Objectionable Posting: You Make The Call...

[+OzGuff]

While making plans for a cache run I came across Funny Faces (GC1ZHPR). The cache owner offered finders a second find if they loaded a funny face self-portrait to the cache page. I checked out the uploaded photos to see how funny they were, and found something that I considered objectionable. (Click the link to see the photo.)

 

I checked with some other local cachers to see how they felt about the photo/caricature, and based on their responses I alerted Groundspeak about a possible violation of the Terms of Use. They responded,

While it might be considered insensitive by some the president has to have a thicker skin than most people. That picture is no worse than several caricatures I can seen in the political cartoons. Some may not like it but it does not violate the terms of use.

 

My response was,

Fair enough. Two reasonably intelligent folks could agree to disagree here. However, I think that it is incumbent on Groundspeak to look at the bigger picture. I agree that the President -- as a public figure -- needs to have "thicker skin" than most. But I am confident that the Terms of Use were written to protect not only someone appearing in a photo but also those who may view the photo. Are you saying that anyone viewing this photo also needs "thicker skin"? Or are you denying that the photo is racially and/or ethnically objectionable?

 

By allowing this picture to remain visible on the geocaching.com website Groundspeak is giving tacit approval of the photo -- caricature though it may be. It sure seems to me that not allowing a sentence on a cache page asking searchers to spend a minute honoring fallen servicemen and women -- due to an "agenda" -- but allowing this sort of photo -- which also likely has an agenda -- are a little contradictory.

 

I then asked if they minded me taking the issue to the Groundspeak forum -- not to see if the decision should be overruled but to see if there is a consensus one way or the other.

 

So, how do folks see the photo? Objectionable or not? I am not looking for a discussion of the decision itself, but rather whether the photo violates 4.(a) of Groundspeak's Terms of Use.

 

Thanks in advance for your thoughts!

[+Sol seaker]

Of course it's racist and objectionable.

 

You can always get the cache owner on the ALR rule.

 

ALR's are not allowed. (additional logging requirements)

 

I've never heard it beign allowed just because it's the second logging.

[+Kit Fox]

Although it does portray a stereotype, it isn't any worse than all the images that compared Bush with a Chimpanzee. It would have been far more entertaining if they used the Obama Joker image instead.

[+Harry Dolphin]

ALRs are not permitted. The cache finder did not qualify since it is not his picture, as required by the ALR. I did not realize that two-fers were permitted. One cache = one smiley. Other than that, it was in bad taste. Objectionable? I've seen far worse in the New York Post.

[+briansnat]

What I find objectionable as a geocacher is the use of an extra found it log as an "end around" the guidelines.

 

As far as the caricature photo, it is tasteless and immature, but I've seen equally tasteless and immature caricatures of of previous presidents so it's a non issue to me.

 

The very idea that certain caricatures of a public figure should be considered off limits because of his race is racism.

Edited November 7, 2009 by briansnat

[AZcachemeister]

Why does the picture not show him sitting on a porch eating watermelon?

[+Cardinal Red]

Yes, the picture is in very poor taste. But what bothers me much more is allowing a bogus find to be added to a legitimate cache (and then as an ALR no less). A cache can't mandate an ALR, but a totally bogus "bonus" can? That's the explanation I would like to hear from Groundspeak.

 

South Carolina did not come to mind when the subject of lame cache logs came up. But it's on the list now.

[Mr.Yuck]

Yes, the picture is in very poor taste. But what bothers me much more is allowing a bogus find to be added to a legitimate cache (and then as an ALR no less). A cache can't mandate an ALR, but a totally bogus "bonus" can? That's the explanation I would like to hear from Groundspeak.

 

South Carolina did not come to mind when the subject of lame cache logs came up. But it's on the list now.

 

Do you have this list? Actually, I just saw a "log a second find for doing such and such" cache in central Ohio today. I'm going there for a pro auto race next spring. Yes, I like to plan way ahead.

[Mushtang]

It sure seems to me that not allowing a sentence on a cache page asking searchers to spend a minute honoring fallen servicemen and women -- due to an "agenda" -- but allowing this sort of photo -- which also likely has an agenda -- are a little contradictory.

