from breaking several rules about spamming and creating a hostile environment, his incessant posting of graphic images on a site other than his own is just plain rude. If he just put them on his own Flickr site (knowing that his actions are not appreciated by the majority of the community) he wouldn't have these problems.

Flickr should have warned him in some way before deleting his pictures, however his actions have shown that would have been unlikely to stop. There are plenty of venues for political discussions on the Internet and why he feels he needs to do it on a photo-sharing site is a bit perplexing to me if not to just get this kind of attention.

I took a look at the White House's photos and it looks like Mr. Johnson is commenting still and the comments are there.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/3614792650/#comment72157619568145922

I've been in a few online forums and to be frank these comments look kind of like classic trolling to me. Making posts that only kinda relate to the topic, taking over the discussion, baiting people. All online forums, communities, or whatever need moderation. To not allow any moderation or call any moderation censorship doesn't really work when something is out of hand in an online forum. I'm not saying I know the answer here but it's worth considering how online discussions work and how they don't.

Flickr isn't the government. This isn't censorship.

But it *is* a lesson in depending on single sources for information.

Limiting postings on a presidential-related forum violates the principle of dissent about figures of great power. Most of the postings on the presidential photostream are so adoring they appear to be vapid outpourings of fandom not the vigorous disputation of citizenry. Obama would be embarrassed if he had to read them. I am a supporter of Obama embarrassed that there is not more generosity in the postings on Flickr -- and here -- commensurate with Obama's openness toward those who disagree with him.

John Young - I agree in principle, however if I walked into a Taco Bell with posters covered in his bloody pictures, reading out his rants and diatribes, I'm pretty sure I'd be asked to leave. If I started threatening the other patrons with lawsuits when they also asked me to leave, I'd probably be talking to our boys in blue. Why? Because it's a business and I'd be costing that business money and intimidating citizens.

Sure, the on-line world is a bit different, but the principles are the same. There are plenty of appropriate places for graphic images and political talk, and it is the proprietors responsibility to their shareholders to react accordingly. It's pretty clear (from your own comments) that his behavior was not welcome by the vast majority and Yahoo reacted as any responsible business would (should).

If Shepherd wants to continue with these tactics on a political blog that gets business by this precise form of activity, it would be wholly appropriate, however he refuses to do so (repeatedly).

I'm sure Flickr would be happy to leave comments that show his displeasure with the pictures on the site, but he feels the need to turn it into a discussion about political topics that are totally unrelated (i.e. he posts the same diatribes and gruesome photos on every/most/many threads regardless of the topic). In fact, he posts videos of himself shouting at George Bush, pictures of him being interrogated by DHS (for a separate incident), and asks people to report him to the FBI.

This clearly has less to do with Flickr than it does with his need to be vocal about whoever our President is (for attention?). That Flickr fell into his crosshairs is secondary, and anyone else he goads into responding to him will get threats of lawsuits (if an average Joe) or more attempts to get them castigated by the press (if a business).

If you don't like what Flickr did then start your own site. They are a private company that can do whatever they want, so shut the h*ll up!!

Oh, and John Young seems to be Cryptome, aka http://cryptome.org/

OR...the Cryptome2 poster on Flickr (link below) is copying from John Young (or the other way around). I'm not accusing anyone of copying someone elses words mind you, but since the text is identical (between John Young here and Cryptome2 there at the link) then one party or the other should chime in with a cry of foul or admit they are one and the same.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/3614792650/

I don't have any issue with anyone who wants to raise their issues (in an appropriate forum and in an appropriate manner) however some people live on being a victim, regardless of who is victimizing them (or if they need to change sides as necessary in order to remain a victim).

Either you want free speech (and be able to post nonsensical inflamatory speech in whatever forum online or not that you want) or you want to sue people for free speech (if your nonsensical and inflamatory speech is met with the appropriate amount of disdain)...you know, what Shepherd Johnson is doing (with the addition of breaking several of the rules of a business he contracted with).

Per Shepherd Johnson's own comments regarding the existance of this very article, "That is Fantastic! Now it's time to carry this story through the weekend. Monday is the beginning of a brand new news cycle."

http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/3608066101/in/set-72157619416255803/page2/

Some people are just looking for attention, and some media outlets don't do their homework or care about giving both sides of the story.

