Facebook Reverses Censhorship of Iconic Kim Phúc Photo

By Jeralyn, Section Media
Posted on Fri Sep 09, 2016 at 03:55:43 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Photo courtesy of Aftenposten

Facebook censored the iconic "Napalm Girl" photo of 9 year old Phan Thi Kim Phúc. If you are not familiar with the photo or the story behind it:

In June 1972, when she was just 9 years old, Phuk suffered burns on over 65 percent of her body when American forces mistakenly dropped napalm bombs on the South Vietnamese temple where she and her family had taken refuge.

Associated Press photographer Nick Ut's photograph of her running naked and screaming from the flames became an iconic image of the Vietnam War – and earned him a Pulitzer.

The Pulitzer prize winning photo has been reprinted everywhere, including family friendly People Magazine. The photo is largely credited with turning public opinion against the Vietnam War.

About two weeks ago, a Norwegian writer named Tom Egeland posted the photo on Facebook in an article about 7 photos that changed the face of war. Facebook censored and removed it, causing a media uproar in Norway. [More..]

Egeland complained. Facebook banned him. In response to Facebook's censorship, Aftenposten, Norway’s largest newspaper, published the photo on its Facebook page. Facebook asked it to remove the photo.

Aftenposten’s editor-in-chief, Espen Egil Hansen, said the newspaper had received a message from Facebook asking it to “either remove or pixelize” the photograph.

The editor refused and instead slammed Mark Zuckerberg in a public letter on the paper's front page.

Listen, Mark, this is serious. First you create rules that don’t distinguish between child pornography and famous war photographs. Then you practice these rules without allowing space for good judgement. Finally you even censor criticism against and a discussion about the decision – and you punish the person who dares to voice criticism.

I think you are abusing your power, and I find it hard to believe that you have thought it through thoroughly.

Let me return to the picture I mentioned by Nick Ut. The napalm-girl is by far the most iconic documentary photography from the Vietnam war. The media played a decisive role in reporting different stories about the war than the men in charge wanted them to publish. They brought about a change of attitude which played a role in ending the war. They contributed to a more open, more critical debate. This is how a democracy must function.

The free and independent media have an important task in bringing information, even including pictures, which sometimes may be unpleasant, and which the ruling elite and maybe even ordinary citizens cannot bear to see or hear, but which might be important precisely for that reason.

...This right and duty, which all editors in the world have, should not be undermined by algorithms encoded in your office in California.

Mark, please try to envision a new war where children will be the victims of barrel bombs or nerve gas. Would you once again intercept the documentation of cruelties, just because a tiny minority might possibly be offended by images of naked children, or because a paedophile person somewhere might see the picture as pornography?

The Norwegian Prime Minister published the photo on her Facebook page in support of the author Tom Egeland, and Danish newspaper that objected. It was removed.

Erna Solberg, the Conservative prime minister, called on Facebook to “review its editing policy” after it deleted her post voicing support for a Norwegian newspaper that had fallen foul of the social media giant’s guidelines.

Facebook now acknowledges it made a mistake. It has published this statement.

“After hearing from our community, we looked again at how our Community Standards were applied in this case. An image of a naked child would normally be presumed to violate our Community Standards, and in some countries might even qualify as child p*orn*ography. In this case, we recognize the history and global importance of this image in documenting a particular moment in time. Because of its status as an iconic image of historical importance, the value of permitting sharing outweighs the value of protecting the community by removal, so we have decided to reinstate the image on Facebook where we are aware it has been removed.

We will also adjust our review mechanisms to permit sharing of the image going forward. It will take some time to adjust these systems but the photo should be available for sharing in the coming days. We are always looking to improve our policies to make sure they both promote free expression and keep our community safe, and we will be engaging with publishers and other members of our global community on these important questions going forward.”

That's not good enough. Facebook doesn't acknowledge the photo did nothing to harm the community, and that its judgment was flawed. Instead, it turns the issue into a balancing test and says the importance of sharing the iconic image outweighs the value of protecting the community.

Because of its status as an iconic image of historical importance, the value of permitting sharing outweighs the value of protecting the community by removal, so we have decided to reinstate the image.

That photo has no relevance to protection of the community. Who in the community could possibly be harmed by viewing it? Facebook shouldn't need to "engage" with anyone going forward. There's nothing to discuss --it was wrong, this is an easy call. Facebook doesn't need outside help to change its policy. It should fire any human staffers that contributed to the decision to ban the posters who posted the photo, and acknowledge that "one size fits all" policies make for bad editorial decisions.

