Hey, Facebook, what have you got against breast-feeding?

I am not sure how you feel about breast-feeding in public, but Facebook seems to have made its views very clear.

The site had something of a contretemps with Heather Farley, a Facebooker who posted photographs in October of herself feeding her new baby. She was, at first, bemused when the photos were removed. So she put another one up, only to receive a note from Facebook threatening to remove her from Facebookdom.

Her sin, explained Facebook, was not the actual image of breast-feeding. It was the visibility of her areola, the dark area around the nipple.

A Facebook spokesman named Barry Schnitt said that this is not a question of obscenity. Rather, he said, it is one of safety. Teenagers, the argument seems to go, use Facebook and one mustn't expose them to images that might inspire their baser, basic instincts.

Ms. Farley was not terribly impressed and created a Facebook group called Hey, Facebook, breastfeeding is not obscene!.

On the group's Facebook page there is a declaration that "on December 27th, 2008 over 11 000 people participated in our first ever M.I.L.C. (Mothers International Lactation Campaign) event. Participants from around the globe joined our virtual protest of Facebooks discriminatory practice of arbitrarily and randomly removing breastfeeding pictures from member profiles and albums, classifying them as obscene content."

Is it really worth upsetting Mama?

(Credit: CC Shward)

The page also contains a breast-feeding picture with some rather suspicious shadow, as well as a link to some of the banned photos. None of which strikes me in the way that certain images of the exposed human body have occasionally struck me.

One's mind finds itself forced to consider how Facebook got to look at these pictures in the first place. It seems that some people actually contacted the site to complain. Yet if these pictures were only exposed to friends of the feeder--yes, the friend feed--are we to assume that one of the feeder's virtual buddies was really upset and contacted the site?

In which case, if I were the breast-feeder, I would try to find out who these supposed friends might be and de-friend them, defrock them, or whatever suitable social castigation there might be.

On the other hand, could it be that Facebook has appointed a pimply-faced breast monitor to stalk mammary overexposure wherever he may find it? That would surely be a sad day for humanity and its ability to socially network.

Meanwhile, the Hey, Facebook, breastfeeding is not obscene! group has over 81,000 members. How many days will it be before the Got Milk? people try to sponsor it?

[Whys333]

When I was a small boy, I was subjected to the grotesque and unnatural moral deprivation of witnessing a woman breast feeding her child. To this day, when in the mood for porn, pics of breast feeding is the first place I look. It has warped me in immeasurable ways. :p

[Mademoiselle1027]

I find public breast-feeding makes me very uncomfortable. I think most would agree. I understand that it is a woman's right to breast-feed wherever they feel like it, but I would also think that the mother breast-feeding would take others feelings into concern. I used to work at the restaurant where this woman would breast feed her 3 or 4 year old son. It was absolutely awful. All you would hear from her son was, "Mommy ***, Mommy ***".. Yuck!

[Galaxy5]

Why does the sight of the human body make you so uncomfortable? The very notion seems ridiculous.

[trescrepu]

I agree. It's more than "the sight of the human body" that makes people uncomfortable. I've spent alot of time abroad and think it's ridiculous that Americans lose rationality when a woman's on the beach with her top off -- this kind of thing just doesn't matter. But, the exchange of fluid out in the open, and that's what it is, is just kind of too personal for me to accept in public. I can think of other personal acts that people aren't keen to allow across the board.

[cnetcensorssuck]

You've got serious issues. Seek help!

[AppleSuxLeo]

Lucky kid ;)

[mattumanu]

>>I understand that it is a woman's right to breast-feed wherever they feel like it<<

I think the baby has more say in this than the mother.

[DCartner]

When I was a small boy, I was subjected to the grotesque and unnatural moral deprivation of witnessing a woman breast feeding her child. To this day, when in the mood for porn, pics of breast feeding is the first place I look. It has warped me in immeasurable ways. :p

Oh my gawd, i thought i was the only one. Maybe we can form some kind of support group.

It bothers me that we will watch stuff like extreme fighting, people being shot, movies like Jack Ass, and not bat an eye. We let our kids play violent video games and sit beside them cheering when a fight breaks out at a hockey game.
But when a mother and child share an intimate moment like Breast Feeding we all freak out. What is wrong with people!

