Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Censoring Images of the Prophet Muhammad In Turkey
An anonymous reader writes: Immediately following the Charlie Hebdo attack, Mark Zuckerberg said, "... this is what we all need to reject — a group of extremists trying to silence the voices and opinions of everyone else around the world. I won't let that happen on Facebook. I'm committed to building a service where you can speak freely without fear of violence." Now, Facebook has begun censoring images of the prophet Muhammad in Turkey. According to the Washington post, "It's an illustration, perhaps, of how extremely complicated and nuanced issues of online speech really are. It's also conclusive proof of what many tech critics said of Zuckerberg's free-speech declaration at the time: Sweeping promises are all well and good, but Facebook's record doesn't entirely back it up." To be fair to Zuckerberg and Facebook, the company must obey the law of any country in which it operates. But it stands in stark contrast to the principles espoused by its founder.
Zuckerburg is a whore who doesn't want Turkey to ban Facebook.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
To be fair to Zuckerberg and Facebook, the company must obey the law of any country in which it operates.
No. He came out in support of a universal maxim and then went back to his board who showed him X dollars of income they get by operating in Turkey. Just like the revenue lost when Google left mainland China. Instead of sacrificing that revenue to some other social network in Turkey run by cowards, he became a coward himself in the name of money. It is an affront to the deaths and memory of the Charlie Hebdo editors. His refusal could have worked as leverage for social change in Turkey but now it will not.
So no, your statement isn't fair to Zuckerberg and his company and the platinum backscratcher he gets to keep with "TURKEY" inscribed on it. Fuck that greedy bastard and his petty meaningless lip service.
My work here is dung.
Censorship should not be tolerated. Under any circumstances, and should be a clarion call to resistance of Religious Theocracy.
To be fair to Zuckerberg and Facebook, the company must obey the law of any country in which it operates.
No it doesn't. Big companies don't obey laws unless it's cheaper to do so than not. Slashdot in particular can't stop fellating Uber over what is probably a largely illegal operation. Comcast, Verizon, Microsoft, and basically all of the rest routinely violate laws as they see fit, pay a fine and move on.
If you want freedom of speech, go join Diaspora. Facebook wants a few things by censoring the prophet.
1. Happy cattle. dont upset them with things they universally find objectionable. MAke them comfortable and confident to give information to your service.
2. an office that isnt shredded by nails and ball bearings every other year, or riddled with old soviet lead. Hebdo for example had no problem with this because ideas are bullet proof. Businesses are in fact, much like people, very averse to small arms fire.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Zuck announced that Saudia Arabia has demanded that he cut his hand off for stealing the idea of Facebook. China wants him to shoot himself in the head and send them the price of the bullet for monopolizing their national social media. ISIS demanded that he cut his own head off, just because. Thailand is suing him for war crimes for letting their King be ridiculed on Facebook. Alabama is sending sheriff's deputies to arrest him because a state legislature saw the edge of a nipple on some random teenager's profile picture.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
the company must obey the law of any country in which it operates
And if Saudi Arabia ordered you to hand over women employees for beheading, would you do that too Mark?
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
After hearing about the grilled cheese sandwich that looks like the virgin Mary I read this headline and the image that comes to mind is a roast turkey where the pattern of browning on the skin sort of looks like an image of the prophet Muhammad.
Then I think Facebook is being biased. If they allowed pictures of the virgin Mary grilled cheese then they shouldn't censor pictures of the Muhammad roast turkey.
Then I imagine extremists shouting "death to the turkey!"
(News can me so much more entertaining if you allow yourself to be creative.)
(((:~(>
The above emoticon is muhammed
If FB started censoring everything that offends Islam we would be back to a text terminal... and I'm sure that the Mullahs would most probably find a motive of offense in that as well.
Is that anything like Jebus on a bagel?
Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
What constitutes an image of Muhammad? I mean, no one really knows what he looked like, right? And even if they did know, people have look-alikes...so it seems for something to be an "image of the Prophet" requires it to be labeled as such. But how far does that go? If I drew a stick figure, and wrote "Muhammad" under it, would that count? What if I drew a very detailed and accurate sketch of someone presently alive, let's say my friend Bill, but labelled it "the Prophet Muhammad," would that count? How are these things decided?
