Dario Western, The Nudist who isn't.

by

Here is the full conversation that took place between Dario and myself via private message on Facebook.

Dario Western
Hi Maurice, I can't post to FB publicly at the moment but this is my side of the story on reporting the pics: Facebook strictly forbids full frontal nudity, fully exposed female breasts and fully exposed buttocks in photos. The people that I reported had violated FB's rules by including them in the photos. It's like being at a party in someone's place and they say "No smoking allowed" or "no drunken behavior allowed", and you say "Stuff your rules, I'm going to do it because I can!" and they have you either thrown out or reported. When you're on a social media website, you abide by their rules whether you like it or not. If you don't like their rules then leave the site and form your own website or join a social media website like Twitter, Tumblr and Flickr which are nude friendly. It's not rocket science.

Maurice W. Smith
I guess I don't agree with that to a certain degree. I would not report photos that contain nonsexual nudity and do not feel it is right for any Nudist to report them. Sexual pictures? In a heartbeat but not nonsexual pictures. We are trying to combat being censored and as long as people keep reporting nonsexual nudes then we will never win that battle. In my opinion, you were wrong.

Dario Western
You are entitled to your own opinion, but Facebook will not change it's policies on nudity especially if there are some people out there who think by trying to buck the system they will win. It doesn't work that way. At the end of the day it is Facebook's independent decision as to whether it will allow full on non-sexual nudity.

Maurice W. Smith
Okay well then take care of yourself.

Dario Western
Hi Maurice, can you please post this message to the Nudist Hall Of Shame on my behalf?

"Hi all. I am not able to post to FB for the next week and a half. Before any of you join or decide to create a group on Facebook, it is important that you familiarize yourself with their Community Standards whether the group is set to Public, Closed or Secret. As far as nudity is concerned, Facebook strictly forbids the posting of penises, fully exposed female breasts and fully exposed buttocks to the site. You might not like it, but rules are rules. It is like going to a party at somebody's place and they say to you they don't permit smoking. Still, in spite of their request, you say 'Bugger the rules, I can smoke because I can!' and then they have you thrown out. You have only got yourself to blame for your disobedience and disrespect towards the host. It's the same for Facebook. If you don't like their rules on nudity, then either cover up the sensitive 'bits' in the photos or leave the site and focus on setting up your own nudist social networking website. It's as simple as that. Even a 5-year-old kid can understand that, so why not certain adults?"

Maurice W. Smith
No I will not. I think you are wrong.

Dario Western
It doesn't matter whether you think I am right or wrong, it is vital that the group members get that message.
You can't argue with Facebook's community standards.

Maurice W. Smith
Then post it yourself when you are able. I will be leaving the group because I now know without a shadow of a doubt that what others have been telling me privately is true, you're a fraud.

Dario Western
I'm not a fraud. I believe in respecting the rules of websites.
Nudists are not above the law.
I'll have you know that I am a very prominent figure in the Australian nudist movement and I have been to several clubs and beaches in the 25 years that I've been into it.

Maurice W. Smith
Please do not bother me anymore. Have a good day.

Dario Western
You need to grow up and realize that you cannot change Facebook's policies on nudity. If they want to allow nudity, they will if they see fit to.

52 thoughts on “Dario Western, The Nudist who isn't.”

  1. oops I hit the wrong thingy::::
    I am not a lawyer and do not claim to know the laws, but it is not illegal for me to post a nude photo to an online site stipulating that no illegal activity is taking place and I have the right (copyright) to publish it.
    Having worked in security I am aware of the law which states (in plain language) that if you know that something bad (fall down stairs) may happen if you don't fix(clean repair, report, block, whatever) it, you can be held liable.
    That imperative does not exist here under normal circumstances.
    Any way that's what I think this week. Subject to change always.

  2. I am not a lawyer and do not claim to know the laws, but it is not illegal for me to post a nude photo to an online site stipulating that no illegal activity is taking place and I have the right (copyright) to publish it.
    Having worked in security I am aware of the law which states (in plain language) that if you know that something bad (fall down stairs) may happen if you don't fix(clean repair, report, block, whatever) it, you can be held liable.
    That imperative does not exist here under normal circumstances.
    Any way that's what I think this week. Subject to change always.

  3. The issues of things being appropriate or not for certain websites have been discussed since the early days of the dial-up Internet, I know this because I was supporting it for three major publishing companies at a time when NO online content standards had been established yet (~'95). The electronic versions of newspapers basically applied the same standards to their online "points of presence" that they used in print.

    So, if a newspaper would have rejected an advertisement as inappropriate, then the business or author simply had to find another outlet for advertising. It is a really simple concept, and several "artsy" weekly newspapers have eventually ceased publication, possibly in part due to a lack of revenue. One of these weeklies was in my own town, and it went under with a whimper! No fanfare, no crying, at least none I am aware of. This is unfortunate because it was nicely laid out and had content I would classify as "very good".

    All forms of media are subject to the laws of supply and demand as well as profit and loss. However, the web-based portals and platforms reaching over ten million users a day may have flexibility on this because the advertising revenue (basically) is unending. In other words, even if the top twenty-five percent of advertisers cancelled their contracts, the portal/platform would continue just fine.