< New ISIS Magazine: Stand, Die (and Kill) | Friday Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Facebook Reverses Censhorship of Iconic Kim Phúc Photo | 24 comments (24 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Public opinion had actually begun to turn ... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Sep 09, 2016 at 06:05:00 PM EST

Jeralyn: "The Pulitzer prize winning photo has been reprinted everywhere, including family friendly People Magazine. The photo is largely credited with turning public opinion against the Vietnam War."

... sharply against the Vietnam War long before June 1972. If there WAS a single iconic photo from that era -- and there were many -- which finally turned public opinion irrevocably against our involvement in southeast Asia, I'd argue that it was likely this one, which was actually taken some 11,000 miles away from Vietnam at Kent State University in Ohio on May 4, 1970.

Regardless of however one felt about the war up to that point, the very idea that federalized National Guard troops would open fire on unarmed American college students, who were exercising their First Amendment rights to protest the U.S. invasion of Cambodia, sickened and repulsed many people across the political spectrum.

Kent State proved a watershed moment for the then-flagging antiwar movement, and huge protests exploded on college campuses throughout the country as a direct result of that atrocity. Thousands upon thousands of demonstrators surrounded the White House. Opposition to the war had gone mainstream, and could no longer be marginalized as the work of a relative few malcontents, nor further ignored by the Nixon administration.

Nick Ut's photo of that screaming napalmed girl, taken two years later, simply highlighted and brought home to Americans the utter pointlessness and heartbreaking futility of our war effort in southeast Asia.

Aloha.

I know most will disagree.. (none / 0) (#4)
by jondee on Fri Sep 09, 2016 at 06:29:10 PM EST

but when I look at that photo and the one's of the terrified people and children lying in ditches at My Lai, I don't blame the Weathermen. Not at all.

What that "war effort" was was a delusionary, nihilistic, life-hating waste of energy, resources, and human life and it's potential for good on par with ISIL's attempt to establish a caliphate.


The Weatherman weren't the cause ... (none / 0) (#11)
by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Sep 10, 2016 at 02:40:55 AM EST

... of the Vietnam War horror show. Culpability for that rests solely with our government. As a fringe and highly radicalized element of the antiwar movement, the Weather Underground was at best inconsequential and at worst counterproductive to the efforts of the SDS, etc. They were a symptom of the blind combativeness that had overtaken us as a country.

The statement that Jeralyn quoted from The Guardian was that U.S. public opinion had turned against the war with the publication of Ut's iconic photo in June 1972. I'm arguing that domestic opposition to the war had actually hardened far earlier. With the tragedy at Kent State, any opportunity for Nixon to rally the public to his side pretty much vanished. LBJ had already lost the support of young people under 30 for the war effort. Kent State began to erode support amongst the older generations, too.

At that point, Nixon was compelled to begin the process of "Vietnamization," that is, transitioning the U.S. military role in the war from one of assertive front-line leadership to one that supported South Vietnamese initiatives. As history shows us, that policy did not turn out so well.

Aloha.


The Domino Theory (none / 0) (#13)
by jondee on Sat Sep 10, 2016 at 11:18:39 AM EST

was based to a very large extent on the paranoid fantasy-dastardly lie that the old SU was this giant malevolent octopus whose tentacles extended into every nook and crannie of the globe. A scenario certainly fantastic for business for the military industrial complex..

Intervention anywhere could then be justified on the grounds that independence movements and revolutions with a socialistic flavor were being imposed on "free" people from outside and we were therefore justified in intervening in other nation's affairs either overtly or covertly.

I doubt many people are aware of the fact that FDR publicly referred to Ho Chi Minh as a "Freedom Fighter" during WWII, and gave many indications that the U.S would support Vietnamese independence once the war was over. Truman's change of policy must've been seen by the Vietnamese as the ultimate stab in the back and probably led them straight into the arms of any powerful nation that pledged to respect their dignity and sovereignty.


: A little disagreement maybe, jondee. (none / 0) (#28)
by caseyOR on Sun Sep 11, 2016 at 01:27:30 PM EST

I would say that what made the Domino Theory so powerful was our insistence on seeing communism as monolithic. We could not see that the USSR did not control China. We refused to distinguish between Soviet aggression and the various ant-colonialism movements in nations around the world.
So, every fight by a nation's people to free themselves from their conquerors became a fight with the USSR.
Ho Chi Minh was a valuable ally of ours in WWII. He was also a huge fan of American democracy and Abraham Lincoln. And we did lead him to believe that we would help the Vietnamese fight for independence from France after the war ended.
Ho was not alone in feeling betrayed by the U.S. We left many people, particularly in Asia and the Pacific, believing we would support their fights for freedom from western colonialists once the Japanese were defeated. We lied to everyone, and in so doing, squandered an amazing opportunity to promote democracy across the globe.
This may be exactly what you were saying, jondee. If so, I misunderstood your comment.

