In the post discussing the devolution of adoption [ link ], at the heart of what was either seen as horrifying or else a cause for viral reposting was the mediation of an adopted child for public consumption.
I am intrigued here because I have often been threatened by adoptive parents either directly or via my Internet service provider to take down pictures from my web site that I have “borrowed” from their own mediation on their own web sites. I argue that this is editorial-based “fair use”. The original mediation is often what I refer to as “super-mediated”, meaning, many steps away from reality, for example, a photo shoot that brings together pre-matched adoptive parents with the mother whose child is “theirs”; a kind of extended “family portrait”.
There are degrees here of privacy, an allowed circle of viewers, the potential for “going viral”, as well as this distance or remove from “non-mediated” communication. I am curious to know how other adoptees view this, especially given the quite binary reaction to the photo session mentioned at the above link, where an adolescent is photographed as a “newborn” in order to “regain” a mediation that never took place, as if this was a vital lack in the child’s life.
I have three “food for thought” questions for adoptees here. First, to what degree do you yourselves mediate your own lives in the public sphere? Why or why not? Second, to what degree do you yourselves mediate your children’s lives in the public sphere? Why or why not? Second, can you imagine your adoptive parents mediating your life online in such a way? What would be your response to such mediation?
Transracialeyes 
Interesting post. I’ve personally only just stumbled into this one. I’ve become more vocal about my personal experience as a transracial adoptee and the legacy of that single act back in the late 50s early 60s. I was threatened last year by members from the family that adopted because a website was displaying photographs that showed me and members of the family that adopted me. This was an oversight, on my part, but never the less a genuine mistake. But the language that they used such as infringement of their privacy and civil liberties and what right did I have to show photographs where I had not asked permission to show images of others. That I was besmirching their good name by associating them with my persona views etc.etc. I asked the website owner to take down the pictures and a third party sent an email on my behave to the family representative to offer a full apology for the oversight. I nave heard from them again – thank god. It has made me very wary about what I post in terms of media. But in terms of what I write, my views are my views and I am entitled to air these irrespective of what others might think In the same view others are at liberty to air their views which I may not like, agree with however as long as those views however unlikeable to me, along as they do not break any laws or encourage or incite illegal acts they can continue to express those views. So why should I not be able to express my own personal views. I make no ascertain that I attribute this views to others and I conceded that some of my views based on personal memories may not be recalled in the same manner by others – but that are my memories not someone else’s and who people recall things differs from one person to another. They seek even now to control what and how I do things not because it is an infringement of their privacy but because it shows this family in a different light perhaps not in the positive light that they have hitherto been showered with. It is fear, guilt and even now ignorance. I do not seek to control my family in this manner but then I have always been open with my family as to my adoption and other matters and how I feel felt about being adopted. I have never sought to “hide” or disguise who or what I am or how I arrived at where I am.
What i find more interesting is the number of adoptees to have basically tried to scupper the work that I do or discredit who or what I am. I call these people born again adoptees evangelical in their wholesale denial of the what transracial adoption can do to a person and that is is not always positive. I personally think that we need more people to speak out on the issues that affect and surround transracial adoption and to be honest about what can happen to the adult adoptee and usually in my own experience it’s not always a positive outcome
This is an intriguing legal issue. i woner that having possession of a picture prohibits you from public exhibition. In terms of libel an slander, in the United States, the best “defense” the charge is the truth. If the picture shows how things were, and what you state to be the case is the case, then they wouldn’t have any standing as far as “defamation” is concerned.
I am very selective in what I write about myself and my family.I don’t post photos in connection with adoption not do I of children.I am usually horrified to see how many adopters and agencies freely post photos of children particularly at times of their greatest loss and trauma.I find it unacceptable and abusive.I find many adopters post information about adoptees that is intrusive, abusive and far too revealing.What happened to adults protecting children, privacy and choice? We often see the most personal and intimate details of adoptees’ lives revealed and discussed -what is this about? ownership? I will because I can? it is never going to help build trusting relationships or closeness of family.Not everything has to be shared with the world! Nor is it appropriate. My amother shared details of my life much too freely, it was called gossip then. It was hurtful, felt very exposing and did not earn my respect. TG the internet hadn’t arrived in her lifetime!