    Online properties are without a doubt "private" or privately owned and may be run in whatever manner their owners deem acceptable. If a website such as Facebook stipulates, no direct views of genitals including the vagina, vulva, labia, penis, testicles or (even) buttocks, they are entitled to do exactly that. If I had an online property specifying this and someone violated it, why would I ever want that person to come back? Are the helping the operational model of the venture at all? No. To argue otherwise is completely irrational and, pretty much, a waste of time.

    Friendship issues aside, we all should be able to hold civil discussions on subjects like this and agree to disagree or, occasionally, maybe even change our opinions.

    • I agree with your last two paragraphs. I don't see how they can be argued against. If rules can be ignored, why would anyone have to follow the rules of this site? Different sites are set up for different purposes. There are lots of them that allow full nudity, even close-ups of the body parts that are not allowed on others.

  4. I think that there is a very major difference between "The Law" and a simple group's policy.
    I would use the same standard of living within "society", within which we all do by virtue of being born, versus the very arbitrary rules of an "organized gathering".
    As a citizen I would report murderers and people who spit on the street. They endanger all of us citizens. As a nudist I would report a "nude genital" only if I wanted to appear as superior. By definition, a nudist has nude genitals.

    • Correct Greg, except in recent times people are being sued civilly for things they wrote or posted online, so what we write and do here is now pretty well established as having the same "weight" as doing it in person.

      While it may be inappropriate to speak with a co-worker about social nudism while at the office, I would think we could simply agree to discuss it away from the office somewhere (after-hours, on our own time), if this relates to the discussion at hand.

  5. Virtual "community policing" is when people in ANY community, either online or offline, who are familiar with the written laws of the community also undertake to support those laws. I think is has to do with the ideology of upholding community standards and the fact that enforcement personnel cannot be everywhere all the time. Why would anyone have a problem with that?

    People who say, 'Well, it is not my 'job' to report those breaking the law.' simply do not understand the concept of a society governed by mutually agreed upon laws. Yes, in fact, you do have an obligation to report others that are breaking the law, and over time even the laws have expanded coverage to include "looking the other way" with things like "Contributing to the delinquency of a minor", collusion and conspiracy to commit and similar such concepts. Even contributory negligence might be used if, for example, someone were to fail to report the sharing of photographs of a minor on a social media platform and that same subject were later injured by the person taking the photographs. Guess what, you enabled that action by NOT stepping forward sooner.

    I am not a lawyer, but I believe in living within the guidelines of the law or dealing with the consequences; even if that only means later having to defend a behavior in front of a jury and/or judge. You might win, because maybe the thing you did was in a "grey area" not fully permitted or fully prohibited by current laws; it could happen.

    On an less-related note:

    Taking a private/privileged correspondence and then turning it into a public dialog may not be illegal, but it smacks of being inappropriate and a violation of confidence. So I think the person sharing this entire thread needs to rethink their personal attitude on trust and privacy, because the person corresponding with you may have believed you were someone that could be trusted, and it looks as if they were wrong on that point.

    No offense intended, but I would not share a private message sent to me without getting the sender's permission to do that.

    • Agreed with you. I'm not impressed with Maurice pegging out his dirty laundry with me on this site. It *is* violation of confidence, and for somebody who calls himself a Christian nudist, the Bible says that if you have a dispute with a fellow human being then settle it with them in private. If what they are doing is illegal and will not listen to reason then let others know. I think that this blog should be deleted, as I *AM* a nudist but at the same time I believe that a website's rules are a website's rules and you either follow them, or go somewhere else.

  8. The right question should be: Why should anyone else than facebook enforce their rules? Pictures of nudity or sexual acts should only be reported, if it is posted to be viewed by others than friends. But there are people reporting pictures in closed or secret groups, where people can join only when recommended by someone else. And if anyone feels offended by a picture, why not tell so the one, who published it?

  9. It's too bad there are people so against nudity to actively oppose those of us trying to change policies that prohibit nudity, both online and offline. If he thinks going along with rules you disagree with will one day change them, good luck to him. If you simply don't want to see certain things on Facebook, the easiest way is to hide posts you don't like, or hide all posts from people who post topics you disagree with. A platform with so many users needs to be more accepting of differing opinions, instead of siding with one group and prohibiting another.

  12. Dario clearly thinks that facebook's rules are right and that no-one should question them. I wonder if the host at his hypothetical party insisted everyone took drugs, would he comply without question?

    I find it hard to think that a "very prominent figure in the Australian nudist movement" would be so in agreement with facebook's rules that he would report images directly to facebook, thus feeding facebook's prejudice. Even if he does consider the rules to be right, surely contacting the poster of those images and suggesting that they might be a bit more careful, is as far as any reasonable person's actions should go? To report them directly to facebook implies that he is a member of the 1% of the population who have a personal problem with nudity – clearly not a Naturist then!

  14. I realised many years ago that this opinionated fool wasn't worth thinking about too much. I totally disagree with Facebook and it's dictatorial rules and I will have nothing to do with it. I respect and agree with Maurice Smith's thoughts & ideals on naturism & he is right to say that there are times when we need to question boundaries & rules, we do need to get naturism out into the general public's minds & hearts. We're not asking everybody in the world to get naked, just to accept people who do want to be naked anywhere in their lifestyle.
    Cut out the textile rigid rules, relax & just be free!

Leave a Comment

New Report

Close