I can't say which photo did more to shape (none / 0) (#5)
by ruffian on Fri Sep 09, 2016 at 07:46:02 PM EST

the politics at the time, but the photo of the little girl not much younger than myself at the time was what taught me how wrong that war was, and is my instant association with the war.


that was a quote from The Guardian (none / 0) (#7)
by Jeralyn on Fri Sep 09, 2016 at 08:00:50 PM EST

The image, for which Ut won a Pulitzer prize, was widely credited with turning the tide of public opinion against the war. Decades later, it lives on as one of the most iconic images of the century.

Guardian, 2015

They aren't talking about war protesters who had been opposed for years, but the mainstream American public. The war wasn't over until 1975.

Forty years ago, on 30 April 1975, North Vietnamese tanks rolled into the former Saigon, seizing the South Vietnamese capital and capping a humiliating defeat for the US after a misguided decade of war. In chaos, Americans scrambled, abandoning the city. The conflict killed over 3 million North Vietnamese, 250,000 South Vietnamese and over 58,000 Americans.

The photographer's brother, AP photojournalist Huynh Thanh My, was killed in the war.

"My brother, very good photographer," Ut says, stepping away from where he shot his most famous photo. "I really love him. Every time he came back from assignments and showed the pictures, people die, the war. He showed his wife, he showed me. He was very angry. He said one day he was going to take a picture that would stop the war. But he never did. When he died, I heard his words in my ear. When I took the picture of Kim Phuc, I told my brother: `I have it for you.'"

My opinion: Kent State resonated more because of the inappropriate use of the National Guard and senseless killing of students than the actual war -- yes they were protesting the war when shot, due to Nixon's recent announcement he would send troops to Cambodia (the draft was in effect)-- but I think it was more the senseless killings and overmilitarization at home that enraged the public than the war. If public opinion had really turned in 1970, Nixon wouldn't have been re-elected in 1972 by a margin of 62% to George McGovern's 37%. McGovern ran on an anti-war platform. (Nixon got 97% of the electoral college votes, 520 to 17.)

Nixon won the election in a massive landslide (a higher proportion than in 1964, when Lyndon B. Johnson overwhelmingly defeated Barry Goldwater). Nixon won the election, with a 23.2% margin of victory in the popular vote, the fourth largest margin in presidential election history. He received almost 18 million more popular votes than McGovern--the widest margin of any U.S. presidential election.

: Yes - I could not think of how to put it (none / 0) (#9)
by ruffian on Fri Sep 09, 2016 at 08:25:58 PM EST

but to me Kent State, and that photo, was about what the war was doing to us at home, not what it was doing to Viet Nam. The war was the cause of the protests, but it is hard to say how much of the opposition to the war had anything to do with the horror of it to the Vietnamese people.

: Yes, but for the first time, ... (none / 0) (#10)
by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Sep 10, 2016 at 02:15:58 AM EST

... President Nixon had to deal with the prospect of massive protests of his administration's Vietnam policy, and he did not cope with public dissent all that well.
Remember, Nixon had campaigned in 1968 in part on a false premise that he had a "secret plan" to end the Vietnam War, a claim that was obviously a moot point by May 1970. In fact, his secret plan was to prolong the war through the '68 election by sabotaging the Paris peace talks.
In 1971, the Pentagon Papers dominated headlines, and Nixon's innate paranoia kicked in big time. By now, he had convinced himself that Democrats were somehow behind the antiwar movement, and he reacted with a determination to crush his opposition in 1972, even if his campaign had to cheat to win. Thus, the seeds for the White House "Plumbers," the Watergate scandal and a horrific constitutional crisis were sown.
As for George McGovern, he was an honorable man and a World War II combat hero (receiving the Distinguished Service Cross, our nation's second highest honor), but a flawed presidential candidate. After the fiasco of 1968, Democrats changes the rules so that primary voters had more say in delegate allocation at the national convention.
Unfortunately, many of the states were winner-take-all, and in a crowded field of five strong candidates, McGovern won the nomination decisively at the convention, despite garnering only a 29% plurality of the overall primary vote nationwide. That, of course, meant that 71% of Democratic voters preferred someone else. McGovern was way too left wing for many Democrats. Then, after the mess that was Tom Eagleton's VP nomination and withdrawal, his campaign was dead in the water.
Aloha.