Can we verify that Slashdot isn't also doing it in these countries? They already have that very offensive 'Flag this comment as Inappropriate' button there. Why?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Can anyone ever remember an instance where a company pulled out of something because it went against their ethos? I can't think of one.
Every time it's something like censorship, or threats to pull out of a certain market, etc. it's NEVER happened, and they always end up compromising their principles for the sake of sales.
I get that's what business is supposed to do, but it just means I automatically ignore ANY such attempt at pretending a company can have an ethos at all.
Just for once, I'd love to see a company, especially a tech company that espouses its freedom credentials as a selling point, to say "No, sorry, we can't do that, we'll just have to stop doing business with them". Can you imagine if Facebook just turned itself off in Turkey? Surely the uproar alone would mean that it would come in a less-censored form?
I just can't think of an instance where a company refused business because it was morally right to do so (possible exception - supposedly - of The Co-Operative in the UK but are they are company or a co-operative?).
All the issues of free expression and if Facebook is or is not advancing the human condition by enabling Turks to communicate, vs likely being banned by refusing to filter on principle of free expression; does this even help.
I am not an expert on Islamic culture but I thought the prohibition was of depicting the "profit". Wont FB basically have to just ban the name Mohammad, which would offend lots of people. Otherwise what stops someone from posting a steaming cow pie, and tagging it "Mohammad the profit"? Is that not depicting the "profit" as a heap of shit? Is it an less offensive anyway?
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Oh, you mean Islam's Prophet Muhammad?
Most people don't recognize him as a prophet at all.
Do newspapers refer to the lord jesus christ? The messiah jesus christ? No.
Further, how do people know what Muhammad looked like so they can block the images?
Here's a portrait of Muhammad:
He must not be available in a country. Just point http://facebook.tr/ to a page explaining why you do not allow access anymore. Close shop there and be done with it.
And the explanation can be written in such a way that it is purely factual and will not offend anybody. e.g. Facebook is no longer able to operate in Turkey due to requests made by the Turkish government. We are sorry for this and hope to solve this as soon as possible.
Not admitting anything. Not offending anybody.
OTOH I would be jealous to not be living in a country without facebook.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
To be fair to Zuckerberg and Facebook, the company must obey the law of any country in which it operates.
Fine. Then pull out of Turkey. Really, how much is that going to cost you in losses?
This idea that all speech must be viewed by all people is a little odd. When I go onto Facebook once in a blue boon to check on friends I used to work with in the Philippines, I am not bombarded by explicit sexual content. No, nobody in my group of friends are going to post about a rimjob, but given the random crap that does come up, I'm pretty sure there is a lot of energy at Facebook to keep the pr0n noise down.
There are Muslims who consider pictures of their prophet as offensive as a picture of bukkake. The vast majority of them are not crazy Islamists that like to blow things up and slaughter innocent people (which is good for the rest of us non-Muslims). Rather than centralized, blanket, censorship, though, I'd rather see something like this...
1. Facebook and other social networking services put their resources into tagging content (religiously offensive, sexually explicit, drug use and other types of content that users often find unpleasant)
When a user registers for these services, a default list of tagged content to block is set up, based upon their region, gender, religious affiliation, etc. which the user can modify
Doh! Accidentally clicked submit during preview, last line should have "2. " in front of it. "blue boon" should be "blue moon"
Look at how they censor pictures of breasts from the whole site to pander to American "morals", when most of the world has no problem with nudity.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Muhammad: Oh come on guys seriously?!? I've got this awesome post about peace and fairness and its totally legit theres even a sunrise picture i found that goes--
Facebook: Sorry. cant let you post that.
Muhammad: What about my timeline? the farmville stuff? I have a pizza review fr--
Facebook: look buddy its in the TOS. if you wanted to post content you shouldnt have been Muhammad.
Muhammad: So is this just me? or is it every cab driver in Queens? or what?
Facebook: Just for Istanbul's sake
Muhammad: Jesus christ i posted ONE bad review because my falafel was soggy and now i cant post?!!
Good people go to bed earlier.
