Thinking Out Loud - Breastfeeding Vs Facebook

Breastfeeding mothers are up in arms that Facebook is deleting pictures of its members feeding their children and canceling some members' accounts. Their have been protests, petitions and calls for action among breastfeeding advocates.

Although Facebook touts itself as "a social utility that connects people with friends and others who work, study and live around them," and wants its users "to keep up with friends, to share links, to share photos and videos of themselves and their friends, and to learn more about the people they meet," it is still a private web entity. And as such, it is within its rights to restrict what appears within its network. As stated in the company's policies, they do have the right to remove inappropriate content it feels is "is obscene, pornographic or sexually explicit." Facebook even states in its policies that by using the website you agree to abide by all of its rules and policies.

Facebook User Conduct policy states: "In addition, you agree not to use the Service or the Site to: . . . upload, post, transmit, share, store or otherwise make available any content that we deem to be harmful, threatening, unlawful, defamatory, infringing, abusive, inflammatory, harassing, vulgar, obscene, fraudulent, invasive of privacy or publicity rights, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable."

But let s play devil's advocate for a moment and try to understand what is at the root of the public breastfeeding issue.

"It's amazing to me that we're living in a world where people are upset by this," says Patricia Madden, whose photo of her breastfeeding her two girls was removed. "You can't see my nipples. It's completely legal to breast-feed in public. Breast-feeding is completely natural and healthy. They took off the photo, without my permission.''

Organizers of a "nurse in" at the company's Palo Alto headquarters have created a community within Facebook called, "Hey Facebook, breast-feeding is not obscene!'' They are upset by the company's policy to remove all breastfeeding photos and delete user accounts. "What about a baby breast-feeding is obscene?" Stephanie Muir, one of the organizers, ask. "Especially in comparison to MANY other pictures posted all over Facebook that really are obscene? "This societal attitude that women's breasts are lewd, sexually explicit or pornographic in their very nature serves only as a detriment to breastfeeding.''

Only in America do we have such societal hang-ups about sex and the human body. Nude sunbathing is illegal in the US of A. But overseas it is a fairly common occurrence. In Denmark, for instance, all beaches are clothing optional unless otherwise designated. In Germany, nude sunbathing is normal, except in urban areas and official baths. There are hundreds of places throughout Europe that allow nude sunbathing. And the reason for this is societal attitude towards the human body.

Art galleries are filled with famous nudes. Some of the more famous paintings include: "Two figures" by Francis Bacon, "Vitruvian Man" by Leonardo DaVinci, and "la vie" by Pablo Picasso. Statues such as Michelangelo's David, Rodin's The Kiss and the ancient Greek Venus de Milo, are known world-wide. Yet in the United States we balk at anything to do with nudity. It has become pornographic and taboo.

Many parents fear being labeled sexual predators or deviants for taking pictures of their little ones in the bathtub or running around the house naked. They give pause before taking the pictures or showing them to family and friends. And watch out for the morality police if you have the audacity to send an email to share these pics to family far away.

Breastfeeding is natural. A fact Facebook is willing to concede. And it is preferable to formula feeding for at least the first six months. WebMD states, "Breast-feeding lowers your child's risk for many types of infections and allergies. Breast milk may also help protect your child from some health problems, such as eczema, obesity, asthma, diabetes, and possibly high blood pressure." Yet if a woman is in public, she feels a stigma attached to doing what is both natural and right.

Over the years many women's advocacy groups have tried to take away this public stigma by filing lawsuits, getting laws changed and trying to change the public attitude toward this wholly wholesome and natural act.

Along comes the Internet and supposedly 'social' networking sites. Many young people have grown up with it being a routine part of their daily lives. They keep in contact with friends near and wide, as well as family members. Many have friends in other countries like past generations have had friends next door. So social consciousness raising through this medium seems a natural progression.

Yet sites like Facebook and MySpace only want you to carry this so far. Why is it that they feel it necessary to curb free expression when it comes to wholesome activities such as making breastfeeding more acceptable, yet outright encourage promiscuous behavior among its membership? There any many examples of some very explicit pictures and content among the nearly 141 million users of Facebook, without anyone so much as batting an eye.

Maybe Facebook is concerned it would violate another User Conduct policy, "upload, post, transmit, share, store or otherwise make available content that would constitute, encourage or provide instructions for a criminal offense, violate the rights of any party, or that would otherwise create liability or violate any local, state, national or international law." Or could it be that they believe the public display of breast feeding would "intimidate or harass another." Or could it be that this social networking site just wants to cover its own assets by invoking the policy not to "upload, post, transmit, share, store or otherwise make available content that, in the sole judgment of Company, is objectionable or which restricts or inhibits any other person from using or enjoying the Site, or which may expose Company or its users to any harm or liability of any type."

Whatever the case, Mark Zuckerberg is well within his rights to remove these photos. He is well within his legal authority to cancel user accounts. But maybe it is high time that people begin to realize that these social networking sites are not really social networking at all. They are simply businesses, in bed with their third party companies (read advertisers), who are out to make a buck. (Facebook raked in an estimated $300 million in 2008.) He and his fellow site owners are not in it for the benefit of their users, they are in it for themselves. Despite the Facebook CEO's claim that the sites mission is "helping people understand the world around them," his actions speak volumes about his true motive. (One might note the many criticisms concerning privacy issues and the use of member information by third party companies.)

Agree with me about Zuckerberg's legal rights, disagree with me about Facebook's true motives, or take either side on the issue of public displays of breastfeeding, it makes no matter. This is just me, thinking out loud.

Have a great day.

Sources:

Facebook policy sites

http://www.facebook.com/codeofconduct.php

http://www.facebook.com/terms.php

San Jose Mercury News

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_11316772?source=most_viewed

List of social nudity in Europe - Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_nudity_places_in_Europe

WebMD - Breast-Feeding: Topic Overview

http://www.webmd.com/parenting/tc/breast-feeding-topic-overview