Censorship on this news group

greenspun.com : LUSENET : B&W Photo - Film & Processing : One Thread

I would like to notify everyone contributing to this newsgroup that there was a case of censorship which I think is unacceptable. Please view the following post "Rodinal 1+100 & Bergger BRF200 (SCB)" and please post your response to this issue. I do hope that everyone contributing here agrees that free speech is a basic right.

-- Volker Schier (Volker.Schier@fen-net.de), September 09, 2001

Answers

Volker, I have read the thread you reference. I did not see the deleted post(s). I have no connection with anyone in the photo industry or this forum. This post is to clarify one point. We are all guests here of a privately owned bulletin board. It is the prerogative of the board's owner (and his/her agents) to censor at will. Free speech, at least here in the US, is definitely a basic right, but not broadcast on someone else's communication medium. The medium owner's right of free speech, including censoring what goes out on his/her board, is a higher right. IMHO.

-- Sal Santamaura (bc_hill@qwestinternet.net), September 09, 2001.

Volker:

Bergger is made in France by the successor to the comany that made Zone VI Brilliant-I can't for the life of me spell the old name but it had about 15 syllables. They were the oldest manufacturers of sensitized materials in Europe, or so I was told.

Forte is made in Hungary in an old Kodak plant set up in the 30s and nationalized in the late 40s. It is now returned to private hands and is making good stuff.

Bergger film and paper are the darlings of the ultra-large format guys as they make sheet film in all conceivable sizes.

Censorship-no.

Fact checking-yes.

-- RICHARD ILOMAKI (richardjx@hotmail.com), September 09, 2001.


Dear Volker, I read your original post before Ed deleted it, and also John's reply. I filed the information away in my FWIW compartment. As my Father would say "Don't get your bowells in an uproar over this." Calm down. Chill out. It's not worth raising your blood pressure over. I enjoy reading your informative and practical posts, please don't make a mountain out of this molehill. This is the Internet -- it isn't perfect, mistakes can and will be made. Some information presented as factual is actually speculation -- who knows which is which. Ed did what he thought was right to defuse a fractious situation -- (no one ever said that being a moderater is easy, and thank you very much Ed for all the work you do). It's not really important.

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), September 09, 2001.

Volker, bottom line you were speculating about the provenance of a certain film without firm facts. If Ed felt that this could harm or damage or in anyway create a rumor that could be deleterious to a film maker and decided to delete your post it is his choice, after all WE ARE his guests and we do not pay anything for this forum. I actuallly think we should be grateful he takes the time to monitor and upkeep this forum for all of us! Second the practice of having a major film producer manufacturer make runs for a smaller one which cannot afford the labor, materials, and machinery to produce the film to their specifications is nothing new. If for example, Bergger is having Forte manufacture their film and Forte is doing it according to the Bergger specifications and Bergger quality control, then it is a Bergger film. I for one doubt very much that Forte is making Bergger film but if they are so what? If I like the film (which I don't) I would use it regardless of who makes it. I still buy Hasselblad lenses even though some are now being made in Japan! and Hasselblad has acknowledged that in the US market. Although free speech is a basic right, it is a right that is to be used responsibly, if you have a Bergger film box and it is stamped "Made in Hungary" then I would be giving serious consideration to your claims, but just because you are getting the same results with both films you conclude they are made by the same manufacturer seems rather thin to me. If we use this criteria then we could say HP5 and Tri X are made by the same people.....both films have similar qualities and produce similar results! This is precisely the job of a moderator to make sure all the claims and statements in this forum are factual. As long as you can support your claims with concrete facts I am sure Ed would leave your posts alone, but if you are engaging in wild speculations, I agree with him he has every right to pull your post until such time that you provide proof backing up your claims. In the end we have a saying in Mexico that goes " As your hosts it is my duty to make you feel at home, as the guest it is YOUR duty to remember you are NOT!". You are a Ed's guest, playing in his field with his ball....so I hope I don't have to spell it out for you!

-- Jorge Gasteazoro (jorgegm@worldnet.att.net), September 09, 2001.

Take a deep breath - can you? - you haven't been censored. Comments you made earlier which may or may not be factually accurate have been removed in order that potentially misleading information is not disseminated. That's all. Elsewhere you've also managed to imply that it is possible that Ed "interferes" (your word) with posts because of connections with manufacturers of photographic products - that's rather a lowball comment, and one I am sure that as a gentleman you will retract. You need to remember that with free speech comes the need for self discipline, internet or not.

-- fw (finneganswake@altavista.net), September 09, 2001.