Cache pages are not allowed to have an agenda. That's it.

 

Travel bugs can have an agenda.

The original stash in a cache can show an agenda.

Logs on the cache page can have an agenda.

Photos uploaded to logs can have an agenda.

Etc.

 

I personally think the photo is hilarious!

 

Socialism: Chains we can believe in.

[+bittsen]

Cache pages are not allowed to have an agenda. That's it.

 

Travel bugs can have an agenda.

The original stash in a cache can show an agenda.

Logs on the cache page can have an agenda.

Photos uploaded to logs can have an agenda.

Etc.

 

I personally think the photo is hilarious!

 

Socialism: Chains we can believe in.

 

Judging only by your last line, I can see why you think the photo is hilarious.

 

I like what briansnat said. It's tasteless and immature.

 

Again, I can see why you think it's hilarious.

[+Arrow42]

My call: Meh. People choose to be offended at way too much.

 

On the other hand, Groundspeak might not want to be associated with an image like that. There is a minor public relations issue to consider. What if this had made the news? "Geocaching Full of Racists!" - it wouldn't be until you read to the third paragraph that it was just a silly image submitted by 1 person and 99% of the people who read the headline will never make it that far.

[+Team Cotati]

Totally hilarious.

[+Chrysalides]

I find it tasteless, but not objectionable. And I'm not an Obama hater.

 

The "second find", now, that's a whole different matter.

[+Walts Hunting]

If you're offended put it on your ignore list. Just because you are offended doesn't make it objectionable. I think it's a good likeness.

[+RaeRae7133]

If your read the TOS, this definitely is in violation, and that's basically what this argument comes down to.

[+Chrysalides]

If your read the TOS, this definitely is in violation, and that's basically what this argument comes down to.

Can you point out the relevant section of the TOS please?

[+cachensfun]

Thats not right

[+Sol seaker]

 

The very idea that certain caricatures of a public figure should be considered off limits because of his race is racism.

 

the way in which the image was enhanced was the racist part.

It's not racist simply because he is black.

 

when you take a person (or in this case president) who has been hounded repeatedly because of his race, then features are exagerated which are indicative of his race, then it is in bad taste.

 

Why am I having to explain racism?

[+flask]

put me in the "objectionable" column.

 

caricatures portraying al smith were not less objectionable anti-catholic hatemongering just because he was a public figure.

 

caricatures portraying the irish as violent and brutish half apes are not less objectionable for having been the norm of their time.

 

racist caricatures are racist caricatures whether they depict a public figure or not.

 

i'm not at all worried about the president's feelings being hurt; he's a big boy.

 

i am concerned that people still think racist caricatures are acceptable. i've seen much worse racist filth than this. that doesn't make this acceptable.

 

to excuse this on the basis that nobody was upset to have president bush caricatured as chimpish doesn't begin to be the same. if being compared to a chimp had been a standard racist slur on white people with a lot of money, that would have been objectionable on the same grounds as well.

[+Sol seaker]

OK, here it is.

Apologies if someone found it faster and already posted it.

 

Logging of All Physical Caches

Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed.

 

If it is appropriate for your cache location or theme, you may ask the cache seeker to accomplish an optional and simple task, either close to the cache site (normally within 0.1 miles or 161 meters) or when writing their online log. For example, wear the goofy hat inside the cache container and upload a photograph. Cache finders can choose whether or not to attempt or accomplish optional tasks. Cache owners may not delete the cache seeker's log based solely on optional tasks.

 

This guideline change applies immediately to all logs written from April 4, 2009 and going forward. Older caches with "additional logging requirements" (ALRs) are not grandfathered under the older guideline. If you own an existing cache with mandatory additional logging requirements, we request that you:

 

Cease deleting logs based on additional logging requirements.

Review your own cache listing to see if the ALR can be made into an optional and simple task, or whether it must be removed altogether.

Adjust your geocache listing by editing the text then contact a reviewer to change the cache type, if appropriate.

[+Sol seaker]

put me in the "objectionable" column.

