Playing the censor: Would you ban this band’s ‘violent’ photos?
August 21, 2008 – 1:24 pm
MySpace deemed this promotional photograph for band Oceano suitable, but shots containing simulated violence were promptly removed from the social networking site.
MySpace said this band’s promo shoot (Click to see the photos – Not Safe For Work) was ‘too violent’ and promptly removed the offending photographs from their website. Which isn’t too unreasonable when you take into account that MySpace has strict policies on what can and can’t be published on a user’s profile.
But let’s play a game — The Censor Game. Pretend you’re the Classification Board reviewing the exact same photographs (NSFW) to see whether they make it onto Conroy’s Internet Clean Feed Blacklist. Would a reasonable adult find them offensive? Do you find them offensive?
Would you refuse classification, effectively banning them? Leave your comments.
12 Responses to “Playing the censor: Would you ban this band’s ‘violent’ photos?”
Yes, I find overweight men with neckbeards offensive. But seriously I’m not sure why you said they were NSFW. Maybe I’m a bit jaded or something? Worst one was the 2nd image with model (andy.jpg). I wouldn’t give them any more than an “M” rating. They’re distasteful, but hell, much, much more tamer than that “gore porn” stuff like Saw and Hostel. I thought a lot of scenes in the “Dark Knight” were worse than the images. Actually I can go into my local newsagent, pick up a copy of Fangoria (which is both unrated and unbagged) and see much, much, much worse than the band’s photo shoot.
By Matthew on Aug 21, 2008
Cheers for your comments Matt.
I included the NSFW warning as I know some of my readers visit during the day from work where those sorts of photos would raise an eyebrow if upper management ever saw them.
Saw-like indeed! Didn’t MySpace run a Saw advertising campaign? Same for Hills Have Eyes. Probably not as a graphic.
By Mike on Aug 21, 2008
Well, I have my limits, and these photos are beyond them. Not something I would want young kids seeing, but not something that denied to adults. Perhaps put them behind an “enter at own risk” warning.
By Stevian on Aug 22, 2008
Thanks for your thoughts Stevian. Appreciated and taken on board!
By Mike on Aug 23, 2008
Man, if that is regarded as violent, then heaven forbid Marilyn Manson making a new album and trying to get album art approved.
That is weak as anything, the blood doesn’t even look like blood. I have seen a picture of a friend who dressed up like a vampiric creep nurse for halloween with heaps of fake blood and it looks a lot worse than any of that. An M 15+ rating from me.
By Chris on Oct 27, 2008
OKAY FIRST OFF THIS IS NOT BADD THIS BAND IS THE MOST HARD CORE BAND EVER WOW THESE PICTURES ARNET BAD AT ALL THEY R NORMAL AND PRETTY AWSOME PICTURES.
IVE BEEN TO HALLOWEEN HORROR NIGHTS 5 TIMES AND THTS WORSE THEN THESE LIL PICTURES BIG DEAL
GET THE HELL OVER IT.
I WOULDNT BAN!!!
By CHRISTINA NICHOLE on Dec 4, 2008
Stop shouting, we can hear you
By Stefan on Dec 4, 2008
um..this is a joke yes? glossy obviously faked images from fat misogynistic musicians who claim they are just soooo angry that one can only assume they haven’t been laid in years and knowing earache they have just signed the kind of record deal where they will end up in debt to the label once their CD ends up in the two dollar bins have been getting this much attention? one only has to read the interview on their website to realise they are unknowingly nothing more than a parody of themselves…the heaviest band ever…slow clapping my friends…they are nothing new, the photos are nothing new, the myspace ban may be new but read their fineprint. basically they can do what they want. [groan]
By 100%dirtyfeed on Dec 21, 2008
and the point of that last rant is – do what you want but if you gonna use another persons or companies lame social networking tool or other medium to sell your dumb product you kinda gotta follow their rules or else suffer the consequences. which in this case probably got them as much attention if not more than their musical ability has so far… i can’t go and take out a full page ad in the smh with a picture of me raping the corpse of a still born child to try sell my product but i could post it on my own web site if thats what i think is gonna help sell whatever it is i’m selling.. i just choose not to.
By 100%dirtyfeed on Dec 21, 2008
Dirtyfeed:
Your previous rantings had no relevence to the subject: What mike was pointing out was that these pictures could be considered offensive to a government level censor.
By Ben on Jan 19, 2009
No?? Why would you ban the photos?
By Shayne on May 20, 2009
Personally I find these pictures perfectly fine. If this is the way the band would like to represent themselves, so be it. I enjoy their music and as for the children, I highly doubt you’re going to find a 7 year old looking at their Myspace or a 10 year old jamming out to some death core music. Also, before you bash on them Stefan, they obviously have some sort of talent other wise they would have never gotten signed and they wouldn’t be headlining tours across the united states. They may not make music you appreciate but I know plenty of people who do appreciate this kind of art- if you will.
By Meaghan on Jun 1, 2010