Who will protect the community... (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by kdog on Tue Sep 13, 2016 at 02:01:53 PM EST

from Facebook?

: Or Tall Cotton (none / 0) (#31)
by fishcamp on Tue Sep 13, 2016 at 05:19:28 PM EST

It's almost as if Edvard Munch was dreaming (none / 0) (#1)
by jondee on Fri Sep 09, 2016 at 04:21:49 PM EST

ahead to the fate of little girls like Phan when he painted The Howl..

That war was one vast obscenity.

That is a powerful and.. (none / 0) (#2)
by desertswine on Fri Sep 09, 2016 at 04:59:33 PM EST

heartbreaking photo.

I don't see why Facebook needs any more (none / 0) (#6)
by ruffian on Fri Sep 09, 2016 at 07:55:58 PM EST

'community standards' policing than any newspaper or magazine.That photograph has been in print since it was first published. It seems really close to preventing display of photos that pain the conscience in the name of protecting the community. Protecting the community from facing the consequence of decisions.

Facebook's action was clearly based (none / 0) (#8)
by Peter G on Fri Sep 09, 2016 at 08:23:59 PM EST

on the current child p*rn hysteria, and nothing else. It's a picture of a naked child. Nothing else matters in that world, including the fact that it is in no way erotic, much less the fact that it is a historic, iconic image. It's like banning reproductions of classical art depictions of the Nativity showing a naked Baby Jesus, or of photos of the liberation of concentration camps that show piles of naked bodies, including children and teens.


Or ... (none / 0) (#12)
by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Sep 10, 2016 at 02:54:16 AM EST

... covering up the bare breasts of the statue of the Spirit of Justice at the U.S. Dept. of Justice. What an anal retentive bunch of hysterics we are when it comes to matters of nudity and the human body!


: No Donald (none / 0) (#15)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 10, 2016 at 01:32:00 PM EST

The drapes provide a nice background for television cameras, Hix said.....
Hix said the Justice Department bought the drapes to avoid having to rent them every time the agency had a formal event. The drapes cost about $2,000 to rent.
He also said Ashcroft was not involved in the decision.
"The attorney general was not even aware of the situation," he said. "Obviously, he has more important things to do."
USA Today.

Hey I thought that this thread was about... (none / 0) (#22)
by desertswine on Sat Sep 10, 2016 at 04:54:06 PM EST

Nick Ut's Pulitzer Prized winning photograph and Facebook's censorship of it and not ppk's fantasies about Vietnam. C'mon.

: you are right (none / 0) (#23)
by Jeralyn on Sat Sep 10, 2016 at 06:15:50 PM EST

and jim's hijacking to an interview about the war in vietnam from a right wing news rag and Trevor's claims about protesters insulting returning soldiers and Jondee's insults to Jim have all been deleted.
The topic is Facebook and censorship of the iconic photo.
If you want to discuss the Vietnam war itself, do it in an open thread.

Kim Phuc - (none / 0) (#24)
by desertswine on Sat Sep 10, 2016 at 08:30:57 PM EST

In 1997 she established the first Kim Phúc Foundation in the U.S., with the aim of providing medical and psychological assistance to child victims of war.[20] Later, other foundations were set up, with the same name, under an umbrella organization, Kim Phúc Foundation International.

Kim Phuc began laser treatments in 2015, performed by Dr. Jill Waibel of the Miami Dermatology and Laser Institute.[28] The treatments are designed to soften the thick scar tissue on Kim's left arm and back, creating microscopic holes through which blood can flow. The procedures are painful--Kim called it "10 out of 10"--but she was hopeful that her body will heal and ease the pain. She underwent her fifth such procedure in May 2016.

I can't imagine what it must be like to be a child victim of war.

Kim Phuc - (none / 0) (#25)
by desertswine on Sat Sep 10, 2016 at 08:31:26 PM EST

Oops - sorry for the twofer. (none / 0) (#26)
by desertswine on Sat Sep 10, 2016 at 08:32:18 PM EST

While the National Guard shootings (none / 0) (#27)
by fishcamp on Sun Sep 11, 2016 at 09:25:38 AM EST

at Kent State were deplorable, there's no photograph more powerful than Kim Phúc running down the street with her clothes burned off by napalm. The other photograph that comes to mind is the street execution of a Viet Cong man by a South Vietnamese general.

: The My Lai photos (none / 0) (#29)
by jondee on Sun Sep 11, 2016 at 02:06:06 PM EST

were the ones that got me.
And yet there were and are still some Americans who thought the only criminals in that situation were the brave copter pilot Hugh Thompson Jr and his crewman.