 

caricatures portraying al smith were not less objectionable anti-catholic hatemongering just because he was a public figure.

 

caricatures portraying the irish as violent and brutish half apes are not less objectionable for having been the norm of their time.

 

racist caricatures are racist caricatures whether they depict a public figure or not.

 

i'm not at all worried about the president's feelings being hurt; he's a big boy.

 

i am concerned that people still think racist caricatures are acceptable. i've seen much worse racist filth than this. that doesn't make this acceptable.

 

to excuse this on the basis that nobody was upset to have president bush caricatured as chimpish doesn't begin to be the same. if being compared to a chimp had been a standard racist slur on white people with a lot of money, that would have been objectionable on the same grounds as well.

 

Why I don't think you belong in the objectionable column Flask.

 

In fact I don't find you objectionable at all.

[+flask]

 

Why I don't think you belong in the objectionable column Flask.

 

In fact I don't find you objectionable at all.

 

give it time.

[+Prime Suspect]

If your read the TOS, this definitely is in violation, and that's basically what this argument comes down to.

Can you point out the relevant section of the TOS please?

No problem:

 

You and not Groundspeak, are entirely responsible for all content that you upload, post or otherwise transmit via the Site. You agree not to:

 

(a) Upload, post or otherwise transmit any content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortuous, defamatory, slanderous, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, embarrassing, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable to any other person or entity.

 

This is obviously racially and ethnically objectionable.

[+Sagefox]

You and not Groundspeak, are entirely responsible for all content that you upload, post or otherwise transmit via the Site. You agree not to:

 

(a) Upload, post or otherwise transmit any content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortuous, defamatory, slanderous, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, embarrassing, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable to any other person or entity.

 

This is obviously racially and ethnically objectionable.

 

And the cache owner should delete it.

[Mushtang]

You and not Groundspeak, are entirely responsible for all content that you upload, post or otherwise transmit via the Site. You agree not to:

 

(a) Upload, post or otherwise transmit any content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortuous, defamatory, slanderous, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, embarrassing, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable to any other person or entity.

This is obviously racially and ethnically objectionable.

And the cache owner should delete it.

Really? So if ANY person objects to ANY posting in a log, the cache owner should delete the log?

 

If I read and object to something you wrote in your last Found It log the cache owner should delete it?

 

Suppose I was a HUGE fan of the Carolina Panthers, and I objected to this log because in my interpretation the panther shirt worn by a gorilla makes the team look bad. Should that log be deleted too?

Edited November 7, 2009 by Mushtang

[+Chrysalides]

This is obviously racially and ethnically objectionable.

Thanks for quoting the section. I guess from the start I didn't find the photo to be racist or racially objectionable. I saw it as an attempt to make fun of a public figure, and still do. I do think that in such cases, it is a matter of personal interpretation and opinion, and I fully concede that some may perceive it as racist. I don't really know what should be done in this case, and thankfully I don't have to do anything about it.

[+Ladybug Kids]

Ditto what flask and Prime Suspect said on so many levels.

 

An image like that on a local cache page would make me cringe. It's not something I would want to come across. It's not something I would want my kids to come across. And, it's certainly not something I would want third party land managers to come across. It can't possibly do anything to cast a positive light on geocaching and it certainly can create negative perceptions about geocaching.

 

The photo of the guy with the gorilla mask in the Panthers shirt? Just an example of a cacher having fun with an ALR.

Edited November 7, 2009 by Ladybug Kids

[+Sagefox]

You and not Groundspeak, are entirely responsible for all content that you upload, post or otherwise transmit via the Site. You agree not to:

 

(a) Upload, post or otherwise transmit any content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortuous, defamatory, slanderous, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, embarrassing, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable to any other person or entity.

This is obviously racially and ethnically objectionable.

And the cache owner should delete it.

Really? So if ANY person objects to ANY posting in a log, the cache owner should delete the log?

 

If I read and object to something you wrote in your last Found It log the cache owner should delete it?

 

Suppose I was a HUGE fan of the Carolina Panthers, and I objected to this log because in my interpretation the panther shirt worn by a gorilla makes the team look bad. Should that log be deleted too?

