PROTEST: Taking a stand against pornography

Uploaded 15 May 2010 — 30 favorites
Spotlight This! Enter Shoot Out
Login Required

To add items to your favorites you must login.

Already have a JPG account?

Login

Need to create a JPG account?

Signup
Cancel
JPG+ Required

Collections are a JPG+ feature. You must be a JPG+ member to create new collections and to add photos to collections.

Sign up for JPG+ to start using collections now!

© Susan Littlefield

Photo license: © All rights reserved

This rose is dedicated to all the JPG members who are willing to take a stand against the pornography recently posted by foxharvard and his ilk. (http://www.jpgmag.com/photos/2435342). JPG was, and should remain, a family-friendly site where photographs can be posted and enjoyed by all.

I will be leaving this site - as will many others - if JPG does not change their current choice of allowing unacceptable images.

I have written to JPG, and hope others will as well, asking them to please rethink their acceptance of smut and porn on this site, especially since their rules specifically state: "We're okay with artful nudes; however, sexually explicit work is not appropriate."

I am still traveling, so Internet access is very limited, but I felt so strongly after seeing a spotlighted photo by this person, I had to act!

Update: The filter system has been changed.

54 responses

  • Michaela K.

    Michaela K. gave props (15 May 2010):

    I'm with you, Susan!

  • Maureen Jochetz

    Maureen Jochetz said (15 May 2010):

    Here, here! I am not a prude. But I know when something is artistic nudity and when it is just pornographic.

  • Donald Garrett

    Donald Garrett   gave props (15 May 2010):

    Well-put, Susan!!

  • Regenia Brabham

    Regenia Brabham (Deleted) gave props (15 May 2010):

    I am with you too Susan!!!!!!!!! JPG is not going to be the same!

  • Al Gieryna

    Al Gieryna gave props (15 May 2010):

    Well said...I have written to JPG before about offensive photos, with no response. In fact one of the photos ended up becoming a "Hot" photo. Harvard's image is certainly pornographic and should not be on the JPG site.

  • linda woods

    linda woods gave props (15 May 2010):

    Yup, I wrote to them, too. That Minnie photo was truly trash.

  • Ann Reece

    Ann Reece   gave props (15 May 2010):

    I am in with all of you also!!!! We have got to fight this or it will take over and this JPG will be a porn site just like JPEG.com is!!!!!

  • Dorothy Menosky

    Dorothy Menosky gave props (15 May 2010):

    Thanks for your beautiful photo and your words. It's bad enough that the smut was published, but when it becomes a "hot" photo, one must wonder what the JPG bigwigs are thinking.

  • elfriede fulda

    elfriede fulda gave props (15 May 2010):

    This is lovely,,,perfect in every way, I am also contemplating leaving JPG...something needs to be done,,thank you and everyone who is taking a stand against this smut...Susan,,I hope you are enjoying yourself...

  • Betty Maxey

    Betty Maxey   gave props (15 May 2010):

    I am standing too!!! Hope you are having a great time Susan!!

  • diana

    diana (Deleted) gave props (15 May 2010):

    thank you, susan, for posting such a beautiful image to protest the trash that has been posted here. hope you are having a great time! hoping jpg will be back to the old wonderful family oriented place when you get home!!

  • Sandra Lee

    Sandra Lee gave props (15 May 2010):

    I also wrote jpg a letter requesting the removal of pornography a couple months ago..I did not get a response from them. I know some talented young people that I would like to recommend to this site but as I told jpg..I refuse to invite them until the site is appropriate for all ages. Thank you for speaking out, Susan.

  • William Tracy

    William Tracy said (15 May 2010):

    Susan, I want you to be sure to know how I feel. When you are able please read my entire post on the Harvard image. Meanwhile, this is what I said about your participation:

    Lastly, I am saddened that Susan Littlefield has threatened to take her flies and little people and go home. I dearly love Susan and have great respect and admiration for what I see as her personal values and boundless creativity. However, what will happen when someone takes issue with the glorification of filthy, disease carrying insects? They leave JPG because such images offend them? A discussion ensues on the worthiness of fly images?

  • Andrea Petersen

    Andrea Petersen gave props (15 May 2010):

    Susan, Thank you for voicing your thoughts ... I truly love your site and you have a remarkable fan club that speaks for itself as to how popular your work is ...I pray that the situation will be resolved as soon as possible ..God bless you!