[tommyflorida]

Breast feeding is fine - in the right place and time - a little discretion (and modesty) is called for (expected) here - why plaster it all over your Facebook page unless you want attention? Can we expose other body parts to perform other natural bodily actions in public? Are these women suffering from National Geographic envy?

[DCartner]

And who will decide where and when is appropriate? The human head was made so it can turn....if you don't like what you see, look the other way.

[EyE322]

You forget the roots of Facebook. It was set up for students in college. Its initial setup had sections that you can link your classes and discuss your classes and sections to link your dorm rooms you had to have a university email to even sign up. Most users that are not in school do not even use 90% of the features that make Facebook unique. You want MySpace then sign up and post these kinds of pictures.

This lady wants to show a breastfeeding kid to her circle whom if she is linked to her husband has in his contacts probably his bosses or coworkers not to mention underage family get to see her brest so now all of his fellow employees and bosses see pics of his wife?s *** with a kid sucking on it. Facebook knows this and that is why it does not allow it. Its simple its not allowed for a reason and should not even be up for discussion.

On that note how do we even know if the kid she is feeding is hers and what if it is some sort of funky perverted sexual fantasy of feeding a kid. Now your hosting child porn. This is not out of line. I personally don?t think it is beautiful, your just feeding a kid. I mean do you think poop is beautiful too? Why not show some dirty diapers then also .

You need to realize that there are many underage and coworkers linked in on most of these accounts. I think its funny that the same people who watch ?to catch a predator? put these kinds of images out on the net.

[aukestrel]

I see you registered just to post this message. Interesting. In most countries it's not a big deal if someone sees a woman's naked breast. In this country, rather than seeing it as natural (we are mammals, after all), you choose to go out on a long unsupported chain of reasoning (and I use the term "reasoning" lightly) to argue against a woman posting a photo of herself breastfeeding and somehow you end up at child pornography and/or something perverted about the woman herself.

I think this tells us all more about you than you ever wanted us to know.

[dude7895]

@aukestrel
ooh, burn!

[EyE322]

aukestrel So I took a look at your profile it says you have been a member a long time the only questionable item is the fact you have only posted seven times since you been on CNET. The Irony is the seven times have been comments exclusively to this news article. You not better then anyone else who posted her as there first time, It?s yours also!

Turns out you?re the resident Troll! Your remarks don?t even go with my statement.

[cnetcensorssuck]

Congratulations, due to this post, you are now officially a moron!

[bmn_1213]

The problem isn't with the feeding--it's with the breast. Who wants to epose herself that way, anyway? Answer: women looking for attention. Look at those women protesting in the picture. They're just useless women with no personality who had to come up with something to get attention and seem interesting (they're still not). A reasonable woman doesn't want that sort of attention and wouldn't want to expose herself in a public place, much less in the permanent record of a photo published to the web.

[aukestrel]

If you're breastfeeding properly, the breast isn't exposed. Some women have darker areolas than others, so it's easier to see them, but aside from that - and you can see an areola any given night on prime-time television - there's no "exposure."

Here's the original photo that upset Facebook. You can't even see her breasts: her clothes are covering the parts that the children's mouths aren't. I suspect Facebook was upset because she was feeding two children at once rather than the fact that you could "see her breast."

http://www.tera.ca/photos6.html

[nicmart]

The breastfeeders have become another tiresome grievance group. They do not have the right to breastfeed "anytime, anywhere," but within the rules of those who own the properties to which they are allowed access. Breastfeeding on private property (belonging to someone other than the nursing mother) is no more a right than playing football, giving speeches, smoking, or taking a nap on that property. It is up to the owner to give permission or to deny it. I don't mind seeing nursing mothers, but my preference doesn't supersede the rights of property owners.