I am afraid I will have to disagree with all you guys and give reason to Volker. After all, if he wants to express his opinion (that Bergger film is made by Forte, which is probably true) on this forum, he should be free to do it, otherwise we shouldn't consider it an open disussion forum. If Bergger people complained to the moderator about this comment being shown and he obediently deleted it from his server, this is - I believe - quite undemocratic and can be called censorship. As for the propability of a manufacturer making some kind of material for another firm, this is very usual in our days, and I don't believe it being something the companies shoud keep secret. I know very well that Ilford, for instance has been making B+W paper for another BIG photo manufacturer (I will not mention the name, in order not to be censored) and Agfa was talking with another BIG manufacturer in order to agree that he starts making the Multicontrast paper for them (I don't know if they came to an agreement, finally) a few years ago. I have also heard about Tetenal and Forte making stuff for other companies and so the hypothesis that Forte is making the Bergger film seems to me quite plausible. It seems that Forte has a fine setup for making classic, old tech B+W stuff and I would very much appreciate any kind of classic B+W product that would be offered to me as a consumer. As for the fact that Volker assumed that this hypothesis is true just because he found the two films being similar, I don't think it is a sin, we all came sometime before some kind of doubt of this kind (for example, "is TMax P3200 different that the 400, or are they the same film in different packages") and we sometimes drew some conclusion that we kept on believing aftewards as if we had seen proof about it. I think it is the result of the past experience that we all have of cheating from the big companies (not only those in the photographic industry) that has taken place so many times in the past. We have to defend ourselves in some way, otherwise we will all be used any way they like and not even be aware of it. I am certainly not talking here about small companies like Bergger, that I like very much, but about much bigger ones, like Mc Kodak's for instance. Finito.

-- George Papantoniou (papanton@hol.gr), September 10, 2001.

Just one short comment: Why didn't Bergger just say that their film is not made by Forte? I did not see this. What is certainly easier with paper is very hard with film: Custom manufacturing in a pretty large setup plant like Vacs. The paper may by Bergger may be custom coated at Vacs, but I do not believe that this is done in the case of film. Additionally I would suggest that the "open" newsgroup is changed into an "invited" or "closed" newsgroup if only things can be posted that the owner approves. It is as simple as that and the bottom line. It is not for the list owner to decide which information is right or wrong, he clearly cannot do this. If anyone has a problem with my view, than he can let me know and take appropriate steps. What the listowner cannot do is to censor my view, simply he "believes" it might be wrong. This is censorship.

-- Volker Schier (Volker.Schier@fen-net.de), September 10, 2001.

Calm down Volker. Throwing words like 'censorship' around is absurd. This is a privately owned and operated forum and you made an assertion about a company that you had no basis in fact to support. Ed was obligated to delete it.

-- David Parmet (david@parmet.net), September 10, 2001.

I'll make one final comment in regard to this issue. I did not, and have never, deleted anything at the request of a manufacturer, nor am I anyone's lackey. I deleted a post that I felt was inflammatory and unfriendly, and in addition I deleted Volker's very brief post, which had provoked it. I have apologized to Volker for deleting his post, and in retrospect it obviously should have been left alone. I am perfectly capable of making a mistake and assume most of you make mistakes now and again also. It angers me greatly to be accused of censorship and partisanship, and to have my integrity called into question. I have tried very hard to keep a low profile as moderator-- at this point I would very much enjoy a return to relative obscurity. When this forum degenerates into accusations and backbiting, it ceases to be of value to any of us--I, for one, have better things to do than to argue with a bunch of people I've never even met. Once again, I appeal to everyone who participates in the forum to return to a friendly exchange of relevant information.

-- Ed Buffaloe (edb@unblinkingeye.com), September 10, 2001.

Thank you Ed, accepted and forgotten! Lets return to more rewarding discussions.

-- Volker Schier (Volker.Schier@fen-net.de), September 10, 2001.


One very final last word to David Parmet. I simply have to, I guess the group will not mind: Ed, if I were to say in your house – this is privates pace – that Ford, GM and Chrysler are bad cars (which they are off course not, but only as an example) you would be obliged to throw me out because this statement is unfounded? This is basically what you say in your email if I transfer your view to verbal communication. Maybe you should think about this a little. I feel that your views about free speech are dangerous. This newsgroup is on the internet and invites discussion. Even if someone has to put it on the net and the server (in a strict sense only the computer that holds the data, not the net, which is public domain) may be privately owned, all the information contained is not his private property, but as expression of private thoughts are subject to the copyright (look it up if you do not believe this). It is a different issue if Ed Buffaloe has to publish information, but again the internet is the publicly spoken word. I think Ed Buffaloe will agree. You see, it is getting rather complex, but I have to do with these issues and maybe due to this am rather sensitive about it, but I feel everyone should be. I think democracy has nothing do to with founded or unfounded arguments – at least up to know this is what the majority still seems to thin – , but with the right to say what one wants, otherwise it would hardly work (or many jokes about George Bush would have to be taken of the net, since many of their basic statements are clearly "unfounded"....... or are they? - who decides OR who has the right to decide). Since I write about issues of mystification - demistification, cult etc. this discussion was highly interesting for me, not because of founded or unfounded arguments, but because of the overall views. I will surely use some of this material in the future. Thank you for everyone contributing!

-- Volker Schier (Volker.Schier@fen-net.de), September 10, 2001.

