Prisoners of Good Taste

As an editor of a magazine about photographs, I deal with issues of taste and censorship every day. But until today I never got a note from the Department of Justice concerning an image we published. I actually find this all kind of weird--hilarious, even. And it was all over a couple of breasts. Well, they did belong to a Swedish girl...

      Just to back up a little: In our July/August issue, we published a special portfolio of images made by rock-and-roll musicians. Here you see one of my favorite shots from the portfolio, made by Melissa Auf Der Maur, the bassist for bands like Hole and Smashing Pumpkins. It shows a Hole concert in Sweden after Courtney Love invited fans up on stage. Now…this is quintessential rock spirit, right down to the fan who has stripped off her top and picked up a guitar.
     Yes, there are some breasts visible in the shot. We didn’t publish them without careful consideration. (One of the perks of my job, that.)  I didn’t find the image offensive, but I also knew that some people might would. I don’t relish the idea of offending anyone (well… sometimes, maybe) but I also try to represent as wide a range of imagery as possible, as honestly as possible, in American Photo. To me, the passionate authenticity of this photo made the visible breasts irrelevant.
       

  Now I know that even a picture like this is considered off limits to one group of readers—those who reside in our nation’s federal prisons. The package from the DOJ contained a copy of our July/August issue, with a post-it note marking the rock-concert photo, applied by a conscientious censor.
      The note read, “The enclose publication contains sexually explicit information, features nudity or…materials that could pose a threat to the security, good order, or discipline of the institution, or facilitates criminal activity.”
      In my wildest imagination (which isn’t all that wild), I never thought this image could threaten prison security or promote criminal acts. Am I being naïve?
      At any rate, now you know that kinds of issues we think about here when we publish pictures.
--David Schonauer

Comments

[Christopher]

I remember many years ago an issue of American Photo featuring portraits by Richard Avedon and Helmut Newton (i think it was these two). I was a very young subscriber at the time (less than 18) and my parents got hold of the issue before I did. It was tosed out as trash. I spent a few weeks wondering where it was and asked them. I finally got the story, and some cash to buy a new copy.

They did not recognize the difference between art and pornography, but I did. It was one of my favorite issues because it was daring, because it was art. i.e. Supreme Court "I'll know it when I see it."

I think the DOJ arguement is a bit different here, but none-the-less, the censor and my parents may get along famously.

[David Schonauer]

I remember the issue--it was probably one we did on Avedon, and it contained a nude of model Stephanie Seymore. It was very, very nude, and I knew it was going to cause trouble. But Dick Avedon himself insisted it be part of the portfolio, and I couldn't honestly show what he was about without running it. As I expected, we heard a lot of commplaints from certain lobbying groups, as well as from a few advertisers. We survived. Looking back, Avedon was totally right.

[Laura]

I'm sorry, but this story makes my day. I'm glad to see that the justice department is putting our tax dollars to good use by sending out letters like this. How hilarious!

[David Schonauer]

This was one photo in one magazine...can you imagine the person who gets paid for flipping through all those pages? Like there aren't plenty of other problems for the government to deal with.

[Ken]

I don't know that this photo means that your magazine "features nudity"!!

[Hobo]

What is so great about nudity? They(gov) aught to be glad they had their pants on.

[David Schonauer]

Oh, in my experience all it takes for pressure groups, bureaucrats, and sensitive advertisers to get upset is a glimpse of one nipple. Sometimes they'll let a shot of a behind slip by, though.

[David Schonauer]

Oh, in my experience all it takes for pressure groups, bureaucrats, and sensitive advertisers to get upset is a glimpse of one nipple. Sometimes they'll let a shot of a behind slip by, though.

[David Schonauer]

Considering that it was a Courtney Love concert, you're right.

[George Duffy]

It has been my experience (I spend at least 6 months on the road overseas) that the United States of America is the laughing stock of the world when it comes to issues like this. Big deal, you showed a breast in the context of a rock concert in Sweden. And don't get me started on what my German friends thought about us with the Janet Jackson Super Bowl "wardrobe malfunction".

[George Duffy]

It has been my experience (I spend at least 6 months on the road overseas) that the United States of America is the laughing stock of the world when it comes to issues like this. Big deal, you showed a breast in the context of a rock concert in Sweden. And don't get me started on what my German friends thought about us with the Janet Jackson Super Bowl "wardrobe malfunction".

[Simon]

Heaven forbid, oh no! They showed boobs (distant ones at that). Big whoop. What about all those "naked" guys in the shot too, flashing their boobies?

