Slashdot Mirror
Flickr Yanks Image of Obama As Joker
An anonymous reader writes "An interesting article yesterday about the unmasking of the recent creator of the controversial and iconic Obama/Joker image that has been popping up around Los Angeles with the word Socialism under it. The Los Angeles Times has identified the images' creator as Firas Alkhateeb. Even more interesting though is the fact that after getting over 20,000 hits on the image at Flickr, Flickr removed the image from Alkateeb's photostream, citing 'copyright' concerns. The image in question is clearly both an independent derivative work and unquestionably a parody of the President and Time Magazine which would be covered under fair use. It has appeared on many other sites without issue on the Internet." According to the same reader, "Flickr also recently nuked a user's entire photostream over negative comments on President Obama's official photostream."
Does freedom of speech mean anything anymore?
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Why is flicker taking this issue so seriously?
Or maybe jumpy business people worried they'll get in the middle of a legal mess they'd rather not get involved in.
But why stick with more obvious motivations when you can turn everything into a retarded political pissing match, right?
It's ok to have a picture of Bush as Hitler/Joker/Satan, but Obama is clearly off limits.
Sig? No thanks. I don't smoke.
What I love is that the creator of the image, Firas Alkhateeb, has seen his work *cough* borrowed by the Republicans as an anti-Obama anti-Socialist campaign, but his actual intention with the image was to protest about Obama not being liberal enough. (And the fact that Alkhateeb is a Palestinian makes me smile, too.)
'If Christ had tweeted the sermon on the mount, it might have lasted until nightfall.' - John Perry Barlow
You have as much right to political trolling in Flicker as you do standing on a soapbox in your local mall.
You are allowed to troll so long as the management approves.
--
BMO
Yeah, it's amazing how we made it through 8 years of the Bush presidency without anybody photoshopping pictures of George Bush. If that had happened, the neocons would have rioted, man!
Did you just crawl out from under a rock and miss the past 8 years of the internet? I think for all the things you can criticize Bush and the 'neocons' for, not being able to take a joke, is not one of them.
Proof? I'm finding exactly nothing of the sort, and all similar searches lead to a cartoonist's drawing published in Vanity Fair.
Seems Flikr's owners are Democrats; or maybe they're Republicans afraid of backlash. I wonder what they'd have done if they were there while Bush was in office if he had been similarly parodied? I know if it had happened to Bush, the neocons would have had pitchforks in hand.
I think Flikr's removal of the parody was in extremely poor taste. The picture's a joke, son. Grow a sense of humor! Seems to me a bit of political correctness gone even more crazy. Political correctness offends me almost as much as real censorship.
Also, I wonder if the Streisand Effect will hit?
I looks like there are plenty of Bush parodies out there.
Most of which make the Joker/Obama image look quite tame.
This is not unusual as most in the media, including Internet media, are liberal and will only allow their talking points to be heard. It's funny how the group that screams for equal treatment and equal rights is so quick to silence any that oppose them.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
My friend told me he saw a few of these and he was very upset. Not about the portrayl of Obama, but that they don't understand the Joker at all. Anarchy is more his flavour than Socialism.
From TFA:
Even more so, combining the accusation of Socialism with a depiction of Obama as the Joker makes no fucking sense. The Joker was about chaos and anarchy which is so far away from Socialism that the juxtaposition just strikes me as ludicrous. All it does is make the one who put the poster together look like an ignoramus. I can see the thought train-wreck now: "Lessee... Socialism is evil, and the Joker is evil, so the Joker equals Socialism!" Yeah, I doubt someone that bright even knows what they're accusing the president of. Other than that they're trying to tie him with "evil".
So take a clever image which the artist says wasn't intended as a political message (even though he criticizes Obama), add some moronic twat who thinks it's the perfect political message, and you get something that makes your average political cartoon look intelligent. It'd be like taking those stupid Bushies-In-Drag images, slapping haphazard labels on them like "Immigration Reform" or "Emperialism" and acting like you're a political genius.
