I don’t think it would be in humanity’s best interest for scientific journals to be in the habit of quickly banning research just because someone has uncomfortable associations with a safely cropped photo (or a drawing, or a quote). Perhaps it makes sense in this particular case, after careful consideration. I hope it’s an exceptional case. Censorship is a slippery slope.
IEEE have the right to decide which papers to accept. They aren’t obliged to publish anything they aren’t comfortable with. There are much harder conditions to get your research published in IEEE than avoiding the use of a single image.
Lena herself has also the right to oppose the use of the image.
If you’re unhappy with their decision you can find some other publisher.
My comment was not about being unhappy with their decision. (I’m not.) Rather, I was offering perspective to someone who seems angry over IEEE not making that decision sooner.
So I take it you think the Washington Commanders should have stayed the Washington Redskins because not censoring is more important than it being disrespectful to a large group of people? My eyes would fall out if they rolled any harder.
No one’s censoring the history or saying it never happened, we’re just saying “Maybe there’s a better, less controversial image to use for this purpose.” Which really shouldn’t be a very controversial take at all.
It’s not like you can’t see the old Redskins logo on Wikipedia, or that the Wikipedia entry for the Lenna image would disappear. That would be censorship, not this. This is just “don’t use this controversial image in professional documents like science research.” Literally, specifically, IEEE journals.
Since you obviously feel strongly about this issue, you might consider your bias as a reason to read more carefully. Please don’t put words in my mouth.
I read it very carefully. I’m sorry you aren’t capable of backing up what you said in the face of someone pointing out that isn’t actually censorship.
Further, as many have pointed out, there are plenty of similar reference images available. Not using this image will not impede scientific progress, as you have so implied. (Honestly after 50 years, it’s arguable that we have much better reference images now.)
I don’t think it would be in humanity’s best interest for scientific journals to be in the habit of quickly banning research just because someone has uncomfortable associations with a safely cropped photo (or a drawing, or a quote). Perhaps it makes sense in this particular case, after careful consideration. I hope it’s an exceptional case. Censorship is a slippery slope.
IEEE have the right to decide which papers to accept. They aren’t obliged to publish anything they aren’t comfortable with. There are much harder conditions to get your research published in IEEE than avoiding the use of a single image.
Lena herself has also the right to oppose the use of the image.
If you’re unhappy with their decision you can find some other publisher.
My comment was not about being unhappy with their decision. (I’m not.) Rather, I was offering perspective to someone who seems angry over IEEE not making that decision sooner.
No she doesn’t. Playboy owns the image and have the sole right to control how it is used
She has the right to have her own opinion. Others have the right to choose to respect her opinion.
Removed by mod
So I take it you think the Washington Commanders should have stayed the Washington Redskins because not censoring is more important than it being disrespectful to a large group of people? My eyes would fall out if they rolled any harder.
No one’s censoring the history or saying it never happened, we’re just saying “Maybe there’s a better, less controversial image to use for this purpose.” Which really shouldn’t be a very controversial take at all.
It’s not like you can’t see the old Redskins logo on Wikipedia, or that the Wikipedia entry for the Lenna image would disappear. That would be censorship, not this. This is just “don’t use this controversial image in professional documents like science research.” Literally, specifically, IEEE journals.
Uh, a consensual photograph of a naked woman, especially a cropped headshot of her, is not the same as a racial slur.
Since you obviously feel strongly about this issue, you might consider your bias as a reason to read more carefully. Please don’t put words in my mouth.
I read it very carefully. I’m sorry you aren’t capable of backing up what you said in the face of someone pointing out that isn’t actually censorship.
Further, as many have pointed out, there are plenty of similar reference images available. Not using this image will not impede scientific progress, as you have so implied. (Honestly after 50 years, it’s arguable that we have much better reference images now.)
censor
cen·sor ˈsen(t)-sər
2 of 2
verb
censored; censoring ˈsen(t)-sə-riŋ
transitive verb
: to examine in order to suppress (see suppress sense 2) or delete anything considered objectionable
also : to suppress or delete as objectionable
[Edit: formatting]
Removed by mod
Give it time.