I have been following all this with interest. I must fully agree with George Papantoniou (papanton@hol.gr). Volker has made a point that is very important. Censorship is not part of democracy. Yes there can be excesses like the proverbial crying fire in a publis place when no fire exist. But Volker only raised questions that are very interesting. He did not harm anyone. We have a right to speculate on product manufacturing and free flow of information. But I would like to take this discussion further. In the USA we are the victims of censorship from large companies. The USA does not have any significant manufacture of B & W materials and chemicals. Without Europe there would be a huge void. There are many wonderfjul products in Europe that never reach the USA. I know of one very excellant film that stepped on the toes of the Yellow Father. Thus it was not available. But justice was served. The Yellow Father was shut out of Japan by Fuji. I understnad that dealers in Japan were told they would not receive Fuji Product if Yellow father products were sold. This is a kind of censorship that hurts the free flow of products. I can understnad that many fine products do not reach the USA because of economic reasons but I wonder if the reasons go beyond that fact. The world gets smaller and smaller and we get closer to "One World". Take the EU for instance. So what we need is free flow of Black and White information and products.

-- Don Spangler (dspang@siscom.net), September 10, 2001.

"but the right to say what one wants"

No bubba, you don't have that right. You have the right not to be persecuted for your views or comment, BUT you dont have the right to say anything you want, you cannot yell "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater, you don't have the right to insinuate things or make statements about a person or company without proof, etc.

I think you just don't get it, Ed deleted the messages for the response to your post, and he has already told us he made a mistake and deleted yours too, which aparently was inoffensive.

But you don't seem to understand that Ed first has a responsibility to himself ( he does not want to get sued), second a responsibility to all of us in keeping this Forum free of inflamatory and offensive posts, third and LAST he has a responsibility to your right of free speech. If the first two outweight yours, since this is a private forum he has the right to pull whatever post he wants, as you have been told already as a PRIVATE forum he has the RIGHT to do this! the same way he has the right to tell people to get out of his house if they are saying things that are inflamatory or offensive to him.

-- Jorge Gasteazoro (jorgegm@worldnet.att.net), September 10, 2001.


Sorry Jorge, you are wrong! If I do not like my car, to come back to example, I may say so. I even may say that it is a louzy car, without penalty. Companies and persons do not live in an aquarium and the "restriction" that apply in what I may say or not are very narrowly defined, especially in the US, were it is legal to say things that are illegal in some European countries. Again, since you obviously did not read what I wrote: If a company has a problem with what I say, they can take the appropriate measures themselves. I still must say that what I initially wrote must have some thruth, since Bergger oviously is not a manufacutring company, at least according to the email I got from the directly. So, who makes their film if it is not them.......?

-- Volker Schier (Volker.Schier@fen-net.de), September 10, 2001.

you may say so when you are taking responsibilities for your actions, when you post in a Forum you are placing that burden on someone else, besides it seems you are unable to grasp the point, Ed deleted your message as a mistake because of the response it generated, BUT even so you he has the right to do so! it is not censorship it is good monitoring. We are not talking about your comment, we are talking about your complaining about censorship and your right to say anything you want on this forum which you dont have!

Look this will be my last post on this subject as it seems you are one of those people who ablsolutely has to be right all the time....and is unable to recognize when mistaken, so bottom line for me, I agree with Ed 100% and no, it was not censorship it was common sense along with a mistake, and now I understand why you generate the kind of responses you get!

-- Jorge Gasteazoro (jorgegm@worldnet.att.net), September 10, 2001.



Perhaps since I posted the first response, this one can be last. Volker, you may freely say anything you wish on the Internet about your car, film, or any other subject. Just as long as you say it on one or more Volker Schier bulletin boards. With this I suspect everyone would agree. However, censorship is neither a bad word nor illegal/unconstitutional (in the US, where Black and White World is located) when practiced by a private entity controlling its own bulletin board. Only censorship by government is prohibited. I believe Ed has gone well beyond the call of duty - - and, as a volunteer he really has no "duty" - - in making public statements of regret here. If you think your words are unjustifiably censored (again, not inherently a bad word) on this board, try saying something remotely negative on the Mamiya/Toyo boards and see how long that post survives!

-- Sal Santamaura (bc_hill@qwestinternet.net), September 10, 2001.

Well, but private entities not willing to have opposing views usually do not invite a free exchange of views. I think that several people would oppose your views, which off course you are free to have.

-- Volker Schier (Volker.Schier@fen-net.de), September 10, 2001.

Volker, you really need to drop it. Stop emailing me and using me as your whipping boy on this forum.

For what it's worth I agree with Ed - it's his forum and he's been running it as he sees fit and for what it's worth I'm very very grateful to him for taking the reigns of BW world.

Considering his depth of knowledge and experience on the subject of black and white photography he's got the right and the obligation to make judgement calls on the appropriateness of posts to this forum.

Now please just drop it. And please don't email me with silly consipracy theories about Ed and Bergger.

-- David Parmet (david@parmet.net), September 10, 2001.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