 

No, you missed the point of the quote sequence. Prime Suspect said "This is obviously racially and ethnically objectionable." That is what I replied to and only what I replied to.

 

Gorilla masks are not commonly intended as racial slurs and on the West Coast we are pretty neutral about the Carolina Panthers.

[+CanUK_TeamFitz]

Yay another "things I find offensive" thread.

 

How long before this one steams off the tracks I wonder....

 

Guess I'm taking the moderate approach again. I can be classed as pro-Obama, if I was an American I would have voted for Obama and I'm glad he is President (however as a politician I simply view him as best of a bad bunch, he's not exactly perfect - there are certain decisions he made I don't agree with, but a few of his policies and changes have been good on the whole).

 

So onto the image. Made me laugh actually, but I find humour in a lot of things. I don't see anything racist in the image... It would equally be hilarious if it was a picture of Bush, Cheney, Hilary, Al Gore, Paris Hilton... pretty much anyone high profile in the media.

[+geodarts]

1. It's objectionable.

2. It violates the cache's own terms since I doubt that it's is a picture of the person posting the log.

3. A second find for posting a picture? Is this a way to bring back locationless finds?

 

My problems with this image have nothing to do with Obama. Given the history of how whites have portrayed blacks, some social context needs to be considered as to why that particular feature was photoshopped. For the same reasons I also found it objectionable when one of our daughters did a school play that included a lot of stereotyping along racial lines. But if somebody wants to do an editorial cartoon with that kind of image, so be it. Even if caricature has it's place it should not be in a caching log that asks you to post a picture of yourself.

 

Its also interesting that the poster has 0 finds since he or she logs everything with a note rather than a "found it" log. I don't have a problem with that, but not too many people do it that way. I could see a whole angst-driven topic about whether a person has a FTF if the previous finder just posted a note, but no need to get further off topic here.

Edited November 7, 2009 by Erickson

[Clan Riffster]

So, how do folks see the photo? Objectionable or not? I am not looking for a discussion of the decision itself, but rather whether the photo violates 4.(a) of Groundspeak's Terms of Use.

Since the question is in two parts, I'll have to answer it in two parts.

 

1 ) How do I feel about the picture?

A poor photoshop job. I did have to chuckle at the few folks who played the "racism" card. Make fun of an ol rich white public official and you are a kewl, hip, open minded thinker. Make fun of a young black public official and you're a racist. Typical double standard silliness. While I disagree with many things our current President has proposed, I would not take my objections to that level. If I feel the need to regale someone with my thoughts regarding Obama, I won't use photoshop to accomplish my goals.

 

2 ) Does it violate the terms of use?

Let's take a look:

4. Use of Publishing Tools and Forums

You agree not to:

 

(a) Upload, post or otherwise transmit any content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortuous, defamatory, slanderous, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, embarrassing, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable to any other person or entity.

 

Well, it certainly isn't unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortuous, defamatory, slanderous, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, embarrassing, or racially or ethnically objectionable by any realistic standard. However, Groundspeak included a catch all, which I highlighted in red. If a single person finds any content to be objectionable, for any reason, real or imagined, that content would be a violation as defined in 4(a).

 

The next logical question is, does Groundspeak really want to walk this slippery slope?

 

That would open up a huge can of worms.

 

Folks would be objecting to all kinds of foolishness.

 

On a side note, this might be a perfect opening for my anti-film can campaign:

 

"Dear Groundspeak. In reading the cache page for GCxxxx, I observed that the author utilized the term 'film can'. As an ammocanitarian, I find the term 'film can' to be highly objectionable, and as such, the term is a violation of your Terms Of Use agreement, section 4(a), which the hider claimed to have read and understood prior to posting such offensive language. Please rectify this immediately."

[+Wooden Cyclist]

 

The very idea that certain caricatures of a public figure should be considered off limits because of his race is racism.

 

the way in which the image was enhanced was the racist part.

It's not racist simply because he is black.

 

when you take a person (or in this case president) who has been hounded repeatedly because of his race, then features are exagerated which are indicative of his race, then it is in bad taste.

