HEY, FACEBOOK, BREASTFEEDING IS NOT OBSCENE!
These pages are dedicated to breastfeeding women everywhere. They provide what is needed in the start of life. Breastfeeding is a very important act in nurturing children, and often a highlight in the life and memory of women, as the photos below suggest.
GO TO PAGE 6 (the first page of these photos)
GO TO PAGE 7 (more photos)
GO TO PAGE 10 (more photos)
GO TO PAGE 11 (more photos)
GO TO PAGE 12 (more photos)
Here we present the third page of photos banned from the social utility Facebook, as well as a few that haven't been. With several hundred million users, Facebook still removes from its pages photographs of women breastfeeding, despite complaints about that practice beginning as long ago as June 2007.
Facebook claimed that breastfeeding photos violated its terms of service if they showed "an entire breast." Eventually it dropped the vagueness and the euphemism and claimed that all photos with a visible nipple or areola were "obscene," "pornographic," or "sexually explicit." This claim by Facebook is at odds with legislation, case law, and actual practice throughout the USA. In addition, breastfeeding itself is allowed in public, exposed breasts or not, in almost all states in the country. By its attitude and action, Facebook is wrong. It demeans and stigmatizes women and breastfeeding.
In May 2009, the same Facebook spokesperson responsible for the above claims said that Facebook removes only a small number of photos of naked women breastfeeding. That would be funny if it weren't so ignorant. Facebook also claims that images of breasts harm children. That's absurd. Facebook wrongly uses children as an excuse for its immaturity and errors.
Facebook is undoubtedly a great utility, both useful and fun. Its worldwide acceptance on the Internet confers upon it a responsibility to do better.
The protest against Facebook's removal of many breastfeeding photos isn't really about legality. It's not even about rights. It's about what is right.
Number of photos in this collection: 199. Of those, 183 have been banned, some more than once. The others are here for comparison. (Many, many more have been banned than we have collected.) Comments from the photos' owners are often illuminating.
Our NON-DISCLAIMER re photos
Many sites would carry a warning: Keep away if you're under 18! NSFW!
We don't believe in that. Women's breasts in photos like these bother no one except those who have unfortunately been trained to be embarrassed by them or to control them when they have no right to.
Anyone wanting to send a banned photo or a series from which one or more were banned, please send:
-- Your photo(s), at Facebook
profile size or bigger;
-- Your name (and whether you want that indicated);
-- Your best contact e-mail address (will not be
indicated);
-- The date (month/year will do) when the photo was banned
(if it was);
-- Accompanying comments: whatever you want to say. Links
are possible to your e-mail address and/or your
breastfeeding-related site if you wish.
Unlike on Facebook, the photos remain your property. We will not use them for any other purpose whatever. They will be deleted on request of the owner or provider.
We post most of the photos at the same height. We acknowledge that some appeared on Facebook bigger, and a few smaller. The effect a photo has depends on size, among other things. Also, we cannot guarantee how things like colour or contrast appear, because they depend on individual monitors.
Photographs on this site are not
to be reproduced in any location or in any medium or format
without the prior consent of the owner of the photograph,
except as permitted by law. Neither TERA nor its
proprietors, members, or site host assumes any
responsibility for what is posted, with which they may or
may not agree. Comments may be edited for clarity or legal
reasons.
|
|
|
|
for the Huffington Post (here), called "Pumping in Public." It appeared on January 30 and invites comments. She has the following to say about her recent experience:
"Like most
people, I use Facebook to share pictures and news with
friends and family. When sharing photos of my new baby, I
posted BF-ing pictures. It's one of the only things that
babies actually do.
For me, pumping is a part of breastfeeding: this time I
had mastitis and cracked and bleeding nipples, I needed to
pump to let my breasts heal so that I could breastfeed. So
pumping was a big part of
my new baby experience, and when friends wanted to know how
it was going, I directed them to that pumping photo, titled
'Lactation Station.'
"If more people saw breastfeeding, then more people would do it. We shouldn't have to hide our wet breasts. It makes me angry that even La Leche League advises women to be 'discreet.'"
"This photo was
removed in December 2008. I can see no way it
could be viewed in any way other than the pure and
innocent light in which it was taken. It is my
three-week-old son; the photo was taken on New
Year's Day 2006. He had just spent time in hospital
after being very ill with bronchiolitis. I took the
photo to send to my partner, who had gone back to
work---to reassure him that he was looking
better. "The photo
was removed from a private album and I was sent the
usual warning by Facebook. I have reposted it in
the same album and it has since remained
there." Banned in January
2009.
Photo from Joanne
Graham
Photo from Jessica
Harkins
Guess which photo was banned? The one on the left, on
February 10, 2009. A major lactivist on
Facebook and elsewhere posted it
as her profile photo. She writes:
"I'd love it if
the media could ask the question: 'If this isn't what FB
allows either, then what is acceptable?' At this
point I do not think even FB
knows what they want. I had this image in my mind of what FB
was looking for and that was it. This portrays the exact
opposite of those that were
previously deleted. It isn't a copyright issue. The
copyright is expired. It was painted in the early 1880s. It
isn't threatening, it covers/censors the 'nudity'
or breasts with an 'acceptable' image and it is an
art piece---digital media."
