Humph

I've been censored by friends. One comment, I ignore, two comments makes me think twice.

First comment was by Chuck, which I inadvertantly deleted when taking down the pictures, but it was general horror at posting pictures of actors.

Second comment was by Avital: "I was horrified to see that you posted those actresses photos on your blog...i think it's a violation of their trust in posting on nowcasting and for your casting call. Now casting is not a public site, per se...It also feels pretty humiliating that you would do that to these women. none of them
consented that you place their image on a public blog site. anyway, i hope you consider taking them down."

Maybe my moral compass is off, but I didn't think this was a big deal for a couple of reasons....

First, the main point is about nowcasting - that these people post their pictures and resumes without even looking at the breakdown. I was looking for mentally handicapped people and thought maybe some down syndrome actors were on nowcasting. Instead, I get a bunch of glamour shots. I found it amusing. Pictures were more powerful that simply describing it.

Second, I think this goes back to the issue Alice faced when her boss asked her to take down entries off the blog. Here was my post then.

It is nutto to think that having these pictures of actresses up on Public Musings is going to affect them in any way. Between 20-30 people read this blog per day, most of whom are my friends. How does having their pictures up affect that? Sure, they didn't consent, but they would also never know.

That being said, I'm not being brave like Alice, and refusing to take my post down for a couple of reasons. I don't think this is something I should try to take a principled stand on - cause I suspect I might be in the wrong (but isn't that what makes it a little funny?) Also, I'm not trying to alienate readers. I'm perhaps trying to be provocative, but those lines can be fuzzy.

But I'd also like to point out a little hypocracy here. First, none of us directors would have any problem showing each other someone's headshot that was inappropriate or otherwise funny - isn't that a violation of their trust? Okay, fine, that's private, but this is public.....ahhhh, but in SPO there is always a headshot of the week posted up as a joke. Right now, it's some guy as a hacidic Jew or in some type of weird get-up. In the past, it's been a fat chick. No one seems to have a problem with that, yet it a lot more people see it and it's posted in this major public thoroughfare.

Also, I was in agreement with the outrage over Alice being fired for blogging and for the gay teacher being fired for blogging. But if you think there is no right to public "private" information (ie pictures) in a public space, without the consent of the person's name or picture or whatever, then it seems to me you ought to side with Alice's employer or the school who fired the gay teacher. What right does Alice have to publish funny anecdotes about her boss being an idiot? He does not consent to the publishing.

And lastly - ask yourselves this...would it be different if these were men, instead of women? I strongly suspect the reaction would not have been the same. You tell me.

UPDATE: I don't know if this was clear to Chuck, but the label retard was an explicit reference to the post they were responding to - for a mentally handicapped person. And I thought it was clear from the photos that these were not mentally handicapped actors - just ones who didn't read the breakdown.