--------------------> .
As seen from a very long distance.
except for there is no logic behind the complaint that a drawing is offensive, and actually calling someone directly a bad name. no one is forcing them to buy the paper, or read the paper, or look at the image. If you dont like it, dont look at it, its not that complicated.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Mohamed wasn't embarrassed to have a 6 year old wife... why would he be upset if someone draws a picture of him?
Zuckerburg and his facebook are far from the only guilty party on 'whoring'
Take that 'do not evil' company, Google, for example ... publicly they seemed to champion the users' rights by fighting against the Chinese communist, but then they 'whore' themselves to the NSA --- and recent revelations that Google disclosing emails and all the other details of 3 people who work for Wikileaks to the Obama fascist league isn't a comforting news either
Take Microsoft, they 'whore' themselves to the NSA to the extend that they allow NSA to put backdoors into many of their softwares
Take Apple, one would think the late Steve Jobs, a legendary 'counter culture' kinda guy, don't do no 'whoring' but that couldn't be any further from the truth --- Apple's products all have backdoors pre-installed
Let's not forget Cisco, IBM, and a slew other US corporations ... it would be very hard to find any well known US corporation that don't 'whore' themselves to the authority
This is by no mean trying to excuse Zuckerburg's pathetic 'whoring' to Recep Tayyip Erdogan, an ardent supporter of Islamic terrorism
This is to remind all that no American companies (and many European companies as well) can be trusted
They do not care about the rights of the users. All they wanna do to find the best way to suck Uncle Sam's fucking little rotten dick
Captha: consent
The notion that Facebook supports free expression is really quite laughable. You don't even need to be a government to get Facebook to censor images for you. Their content-reporting system allows one self-appointed censor to complain anonymously about an image they don't like (such as two clothed men about to kiss, or PG13-level partial male nudity), and if the complaint gets assigned to someone equally homophobic, the image gets deleted and the person who posted it gets blocked, with no effective method of appeal. The whole Facebook content-policing system is rigged heavily in favor of bullies and censors.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
100 points to the first person to post a bukkake pic of the Prophet Muhammad on Facebook.
Well many of these regimes talk about free speech as if it was a "Western" thing, but it only happened to arise there.
Free speech is a universal principle, and the reason it is universal is that the individual human being is not a Moslem or an American or Chinese, he or she is a human being. The individual. And that's who has the rights. This is why Mullahs or Bishops shouldn't be able to dictate what you say.
Then, again considering all people across the planet, what things are universally limits on free speech? Well, children, across the world, need to grow up in a safe environment and likewise, adults, all over the world, don't want to be caused to stampede out of a cinema, and so on.
Modernity is universal, a principle discovered in certain countries, but you don't hear anyone claim that Islam can't be taught in Germany because it was invented in Arabia. No, they pretend to universal influence also. So the principles have to work for everyone, and that means, criticising those who try to impose pre-modern standards onto the modern world.
When Facebook's TOS disallows gays from being members in places where fundamentalist Islam is dominant, will you continue to defend them? How about women? If women are forbidden to post and/or become members, is that ok?
Where should we draw the line between "we should keep some channels open for the privileged" and "we'll not be enabling that kind of repression"?
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I take it you do not understand the concept of the tyranny of the majority. It's not exactly an insignificant issue, particularly when it is used to prohibit speech by whoever isn't popular with the majority as Facebook does.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
If you're not Muslim, why the fark are you saying "the Prophet" Muhammad? Why would you grant that honorific if you don't yourself believe it? How would that be different than saying "Jesus the Messiah" while not Christian? And hey, if you do believe it "soulskill" then hey, why not, but I've been seeing this become more and more common among journalist at (theoretically) real - and thus, presumably impartial - news agencies. You know, ones that wouldn't say "Jesus the Messiah" and "Buddha the Enlightened One"
So Zuckerberg is a bit of a hypocrite. This isn't exactly a new or rare thing. At least a hypocrite concedes that there is a moral system they should be following and can be pressured into following that moral code. The people who aren't hypocrites tend to be because such because there's no longer reason to bother hiding their vicious natures.
