Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Social Networks The Internet Your Rights Online

Facebook Nudity Policy Draws Nursing Moms' Ire 904

Posted by timothy
from the isn't-breastfeeding-for-the-children-too? dept.
HSRD writes "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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Facebook Nudity Policy Draws Nursing Moms' Ire

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Why is this news? (Score:2, Informative)

    by Compholio (770966) on Thursday January 01, 2009 @04:36PM (#26293445)

    As a private enterprise, they have the right to restrict what they want.

    No, they don't. In the US companies that deliver goods or services for the public are generally perceived to be protected from litigation since they are considered to be a "common carrier," but this is only the case if they do not discriminate with what things they traffic. Once a company that delivers goods or services for the public starts discriminating on what it will allow then it becomes liable for any traffic that it carries.

  • Re:Prudes (Score:4, Informative)

    by Wildclaw (15718) on Thursday January 01, 2009 @04:52PM (#26293585)

    No, it is an unlawful act that could get you on the sex offenders list, positioning you below a murderer who has served his time. Assuming of course that you live in the land of the not so free.

  • by netsavior (627338) on Thursday January 01, 2009 @04:56PM (#26293633)

    And single-occupancy restrooms are not hard to find

    This arguement is one of the most inconsiderate and assinine ones I consistantly hear... Ok lets make a rule that you, presumably a healthy adult, may only eat while holding a tray of food on a toilet seat in public restrooms.

    Ok now lets pretend that you are NOT a healthy adult, but a small child with a delicate immune system, and you lack the mental capacity to deal with waiting for your food, or transitions to cold, loud, scary places.

    Now lets pretend that you are a reasonable adult human, a mammel. Lets also pretend you know what the hell the word "Mammel" means. Lets also pretend that you were mature enough to look the other way if you are so self rightious that you cannot morally stand for a baby to eat his lunch in public.

    I am not a christianazi like the typical moral elite of the U.S. but I like to point out that jebus would have not survived infancy were it not for the all powerful boobies.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 01, 2009 @05:14PM (#26293775)
    It may well be legal to breastfeed in a restaurant, but if it is private property then it is also legal for the owner to ask you to leave. The restaurant owner is trying to run a private business and the last thing he/she needs is someone scaring the other customers away.

    Yeah, I know, it's not really scary or antisocial behaviour to breastfeed, but nobody wants to see someone else's kid doing it when trying to eat.

  • by tehdaemon (753808) on Thursday January 01, 2009 @05:16PM (#26293801)

    And legally, in most (all but 2) US states, breastfeeding is an exception - it isn't illegal even if the entire breast is exposed. In fact, the crime is asking her to cover-up/leave/stop in most places.

    T

  • Re:A solution? (Score:3, Informative)

    by tehdaemon (753808) on Thursday January 01, 2009 @05:21PM (#26293841)

    As for nursing in public, why not just allow it

    In most of the US, it is allowed. check your state laws.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 01, 2009 @05:42PM (#26294045)

    A restroom isn't a toilet, you idiot.

    Wikipedia:

    The word "toilet" can be used to refer to the fixture itself or to the room containing the fixture, especially in British English. In Canadian English, the latter is euphemistically called a washroom, and in American English, a restroom.

  • Re:Damn Puritans (Score:3, Informative)

    by Mashiki (184564) <mashiki @ g m a i l . com> on Thursday January 01, 2009 @05:42PM (#26294051) Homepage

    You do know we can hit 110f in the summer here, we do have them. Occasionally...

  • Re:Why is this news? (Score:4, Informative)

    by jsiren (886858) on Thursday January 01, 2009 @06:14PM (#26294329) Homepage

    The same should go for the story about the breastfeeding mom in the restaurant. It's the same thing as taking off your shirt in a public place. She should have just left and feed her baby at home or somewhere no one cares what's happening around, like a subway :P.

    [citation needed] How is it "the same thing?" Has somebody witnessed mothers take their shirts off (both breasts in plain view) in public for nursing? I, being male and all, am no authority on this, but based on the mothers I know and have seen nursing in public, I'd say it's not necessary.

    Here's how it happens. In a seated position, fully clothed:
    1) Bring baby up to chest.
    2) Clear one (1) nipple (e.g. by lifting shirt).
    3) Let baby eat.
    4) Pull shirt back down.
    5) Burp baby. Done.
    Nobody except the baby can see any exposed part of the mother's anatomy. Nobody even notices that nursing is taking place unless they happen to be close by; it just looks as if the mother were holding the baby. To get disgusted by this takes real effort.

    As far as I know, the very reason mothers nurse in public is that postponing the meal is out of the question. So, no way to wait until home.

  • by piltdownman84 (853358) <piltdownman84@m[ ]com ['ac.' in gap]> on Thursday January 01, 2009 @06:58PM (#26294725)
    In Vancouver last summer there was a big fuss because a breast feeding woman was asked if she would like to use a changing stall at local clothing store. She wasn't even told she couldn't breast feed in public, she was simple asked if she would be more comfortable if she have some privacy. The woman, who was a professor of womens studies at the local university, thought her rights were damaged because she took the offer as an implied request. The press jumped all over the store and how they had violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In the end about one hundred womens went to the store for public breast feeding, the store gave them all cookies and the whole thing dies down.

    Personally I don't really have a problem with women breast feeding, but I think there should be some limits and when in public does it really kill some of these women to cover up with a little blanket.
  • by Shakrai (717556) on Thursday January 01, 2009 @07:06PM (#26294797) Journal

    If I expose my chest in public, that's a crime

    Not in New York State it isn't. You could expose your chest anywhere I could expose my chest (as a male) and be completely legal while doing so. Breast-feeding is a further exemption -- you can "expose" yourself in places that you would otherwise be precluded from doing so (i.e: places that require you to wear a shirt).

  • by cetialphav (246516) on Thursday January 01, 2009 @07:39PM (#26295103)

    They're at odd with the norms of public behavior in the USA.

    Why do you say that public breastfeeding is at odds with the norms of public behavior? Most communities have laws that specifically protect it. When I have seen it in public, no one has even batted an eye. I have never in my life ever seen anyone offended by it. That doesn't sound like deviant behavior to me.

    Posting the pictures might stoke the desires of the viewer.

    Really?! Is there really a large breastfeeding fetish crowd out there? I know there are many people with feet fetishes (to the point where men have been arrested for licking strange women's feet) so may be we should ban pictures with bare feet. We can all agree that the feet fetishes are weirdos so there is no point in keeping them around. And some people have a fetish for girls with glasses [joyofspex.com] so maybe we should exclude those types of pictures. And then there are the latex, smoking, balloon, etc fetishes. The list of things that "might stoke the desires" is as long as my uh ... It's long.

  • by synthespian (563437) on Thursday January 01, 2009 @08:16PM (#26295433)

    I didn't exactly get what yoe were trying to say but let me point of to you that it's about the baby's well-being and not about MOB control.

    You know - babies - those creatures that need feeding every so often - whenever and wherever they are. It's just Mother Nature, pal.

    And, as your doctor and the World Health Organization will tell you, bottlefeeding is not an option unless it's absolutely unavoidable.

God doesn't play dice. -- Albert Einstein

Working...