How do they justify this?
You will be able to post videos or pictures depicting graphic violence as long as you condemn these acts rather than celebrate them. I am somewhat torn in two about this. On the one hand I believe that we should not shelter ourselves from violence and acts against humanity that occur worldwide. If we are not confronted by these brutal images, we cannot fully grasp the impact. It is as if we have read about it in a book, it simply is not real.
Yet, I wonder: how does viewing these images affect us? As adults we assume that we will be able to handle it, but it seems that that notion is wrong.
According to a recent study published in Psychological Science, by UC Irvine, frequent exposure to violent images from the Iraq War and the September 11th attacks increases the risk of psychological and physical ailments in U.S. adults
So if we are struggling, what about our children? I know some people will respond immediately that children are not suppose to be on Facebook. You have to be older than 13 to legally be on Facebook.
But guess what? 13+ is still very much a child! Where do we draw the line? How much exposure is needed to bring home the message? What are the results that these images aim to achieve? Shock, outrage, revenge? How will you know whether viewers condemn or celebrate these images? What about the dignity of the deceased person, aren't we just continuing to exploit this person's pain/humiliation?
Clearly I have more questions than answers/opinions. However, there is one little thing that is really bugging me: if it is acceptable to show decapitation, then surely it must be OK to show women breastfeeding? Why is a female's nipple deemed inappropriate and offensive (not the case when it belongs to a male), but the depiction of violence is acceptable (as long as you condemn it of course).
Seriously Facebook, this logic simply does not add up.
No comments:
Post a Comment