Mas Tnega wrote: BGP wrote:
Laika_rus wrote:Yep. You posted it by quoting it.
By your fallacious logic, not only would Jordy... by found guilty of the same, but even Google would be an accomplice by merely indexing a cache of your distastefully offensive post.
The logic is perfectly sound. Your counter-argument falls apart due to context.
First: You had a clear opportunity to remove it, as you personally quoted that post, perfectly aware of the content. What Google go through is prohibitively voluminous and done automatically; they are never consciously aware any given offensive content until it's brought to their attention. Were it proven that Google aren't putting sufficient effort towards removing such material, they would
Second: Google doesn't post on these forums.
You are incorrect. It is not merely the content that is offensive but more importantly it is the offensive content used within the context of the act of disparaging another member that worsens the nature of the offense. Thus intentions do matter. Laika_rus posted that image with the intention of offending other member(s) on the forum, specifically with the goal of inflicting a demeaning remark directed to attack Jordy... and the BGP. When the BGP quoted Laika_rus it was with the intention of preserving and archiving evidence, so in case Laika_rus later on edited his post and denied that such an infraction ever occurred. The textual analogy of this visual incident can be compared as follows: Laika_rus writes an extremely offensive post with f*** bombs all over the place attacking both Jordy.... and the BGP. It is not the content of the words by themselves (for example f*** word can be used in a different context, such as disparaging oneself, and it would not violate the TOS per se) that would get him banned from the forums but in fact the context in which he used those words. Other members would then quote him to archive that as evidence, but they would not, by any reasonable mind, be found to be guilty of the same or similar offense. If I quoted a post made by Laika_rus that personally attacks me with profane words, does that mean I am guilty of the same simply because my quote contains the exact arrangement of words that Laika_rus used? It would frankly be ludicrous to believe this to be true.
The image itself ( http://i.imgur
DOT com/FpUdP.jpg ) is hosted on imgur.com and while the image may not meet the removal criteria of imgur.com service that does not mean it should be allowed to be linked or displayed on all web forums or throughout all web properties. Linking that photo on a religious forum would most likely get it promptly removed. A pornography forum on the other hand would probably have no problem with it. The fact that moderators have not chosen to remove or redact the link indicates that this forum's threshold and tolerance for these types of graphical imagery is high enough where the aforementioned image would not be removed in-and-of-itself as a posting. Again, the textual analogy would be something along these lines: while some forums automatically censor the f*** word, some other forums have a strict zero-tolerance policy against its use, while still other forums allow the use of the word as long as it was standalone or not in a purposefully offensive or personal attack context. The word itself remains the same, but it depends on the context in which it is used and the implied intentions. The same is true for Laika_rus' post of the offensive image. While the image in and of itself may not meet the threshold to be removed from this forum, it was the intentionally offensive and personally disparaging context in which that image was used that changes the fundamental nature of the offense. Therefore, my quoting of Laika_rus is directly comparable to the example and analogy I gave above... namely if this was a strictly textual post and Laika_rus dropped f*** bombs left and right to attack Jordy... in a personal manner, I could quote him for posterity but I would NOT be found in violation for the content of his words because it would not be taken to mean the same context. The two situations are qualitatively and categorically different.