She reposted
the photo later the same day. The one on the right is the
original painting by Paul Cézanne, from 1880-82. It
didn't take long for that
to be posted by someone and banned. Paula Stanistreet put it
up, and it was taken down by Facebook on February 12,
2009.
On February 4,
Facebook changed its Terms of Service to include
proscription of images of nudity. Obviously Facebook
believes that breastfeeding may
constitute nudity, in opposition to almost all the states in
the USA. Curiously, its Terms of Service no longer exclude
images of obscenity.
Facebook's
censorship seems run by prudish, careless goons. The result
still stigmatizes breastfeeding, demeans women, and reveals
an
immature, crass ignorance unparalleled on this scale in
cyberspace.
|
Banned February 10, 2009 |
Photo from Jen
Stevens|
[The photo in this space is temporarily unavailable] |
|
The collage (on the left, in a slightly different version) was posted on Facebook February 13, 2009 and banned February 16. The photo on the right
was posted on April 12, 2009 and banned April 14. In the words of the lactivist and artist whose photos they are:
Title for the collage: Silicone Breastfeeding [temporarily unavailable]
"In this collage
I'm not portraying breastfeeding . . . I'm portraying
society's acceptance of and even desire for artificial
silicone breast implants and
silicone/rubber baby bottle nipples. To the same society,
breastfeeding in public is considered undesirable and
obscene.
"I'm portraying online and real-world censorship of breastfeeding, which is unnecessary.
"I'm portraying a
baby and his feelings about moms being told to pump in order
to go out in public. Many people do not want to witness the
act of
breastfeeding, they do not like the idea of breastfeeding,
and they want to censor it for their comfort and for the
'safety' of 'the children.'
"What about the
children our society is depriving of milk from their own
mother's breast? Who is going to fight for these children?
Their mothers
and those who believe it is normal are going to fight for
them, that's who.
"Their mothers are
going feed them when and where needed, and they are going to
document the time in the child's life when he or she was
breastfeeding. They are going to take a picture of this and
share it, just as they would any other photograph. They are
not going to censor their child's
mealtime, and they are not going to hide in a toilet
stall.
"We live in a
social networking world these days . . . Breastfeeding
acceptance both in the real world and in cyberspace is long
overdue. It isn't just
breastfeeding moms who need information about breastfeeding.
Those who will come into contact with one at a time of
breastfeeding need it more.
"It can be a
challenge to be a breastfeeding mother, trying to live a
normal life when our society doesn't accept breastfeeding: a
life with responsibilities
like everyone else's, including trips to the grocery store,
the mall, or anywhere else.
"Being reprimanded
or removed from somewhere for breastfeeding can be quite
humiliating. We live in a world so afraid of the act of
breastfeeding
that laws are needed to protect a mother who chooses to do
it.
"I formula-fed two of my four children. I'm here in the hope that breastfeeding moms will be accepted as publicly as bottle-feeding moms."
Title for the photo on the right: Eye of the Beholder (with milk)
"North Dakota: '. . . if the woman acts in a discreet and modest manner when breastfeeding . . .'
"Defined by whom? It's all in 'The Eye of the Beholder.'
"Discreet to one
person is . . . Just feeding a child.
Discreet to another is . . . With no blanket.
Discreet to another is . . . With a blanket covering the
baby and breast.
Discreet to another is . . . In a bathroom.
Discreet to another is . . . In a toilet stall.
Discreet to another is . . . At the mother and child's
home.
Discreet to another is . . . With the curtains closed.
Discreet to another is . . . In the bedroom.
Discreet to another is . . . With a bottle of pumped
milk.
Discreet to another is . . . With a bottle of
formula."
Banned March 5,
2009 Banned March 3 and 23 and
June 1, 2009, and February 5, 2010. "I added this photo
as my profile picture for the MILC event on Feb. 21
[2009] . . . left it up a whole week before
replacing it with a new profile picture. It stayed
in my profile folder for another full week. Then on
the evening of March 7, a friend posted a sweet
comment on the photo. Within 24 hours she went back
to find the picture again, and it was gone,
replaced by a question mark logo. But on the
evening of March 8, the photo was once again in my
profile folder. "The photo quality is so
poor, so out of focus, that the context is hard to
understand, unless you just happen to be familiar
with breastfeeding! I was a bit embarrassed to use
it for the protest---not for what it shows, but for
what it doesn't!" Whether the photo was
removed by anti-breastfeeding zealots or because of
a technical problem, Sarah's report is another mark
against Facebook.