  • Don Brainard

    Don Brainard (Deleted) said (15 May 2010):

    Wonderful job Susan...you have my support and understanding. We have already proven the value of your work outside the JPG community and it would be really sad if the great fans and followers here were to lose you.

  • Sheila

    Sheila (Deleted) gave props (15 May 2010):

    I'm behind you 100%, Susan. My days here are numbered over this same issue. However, my husband and I both have sent several messages to JPG about it.

  • Sheila

    Sheila (Deleted) gave props (15 May 2010):

    Oops---forgot to say that I love the rose pic. Gorgeous color and dreamy soft focus!

  • Oregon Curly

    Oregon Curly (Deleted) gave props (15 May 2010):

    Susan, this photo is absolutely fantastic in every respect. As for you taking a stand on the porno issue -- shall we say that I agree with you. For the record, there were two reasons I set Monday for my departure ... one was one last attempt on Thursday to get a reasonable solution from JPG, their response on Friday was 'just use the filter if you don't like it, smut is here to stay' (paraphrased). The second, and to me the most important one, you are on vacation and we couldn't leave without letting you know where we went....and one last chance to get a good start for the day with a hearty laugh from your works. So, tomorrow Sunday, we will be over at the coast and JPG is on hold so to speak, Monday however, there will be no OC page by evening. We will miss the companionship and fine photos shared here, but we get off this elevator at the next stop..... ;-) (before we go, please take a quick look at my last offering. ;-) )

  • Lesley S

    Lesley S (Deleted) gave props (15 May 2010):

    I couldn't agree more. If this is the level JPG is sinking to, I'm outta here ...

  • Litz Go

    Litz Go gave props (15 May 2010):

    I'm still disturb of a brief glimpse of the offensive image. Now, I'm even more disturb by jpg answer to OC. I intend to stay because I don't know where to go. I have facebook and friends but the friendship I have here at jpg is different and precious. I don't understand why we are the one who have to leave. We have more voice than that single person! If people leaves, what will it accomplished? Those who decides to go will just go back to a meaningless existence (I'm just trying to be funny and silly on this serious situation)No more fun comments, no more seeing birds entry, beautiful flowers and no more little people or fly????????????????? Seriously, I don't think if will be fun. What we can do is fight and protest.....just my 2 cents....

  • jen bellefleur

    jen bellefleur gave props (15 May 2010):

    i agree. it's not worth arguing about whether these images are art--but, that porn is all over the internet, why does it need to be here, too? i'm mad we're both paying for "jpg plus" and yet, have to fight this crap off. i'm glad they got safe filter working, but, can't we just go back to the good old days of "no crotch?"

  • Maurie A

    Maurie A gave props (15 May 2010):

    I SO agree with this Susan......... He's claiming that it's just "art"...... JPG should be able to "block" him from "spotlighting" his smut..... maybe they should do away with the spotlight thing altogether....... that way we'd never see it!

  • Maris Cason

    Maris Cason   said (15 May 2010):

    I'm with you! I hope JPG listens.

  • Sarah Dudley

    Sarah Dudley gave props (15 May 2010):

    I wrote to them begging them to wake up. I hope they hear us.

  • peter bodigor

    peter bodigor gave props (16 May 2010):

    What else are you going to use the internet for??

  • Lynn H

    Lynn H (Deleted) gave props (16 May 2010):

    I am not here much, but I too will delete my account if this isn't stopped. Good people must stand up!!

  • Martin E. Morris

    Martin E. Morris (Deleted) gave props (16 May 2010):

    A fine image and words Susan.Sadly I fear they will fall on deaf ears!!!

  • Suzanne McGeady

    Suzanne McGeady said (16 May 2010):

    I with you all the way. A Rose for this reason smells so sweet.

  • Eric Finster

    Eric Finster (Deleted) gave props (16 May 2010):

    Let's get this ball a rolling, I'm with ya!

  • Marcus Hammerschmitt

    Marcus Hammerschmitt   said (17 May 2010):

    Dear Susan - I very much see foxharvard (and even more Duncan Ritchie) testing the waters here with their provocative shots, and still I have a problem with classifying their work as simply "pornographic". If they are, a question arises which had the German authorities reeling for quite some time: can porn be art? In the end they came to the conclusion still standing to the very day: yes indeed, porn can be art, but not all kinds of porn fit under the umbrella of free speech and freedom of expression. So, in Germany, it has to be a case by case decision, and by and large the German system works (I think). When tackling the obvious provocations of said JPGmag members, I think there is one important point: JPGmag might be visited by minors, but is *not* about family. It's about photography, and photography has always been and will always be a means of depicting different kinds of sexuality. So, is there a middle ground between a laissez faire approach and the freedom of expression falling prey to different kinds of hypocrisy and bigotry? I do think so, and with the safe for work filter the management has this middle ground pretty much covered. *You* decide that you don't want to see certain material, and *you* report people, who are - in your view - not playing by the rules. Devin says it all in his explanation:

    http://jpgmag.com/dev/2010/05/safe-for-work-filter-updates.html

    And that is good enough for me. Just my two cents.