The enemies of Democracy are
Actually, they never could take a joke. Not with good grace and humor, at any rate. But that's okay, it's often hard for people to do that when they care passionately about the subject in question. That's kind of basic to the vast majority of humans, really. The rather unfortunate part of it is that people degenerate to such infantile gestures. These gestures, in turn, can probably be traced to back to being incapable of holding a rational, respectful conversation with someone of differing viewpoint, whether because of their own inability or the opposition's inability. Eventually it degenerates to a useless shouting and cockmongery that does not help the democratic process in the slightest. It's most unfortunate, but in a democracy, even the retards get their say. I suppose what's most unfortunate about it is that retards tend to be much louder than the thoughtful types, though your mileage may vary.
"the neocons would have had pitchforks in hand"
Really ? Then where are those pitchforks ? Where was the BusHitler backlash ? There was absolutely no shortage of anti-bush rhetoric, imagery, or anything. Blatantly racist imagery, faked imagery, faked evidence, death threats, ... no shortage at all.
Of course pointing out that as far as policy comparisons go, it's Obama's policies that resemble those of the ("early") Hitler : govt. healthcare, govt. takeover of car companies, stimulus money on creating his own civilians corps, ... all those policies were implemented by both. Now pointing that out, no matter how true (and how irrelevant), is racist.
Perhaps you're right, but I don't think this is a liberal thing. I think it is an Obama thing.
People had no difficulty making fun of both Bill and Hillary Clinton. Neither did they have difficulty making fun of Al Gore. Even in the late 90s when the internet was comparitvely small, parodies, insulting comics, and distorted likenesses of President Clinton were quite common.
Obama just has more charisma. People who like him take greater offense to slander against him. This is probably what the 30s and 40s were like with FDR (the only president to be elected 4 times BTW).
Obama just has more charisma.
In light of recent elections (yes, I'm conservative; no, I am not only referring to democrats) and politics in general, it would seem that "charisma" is actually a byproduct of "saying the correct things to the correct people no matter what your actual plans are." Also known as lying to get votes. Campaign "promises."
Sloppy fail. From the very tippy top of Yahoo's Terms of Service:
A little later on, this gem:
There's more!
I could go on, but I think you get the idea. If not, print this out, take it to your lawyer, and he'll explain it to you using hand puppets and bright crayon drawings.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
>resemble those of the ("early") Hitler : govt. healthcare, govt. takeover of car companies, stimulus money on creating his own civilians corps, ... all those policies were implemented by both.
Or all early 20th century European governments. You know the ones today with excellent universal healthcare, less obsese people, better public trans, lower infant mortality, less debt, more personal savings, free education, and quality of life standards.
Oh right, everything is about Hitler. Thats "reasonable" and your side is hysterically yelling Hitler like spoiled children unable to win a debate.
I know we all like to complain here, but Slashdot is one of the most even handed moderation systems I have ever seen. Have you ever posted to Reddit or Digg? If they even suspect you're related to somebody who once voted Republican, you get down-modded by over 300 people and banned within minutes.
I see comments of all flavors that get modded up here - Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Populist (well, maybe not those). I do love it here.
When you claim the media is 'liberal' you do two things: you demonstrate that you do not understand what the word 'liberal' means, and that you subscribe to a simplistic view of the world where everything is black and white.
OK, then how's this: The media treats Democrats better than Republicans. I could also say that the media treated anti-war protesters much better than the anti-government-insurance protesters or "tea-baggers" as the press likes to call them.
Prime example: Here is a CNN reporter at two different protests. One is an anti-Bush protest where she calls a giant Bush head with a Hitler mustache a Bush "look alike". Then you see the exact same reporter interviewing a Tea Party protester with a picture of Obama as Hitler. She says, "do you have any idea how offensive that is?" Same situation, different presidents, different responses. Watch that and please tell me that the press is not biased.
Here is a quote from a UCLA study (not a conservative school, btw):
"Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said coâ'author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar.