 

Why am I having to explain racism?

 

Racism is being explained and redefined on a regular basis because the term is used inappropriately on a regular basis. For example. I not agreed with the various government heath care schemes since the Clinton days. Enter our new bi-racial president. Now if I share my views on government health care plans I get called a racist. Even a former president Carter claims that people like me are disagreeing with current president Obama because of our racism. What a crock.

 

By the way. The photo may be in bad taste, but taste is a personal thing. Don't try and tell me what should or should not offend med.

 

Lastly I agree with Clan Riffster. If Groundspeak decided to "walk this slippery slope" it would indeed "open up a huge can of worms".

[+Okiebryan]

Add me to the list. This is ugly and wrong. I'd delete it if it were my cache.

 

Oh, and the whole "2nd find" concept is mega-lame.

Edited November 7, 2009 by Okiebryan

[+KBI]

I think the photo is mildly funny, but it triggers a much stronger lameness response in me than it does funniness. Kinda like a really bad or a really old pun.

 

What I find way funnier is the number of people who claim that the photo constitutes "racism." I see nothing in the photo which suggests to me that the photo manipulator wished to express a belief that one race is inherently superior to another.

 

Bigoted? Maybe. Racist? No.

 

I also find it hilarious that, while anything like this always elicits a horrified response from a certain corner of the political spectrum (regardless whether any anti-black insult was actually intended or not), there is NEVER any objection to other things which are far more bigoted. Beverly Hillbillies TV reruns, for example. Where is the outcry? If old shows like The Little Rascals can’t be shown any more because a black person might be offended, then why does no one give a crap whether any native southerners might be offended by those obvious exaggerations of offensive stereotypes known as Jed, Granny, Elli May and Jethro?

 

Not that I am offended by the show, or that I think my fellow southerners should be. I love The Beverly Hillbillies. And that’s the point. It’s just a TV show. If anyone else complains I say get over it and save your outrage for the things that really matter.

 

I say leave the photo. I have no more sympathy toward those who find it offensive that I have for, say, those who riot and kill over being offended by cartoons of Mohammed.

 

And every time someone calls something racism that isn’t, it makes it that much harder to speak out against true racism, and true racism is a horrible thing. When the word 'racism' finally replaces the word 'bigotry' in our language (and it may already have), then what word will we use to refer to the belief that one race is inherently inferior to, or less worthy of existence than, another race?

 

I despise racism. I grew up listening to it here in Georgia, and it’s disgusting. Some people, however, by overreacting to meaningless things like this photo, are watering down the force of the argument, making it harder for all of us to repel true racism when it happens. And that's a real tragedy.

[+StarBrand]

...(or in this case president) who has been hounded repeatedly because of his race, then features are exagerated which are indicative of his race, then it is in bad taste.....

(bolding by me)

 

I see the image as childish but I think the bolded part above is just as childish a statement.

 

I can't help but wonder where this same topic would be going (one way or the other) if the man was not President in the photo?

[+RaeRae7133]

You and not Groundspeak, are entirely responsible for all content that you upload, post or otherwise transmit via the Site. You agree not to:

 

(a) Upload, post or otherwise transmit any content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortuous, defamatory, slanderous, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, embarrassing, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable to any other person or entity.

This is obviously racially and ethnically objectionable.

And the cache owner should delete it.

Really? So if ANY person objects to ANY posting in a log, the cache owner should delete the log?

 

If I read and object to something you wrote in your last Found It log the cache owner should delete it?

 

Suppose I was a HUGE fan of the Carolina Panthers, and I objected to this log because in my interpretation the panther shirt worn by a gorilla makes the team look bad. Should that log be deleted too?

 

I think that's the problem with the TOS, it's a little too open to interpretation, if you ask me. But if you read the TOS literally then yes, that post could be deleted. It would be nice to add an addendum that was something like "However, cache owners retain the ultimate right to decide what is appropriate in their cache."

Edited November 7, 2009 by RaeRae7133

[+9Key]

 

I can't help but wonder where this same topic would be going (one way or the other) if the man was not President in the photo?

Great point.

[+wimseyguy]

OK, here it is.

