Adotas

Where media buyers start online





News

Facebook: Breast Feeding Indecent

Written on
Dec 30, 2008 
Author
Reuters Group  |
Share
Facebook: Breast Feeding Indecent

childhand.jpgReuters — Are photographs of a mother breast-feeding her child indecent? The social networking site Facebook has sparked a massive online debate — and protests — and after removing photos that expose too much of a mother’s breast.

Facebook spokesman Barry Schnitt said the website takes no action over most breast-feeding photos because they follow the site’s terms of use but others are removed to ensure the site remains safe and secure for all users, including children.

“Photos containing a fully exposed breast (as defined by showing the nipple or areola) do violate those terms (on obscene, pornographic or sexually explicit material) and may be removed,” he said in a statement.

“The photos we act upon are almost exclusively brought to our attention by other users who complain.”

But Facebook’s decision to ban some breast-feeding photos has angered some users, including U.S. mother Kelli Roman whose photograph of her feeding her daughter was removed by Facebook.

Roman is one of the administrators of an online petition called “Hey Facebook, breastfeeding is not obscene!” which has picked up speed in the past week after protesters organized a virtual “nurse-in” on Facebook and held a small demonstration outside Facebook’s office in Palo Alto, California.

The petition has now attracted more than 80,000 names and over 10,000 comments, reigniting the old debate about the rights or wrongs of breast-feeding in public.

Organizers of the petition said some women had been warned not to repost photographs that had been removed from their pages or they would face being kicked off Facebook.

One breast-feeding mother, called Rebekah, said Facebook removed a photograph of her feeding her child.

“I find it offensive that (Facebook) can remove my photo but not the close up picture of a thonged backside I (have) seen on a friend’s page or remove the “what kama sutra position are you?” quiz application,” she wrote.

Facebook, which has more than 120 million members, is standing by its decision.

Schnitt said the company had called many U.S. media groups during the course of the protest to ask to place an advert related to breast-feeding that showed a woman breast-feeding her child with a fully exposed breast. None agreed.

“Obviously, a newspaper and Facebook are different things but the underlying motivation for the content policies are the same,” he told Reuters.

From the Reuters Group

Written by Belinda Goldsmith for Reuters

– Express your opinion, comment below.





Reader Comments.

I must confess that this controversy is fascinating to me… enough that I found myself reading posts from a number of sites on this topic.

On many sites there is a large group that is quick to note that the company has the right to set policies as it sees fit. But on closer review of the story, I don’t think that fact was ever disputed by MILC. Those who are protesting are among the site’s users / customers. And history shows that many, many customers have leveraged either the power of protest, boycotts, or the prospect of generating unfavorable publicity to bring about change.

In the 1980’s, for example, many stockholders and customers pressured their companies to divest in stocks with any ties to South Africa as long as the country supported apartheid. Rosa Parks took what was once a perfectly acceptable “ban” in the Montgomery, Alabama bussing business—against black persons sitting in the front of the bus—and helped lead the charge that challenged the company and our country to think differently.

While restricting breastfeeding publicly (or banning it from publicly posted photographs) may not quite rise to the level of outright gender or race discrimination in the minds of many, there are significant reasons why women feel the need to rally for the freedom to celebrate breastfeeding on the screens of their Facebook pages.

It has to do with challenging a mindset I encountered on many blogs discussing this topic: that while breastfeeding may be a healthy way to nourish infants, it should be private.

The reasoning—which I can understand if not fully agree with—could be analogized to how most feel about using the restroom. It is natural. We all use restrooms. But we don’t wish to be reminded of it or have our children see pictures of people using restrooms on Facebook.

However, I believe such considerations are greatly outweighed by what MILC is trying to accomplish. And that is to mainstream breastfeeding itself. While there are moms who have posted that they breastfed their own children (hooray!) but would still insist on it being done in private, the fact is that you can only have so many times where a breastfeeding image is labeled “bad” before breastfeeding itself is viewed as “bad.”

How many blog posts that describe witnessing the activity as “disgusting” will there be before that becomes the mindset of future moms? It has taken millions of dollars and countless hours of public education and hospital instruction to convert a culture with “Leave it to Beaver” notions that even private breastfeeding is okay, and indeed better for the baby.

All the while, powdered formula companies chuckle on their way to the bank knowing that despite occasional “breastfeeding is better” reminders in their promotional literature, many moms will opt for their product out of embarrassment, in addition to situations where formula is necessary.

Perception drives practice. Only when we can be more matter-of-fact about the depiction of this healthy bonding between mom and her newborn will more moms will be matter-of-fact about nursing.

Posted by Erich | 1:50 pm on December 30, 2008.

I tend to agree with Erich. Perception does drive practice. While I think Facebook’s policy and explanation make perfect sense (nipple or areola = obscene), they should make an exception for breastfeeding photos. Breastfeeding is not obscene. It’s one of the best things a mother can do for her child and its important to foster an environment that supports this.

It may be generally unaceptable to have dogs in restaurants, but we make exceptions for seeing eye dogs becuase its the right thing to do. Facebook should do the right thing.

Posted by Dee Anna | 4:38 pm on December 31, 2008.

I tend to agree with Erich. Perception does drive practice and Facebook is doing a major dis-service to mothers and children with their policy. While I understand Facebook’s logic and explanation (nipple or areola = obscene), there should be an exception for breastfeeding photos. Breatfeeding is not obscene, it’s one of the best things a mother can do for her child.

It’s generally unacceptable to have dogs in restaurants, but we make an acception for seeing eye dogs because its the right thing to do. Facebook should do the right thing.

If they don’t, I am sure they will have a PR nightmare on their hands.

Posted by Dee Anna | 4:50 pm on December 31, 2008.

Sorry for the typo — I mean “expception” in para 2

Posted by Dee Anna | 4:53 pm on December 31, 2008.

Leave a Comment

Add a comment

No Tags
Article Sponsor

More News


  • Right now, at the beginning of 2012, what are you watching the most closely for its ad and marketing opportunities?

    View Results

    Loading ... Loading ...

Latest News

News Archive

Spotlight

Sponsormob Leads the Way Into RTB for MobileADOTAS – For more than half a decade, Berlin-based tech firm Sponsormob has remained relevant in an industry characterized by [...] more...


Adotas Partnership