In the US, the concepts of censorship and freedom of speech are inextricably bound up with speech to, for, and about government. It is not something that extends to the private sector in any legal sense. For instance, you have a case when you observe that the FCC won't let you say words 1-7 because that is actually government censorship and the 1st amendment does not contain, suggest or imply exceptions for unpopular or offensive speech. But you don't have a case when I apply exactly the same restriction in some non-governmental venue I control.
IOW, there's no legal requirement at all that I allow you to say whatever you want in my home. There's no requirement at all that I allow you to say whatever you want in a comment on my blog. And there's no legal requirement that Facebook must allow you to say anything in particular, either, or even that it allows you membership.
That doesn't mean you can't judge them on that basis; and therein lies the basis for "toleration", but it does mean that legally speaking, you don't have any support at all. All you can gain are the opinions you can sway -- and here in the US, anyway, the majority has long since demonstrated it does not care if Facebook controls its content and its membership and the identities used.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
"Facebook and other social networking services put their resources into tagging content (religiously offensive, sexually explicit, drug use and other types of content that users often find unpleasant)"
This is an excellent idea. The problem is though that it's not that people don't want to see it themselves. They simply don't want it to exist at all where others might see it. Or the argument used with pornography, "where are innocent youth might stumble upon it".
So although yes, this is a great idea and would help keep offensive things from being seen by those who don't want to see them, it misses a major portion of that group which is offended. It's not that they don't want to see it, it's that they don't want it to exist. And just like with pornography or homosexuality in the United States, I'm sure it's not just the crazy fanatics that think this way, it's many of the middle of the road types as well. It's wrong. They don't want to just not see it. They want it to be gone entirely.
Historically speaking, in the USA, it's been quite complicated: here, it's "if you don't like it, make a law against it" and that's about the way it continues to stand. How many cities and towns have rules about which magazines can be visible behind the counter? What about the FCC's various forbidden words? What about laws like "you can't put a flagpole / antenna / old car on your lawn"? And so on.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
If you can't post an image of Muhammad, how does anyone even know what the hell he looks like? I could post an image of a random Arab and it might look enough like the prophet to be banned, but how the fuck would I know? How the fuck would FB know?
I'm not a Zuck fanboi. I actually feel like Facebook is as invasive as the NSA, datamining your every word. I'm very careful with what I put on there; little that isn't already in my public LinkedIn profile.
However, the situation with Turkey isn't as cut and dried as some people want to make it out. Is Zuckerberg being two-faced, saying one thing and doing another? Not necessarily. He can have a strong opinion that censorship is wrong, at the same time being FORCED to do it (to the minimum extent possible) by local laws. If you were to ask him how he feels about this, he would tell you that it really sucks.
Facebook has two options with regard to Turkey. They can either pull out entirely, or they can obey shitty laws. For one thing, they ARE a business, and nobody has ever tried to claim that they're especially benevolent. The users are the product, and we that use Facebook accept that. So it makes sense for them to maintain a revenue stream from Turkish people. Secondly, remaining in Turkey and censoring a few things is better for free exchange of ideas in general than pulling out and effectively censoring EVERYTHING. Facebook is a platform for free exchange of ideas in the extreme. Your personal information and everything you say are spewed to the world whether you want it or not. So in spite of the privacy concerns, Facebook's presence is nevertheless a force for freedom.
It's not the viewing of the picture which is offensive, but the making of the picture. Distributing it is rubbing salt in the wounds, and makes the difference between a secret, private image of Muhammad (which were quite common in Islam), and a public spectacle. The secret, private images were tolerated because the owners would know that the image was not being worshipped or being used to degrade Muhammad. When it's public and all over the place, that security is lost.
It's just a respect thing - when a religion has been pushed into the corner by the meddling of other countries, often with no regard to their sensibilities, they will fight tooth and nail to secure that which is the most important thing to them. We've seen this with other religions and cultures, too, so it's not just an Islam thing.