Note that Sheperd Johnson himself (despite being clearly aware of this article, per his response to knowing it was posted) hasn't posted a comment. He is afraid of commenting and wants the biased "facts" of this article to carry forward. I would think that the many posts against him here would get a response from him (even though he hasn't responded to the numerous negative points to the other articles about this nonsense) if he thought it defensible. Shepherd, where are the acusations of Libel lawsuits here? Why aren't you threatening me like you did everyone else? Is it because we aren't on a photo-sharing website and instead on one where your claims might make you look like a fool?

If I felt I was wronged and I knew an article was written to help me, and people spoke out against me, I think I'd answer. Maybe if we aren't on a Flickr site where people aren't willing to talk politics the pressure is too high?

Yes, I'm goading him because he won't answer because he won't argue in an appropriate forum. Yes, I'm goading him because he knows if he responds here he will validate the other posters comments. Yes, I'm goading businessweek to post all of his pictures and diatribes if they support this article. They won't. They also won't tell me why they won't even though they have my email address.

If BusinessWeek really supports this guy who would call a CEO at her home about an issue like this then I expect them to print all of his stuff, or else they are clearly censoring as well.

BusinessWeek? Would you support what Shepherd Johnson says? Have you read it? Is it about freedom of speech or about trying to make some other company look bad, even though you would have done the exact same thing? Any official response?

Yes, this John Young operates cryptome.org, which has published a number of photo essays by Shepherd Johnson. And published his first complaint about being booted by Flickr which was then picked up by others. Shepherd is admirably active as a citizen journalist, a role long-established in the US as a counter-balance to the commercial media which only in exceptional media presents both sides of a story, and almost always sides with the day's conventional wisdom, and to be sure, as acceptable to the media's advertisers. What is admirable about Obama is his willingness to hear all sides of an issue and not just kowtow to his supporters. That is exceptional leadership, albeit at times painful. Yes, he eventually makes his views known and takes action on them, despite the naysayers and idiotic critics eager to find fault in accord with their demogogues and nose-ring pullers. BTW, it is unfortunate that whoever makes too much noise in polite forums is branded a troll, a troublemaker, an attention seeker -- those charges were made against Obama and people like him throughout US history from Day One. Equally unfortunate is that established media all too often use the same facile characterizations. It does take more effort to distinguish between orchestrated mayhem of political operative and lobbyists and those who are able to find the courage to go against the grain of conventional wisdom and me-tooism. Fat-headed me-tooism is a disease on the Internet which inhibits frank discussion and healthy disagreement. A plug for Cryptome: it welcomes views and documents differing from the day's comforting foodfest. Send to cryptome@earthlink.net. Cheers and have a bad day.

F*** Flickr. This is why you shouldn't trust corporations with ANY of your data.

This is an example of how our legal systems needs to be updated to reflect 21st century realities by extending First Amendment protections to cyberspace.

Yes, Flickr, Facebook, Gmail, etc. are "businesses." But so are telephone, bus, and mall companies. Telephone companies cannot legally censor content of conversations on their networks; bus companies cannot refuse to transport people because they disapprove of, say, their motives for travel that day; and a mall cannot ban people for racial reasons. In other words, there are precedents for limiting the powers of private businesses that as a practical matter provide essential forums for the exercise of constitutional rights. Today, people rely on social networking sites for political and other forms of expression (even "association," as with Facebook) that in an earlier day took place on a stump in the town square. To allow a private corporation to censor speech in this environment is to weaken the everyday realities of exercising protected First Amendment rights.

Something needs to be done about this.

I follow the White House thread on Flickr closely, and saw how the controversy around Shepherd developed. He was trolling the threads, posting identical messages in many threads. He also started posting a torture picture with nudity and a lot of blood. This picture too was posted again and again. That is spamming, and that is also a clear repeated abuse of the letter and spirit of the community guidelines of Flickr. Oh, yes, he also posted links to articles about him (like this one) into the threads. It is sad that in his effort to get publicity at any price, he is abusing Web 2.0 culture. It is true that most of the thread comments are sympathetic to the Obama administration, but some are critical, and this criticism is accepted. Shepherd is not looking for dialogue, but rather only for conflict. Will this "kill" the emerging transparency of this administration? I hope not.

Flickr is a private site owned by a for-profit company, they have every right to restrict annoying posters like "johnsonshepherd"

The "emerging transparency of this administration" is still quite opaque! And censorship is censorship.

He wanted to start a conversation with me on the Whitehouse stream...but I am not going for it. He is definitely trolling the threads. He should post those horrific images on his personal Flickr account and then have all his buddies comment on the gruesome details. He needs a membership to the gym where he can work out his "dark demons." He is so annoying!!