Jessica Mintz , The Associated Press | Sun, 01/04/2009 11:24 AM | Sci-Tech
Web-savvy moms who breast-feed are irate that social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace restrict photos of nursing babies. The disputes reveal how the sites' community policing techniques sometimes struggle to keep up with the booming number and diversity of their members.
Kelli Roman shows her breastfeeding her daughter Ivy. (AP/Kelli Roman)
Facebook began as a site just for college kids, but now it is an online home for 140 million people from all over the world. Among the new faces of Facebook are women like Kelli Roman, 23, who last year posted a photo of herself nursing one of her two children.
One day, she logged on to find the photo missing. When she pressed Facebook for an explanation, she got form e-mails in return.
Facebook bars people from uploading anything "obscene, pornographic or sexually explicit" — a policy that translates into a ban on pictures depicting certain amounts of exposed flesh.
Roman responded by starting a Facebook group called "Hey, Facebook, breastfeeding is not obscene!"
"There is nothing about bottle-feeding a child that has to be discreet," said Roman, who lives in Fallbrook, Calif., in an interview. "With breast-feeding, it should be the exact same way."
Today the group — part petition, part message board, part photo-sharing hub — has more than 97,600 members.
One of them, Stephanie Muir of Ottawa, was new to Facebook when she stumbled across the group last year. Muir, a mother of five, does volunteer work related to public health and breast-feeding and said the issue is important to her.
"I think it's time we all get over this notion that women's breasts are dangerous and harmful for children to see," she said. So she organized a Facebook protest last weekend against the site's policies, which she believes are arbitrarily enforced and discriminate against women.
Muir said more than 11,000 people participated in the group's "virtual nurse-in" by swapping out their regular profile pictures on Facebook and uploading ones depicting breast-feeding.
At Facebook's headquarters in Palo Alto, Calif., 23-year-old mom Heather Farley, who was visiting from her home in Provo, Utah, led a real-world nurse-in to complement the online event. About 10 women showed up to breast-feed their babies outside the front door, drawing attention from local media if not Facebook employees, who were scarce on that Saturday after Christmas.
A member for almost four years, Farley has nearly 400 friends on Facebook, a network she'd be hard-pressed to replicate if she moved to a smaller site with more lenient photo policies. She uses Facebook more than e-mail to stay in touch with far-flung high school and college friends. She especially likes to check out pictures of their babies and share photos of hers. But with a 9-month-old, "it's almost hard to get a picture of me not nursing," she said.
This fall, Farley changed her profile photo to one that showed her breast-feeding. Someone probably objected, because Facebook deleted it. It, like MySpace, generally relies on members to point out when others break the rules.
Facebook spokesman Barry Schnitt said the company's guidelines regarding exposed flesh allow most breast-feeding photos. However, Facebook draws the line at a visible nipple or areola, he said. Facebook also nixes pictures showing the gluteal cleft.
Facebook doesn't generally go looking for nudity, but it does respond quickly when someone on the site flags another person's photo as inappropriate. Schnitt said the policies were instituted years ago, when Facebook was much smaller, but they reflect common practices on mainstream Web sites.
"We decided nudity was something we didn't want on the site. It doesn't matter the context. We would agree that there are absolutely many contexts for nudity where it is not obscene," Schnitt said, but emphasized that Facebook can't practically convene a panel to decide on a case-by-case basis.
John Palfrey, a Harvard Law School professor who specializes in Internet issues, called Facebook a victim of its own success.
"As we wrap more and more of our lives into a single environment on the Web, the feeling that civil liberties ought to be protected there continues to grow," Palfrey said.
But it's really just that — a feeling. Online hangouts might simulate a public place, but they're still private Web sites where the company is king, not the Constitution or the myriad state laws that apply to breast-feeding outside the home.
News Corp.-owned MySpace, which prohibits nudity, also has sparked online protests over photos taken down of breast-feeding mothers. A company spokeswoman did not return messages seeking comment.
One contrast is LiveJournal, a popular blogging network, which made an exception for nursing in its no-nudity policy. The rule came in response to feedback from users and an advisory board comprised of Internet scholars.
While Schnitt said Facebook's policies predate a recent push by law enforcement agencies to better protect children from online predators, the whole field of Web hangouts may be skittish about anything that might expose kids to nudity, said Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney at the free-speech watchdog group Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Facebook already curtails the activities of some members based on age and the networks they belong to. For example, adults can't look at profiles of kids under the age of 18, even if they're members of the same regional network.
Palfrey suggests a middle ground might emerge, in which networking sites like Facebook can better satisfy diverse constituencies without creating strife. That will require honing the technology to make it more certain that only people within specific networks and groups could see, say, a breast-feeding photo, while keeping children from seeing nudity.
Palfrey describes the goal as making "a site that is good for everyone, or good for the largest number of people, rather than the fewest."