If someone respects the hell out of something I'll not go out of my way to show how free I am to disrespect it, or show how much I dislike people being offended by disrespect, by disrespecting it - "told you so" is not productive. That's just me, though.
ok. so im wondering then. if drawing a photo is worthy of murder. what is the correct response to the "artists" who use christian holy imagry and makes them in, oh i dont know, piss crap and menstrual blood? I mean it must be valid to drop a nuke on the town of the artist who did that right?
there is a huge difference IMO between going out of your way to offend a group of people, and not doing unoffensive things, because crazy people are offended by it.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Really, Muslims don't explode upon exposure to the image of Mohammad. It's also not the majority opinion in Turkey (30% believe their eyes might melt, they're not sure, they never saw a drawing of Mohammad before). This is basically the current administration in Turkey moving onward with their extreme right wing conservative Muslim image (think Foxnews is the only news, and Bush has been President for more than a decade) to strengthen economical relations with the Arab world. The Arabs tend to be super religious, like Amish religious, and like super wealthy, I mean which-pants-did-I-put-that-billion-yesterday wealthy. So, as a conservative and traditional Arab, I shan't be doing business with a country who lets the drawing of Mohammad run amock on their Internets. Keep in mind Turkey is a country who loves to drink alcohol, that bans you to hell in the Arab world, guess what? There are also new restrictions on alcohol in Turkey.
TL;DR
Zuckerberg is a whore for money.
Erdogan is a whore for money.
Well now you're zeroing in on what the South Park writers were alluding to with their Cartoon Wars episode. The media likes to self-censor images of the prophet and pretend it's about being respectful to Islam and Muslims. The same media has no problem showing images of Jesus and George Bush defecating on an American flag. That's why you know they're only pretending to be respectful, when what they really are is frightened. You see, most Christians won't try to kill you for being blasphemous about Jesus. I hope that extremists Muslims don't decide that blasphemy about Jesus is just as offensive as if it is about Muhammad, since Jesus is also one of their prophets.
You think that's bad?! Remember the time I got a salmon helmet from Mohammad while wearing a toga?
Most linux users don't know this, but the man pages were named after Chuck Norris. Chuck Norris fsck'ing hates noobs!
does he think censorship is wrong? no. Facebook already censors. There is no difference between censoring breast pics and pics of some muhammed.
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
"When I visit a mosque, I show my respect by taking off my shoes. I follow the customs, just as I do in a church, synagogue or other holy place. But if a believer demands that I, as a nonbeliever, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect, but for my submission." --Flemming Rose
Yes. But it is, in fact, the Turkish state. Not the US state.
I agree with you that I don't like FB's policy here (nor Turkey's) and I would be much happier if FB operated with a lean towards freedom of speech, but that's never been who they were -- they mute, restrict and ban US posters on a regular and constant basis WRT written material and photographs, and they have inflicted their "Real Name" policy on members without regard for the numerous negative consequences.
The objective of FB is to sell ads they can put in the faces of their members. Those who describe members as FB's "product" seem to me to be very close to the mark. How they treat membership, then, can be expected to be the fruits of a policy to maximize the size of the group. And frankly, that's what I see when I look at their policies. Not care for quality, safety or freedom of speech -- just a place to farm ad consumers.
I suspect we're in a similar position to someone trying to tell a happy dictator that "absolute power is bad." It wastes our time and annoys the pig. Er, Zuckerman, I mean. But I repeat myself.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I missed addressing that; responded a bit too quickly, sorry.
I consider this assertion to be flawed; here's why. FB has a very high public profile. Any visitor to the US that is exposed to social media is likely to be aware of both the institution and its reach. They can also learn that the reason "they can't have nice things" is because their government has stepped in the way of their citizens using religion as an excuse. Likewise, US family members who cannot connect with Turkish family members are likely to hold strong opinions, and share them.
If anything is going to make things change, I think that's far more likely than a FB presence that is repression-compliant.
Of course, this would require Zuckerberg and crew to operate using a metric quite different from the "maximize users as ad viewers" model, and that doesn't seem to be in the cards.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
and here it is:
:-) <---- Muhammad
If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
What offends you may not offend me. And vice-versa. What serves no purpose for you, may serve a purpose for me. Be it intended offense, or otherwise, or both at once.
