Picturing obsceneties
How do you define “obscene?”
You, your kids, or someone you know is on Facebook, guaranteed. It’s the massive social networking website where you can meet old friends, make new friends, play Scrabble, send silly notes and characters and simply keep up with the goings-on of people whom you choose to allow to become your “friends.”
Now, the powers that be at Facebook have decided some photos are violating its decency policy. Amid the sea of bare adult chests and cheesecake shots posted by members, are a few pictures of babies breastfeeding. It’s those shots of an infant having a feed that have been pulled off the site.
This has outraged Moms and so-called lactivists. As of this writing, more than 10,000 people have joined a group opposing the censorship.
I, personally, do not want to look at photos of babies eating lunch but are they obscene? I don’t think so. This is the problem with vague definitions that condemn one group while allowing another, similar one.
I’d wager a guess that more people are put off by the naked cheesecake than the wee babies, but on Facebook, for now, the cheese apparently cuts it.
September 12th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
Do I consider the photos in question obscene? No, in appropriate, yes along with the naked cheescake and other related photo’s.
Censorship? No, belonging to Facebook and other related sites is not a RIGHT but a privilege and to belong you agree to certain rules and code of conduct. You don’t like the rules, then you’re welcome to go else where.
Contrary to what many believe, freedom of speech or photos is not absolute, there are limits.
September 13th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
It’s too bad society isn’t more accepting of seeing nursing mothers - isn’t that what breasts were made to do?