It's just silly to censor in this way, but I understand the Justice System has to protect itself from crazy lawsuits as well. Imagine if some prisoners got into a scrap over who gets to look at those saucy bits. Perhaps they would turn around and sue for damages since the prison let them have the mag in the first place.

Oh dear, how depressing. Who has the "right" answer?

[BobH]

Reading the letter negates your whole question. Note the important word "or."

The publication features nudity, thus meeting ONE of the criteria.

"The enclose publication contains sexually explicit information, features nudity or…materials that could pose a threat to the security, good order, or discipline of the institution, or facilitates criminal activity.”

[William L]

I've been reading photo magazines for years and have noticed a pattern. First there is the offending photo, usually a nude women. Then there is the "Letter" a minister from a southern state is preferred by the editor, but any one foolish enough to write and complain will do. The magazine replies about the need for freedom of expression and the beauty of the human body, etc. Proves his intellectual superiority and the foolishness of those that would be offended by gods work.

The truth is men like looking at nude women, some men have to claim it is all about art. Any one looking at the photo magazines will notice how often camera tests testing skin color are looking at women not men. The editors know that the majority of the readers are men and a few nudes will increase circulation. Put a few male nudes in your magazine and see who writes in. I of course read Playboy for the articles.

[Gilbert James]

The DOJ can censor what goes into a prison without censoring free enterprise, and infringing on the First Amendment. A sensible bureaucrat could have taken care of the matter without a letter and made better use of his or her time!

[David Schonauer]

I can't argue about the use of the word "or" and what it intends. If we can determine that the shot of a nipple is nudity, then the censor was correct in his or her actions. Speaking or words, here's something else to consider: Do photographs get unfairly targeted by censors? I doubt whether our government watchdogs are reading every line of every article in every magazine to see if any of the stated rules are broken. Words (and what they mean) are much harder to pin down than pictures. With pictures what you see is what you get. That shot showed a breast. Its gotta go.

[David Hobby]

Priceless.

Next thing you know, they'll be clothing topless statues inside the DOJ. Oh, wait...

-David Hobby
(Nice to meet you last week, BTW.)

[Brian]

Huh? PopPhoto publishes 'racier' pixs then this on a regular basis as 'art' Why this one? Did this DOJ rep just get smacked by a bad day therefor making him want to build himself up by ripping down someone else or is this individual a really strict in his own life? If he is really that strict why isn't he stopping other publications? I don't get it. PopPhoto reports events of photographic nature as photog's see it.

[David Schonauer]

Here's another way to look at what the censor objected to: Was this photo about eroticism? Was it supposed to be sexy? I don't think so. It just happened to have a breast in it, so it was objectionable. Ironically, Brian is right...in the past we have published pictures that were all about being sexy. What's weird about censorship is that everything gets lumped together...breast means it's dirty.

[JG Froehlich]

Until you walk a block of ranges full on cons and deal with jerks off who are fighting over a picture to abuse and it ends up in a brawl which gets not just the convicts hurt but the an officer watching them then you can talk....

[Gilbert James]

As free citizens we should not be subjected to the rules or problems associated to those that are incarcerated, nor should we have to give up our artistic freedom or documentary privilege's. Look out National Geographic!

[Chris]

Wouldn't the DOJ have better served their purpose by "censoring" the one magazine? They should have ripped the page from the magazine and not tried to force their rules upon society at large.

[David Schonauer]

I think J.G. Froehlich makes a very good point. I certainly have never dealt with inmate populations, and I can understand why the prison system wants to keep order. If taking American Photo out of circulation helps, so be it. I cannot claim to be an expert in this area. Gilbert James makes another good point, though: Do guards prevent prisoners from seeing flesh in National Geographic as well?

[John]

Seems to me the DOJ (or at least the warden's office) could make better use of their time by enrolling in an English grammar class.... "The above mentioned publications was received...." Hilarious.

[Charlie]

I think its ludicrous that anyone would get they're shorts (or panties) in a knot over a shot like this. Particularly when one looks at some of the sexually suggestive advertising seen today.
Many places in the world nudity is an accepted practice, and topless is the norm in some public areas. Our backwards attitude towards these issues makes the u.s. a laughingstock to many areas of the world. What surprises me is womens rights groups havn't jumped all over this topless issue, such as happened in Ontario a few years ago, making it legal for a woman to go topless anywhere a man can go without a shirt. It would of been a simple matter for DOJ to "edit" this issue for content they dont allow. Maybe its about time for "society" to grow up and realize it aint a big deal if you dont make a big deal out of it.
Whats next? Censure my 18 month old granddaughter for only wearing a diaper sometimes?