Photo from Julia
Norris
Photo from Helen
Schwalme
Photo from Sarah
Green
Photos from Aurélie Étienne
On the left: Ninon, 2 1/2 months, photo banned April 26, 2009. Facebook did not ban the other two photos of Ninon and Aurélie.
"I had read an article in
the magazine Parents concerning Facebook and the
photos declared indecent for their breastfeeding. So right
away I went and "signed" the petition and uploaded three
photos. I
got a message from Facebook, and one of my photos was
deleted. It was one of my favourites, however, with the
beautiful blue eyes of my little one . . . Sad that
breastfeeding is treated like that!"
[Français]
"J'avais lu un article dans le magazine
Parents concernant Facebook et les photos dites
indécentes sur l'allaitement. Alors je me suis
empressée d'aller "signer" la pétition et de
rajouter 3 photos.
J'ai reçu un message de FB et une de mes photos a
été supprimée. C'était une de
mes préférées pourtant avec les beaux
yeux bleux de ma pupuce . . . Dommage que l'allaitement soit
pris comme ça !"
Cheryl Giovenco took this
photo of her son Alex (6 months) and husband
Anthony. Facebook banned it on November 20,
2008. "I was saddened and
angry that my photo was deemed inappropriate.
It was taken in March 2009, when my daughter was 25
months old, and banned in the last week of April. I
will nurse her until she no longer wishes to
nurse."
Photo from Cheryl
Giovenco
Photo from Brenda
Galambos
Photos from Maela Bru, banned in April 2009.
"As a young breastfeeding mother, I find it sad and ridiculous that Facebook and closed-minded people are making breastfeeding out to be some kind of crime. I find so many young mothers opt not to breastfeed, because of the attitude toward it, which is so sad for those babies who could be receiving the bonding and immune protection breastfeeding offers. Among other benefits, of course."
Photo on the left banned May 5, 2009; photo on the right
not banned.
Photos from Sam Robertson
"I went to the group to
petition against Facebook for removing others'
breastfeeding pictures and get support, as I am
still breastfeeding my 13-month-old daughter and
getting "flack" for it from a lot of people. I
posted the picture because I wanted to show how
peaceful and beautiful breastfeeding is; and I am
so happy to have found the group to get positive
reinforcement that what I am doing to nourish my
child is proper. "I was so saddened when I
logged into Facebook and was warned about my
actions for posting the picture. I was in
disbelief. It was not even a profile
picture. I only posted the picture for my
fellow members of the group to see. How could
the Facebook administrators be so discriminating
against breastfeeding women?" Banned May 31, 2009 Banned May 30, 2009. "More people need to see the beauty of
breastfeeding! Ignorance creates more bottle
fed, unhealthy, and perverted humans!"
Photo from Jennifer
Dayus
Photo from Tiffany Deering
Photo from Cyanne Brocious
"My photos were taken down by Facebook on June 11.
As the whole explanation, Facebook sent me a message
informing me that I was
Photos from Céline Gindre
violating the terms of use by
posting nudity, and that my photos could offend the site's users, especially
children visiting it.
"I don't think I'm
being harmful in breastfeeding my children, and still less
am I distributing pornographic photos when they present my
children
being fed . . ."
[Français]
"Mes photos ont été retirées de
Facebook le 11 juin. Pour toute explication, Facebook m'a
envoyé un message m'informant qu
je violais les
conditions d'utilisation en affichant de la nudité et que mes photos pouvait
choquer les utilisateurs du site, particulièrement
les enfants le fréquentant.
"Je ne pense pas
être nuisible en allaitant mes enfants et encore moins
diffuser des photos pornographiques lorsque celles mettent
en scène
mes enfants en train de se nourrir . .
."
|
Banned June 27, 2009. "This is not a photo of me, rather one I found and decided to use in support of the fight to normalize breastfeeding. Facebook's "terms of service"are so bogus. Male nipple---good, Female nipple---ok if she's hot, but if there's a child anywhere near it? EEEEEEW!" |
|
Banned June 24, 2009. This is the orientation we received this photo in. Rather than ask for it straightened or make it that way, we decided to leave it. Emma wrote us: "Sorry about that. I was so upset about having my picture removed from Facebook that day. I wasn't thinking till the last minute, when the message was sent!" |
|
Banned July 6, 2009. |
|
Banned July 20, 2009. As an added bonus, Helen's account was deleted by Facebook on July 27, 2009 for her having "Breastfeeding" as her middle name. Facebook pretends that it has to have people's real names (is it operated by the FBI and CIA?). It merely deletes accounts capriciously, such as that of Alicia Istanbul, who had her account removed in May 2009 because Facebook didn't accept her last name. |
Photo from Alexx
Suderman
Photo from Emma Kirkwood
McKinley
Photo from Annie Pants
Photo from Helen
SchwalmeGO TO PAGE 6 (the first page of these photos)
GO TO PAGE 7 (more photos)
GO TO PAGE 10 (more photos)
GO TO PAGE 11 (more photos)
GO TO PAGE 12 (more photos)