[uawes]

When Janet Jackson has a "wardrobe malfunction" certain groups act as if it is the end of western civilization, but if a woman is breastfeeding while she exposes herself, that is perfectly okay? I guess, as long as there is a kid hanging off your boob, you should be allowed to go down to the middle school and give the 12-year-olds lapdances, and anyone who complains is labeled anti-mother. DCartner said: "But when a mother and child share an intimate moment like Breast Feeding we all freak out." It stops being intimate when you post it on the internet. My wife and I share intimate moments, as well, but not in the playroom at McDonalds. It is possible for these Facebook users to post breastfeeding pictures that don't expose their nipples or aureola, pictures that would be permitted by Facebook. Therefore, Facebook is not removing photos of breastfeeding, they are , quite appropriately, removing photos of exposed breasts. 'Hey, Facebook, breastfeeding is not obscene! ' is agitating to be allowed to practice exhibitionism by hiding behind the breastfeeding excuse.

[aukestrel]

Did you happen to see the photo that started the mess? You can't even see her breasts: the parts that are not covered by the child's mouth are covered by her clothing. What's obscene about that?

http://www.tera.ca/photos6.html

[DCartner]

You moral flag waving nut bars are the ones looking for attention. Why don't you get out raged about something useful? You all need to grow up and mind your own business. I'm sure know one in his right mind would want to see pics of you and your wife sharing intimate moments.

[uawes]

Thanks, but no thanks, for the link, aukestrel. I am not interested in seeing breastfeeding porn.

[cnetcensorssuck]

Seriously, trust me when I tell you that you're a complete imbecile.

[dragonbite]

"Anywhere" "Anytime"

When you have a baby, contrary to common thought the BABY determines when he/she is hungry, not the adult. Babies have smaller stomachs and cannot hold huge gobs of foot, not that it stays in there long since babies grow at an increadible rate!

Plus babies need nutrients supplied in breast milk that is not available in some powder or can. What is in the powder or can is what people THINK is in breastmilk and what they can identify and whatever the marketers can convince people "need" (why "need" to spend money of what nature gives us naturally?). Understandibly, these powders and canned versions are important when breastfeeding is no available (mother dies during childbirth, etc.).

It is up to the discresion of the mother to be considerate, though, when in public places and most of the mothers I've seen have been. I don't think I've run across any mothers who WANT to flash a b**b!


As for Facebook censoring images of something like this is hogwash!

"A Facebook spokesperson named Barry Schnitt, said that this is not a question of obscenity. Rather, he said, it is one of safety. Teenagers, the argument seems to go, use Facebook and one mustn't expose them to images that might inspire their baser, basic instincts."

So all of those pictures of high schoolers (whom I KNOW are still in high school, or just graduated) having beers in their hands and acting like idiots are freely viewable (even by younger people so it is seen as the "norm") while something that may help a mother or new mother or some other ADULT or even teen mom (who usually need even MORE help) is not?!!?? W T F?

[aukestrel]

dragonbite, you are awesome. Exactly! What kind of message is it sending that underage drinking is just fine but God forbid you see part of a breast with a woman feeding her baby? We wouldn't want the teenagers seeing that to think that babies can be breastfed, right? That's just crazy talk!

[dude7895]

You hit the hammer on the head, dragonbite! If facebook is going to try and protect its younger users, they had better start with the pictures that show underage drinking and such. I have seen pictures of people smoking joints on facebook, but that won't affect people in a negative way. :p

[D3vildog699]

The idea of underage drinking isn't up for argument, and you CAN get in trouble if caught on FB or Myspace with booze in your hands. I know folks who have been suspended for that fact.

While i don't really care if a mother is breast feeding or not, i just don't see the point in taking pictures of the act, and putting it on the site... kinda odd....

And the idea of underage drinking is idiotic... but thats not what this article is about so i won't go into it.

[mcduarte]

What's the problem of Americans with woman breasts?

[Galaxy5]

A bunch of puritan prudes who think they're holier than thou. They ignore death and war, but shudder at the sight of a woman's breast - the very thing that once gave them life.

[celticbrewer]

I, for one, don't have a problem looking at women's breasts. The more, the better!

However, why are these women posting breastfeeding pics? I don't think it's obscene- I'm just wondering why? What's next? Baby's first dump? Baby's first spit-up? How about posting pictures of the birth; or the conception? They are all natural acts, but they don't have to be captured and shared.

[aukestrel]

I'm not sure why people are so against breastfeeding in general; there seems to be a lot of misogyny directed towards these women. It is interesting to consider that the Pilgrim Fathers, stalwart misogynist Puritans that they were, saw nothing untoward about a nursing mother breastfeeding in church. Maybe they're not as strait-laced as they're reputed to be; or maybe they just recognised that breastfeeding is a natural phenomenon and that if people were (for some reason) disgusted by the concept of a female mammal feeding her baby they could just deal.