  • Judy Abolafya

    Judy Abolafya (Deleted) gave props (17 May 2010):

    beautiful art! and with you, girl!

  • Gail Anderson

    Gail Anderson gave props (17 May 2010):

    Gosh... go and take a vacation and see what you return to... I too have been on Vacation and have missed this totally, until today! This is not the site for foxharvard (and who ever the others are) to post this sort of photo. This is not art. I was considering going to the trouble to write JPG myself. But after reading what OC said their answer was (smut is here to stay)... then I shall not be here anymore either. I appreciate all the contacts I've met here and hope to stay in touch.

  • Brenda Woodham

    Brenda Woodham (Deleted) gave props (17 May 2010):

    This is beautiful. I love the dreaminess of it! Great dedication.

  • Leanne Silva

    Leanne Silva gave props (18 May 2010):

    Lovely image. Filtering these images is not good enough because the obscene images can still be published. I don't want to see my favourite photos published alongside degrading trash!

  • Judy Wanamaker

    Judy Wanamaker (Deleted) gave props (19 May 2010):

    A beautiful capture, and an eloquent stand. The decision made by JPG is sad, considering it was made over protests of its most loyal members. I think they are betting that we will stay. They are going to lose.

  • Steven Schutz

    Steven Schutz gave props (20 May 2010):

    A hotbad of debate to be sure...Marcus has said something very true..Good point Marcus...I have seen alot of my contacts go away...contacts that supported me, and contacts that I supported...Those of us who stay..please...let us support eachiother even more now..we cant afford to loose anymore such great photogs...I would miss the flies so much...

  • Christopher Harland

    Christopher Harland gave props (20 May 2010):

    I totally support you Susan. After all, there is no shortage of places to go if people want to look at porn so why pollute JPG?

  • Jean Pierre Vacherot

    Jean Pierre Vacherot (Deleted) gave props (20 May 2010):

    I'm agree with you...

  • Karen Menyhart

    Karen Menyhart gave props (20 May 2010):

    YOu go girl! Well said!

  • Juanita Vivas

    Juanita Vivas gave props (1 Jun 2010):

    This is a wonderful photo! I love the texture you added....but where's the fly. LOL

  • Ty Tagliapietra

    Ty Tagliapietra said (1 Jun 2010):

    yes its nudity but i dont consider it porn but i do beleave their shouldent be nudity on her and nudity can be art just to let you know

  • Gary Benefield

    Gary Benefield said (16 Jun 2010):

    well put Susan, I have been known to be connoisseur of some tasteful porn at times, (well ok maybe not so tasteful at times) and I do applaud JPG for the recent adult filter capabilities, BUTT do I really want to see some big harry thing spotlighted after two clicks on JPG, at the risk of being a prude HELL NO. There is a place for that, as all things, and until the adult filter is more than a voluntary thing I am not sure it will do any good. Plus, sorry guys no one wants to see your old harry gray unit while sipping their morning coffee.

  • Karen K Smith

    Karen K Smith gave props (16 Jun 2010):

    So well put and that photo does not belong on this site, nor do I consider it art...nor did the one of skinned butchered dogs a few years ago. I took the safe filter off, and put it back on within 5 minutes of looking at peoples work. The spotlights in those 5 minutes were all over the edge as far nudity. Nude bodies can be artful, these were not. So the safe filter goes back on as soon as I'm done typing again..and I have been considering leaving before I even saw this one. JPG needs to monitor what gets posted as not safe for the workplace! Great job Susan:)))

  • Merike Mäll

    Merike Mäll gave props (12 Apr 2011):

    hea makrofoto

  • Saroj Swain

    Saroj Swain gave props (2 Feb 2013):

    photo is fantastic in every respect. with regard to porno issue -- we all agree with you......

To add your comment, Log in or sign up!

Please Login or Sign Up

You must be logged in to enter photos into JPG Shoot Out contests.
Login or Sign Up