This ought to be interesting.
At least we can see HIS face.
By the by, kudos for making sure to pay attention to the left's focus on race, and having race-appropriate smiley face color.
“consent forms” for a class photo?
What a strange culture we’ve become....
They should fire that cameraman anyhow. He can’t even shoot a simple class picture without getting it all blurry. :-)
Silly? Perhaps.Degrading? Gimme a break!
That’s a second grade class? Those kids look bigger than just 7 or 8. Maybe it’s an artifact of the blurred-out faces, but they look more like middle school kids.
thats f’in funny right there i don’t care who you are.....
Looks pretty obvious to me that what is deemed “offensive” is the fact that the photographer used a brown-colored smiley-face.
If he had used a white or yellow smiley face, would we be hearing this hullaballoo? I think not.
Btw, according to article, the photographer said he was asked by the PTA to use a smiley face (as opposed to the originally proposed shape, a star). It wasn’t his idea.
There seems to be a lot of “race” stories lately.
And I do not believe in coincidences, especailly when it comes to politics.
Is the Democrat “mainstream” news complex stirring up the “white guilt” vote again, just in time for the November election?
So if it is a dark skinned young kid, what would have happened if he put a white face on the young fellow?
This just seems like a no win situation.
Fertile soil for the race baiters, no matter what was done.
I wouldn’t necessarily call this “offensive” and “degrading.” A better word would be idiotic. Why not take the picture, then inform the parents that the photo cannot be released until all consent forms have been received. If the forms are not back within a certain timeframe, the photo will be retaken with only those students who have returned the signed consent form. Putting a smiley face on the kid is not only an idiotic thing to do, it ruins the picture for everyone else in the photo. Years from now, when these kids look at this picture, do you think they’ll want to see something like this?
Dang. If the kid was white. He could have used 'white out'.
The article mentioned some people felt the image was humiliating. It did not state what was humiliating, was it the cartoonish looking smiley face or that the color of the smiley face closely matched the color of the child’s hands.
TWO kids parents didn’t sign.
Where is the other kids smiley face?
Is the MSM deliberately not showing it because he’s white?
Hey it’s good ol’ Charlie Brown! He must spent a lot of time in the sun over summer break...
Professional photographers need consent forms for ANY photo with people in it. It has to do with ownership of the image. If they don’t get the form they can’t publish it.
(Don’t ask me about crowd shots, because I don’t know.)
I can feel the photographer’s pain ... more than you realize.
As a weekly newspaper reporter/photographer, I once caught a great picture of a little girl squealing at the sight of a live lobster being held up. Nobody said anything so I ran the picture on the front page that week.
Then all hell broke loose.
The little girl was part of a messy custody dispute and her estranged father had been searching for her since the divorce settlement. Her teacher forgot to tell me that her picture was NOT to be taken ... let alone published on the front page! YIKES!!!