No one in the USA has the "right to not be offended." Being offended is subjective. It has everything to do with you as an individual, or as part of a particular group; it varies due to your moral conditioning, your religious beliefs, your upbringing, your education; what offends one person or group (of any size) may not offend another, nor a person of another grouping; and in the final analysis, it requires one person to attempt to read the mind of other persons they do not know in order to anticipate whether a specific action will cause offense in the mind of another.
And no, codifying an action in law is not in any way sufficient... it is well established that not even lawyers can know the law well enough to anticipate what is legal, and what is not -- any more than you can guess what is offensive to me, or not.
Sane law relies on the basic idea that we try not to risk or cause harm to the bodies, finances and reputations of others without them consenting and being aware of the risks. It does not rely on the idea that we "must not cause offense."
Law that bans something based upon the idea that some individual or group simply finds the behavior objectionable is the very worst kind of law, utterly devoid of consideration or others, while absolutely permeated in self-indulgence.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
It doesn't "make sense", it simply retards social progress by keeping neurotics from considering the darker corners of their own thought processes. I mean, seriously. "Boobies bad"? That's just... pitiful. I am perfectly ready to describe anyone who isn't pleased by the sight of a nice pair of boobies in any neutral, humorous, peaceful, appreciative or loving context as a broken human being. One for whom I have sympathy and pity, but in no way does this engender any urge to force the world into a form that serves to insulate them from the toxic processes of their own twisted psyches.
As for drawing Mohammad, your assertion that there is no purpose but offense is wrong out of the gate. Art is one reason, political commentary is another, historical illustration is another, simple choice is another, and yes, offense is one but that doesn't make it an invalid use.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
There is plenty of classical Islamic art with pictures of The Prophet. http://www.picturesfromhistory... http://www.religionfacts.com/i... http://www.zombietime.com/moha...
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
When I saw the headline for this article, my first thought was "I didn't know the prophet Mohammed had a facebook account."
McFly777
- - -
"What do people mean when they say the computer went down on them?" -Marilyn Pittman
You may be right, but I thought the Koran banned making a depiction of any living thing (or perhaps it was any thing created by God). Thus the focus on art forms like calligraphy and complex geometric patterns.
But not being able to read Arabic, I don't really know. Perhaps it is one of those multiple interpretation things, or one of those "we aren't sure where the line is, so play it safe and don't do anything even close" type of prohibitions.
McFly777
- - -
"What do people mean when they say the computer went down on them?" -Marilyn Pittman
Censoring breast pics is okay, as long it's opt-out, and there are parental controls. Google, Facebook, and the government shouldn't censor things for us that we want to look at in our own homes. (Well, certain things I take strong exception to, like child porn and snuff films because there are victims.) We should be empowered to censor things for ourselves. That being said, many common beliefs should be taken as default, like not putting full frontal nudity on highway billboards. It's not that I believe everyone _should_ be offended by that; it's just that since a vocal majority of people are offended by that, I don't mind curbing some of these things in situations where it's otherwise shoved up people's noses.
There are some middle grounds. Consider gay pride parades. I think that there should be gay pride parades that demonstrate to everyone that gay people are just normal people who want to work normal jobs and live their lives. That, sadly, is not what gay pride parades do. They are hyper-sexualized. There's public nudity and sexual acts in the streets. I don't care if you're gay or straight; I don't think this is appropriate in public. Those who engage in this display are really only hurting themselves because it perpetuates a stereotype of perversion, which is really only true for a minority of people (gay or otherwise). Fortunately, MOST people who find this offensive are able to JUST NOT GO TO SEE THE PARADE. Those who live along the nearby streets can tolerate it or go somewhere else for a few hours. So I have mixed feelings about this, because I don't like some of the stuff they do, and I'd just rather people got over their homophobia and dealt with more important issues.
Anyhow, to continue the analogy with muslims. I think that parodying Muhammad and Islam is perfectly acceptable. I also think putting it on public billboards is at the very least impolite, and at worst entirely unnecessarily offensive to certain people. But if you want to put these things in a magazine or on a website that people have to intentionally take action to find, then those who find it offensive can just not go there!
The objective here should be to maximally empower individuals to see or not see what they want. Because we have to live together, we have to make some compromises about what is publically visible in a way that can't be avoided.