Facebook Bans Breastfeeding "Art" Pictures
Mother and Baby
An Australian photographer says that Facebook has banned his photos of breastfeeding women, according to The Sydney Morning Herald.
For an upcoming exhibit on Africa’s tribal culture, Christopher Rimmer, a Melbourne-based art dealer and photographer, travelled to Africa and photoraphed bare-breasted Himba women — some of them breastfeeding. He posted the photos on Facebook, which deemed them unsuitable for children and removed them.
Tribal Himba, who live in northern Namibia, have worn loincloths and covered their bodies in ocre body paint “probably for centuries” said Rimmer, adding “I find it absolutely absurd that anybody would consider those pictures offensive in any way. To suggest they are pornographic or gratuitous is quite unbelievable.”
Rimmer posted the images last week while he was still travelling. He was surprised to receive an email from Facebook informing him that the photos were being removed because they supposedly violated the site’s terms of use policy.
The company does not allow “content that is hateful, threatening or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence,” Facebook said in a statement.
Facebook has come under fire in the past for banning photographs of breastfeeding mothers.
“I am deeply offended that my work has been deemed pornographic,” said Rimmer.
In response to Facebook’s decision, Rimmer said he plans to send Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg a signed print of one of the photos.
“I hope that he deems the work inoffensive enough to hang on his wall,” said Rimmer.
What do you think? Was Facebook wrong in taking down the images? I certainly think so.
More posts:
Bullied Girl with Huntington’s Disease Gets Toy Spree
After IVF Mix-Up, Couple Sues Over Dark Skinned Baby
PETA Pickets Elementary School
Happy Meals Last Forever…Or at Least Six Months
Would You Ask Twitter to Name Your Baby?
Handwriting Makes Kids Smarter
photo: flickr/christiancaron2000
(photo featured is not by Christopher Rimmer)
It sounds to me like a bright-line nudity rule, designed to avoid arguments over what is or isn’t “art” or “porn”. I’m not generally a facebook fan, but this sounds like smart business.
The act of breastfeeding is neither a form of art or porn!! it is natures way of feeding your child. So many people have to turn it into something that it isn’t!
The act of breastfeeding is not at stake, though. They aren’t stopping anyone from breastfeeding. They’re just being consistent to their simple ‘no images containing nudity’ rule. Once they make exceptions, they open themselves up to a much more controversy over what else should or shouldn’t qualify for an exception.
What’s qualifies as nudity? Nipple? Areola? Side-boob? Cleavage? The fact that a baby’s head is latched on? Line’s not that bright. Just sayin’. I’m nursing right now, but don’t see the need to fire up the webcam either.
No nudity is a whole lot brighter than the common and laughable “I know porn when I see it” standard, but I completely agree that breastfeeding can be portrayed without anything I would call nudity. The pics in question here appear to be whole-boob.
This is ridiculous. I have no problem with my 4 y/o kids seeing those photos, let alone anyone old enough to be on facebook. Plenty of people have flat-out hookerish photos up, and those are somehow acceptable. A baby’s head covers more boob than some women’s bikinis or lingerie do. Also, there is a big difference between pornographic imagery and pictures of breastfeeding. There is just no reason in the world to find those photos offensive.
That’s right Mistress Scorpio, was does qualify as nudity? I’m on facebook and i see a lot of pics of women wearing skimy clothes with side-boob, underboob, see through boob etc, those aren’t getting torn down by FB. What gives?
Has anyone noticed that the image above isn’t one of the controversial ones? I wonder what Babble’s policy is…
They show breastfeeding pics often on Babble. More boob than FB would allow anyway.