Google "media bias" for more.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
By the "other party" you are refering to the Apple party, right?
So... This is ok:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/21244223@N04/2105170638/
and this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cocktailia/460463335/
and this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wgeis/11346587/
but not this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/thomashawk/3834570613/
Got it...
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
1. Republicrats and Demoricans both use the same techniques and methods against one another and against 3rd parties.
2. You act as if anyone "playing fair" has a snowball's chance in hell of being elected. They don't.
Everyone is about scandals and smears. They are more interested in Britney Spears's vagina than they are about her music. They care more about who makes the most convincing speeches than any truth and care nothing about fact-checking.
I'll say this -- Bush's presidency brought in some really ugly laws and practices. Obama's presidency has so far failed on its promise to undo them. They both suck.
I know you're just trolling, but I'll bite.
whiteface is not "criticism" -- it's racism
How can you seriously attempt to claim that this parody is racist because the face is white??? Was the original joker racist too because he wore white makeup? Are mimes racist because of their makeup? If the only photoshopping done was to paint his face white then I might agree. But quite clearly the intent was to relate him to a well-known character to get the artist's point across. Why must every criticism of Obama be related back to racism?
I know this is hard for you to fathom, but maybe some people just don't agree with his policies. And I bet if someone of a different race had the exact same policies, that group still wouldn't like them. Not everything is about race.
No, we all know where is no such thing as racism against whites. In fact, I'm pretty sure that the mere suggestion makes you some kind of bigot.
But quite clearly the intent was to relate him to a well-known character to get the artist's point across.
That's the part I don't understand. The Joker, specifically the one depicted, is certainly a "well-known" character, but he's not a socialist. He's pretty clearly portrayed as at best an anarchist, and at worst completely insane with no real political views whatsoever. The artist seems to have gone out of his way to choose provocative, rather than relevant, imagery. For instance, a Stalin mustache would have fit this alleged "point" better, and not have garnered nearly as much controversy. I'm not attacking his right to do so, I'm just saying the end result is transparent and cheap, manufactured for the sake of shock rather than any real critical message. That doesn't necessarily have to do with racism, either, he's being compared to a murdering psychopath. I don't recall seeing that too much, even with our last President. A Stalin comparison would at least reflect other ideas, about power gone wrong, etc., but with the Joker there's not much to the guy: he's a raving, homicidal lunatic. What are you supposed to think the message is? Does anyone really, truly agree with that, if you take a second to de-polarize from any political bias? That the President = the Joker? I disagree with this being taken down but I also disagree with the knee-jerk response that this is high art and shouldn't be scrutinized. My mind was open to this image, I thought about it, and came to my own conclusions. Free speech is worthless without free thinking, if that makes any sense.
Actually, that's kind of funny, even if everyone disagrees with me I'll feel like I got my point across...
Sendou Wave Kick!!
The author of the flickr photo didn't put the socialism on it. Someone else removed the "TIME" word and labeled it with socialism. That wasn't the picture on Flickr, the one mentioning time was.
The author said he wasn't really making any political statement, he was learning to use photoshop and followed a tutorial on how to "jokerize" any photo. A couple hours later, he liked what he saw and posted it to his Flickr account. The author also said that he believes he needs to keep low because he lives in Chicago "Alkhateeb says he wasn't actively trying to cover his tracks, but he did want to lay low. He initially had concerns about connecting his name with anything critical of the president -- especially living in Chicago, where people are "very, very liberal," he said." But he also has a photo of Rahm Emanuel with criticisms of him. His lack of willingness to show a point may be because of where he is and how he is now associated to the photo.
The author did state "After Obama was elected, you had all of these people who basically saw him as the second coming of Christ," Alkhateeb said. "From my perspective, there wasn't much substance to him." which might play into your discussion concerning the character of the joker being used. You know, lack of substance "at worst completely insane with no real political views whatsoever".
I suspect there was probably a political motive behind posting the original picture and perhaps the author is afraid to disclose it.