Coverage of the FaceBook furor
“Nearly 85,000 people have joined a Facebook group formed to protest against the networking site banning overly revealing breastfeeding photos from online profiles…
…According to Facebook spokesman Barry Schnitt, photos of a fully exposed breast (defined by showing the nipple or areola) violate Facebook rules and may be removed.
‘We take no action on the vast majority of breastfeeding photos because they follow the site’s terms of use,’ Mr Schnitt said, but added that some photos were removed to ensure the site remains safe for all users, including children.”
Safe for all users, including children?
FaceBook’s terms and conditions state:
Membership in the Service is void where prohibited. This Site is intended solely for users who are thirteen (13) years of age or older, and users of the Site under 18 who are currently in high school or college. Any registration by, use of or access to the Site by anyone under 13, or by anyone who is under 18 and not in high school or college, is unauthorized, unlicensed and in violation of these Terms of Use. By using the Service or the Site, you represent and warrant that you are 13 or older and in high school or college, or else that you are 18 or older, and that you agree to and to abide by all of the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
Are FaceBook seriously suggesting that 13 year olds are to be protected from seeing breasts? This rule was written by a man, isn’t it obvious? Someone who personally feels titillated by seeing a “nipple or areola” so they ban it. Isn’t this a little like homophobes who experience homosexual arousal (yes, there was a study).
Notting Hill even covered this nearly a decade ago:
Anna Scott: What is it about men and nudity? Particularly breasts? How can you be so interested in them?
William: Well…
Anna Scott: But, but, seriously: they’re just breasts. Every second person in the world has them.
William: Oh, more than that, when you think about it: you know, Meat Loaf has a very nice pair.
Anna Scott: [laughs] But they’re… they’re odd looking, they’re for milk, your mother has them, you’ve seen a thousand of them… What’s all the fuss about?
What is the fuss about? The more I think about it, the more I think our laws were put in place by the very deviants we’re trying to identify.
What is the world coming too, has this guy seen the ads they run on Facebook ? It does seem utterly ridiculous that they would ban such photos that said, I really don’t know any mothers who would put a revealing photo of themselves breast feeding as their facebook profile ?
It is daft, isn’t it? I’m actually on Facebook’s side on this though. Breastfeeding is not pornographic (obviously), but they are in a tricky situation where they want to ban nudity (hence the nipple/areola clause) and, as a side effect of that, breast feeding pictures are also banned. Given it is a private site it is their prerogative to disallow anything they see fit and, in this case, I believe they are erring on the side of caution because the last thing they want is some right wing religious nutjob suing them because their 13 year old saw a boobie.
Could you also legitimately argue that a picture of a women breastfeeding, by definition, does not involve the showing of a nipple (since it would be “in use” at the time)? Is there a potential that some of these pictures are low grade exhibitionism masquerading as “mothering”.
What concerns me a lot more is the attitude displayed by some over the concept of breastfeeding in public. I know Digg is hardly the bastion of mature discussion, but the comments in the story http://digg.com/tech_news/Facebook_nudity_policy_angers_nursing_moms and http://digg.com/tech_news/Facebook_Ban_on_Breast_Feeding_Photos_Spark_Protest seem to highlight an awful lot of people who think breastfeeding mothers should be sent to the bathroom or should “cover up” their feeding children so they don’t offend the general public. People argue that “urination is a natural function so I should be able to do that in public too” as if that is some sort of cogent argument. The number of people who claim it is “inappropriate behaviour” is astonishing. I suspect the heavy US bias of Digg and Americans fear of nudity (hey, as long as we can shoot stuff) is tilting the argument, but I find it frightening that people are so uptight about their own sexuality that the thought of someone *feeding their child* is abhorrent.