Apologies if someone found it faster and already posted it.

 

Logging of All Physical Caches

Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed.

 

If it is appropriate for your cache location or theme, you may ask the cache seeker to accomplish an optional and simple task, either close to the cache site (normally within 0.1 miles or 161 meters) or when writing their online log. For example, wear the goofy hat inside the cache container and upload a photograph. Cache finders can choose whether or not to attempt or accomplish optional tasks. Cache owners may not delete the cache seeker's log based solely on optional tasks.

 

<SNIP> to remove irrelevant portions.

 

#Fail-this isn't an Additional Logging Requirement, so there isn't any guideline issue here. It is a stupid abuse of the system to allow extra smileys for an additional task and invalidate the relative worth of the find count. (which is somewhat shaky for some cachers already)

 

The wording on the cache page is: "and/or you may"

So, not required, simply offered for those who like to have some fun and inflate their find count.

But if that's how you roll, go for it.

 

You and not Groundspeak, are entirely responsible for all content that you upload, post or otherwise transmit via the Site. You agree not to:

 

(a) Upload, post or otherwise transmit any content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortuous, defamatory, slanderous, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, embarrassing, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable to any other person or entity.

 

This is obviously racially and ethnically objectionable.

 

And the cache owner should delete it.

 

I also agree. I find this caricature to be offensive and objectionable. And I am pretty thick skinned when it comes to slanted humor.

 

But the real reason it should be deleted is because I don't see any logs as finds from anyone based in DC.

Therefore it is a bogus log, and per the maintenance guidelines should be deleted by the CO.

 

The cacher who posted the pic looks like this according to his profile. Since we have met, (and coincidentally hail from the same home town but are a few years apart in age) I can verify that this is an accurate representation of what Atrus looks like, and not the image that was uploaded.

[+flask]

 

 

I can't help but wonder where this same topic would be going (one way or the other) if the man was not President in the photo?

 

i don't know; i'd find it just as offensive.

 

i believe that some people here who do not usually otherwise stoop to racist trash but do not like the president find it less objectionable because it's him.

 

while i can't base this belief on any hard facts, i've been paying attention for a long time to who says overtly racist things and who couches racist things in more benign terms and i think i have seen an uptick in either subtle racist or anti-muslim items where it concerns the president.

 

the anti-muslim terror puzzles me just a little since i know to what religious denomination the president belongs, and the last time i checked, it wasn't an islamic group.

 

it's hard to gauge accurately because the little bits of chatter are subtle and you can't really be sure of how they're meant unless you make a federal case out of it, and even then, they're subtle enough to be denied.

[+KBI]

I can't help but wonder where this same topic would be going (one way or the other) if the man was not President in the photo?

i don't know; i'd find it just as offensive.

 

i believe that some people here who do not usually otherwise stoop to racist trash but do not like the president find it less objectionable because it's him.

 

while i can't base this belief on any hard facts, i've been paying attention for a long time to who says overtly racist things and who couches racist things in more benign terms and i think i have seen an uptick in either subtle racist or anti-muslim items where it concerns the president.

 

the anti-muslim terror puzzles me just a little since i know to what religious denomination the president belongs, and the last time i checked, it wasn't an islamic group.

 

it's hard to gauge accurately because the little bits of chatter are subtle and you can't really be sure of how they're meant unless you make a federal case out of it, and even then, they're subtle enough to be denied.

Speaking of not being sure how things are meant: Can you please specify which of the many very different definition(s) of the word "racist" you were thinking of when you used the word repeatedly in your post just then? The word gets used to mean so many different things; which meaning(s) were you using?

 

Without further clarification on this point your accusation will stand as being meaninglessly vague.

[+geodarts]

I can't help but wonder where this same topic would be going (one way or the other) if the man was not President in the photo?

 

Bigoted? Maybe. Racist? No.

 

Would it have been posted if this man were not our President? Probably not. But as I said earlier, for me the issues in the photo have nothing to do with Obama. I voted for him. I am disappointed with many of the things he has not done. I save those posts for Huffington rather than put them in a caching log or forum.

