A few weeks ago I was banned by FB for a week for posting the cover to the 1970s album Houses of the Holy by Led Zeppelin, because, apparently, it breached their standards on decency. I was also given a warning for posting the cover of The Game's Up by Sniff n The Tears. The context for both was in a CLOSED ROCK MUSIC group (i.e. mine and the SRS) whilst the songs were being played on air.
Now, whilst I fully accept that the covers may not be politically correct by today's standards, should we be censoring and banning album (and book and film posters for that matter) covers from yesteryear?
No way. They were part of the music and were acceptable at the time. I agree that may not be politically correct in today's world but they exist out there and that cannot be changed. Difficult to judge on what levels FB use their powers, as they have everyone else's opinions to appease, but banning you was not the right way to do it. A reminder that a particular album cover breached THEIR standards would and should have been the most they did. Maybe even asking you to remove it would have been the way to go. I know you were well miffed about it mate but at least we have The Forum to post in. If a number of people object to a particular picture or comment then we can ask that it is removed and if they don't then admin can remove it. Only if they are a CONSTANT offender would admin consider banning them. One person's meat is another's poison.
I think what really hacks me off about it, is that the maniac who murdered people at prayer in New Zealand, had his pamphlets of hate up for a year and yet fb did nothing, but seem to gave targetted ROCK music as an easy target so they can say "look, we banned x number of users this month". It's hypocritica, lazy and inconsistent monitoring.
I agree with Doc, they were acceptable at the time and should still be accepted today. If you look at some of the stuff that gets posted on Facebook, particularly racist material it makes you wonder what the hell is going on. Obviously there is always going to be some content that is clearly not acceptable and as grown adults we can choose for ourselves, rather than be dictated too.
Exactly! Its OUR group and we know what's acceptable. FB are going for liw hanging fruit to try and say "we're doing our targets, look how many people we banned this month", but they jyst don't give a stuff really.
No, I don’t think they should be banned. I can understand that some
people may be sensitive and easily offended but at the end of the day, they are only album covers. The only reason they get banned is because we live in a nanny state and are told what should and shouldn’t be acceptable. They don’t hurt anyone and are posted in context. I see much more offensive material on music channels such as MTV, Hits music videos etc and many children watch these!! THAT is what’s wrong; children and young people being targeted and moulded into what the media wants them to be. An album cover merely tells a story or hints at the musical content of that given album. Also, many album covers from the 60s and 70s are considered art and should be appreciated as such.
This is the hypocrisy of it. Rap videos are full of images of men basically dominating and degrading women (in lyrics as well as images) and yet that's fine. Post an album cover from a 70s rock band depicting the sacrifice of innocence (hence the children) on the alter of organised religion and bang, you're banned!
Agree totally with what has been said. It should be seen in the context of the times when it was released
Thanks Ange xx
agreed also with what the others said, from the perspective of someone who wasn't around at the time a lot of them were released, i think it would take away from what the artists wanted at the time and how do you find an album cover if they sensor them? quit shielding the world lol :)
Absolutely right Damester, many of the album covers of this era were the vision of the bands or artists. To change them reduces the impact!
In the light of getting a ban and a warning over the above covers, I have been very hesitant posting other covers now. Here's a couple.
And when I look at covers from the 50s & 60s jazz scene, oh man, they make all this lot look very tame.
And look at this, freely up on FB:
I mean, REALLY!?! That's acceptable on FB but the above covers from a different era aren't!?!
I despair at the double standards: in the eyes of the "moral majority" rock is still, it would seem, an easy target, but cos gangsta is perceived to be big business, it's left alone.