Breastfeeding does not equal exhibitionism, child pornography/child abuse, or any other accusations levelled at these women. All it means is that a woman is feeding her child. The people making a big deal out of this simple fact are the ones with the real problems: they want to see breasts as sexualised playthings and consider that using them for their natural function is somehow "obscene" and/or "exhibitionist."

You know what's obscene? Watching NCIS during prime-time with my children and seeing a young woman suckling heroin off her dead brother's gutted stomach.

I'll take the breastfeeding, with or without areola, any day, thanks.

[JasonGooljar]

Just to play the debate game here. There are a lot "natural" things human beings do. Does this mean however that they should be done in public? As for the Facebook issue when it comes to photos I'll side with the mothers on that one.

[aukestrel]

Hmm, another person who registered just to comment on this story. Interesting.

I don't see anywhere here that people are arguing it's "natural." I see people arguing that it's the best thing for the baby, and a point made that babies have their own schedules, Jason. In fact, the proteins in breast milk are easily digested and breastfed babies should be fed every 2-3 hours. Bottlefed babies can go longer between meals because cow and soy proteins are larger molecules and thus more difficult for the babies to digest.

In addition, breastfed babies suffer from fewer allergies and are less likely to be obese in later life. Women who breastfeed have a lower incidence of breast cancer.

You're not playing "the debate game." You're erecting a straw man and acting as if the mothers who enjoy breastfeeding and supporting each other in this activity are suddenly going to start posting pictures of themselves defecating, urinating, or disemboweling cattle, and that's just stupid: one has nothing to do with the other. Breastfeeding, in this country, is not as common as it could be and it's not always easy. Breastfeeding moms can use the support and validation, especially in our over-sexualised culture.

And - for the record - nowhere in our culture (or in any other culture, historical or contemporary) has ingesting food been one of the "taboo" activities that must be done in private. And that's all breastfeeding is: ingesting food.

[JasonGooljar]

I totally love the fact that you point out all the benefits of breast feeding. It is all the more reason that breast feeding should probably be done. Or at the least breast milk (kept in the fridge and used I gather) should be the choice. I must confess I'm a long time reader but I commented rarely. I had another log in as wfpman but since CNET has implemented Facebook Connect I'm now more likely to comment like I'm doing now.

I was just playing the debate game, honestly, I was. I'm open to your opinion on this matter. I support the mothers on the Facebook photo issue as I've stated in my initial remark. I do think you dismiss my point far too easily by stating that I'm "erecting a straw man and acting as if the mothers who enjoy breastfeeding and supporting each other in this activity are suddenly going to start posting pictures of themselves defecating, urinating, or disemboweling cattle." Furthermore, I did sense some hostility in your comment which I do not see the reason for it.

The main argument for me is whether breast feeding should be allowed in public. Granted, the argument for this post is solely about the Facebook issue. Personally, I'm fine with it. I don't care &c. Yet some people obviously don't feel the same way as I. Hence, the "debate game" I am playing here.

In the end, I say if you want breast feeding to be more accepted in public you'll have to continue to push for it's acceptance as many mothers are doing. We've put an end to many a Victorian practice over the past 30-40 years but it only happens by agitating for the change.

Yet right now there is a feeling among people (and they're not a minority mind you) that breast feeding should not be done in public but rather in private. You're going to have to accept that and work to change that feeling among people.

[D3vildog699]

I thought it was called being the "Devil's Advocate"?? either way i love to do the same :D

[mburkley]

Facebook is not banning pictures of breastfeeding mothers. They ban all pictures of breasts that show exposed nipples and/or aureole. The vast majority of breastfeeding pictures have not been bothered. Those that have received complaints concerning them have been examined and, if not meeting the criteria, are removed. They have to be consistent in drawing the line they have made. Facebook has said that they think breastfeeding is a wonderful thing and that having pictures of it on their site is fine. Facebook offers a service to the online community, not a right. They don't have to publish anything. We can complain if we want but can't do anything about it other than leave and encourage others to do so.