 

Last year, one of our family members was in a school play that students wrote and directed for a drama class. They were intending to parody bad television -- it was probably closer to a group of white kids were parodying a black guy who was parodying himself. As I told the teacher (and our daughter, separately), I started to wonder if they were going to put on blackface and perform the Song of the South. Even though it was not intended to be racist (and they never thought in those terms), it was racial considering the history of how whites have portrayed blacks. And would they feel comfortable doing it in front of a different audience. Perhaps they would - it would be nice to leave our history behind. But I don't think the time has yet come.

 

I would not call the photo in question racist, since I would have to know far more than I do. I was more reminded of a question posed to a prospective jury member that I read this week in one of my cases:

 

Q. Are you racially prejudiced?

A. No, I don't like anybody.

 

But I am not sure that bigoted makes it any better, that racial undertones should not be recognized, and that caricatures should be included in caching logs. A caricature in a geocaching log emphasizing features that whites have long stereotyped about blacks, pointing out that it is scary, is not the same as an editorial cartoon. Context is everything.

 

Although I don't think that caches should allow second finds for posting a picture (unless Groundspeak brings back locationless caches), the cache was intended for people to poke fun at themselves. Like the television show, if you choose to do it to yourself that is one thing. But it was not a photograph of the cacher and should be deleted on that basis alone.

Edited November 7, 2009 by Erickson

[+NorthWes]

 

On a side note, this might be a perfect opening for my anti-film can campaign:

 

"Dear Groundspeak. In reading the cache page for GCxxxx, I observed that the author utilized the term 'film can'. As an ammocanitarian, I find the term 'film can' to be highly objectionable, and as such, the term is a violation of your Terms Of Use agreement, section 4(a), which the hider claimed to have read and understood prior to posting such offensive language. Please rectify this immediately."

 

I find the photo distasteful because it doesn't do anything to promote geocaching in any kind of positive light. It's a lightning rod for controversy, rather than an example we'd be able to use in demonstrating why geocaching is an excellent activity... 1) which land managers should allow us to pursue across the areas of their stewardship; 2) which allows friends and families to get outdoors and play a game across the landscape while leaving politico-controversy behind; 3) which is a useful tool for encouraging kids to explore the geoterrain around them rather than the game console in front of them; 4) which builds a sense of 'community' among cachers worldwide...

 

While it tickles some folks' funnybones, provokes outrage in others, and makes more just shake their head about taste and move on - it's not a positive image which builds up geocaching. I'm certain we'd be a lot better off all the way around as a 'community' if we took a second and asked ourselves 'does this photo / comment / log I'm posting build up or possibly tear down the geocaching game?' I know it sounds a bit hightoned, but I'd sure like to see folks putting their best foot forward if it's about a 'community' I'm a part of. As for allowing a second log on the cache for a photo - well, I'm of the one log signature/one smilie frame of mind. It's more the journey than the smilie on the website for me.

 

Having said all that, I am once again brought to near-paralysis in laughter at a Clan Riffster remark: "ammocanitarian" - oh my, a new word for my vocabulary this morning!

Thanks, Clan Riffster - you've made my day by giving me a one-word way to best describe one of my top caching preferences! I need to add that to my profile...

[+ThePetersTrio]

Generally (meaning not related to the particular cache in question) I support free speech. That means taking the good with the bad. I'd much rather have a person's feelings of racism openly expressed (this obviously wouldn't include acting in any way that breaks the law) rather than kept in the closet. That allows me to see the person for who they truly are and gives me the information I need to either avoid them or embrace them.

 

Obviously in this case TPTB have the right to determine the outcome (if any) as it pertains to their business in a PR sense. But if I lived in this cacher's local area and if I determined for myself that this cacher is a bigot based on the things they say and do, then I can quite easily steer clear of them.

[+CanUK_TeamFitz]

Can someone explain to me what is racist about this photo specifically?

 

For a little while I had a photoshopped image of my own head on my facebook page take with a webcam and a warp filter... I don't think any of my friends were offended by it...

 

So for people who say it caricatures black people in some way can they tell me in what way. It's a photoshopped image that makes Obama look a bit weird, I can't see how it's racist to photoshop a picture of a black person anymore than it is to photoshop a picture of a white person.

