That being said, I have searched for stock photos at various corporate jobs, and have seen tons of nipples on the job, and have never been questioned.

Type 'female' into a stock photo site. Nipples galore.

Unfortunately, I've clicked on various links at work and was confronted with various photos that were inappropriate and far worse than what was shown. I've also seen guys watching porn on portable devices out in the parking lot during smoke breaks. My reaction when I see those activities occur is to not participate or be associated with those activities out of a sense of professionalism.

Early in my career (at about age 25) I had my hair cut into a long crew cut that was spiked with gel. A middle-aged female employee that I never met came up from behind me while I was sitting in the break room and started to rub her hands through my hair to see how bristly it felt. It was an embarrassing situation because for weeks my colleagues ribbed me for being pounced on by a cougar. A seemingly innocent action such as that affected me at a time when my focus was establishing professionalism in my career.

For those reasons and the repeated sexual harassment classes that I've taken over the years, I understand why an employer has to not allow anything associated with sex or nudity in the workplace. I saw the "Nipplegate" photo last night and was "concerned" that it was posted without warning. I realize that it represents a tender act and I'm not personally offended but also know why others would be. My best description of the issue is "provocative".

If you have some concerns please PM--we've been friends for awhile and you know that I value and respect your input.

I misinterpreted your response. I don't believe that I'm a prude either, but I do realize the legal implications that can occur when images are displayed that aren't suitable in a work environment. Seeing it in a private context is much different than at work. I would have been embarrassed if one of my colleagues had seen that picture on my monitor.

It is not this sites responsibility to promise worker safety if they surf these public forums, nor should it be.

because it was purportedly about "open carry" which one could reasonably assume it would be about some gun law, rather than a naked breast and a baby. I'm not a prude by any means, but I was opening that particular thread from my work computer as my supervisor was walking by, and it was quite embarassing to say the least. Luckily he was understanding about it, but I can see how that could subject people to unnecessary risk in a less understanding work environment.

Because we are all adults.

Because a NSFW alert really isn't that much to ask.

No need to go all FREEEEDOME!!!! Braveheart on being asked to include a NSFW.

DU is not responsible for the content shown on its site.

I've exchanged posts and even some PMs with Mr. Berryhill since I arrived on DU. Even if I disagree with him, I know of his background and normally read his OPs since he usually responds to more posts than begin OPs. I also fell for the bait-and-switch last night, but I did not take into account all of the other subjects that had been discussed in the preceding hours. I read the few responses that were already posted and moved onward without providing a rec or a response.

I could see where jberryhill could have left the title of the thread the same without having NSFW in the title, put NSFW or "Graphic Photo Below" at the top of the thread when it was opened and then require the reader to scroll down to actually see the picture similar to what MFM used to do. However, the shock value of having a breast appear when opening the thread was provocative. Hopefully, nobody will suffer any adverse effects because of the thread though.

of employees when I do maintenance on their workstations. I don't make it a rule to look at their browsing history, but then again I am somewhat liberal in what I do here and I know not everyone has that privilege.

I guess I just saw that picture differently than some others did, it was set in a natural environment and not pornographic in nature. Also, Mr. Berryhill is great at provocation and the irony here imo it that he was making an entirely different statement with that picture and it turned into a SFW/NSFW war!

Open Carry Supporters, Check In Here
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025093218

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

YOUR COMMENTS

Jberryhill needs to give up on the provocative crap. His previous thread was hidden because of a bait-and-switch thread title and this thread isn't any better. He is making DU suck.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Fri Jun 13, 2014, 12:18 PM, and voted 4-3 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: This is the kind of crap that blossoms anytime there's a crime with a gun. If you can't argue your POV intelligently find another subject to obsess over.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation:
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: It would be okay if posted in the Lounge. Otherwise, needs a NSFW warning.

Thank you.

I respect the right for Mr. Berryhill to make a point and do not consider the picture(s) to be obscene, but I also believe that he should respect the fact that some people are in work environments where the IT person may not have a choice other than to report the incident to superiors and it could result in trouble for the employee.

However, not that he has made his point, twice, I believe that it is time to move on.

I've noticed DU juries are more than happy to supply the rope needed.

You do make a very good point, not all IT directors have a choice in what they can and cannot do when they review employee surfing habits.

OTOH, I've noticed that when an IT manager has to buy software to keep up with the employees surfing habits during work hours...there is too much surfing going on and not enough working.

I guess this issue cuts both ways...I agree, time to move on. Hopefully jberryhill will not test the jury system, I think he will find it a losing battle.

So let's talk about some more war!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025095765

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

YOUR COMMENTS

See posts #5 and #9 for reasons. I agree that this poster is being overly provocative with parts of the female body which is not only disrespectful to females, but belittles the cause that he is trying to draw attention to.

Other posters have asked for him to use discretion or at least put a NSFW warning on the thread title, but he is being offensive to many and already has two hides within the past two days. What's next, pictures of aborted fetuses?

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Fri Jun 13, 2014, 08:22 PM, and voted 7-0 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Whoa, slow down there jb, love your posts but what is this? Tell me you're not going GBCW on us because I'm gonna miss ya! But this is clearly a hide so gotta vote hide.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I take no issue with his comments. In and by itself, I have no issue with a picture of a child being born. I do feel that this is a little over the top and trying to push people over the edge.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Inappropriate.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you.

Sid

Wouldn't be hidden if he put a warning ... But he's gotta try to use images of the female body as weapons in his quest for attention. Another uninformed post from you.