I'm bothered by this story because, while it mentions - briefly - the Facebook policy, it was mocked (calling it a "sin") and discounted in the text. The title to me says that the author wasn't really interested in real and informative news but rather simple sensationalism. Too bad!

[aukestrel]

Did you see the original picture? <a href="http://www.tera.ca/Images/tandem.jpg">http://www.tera.ca/Images/tandem.jpg</a>

You can't even see her breasts. Facebook is not just banning pictures "that show exposed nipples and/or aureole [sic]."

[EyE322]

>I see you registered just to post this message

Aukestrel You must have a awesome case of the ESP's or to much time to look into my profile. O well my message is clear and still stands that it is against policy and should stay that way. As what type of person I am, it does not matter I noticed you pretty much have responded to everyone?s post which tells me you are a bit obsessive. We will see when you respond to this one.

[bwwardiii]

I don't think that it should be banned but I do think that it would be great if there were something that facebook could do, say, make it only viewable to the people directly on her friends list. This way not everyone could see the picture and if friends have a problem with it, well, they can choose not to look at those pictures. They wouldn't need to be subjected to the image and those that shouldn't be looking wouldn't be able to. I don't think it would be going too far.

I agree with Facebooks reasoning and think that the group that was started has taken the Facebook administrators way out of context. I obviously think that better measures could have been taken but we have to remember that this website belongs to them, not us. They provide a service for us and are allowed to tell us exactly what they want and don't want on their site. If they make the wrong move they'll suffer for it but it makes sense to me to be a little overly cautious than to risk turning into myspace...

I feel for these mothers, hopefully they can come to some compromise.

[EyE322]

@dude7895

The only Burn Aukestrel has is in the paints!

[GlennAllen]

I guess we now know what really gets those guys at Facebook all "hot and bothered".

I see nothing wrong with this ban. Facebook is a private company and it is their right to allow or ban anything they want. How is this news? Get off and protest something a bit more productive than this.

[CryMe-A-River]

There really is no debate here, Facebook is simply implementing a policy that removes pictures they deem inappropriate. Whether or not these pictures are actually inappropriate is completely irrelevant. Facebook provides a free and public service that is completely optional, if people find the terms of their services to be unacceptable they are free to discontinue their use of the service. Considering Facebook has over 150 million active users, it seems somewhat foolish to think a group of 85,309 people will actually change policy. Good luck.

And yes I did just register to post, saved you some research time Aukestrel

[kockgunner]

I agree. If you don't like Facebook's policies, post your pictures somewhere else, or better yet, don't post them. Breastfeeding is a natural thing, but that doesn't mean you should thrust the images up on the net where your contacts and their contact's contacts can see them.

[davewc39]

Look IDIOTS!!! Women have the right to breast feed anyplace anywhere. I have a suggestion to people in the Midwest and the ignorant people who don't understand. I have 2 things that happened regarding this issue. 1: You remember a woman was breasting feeding on a major airline flying in the air, when a stewardess told that she "could not" breast feed her baby and that she would have to breast feed in the bathroom. I have "one-word" for the stewardess and the people (that is NOT smart). STUPID, CAN YOU SAY "LAWSUIT." Well, remember Gloria Allred took the case and "sued" the airline for 6 million dollars and won!!!. By the way, that stewardess is probably is "not" working there any longer, due to liabability of any future incompentent decisions. In other words, she is a risk of stupidity 2: The other issue was California Family Fitness in Rancho Cordova when a woman was breasting feeding her child in the corner of the gym, when a fitness employee told her that breast feeding was not allowed. Well, I smell a lawsuit and lawsuit it was! The woman sued California Family Fitness and they settled out for 200,000 and won. Your saying what is my point, to you idiots, since i know the law. LEAVE WOMAN ALONE BREAST FEEDING CAUSE THEY ARE LEGAL AND PROTECTED UNDER FEDERAL LAW!!! if you know what good for you. People think before you act and use your brain.

[jCounsel]

Perhaps there is legislation that gives permission to expose a body part for breastfeeding that otherwise might be prohibited by other legislation. South Carolina has such legislation that states a mother can breastfeed wherever the mother is allowed. Some states do not have legislation that protects such action. See http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/breast50.htm

What is the federal law that you cite?