![](\"http:\/\/cyber.law.harvard.edu\/blogs\/static\/dowbrigade\/davidso.jpg\")
The
\n Dowbrigade admits to being slightly jealous of bloggers so polemic or
\n captivating that their every post spurs waves of comments, controversy
\n and debate. Most of the comments we do get come either from our mother
\n (Hi, Ma) or offended fringe readers, like the guy married to a woman
\n from Mongolia who objected to our referring to our son as a mongolian
\n idiot.<\/p>\n
A recent Now although we are not proud to have buckled so quickly under editorial First of all, this is clearly an area of personal standards, which obviously It seems illogical that the first photo is an iconic example of high culture and art, and the second is considered borderline pornographic.<\/p>\n Furthermore, we feel that it is patently ridiculous that our culture Be that as it may, the Dowbrigade acceded to covering the nipples in Now this is a tougher nut to crack. As a true believer in RSS and aggregation, The human body is not dirty. The dirtiness is in the human mind. Everyone But most of us are offended by some things and not by others. The Dowbrigade, for example, However, we will continue to publish T ‘n A on a case by case basis, The Dowbrigade admits to being slightly jealous of bloggers so polemic or captivating that their every post spurs waves of comments, controversy and debate. Most of the comments we do get come either from our mother (Hi, Ma) or offended … Continue reading
\n Dowbrigade posting<\/a>, however, has created a mini-polemic of
\n sorts. It featured a British woman raising money
\n to fight multiple sclerosis by baring her breasts. At the time of the
\n original post, we honestly didn’t think it would offend anyone, but after
\n reading a few of the the comments, especially two from women whose opinions
\n we respect, we went back and edited out the nipples in the photo.<\/p>\n
\n criticism, the question has made us think about when and under what circumstances
\n it is appropriate for a blogger to self-censor.<\/p>\n
\n differ widely from blogger to blogger. These standards involve both what
\n kinds of materials one finds personally offensive, and the degree to
\n which one cares about the number and sensibilities of one’s readership.
\n Clearly, most bloggers care a great deal about their readers, not in
\n small part because many of them are friends and correspondents. On the
\n other hand, some maintain that when a blogger, or any writer for that
\n matter,
\n begins to edit according to anticipated audience reaction, or worse still,
\n write what he or she thinks that audience wants to hear, rather than
\n what needs to be said, that writer begins to lose authenticity and to
\n engage in a sort of literary prostitution.<\/p>\n![](\"http:\/\/cyber.law.harvard.edu\/blogs\/static\/dowbrigade\/vixpixsm.jpg\")
In the
\n area of personal morality, the Dowbrigade believes the human body constitutes
\n one of God’s most beautiful creations. The fact that
\n we prefer to linger on the female form rather than the male is a corollary
\n of our sexual orientation and no way inhibits our ability to appreciate
\n the beauty of the torso of David, for example, pictured above,<\/p>\n
\n finds nothing scandalous or sinful about the male nipple, but has a heavy-duty
\n taboo against the public display of the female version. What’s
\n up with that? As far as we can tell, the only difference is functional;
\n the female nipple produces milk, while the male has none. Is there
\n something dirty about milk? We thought Milk Does a Body Good…<\/p>\n
\n the photo in question because A) several women readers wrote to say they
\n found it objectionable, and B) one said the presence of said photo in
\n her aggregator limited her ability to review or demo her aggregator at
\n work, for obvious reasons.<\/p>\n
\n we can see how the presence of risque material could adversely affect
\n some working environments. In addition, the Dowbrigade, probably
\n facetiously, has long considered himself a feminist. It
\n should be obvious to any unbiased observer that women are the superior
\n sex, have a much better understanding of how the world really works,
\n and we
\n would
\n all
\n be much better off if the entire world were run by women. There would
\n be no wars, I bet, and public buildings would be much more attractively decorated.<\/p>\n
\n has different delineations in their minds about what is dirty and what
\n isn’t. Some poor people find almost everything dirty. We
\n say they have dirty minds. A few rare people find nothing dirty, and
\n are able to accept anything without making moral judgments. We
\n say they are saints or devils, depending on our points of view.<\/p>\n
\n is offended by ketchup on scrambled eggs, but not by the uncovered female breast. What it comes down to, in the
\n end, is a tradeoff. We choose to self-censor in cases like this because
\n we don’t want to lose people we like as readers. We feel the effort is
\n worthwhile if it allows us to continue to share and exchange insights
\n with these folks. <\/p>\n
\n depending on news-worthiness and aesthetic allure. Remember, it’s not
\n pornography if it has Redeeming Social Value!<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"