 

So... what is so racist about this photo?

 

Here's a picture of a person of Germanic descent, flame away.......

 

[4wheelin_fool]

Generally (meaning not related to the particular cache in question) I support free speech. That means taking the good with the bad. I'd much rather have a person's feelings of racism openly expressed (this obviously wouldn't include acting in any way that breaks the law) rather than kept in the closet. That allows me to see the person for who they truly are and gives me the information I need to either avoid them or embrace them.

 

Obviously in this case TPTB have the right to determine the outcome (if any) as it pertains to their business in a PR sense. But if I lived in this cacher's local area and if I determined for myself that this cacher is a bigot based on the things they say and do, then I can quite easily steer clear of them.

 

I agree.

 

I suppose that the picture doesnt seem that bad to some people because it is the President, and it it is rather traditional to pick on presidents. If it was of someone else, people would more easily identify it as racist.

 

The majority should always show respect for the minority.

 

If some people need a better perspective to how minorities feel at times, or to check to see if the picture is racist, then perhaps they should print up a large poster of a similar picture, hang it around their neck, and walk around a predominately black neighborhood alone and unarmed, and without a cellphone for a few hours. You will definitely be in the minority then, and be able to discuss your views.

Edited November 7, 2009 by 4wheelin_fool

[+Coyote's Girl]

The picture is clearly not of the poster, it violates the terms of the aditional smiley (LAME) and should not be counted because of it. Is it racist? Meh. It wouldn't take much to make me into a simmilar caricature, although of a different race. Likely it's some bitter teenager who got photo shop for his birthday thinking he's funny.

As for the hippo-mouthed Arnold... no idea. Enlighten us. Maybe it'll be a chuckle.

[+CanUK_TeamFitz]

Generally (meaning not related to the particular cache in question) I support free speech. That means taking the good with the bad. I'd much rather have a person's feelings of racism openly expressed (this obviously wouldn't include acting in any way that breaks the law) rather than kept in the closet. That allows me to see the person for who they truly are and gives me the information I need to either avoid them or embrace them.

 

Obviously in this case TPTB have the right to determine the outcome (if any) as it pertains to their business in a PR sense. But if I lived in this cacher's local area and if I determined for myself that this cacher is a bigot based on the things they say and do, then I can quite easily steer clear of them.

 

I agree.

 

I suppose that the picture doesnt seem that bad to some people because it is the President, and it it is rather traditional to pick on presidents. If it was of someone else, people would more easily identify it as racist.

 

The majority should always show respect for the minority.

 

If some people need a better perspective to how minorities feel at times, or to check to see if the picture is racist, then perhaps they should print up a large poster of a similar picture, hang it around their neck, and walk around a predominately black neighborhood alone and unarmed, and without a cellphone for a few hours. You will definitely be in the minority then, and be able to discuss your views.

 

Or... you know get an idea from watching movies....

[+Ladybug Kids]

I can't help but wonder where this same topic would be going (one way or the other) if the man was not President in the photo?

It is irrelevant who the caricatured person is...I would still feel it's appropriate for posting on gc.com.

 

My goal is to always post logs and photos that at worst, do no harm and at best, advance the cause. Do photos like this meet that criterion? Setting aside the racism arguments which appear to be irresolvable if for no other reason that folks can't even agree on what consitutes racism, can someone make the case that such a caricature in the gc.com photo galleries presents geocaching in a positive light to the outside world?

[+geodarts]

As for the hippo-mouthed Arnold... no idea.

 

I don't have anything to add to what I have written but I would not have found a hippo mouth Obama objectionable -- except as a CO I would have deleted it because it did not meet the logging requirements. But I did have to take a double take and wonder how Butterly Fox knew my name, before looking at the picture. Its sometimes disconcerting to be walking around the office and hear people muttering about Arnold.

[+bittsen]

So the cache owner now gets to decide what gets a smiley? No signed log, just funny face pictures?

 

Thats just wrong. I feel the cache owner is playing a whole different game on Groundspeaks dime.