Paulus siedharta (not verified) — Tue, 05/12/2009 - 3:09am
why u r talk about facebook im the one who was disable from facebook for looking a friend from other country
the facebook is not the right one for our connection
let see first warning im upload video that i dont know that video legal or nor legal for the third party ( ok i can accepted )
second warning when im looking a group and joined that group and i invided from the group.
third warning that my account clearly to be disable from facebook when i inviting/asking friend from a friend who was to be my first friend
i honestly that facebook program isn't good as they talk
as u now the facebook not principle as they created, u can see at the facebook principle (http://www.facebook.com/principles.php)
they talk sharing openly connecting but at the Statement of Rights and Responsibilities the talk as the power program who can kick out their user but if anyone don't fill like to be a friend they can canceled by them self
u can see at trem of condition of facebook (http://www.facebook.com/terms.php?ref=pf)
Safety
We do our best to keep Facebook safe, but we cannot guarantee it. We need your help in order to do that, which includes the following commitments:
1. You will not send or otherwise post unauthorized commercial communications to users (such as spam).
2. You will not collect users' information, or otherwise access Facebook, using automated means (such as harvesting bots, robots, spiders, or scrapers) without our permission.
3. You will not upload viruses or other malicious code.
4. You will not solicit login information or access an account belonging to someone else.
5. ***You will not bully, intimidate, or harass any user.***
6. You will not post content that is hateful, threatening, pornographic, or that contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence.
7. You will not develop or operate a third party application containing, or advertise or otherwise market alcohol-related or other mature content without appropriate age-based restrictions.
8. You will not use Facebook to do anything unlawful, misleading, malicious, or discriminatory.
9. You will not facilitate or encourage any violations of this Statement.
if we ask some one to be our friend in one day,is that intimidate or harass?? ok if we often ask to the same person in one day,i accept but if we ask to a lot of person in one day,is that intimidate or harass too?
why i soo hate about facebook because facebook is bullshit
Helena van der Winden (not verified) — Fri, 01/09/2009 - 8:37pm
To Rahadi Widodo:
How dare you judging people for not having friends just because they don't want to use Facebook?
I should actually ask you a question.....how many REAL friends you find on facebook, and how many SUPERFICIAL friends you have on your facebook list?
I kindly agree with Ketti's comment which mention that Facebook is a public thing. Ketti's comment is more logical & intelligent compared to idiotic comment made by Rahadi Widodo.
You don't judge people's ability to socialise by spending lot's of your time on Facebook.....Rahadi Widodo's assertion is totally absurd.
Ketti (not verified) — Thu, 01/08/2009 - 10:58am
Facebook is a public thing that can be used positively or negatively for making human relationship. When we use it for positive purpose, it will get a good result. When we use it for negative purpose, it will get a bad result. So, it depends on us whether is it good or not for ourselves. If you dont like making relationship through facebook then you can avoid it. Make it easy everything!
Rahadi Widodo (not verified) — Thu, 01/08/2009 - 10:33am
Helena van der Winden, Never understand it...
Maybe because you r not a socialite and don't go out but stay at home?
Many Facebook users have credited the website for finding long lost schoolmates from 15-20 years ago maybe you dont have friends?
Pure (not verified) — Wed, 01/07/2009 - 1:18pm
I think this website is good for making relationship, it shows the socialism of human
Helena van der Winden (not verified) — Tue, 01/06/2009 - 5:35pm
To Hids.....
Yes, Facebook is a waste of time. Now, there are many companies which prohibit their staffs to use website such as facebook, myspace, friendster, etc.
There is a correlation between the drop in the percentage of productivity, and the use of those kind of websites.
Iain — Tue, 01/06/2009 - 2:11pm
Honestly, I'm disappointed. There just aren't enough nipples. Flop em' out ladies.
Pauly Paul (not verified) — Tue, 01/06/2009 - 2:08am
Honestly, is this really an issue at all? With all the troubles in the world, fighting for your right to post a breastfeeding photo shouldn't even be on your list. Focus your energies on something productive for the world. Facebook is not.
To all those that say it's about the principle of it all; Pick the hill you want to die on.
Mick (not verified) — Mon, 01/05/2009 - 7:48pm
hey, guys. this is a women breastfeeding. she is proud to do it and to have a baby. that's what i see.
pornographic in this country is taught now to be everything. in my eyes all those people who are feeling afendet are sick because they connect something natural to pornography. anyhow this whole government and the porno bill is sick.
poor papua guys, poor indo... hey lets hide all behind a curtain and pray 24/7. why not forbid tits. i mean if every women would be without titts so also the men would be not getting horney . what a shame.
its a shame sometimes how people are loosing their minds because of a wrong policy, wrong teaching and wrong r........
dont forget you were hanging also one day on mamas titt and nobody felt that she is making something wrong.
Hilds (not verified) — Mon, 01/05/2009 - 9:29am
To Helena V.D. Winden: Are you serious?.. Facebook - waste of time?
I agree that children have rights to be breast-fed, but showing it in certain website for everyone to see and demand that it is a women's right??.. Don't think it's right.