There aren't that many unanimous decisions by DU juries.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting you--did you mean, "another bullshit (thread) hide (it)?"

I don't have any issues with the message or pictures of childbirth, but conflating the message with the images and not providing any warning that a graphic images is in the thread is why people are taking offense.

I see the hides on jberryhill's posts along the same lines as the "Won't someone think of the children!?!" concerns about what is posted.

Why should the content of DU be tailored to fit the most restrictive reading environment?

What's next? Should we alert on and hide profanity in posts too, just in case someone reading over your shoulder while you're at work happens to see the word FUCK? Maybe some company would feel that profanity on a screen could create an hostile work environment.

I think that if you're reading DU at work, you take your chances on what pops up on your screen. The rest of DU shouldn't be restricted by what your workplace deems to be acceptable.

Sid

I suspect that Mr. Berryhill might have more success with these threads if he went over to Discussionist instead. Maybe Sid will want to weigh in over there also.

And why should the whole internet have to cater to people who choose to use someone else's computer and therefore have certain restrictions on what they can view? That is their problem not the entire world's.

If you don't want a nipple to appear on your employer's computer, don't use it. Problem solved with only one person affected.

I was a salaried employee at a state agency and we had an open policy on Internet usage, including instant messaging as long as our tasks at work were accomplished. Due to the nature of my employment at that agency there were times when I only had a minimal amount of work to perform and the only way to occupy time would be to read a newspaper or surf on the Internet, while at other times I was so swamped that I frequently put in overtime that wasn't compensated like an hourly employee would receive.

There are numerous benefits that come with those privileges for both the employer and the employee like improved morale, higher employee retention rates, using the Internet for tasks like shopping instead of slipping off the premises, checking traffic and weather conditions, monitoring household Webcams and being able to contact others when emergencies occur.

There were things that could have been done for the OP that still would have conveyed the intent that jberryhill intended. He could have put NSFW in the title (which may impact whether the thread was opened) or he could have placed a warning at the top of the thread and required the user to scroll down to see the content like when MFM used to post in the Lounge. However, having a boob pop up on the screen is provocative and potentially embarrassing if a client, customer or employee were to walk by.

The situation applies whether using the employer's computer or using your own personal device--it creates a situation that could potentially expose the employer to liability and the employee to disciplinary actions, especially if the business loses a top client or customer because that occurs.

it's career suicide. And that's just your career at my firm.

You start involving the government and lawyers, you'll never work again. No one will hire someone like that. The partners aren't about to tolerate extra government scrutiny over a boob photo. The guy with the photo will be canned and the person who complained will have her advancement stopped, she will get no more clients and she'll never get a reference to work anywhere again.

Be aware that complaining is often mutually-assured destruction. In my opinion, if the environment is too hostile for you, just take a job elsewhere. Associates take other jobs all the time. That's my advice.

I probably had grounds to file a retaliation lawsuit against a former employer, but I opted not to do so since I was offered a reasonably generous severance package.

I've only had two jobs in my adult career--one with the state and one with the private sector. In both instances, all employees are informed of employment policies and that references will not to be provided by any of our supervisors. Employees are also warned not to provide those references on fellow employees because it could create liability problems for the employer. Once employment has ended their relationship with the company, then they are supposed to provide the telephone number of the HR department when they seek further employment. The HR departments are allowed to confirm job titles, beginning and ending dates of employment, and overall work records regarding absences. Salary information is provided under limited circumstances.

Those policies were established because former employees sued their employers for providing negative remarks and the employers had to pay significant financial settlements. It sounds like you work at a law firm, so I'm surprised that they are not more cognizant about employment laws--of course those laws may vary by state.

I started my professional career at 22, was laid off when I was 45 and have been among the long term unemployed for 3.5 years since I was in a highly specialized insurance/IT career. For the first 2 - 2.5 years of unemployment there were other issues going on that (taking care of my father before he died, oral surgeries and selling the estate) so that it's been only about one year since I've sought employment with utmost determination. When I complete job applications I provide phone numbers for HR departments and specifically mention the policy of my former employers as to what type of information they can provide.

However, one of my former supervisors and a former colleague are still good friends. Since they are no longer employed with the employer that laid me off they can provide references as to professional skills and also serve as personal references.

There was a time when I did occasionally provide personal references for some of my friends and I believe that I was able to help three of them get hired. However, it seems like the trend over the last 5-7 years in my field is to provide contract assignments for 3 to 6 months so they can assess the person's abilities before making a permanent job offer. The same thing is happening in my brother's job field of respiratory therapy. It seems like the value of references has declined significantly and some of the stories that I've heard recently is that some people get hired without having any of their references checked.

It may be that references are more important in certain areas such as legal careers, but in other areas they are able to assess whether to hire people by other criteria such as exams and credit background checks.

The game gets played in many different ways depending upon the type of occupation, the age of the applicant and other variables. I'm at the age where they can hire somebody younger for less money and who might have experience with a newer software package that I don't have. I still possess the same and probably superior knowledge in some aspects, but I doubt that I'll ever be given a chance to return to the income level that I previously earned. In my specific situation I also applied for SSDI so my fate may end with never returning to any work environment.

In my case, it's nudity, racism, and gambling.

It's really not that hard to understand.

Sid

Is that exposure while breast feeding is momentary, and not prolonged.

A photo of a nipple exposed while breastfeeding is permanent and stationery which makes the photo inappropriate in a public setting, even though the actual act is.