4 ms·

As a man, I can't say I fully understand this. However, I do respect the feeling of wanting breastfeeding pictures up on their facebook pages. It's a beautiful

by darxius 15y ago

As a man, I can't say I fully understand this. However, I do respect the feeling of wanting breastfeeding pictures up on their facebook pages. It's a beautiful thing, and I don't see the "porn" or "obscenity" involved. I also support the freedom to protest (breastfeeding in front of facebook offices). However, I have to admit I kind of "face palmed" when I heard that that was their plan of action. Whatever, their right. And I won't be there to take it away from them. One last thought. In no way does facebook "have" to let women show pictures of them breasfeeding. I feel some people are quick to jump the gun and pull the "freedom of speech" card on websites like this. By signing up with facebook, you are joining a club and swearing that you'll follow the rules of that club. If the club decides to ban something, its their right. Just like stores can refuse to serve customers. Interesting read, thanks.

skylan_q 15y ago
- It's a beautiful thing, and I don't see the "porn"... If some people are using this as the case against these pictures, that's just plain stupid. Porn has more to do with sex and lust. Breastfeeding isn't pedophilia.
- darxius 15y ago
  I'm not sure if that's exactly the angle Facebook et al. are taking but I wouldn't be surprised if they pull that. Frankly, if you're "facebook friends" with any underage kids and you think it's irresponsible for them to see picture of you breastfeeding, either don't put them up or un-friend them.
  - skylan_q 15y ago
    Really, I'm wondering what other angle it would be. It's as insane as blocking pictures of feet because someone has a foot fetish.
hornd 15y ago
Totally agree with everything you said here. I think it's important for people to realize that facebook is completely within their rights to take down any pictures they want. There are no civil rights violations occuring when facebook chooses to take down your pictures. Personally, I don't think they should be taking down breast-feeding pictures; however, there is nothing illegal or unethical about them doing so.
- DarkShikari 15y ago
  I think it's important for people to realize that facebook is completely within their rights Yes, it's within their rights, so it may be legal, but... however, there is nothing illegal or unethical about them doing so. How does this imply that it not being unethical? There are certainly plenty of cases where something is "within your rights" and "legal", but still unethical. If I plagiarize an out-of-copyright author, what I'm doing is unethical, but it's still within my rights, as wrong as it is. Let's not perpetuate this stupid "it's legal, so it's okay" meme: not all things which are "legal" are perfectly ethical, nor are all things which are not "legal" unethical.
  - hornd 15y ago
    Right, it not being unethical is my opinion; I didn't mean to present it as an objective statement. I'm certainly open to listening to opinions that this is ethically "wrong", but as of now I don't believe it is.
Someone 15y ago
"If the club decides to ban something, its their right. Just like stores can refuse to serve customers." Not categorically. One could argue that this is sex discrimination. "mothers can come in, as long as they do not behave as mothers do". Replace "mothers" by "gays" there, and you get "don't show, don't tell"
dustingetz 15y ago
That raises an interesting question. If a business positions itself as a public service, SHOULD it retain the right to make up its terms?
- sliverstorm 15y ago
  Unless it is affiliated with the government, YES. That is all.
DanBC 15y ago
> Just like stores can refuse to serve customers. A store that refused to serve a woman because she was breastfeeding would be, in England, in some trouble. Clubs and stores can do a lot of things, but they also have to operate within the law. If the law says they're not allowed to discriminate against breast-feeding women then that's what they have to do. This weirdly ties in to all the "COMPANY will censor in certain countries because of local law"; in this situation companies will not censor in certain countries because of local laws.

by darxius 15y ago

skylan_q 15y ago

- It's a beautiful thing, and I don't see the "porn"... If some people are using this as the case against these pictures, that's just plain stupid. Porn has more to do with sex and lust. Breastfeeding isn't pedophilia.

darxius 15y ago
I'm not sure if that's exactly the angle Facebook et al. are taking but I wouldn't be surprised if they pull that. Frankly, if you're "facebook friends" with any underage kids and you think it's irresponsible for them to see picture of you breastfeeding, either don't put them up or un-friend them.
- skylan_q 15y ago
  Really, I'm wondering what other angle it would be. It's as insane as blocking pictures of feet because someone has a foot fetish.

hornd 15y ago

Totally agree with everything you said here. I think it's important for people to realize that facebook is completely within their rights to take down any pictures they want. There are no civil rights violations occuring when facebook chooses to take down your pictures. Personally, I don't think they should be taking down breast-feeding pictures; however, there is nothing illegal or unethical about them doing so.

DarkShikari 15y ago
I think it's important for people to realize that facebook is completely within their rights Yes, it's within their rights, so it may be legal, but... however, there is nothing illegal or unethical about them doing so. How does this imply that it not being unethical? There are certainly plenty of cases where something is "within your rights" and "legal", but still unethical. If I plagiarize an out-of-copyright author, what I'm doing is unethical, but it's still within my rights, as wrong as it is. Let's not perpetuate this stupid "it's legal, so it's okay" meme: not all things which are "legal" are perfectly ethical, nor are all things which are not "legal" unethical.
- hornd 15y ago
  Right, it not being unethical is my opinion; I didn't mean to present it as an objective statement. I'm certainly open to listening to opinions that this is ethically "wrong", but as of now I don't believe it is.

Someone 15y ago

"If the club decides to ban something, its their right. Just like stores can refuse to serve customers." Not categorically. One could argue that this is sex discrimination. "mothers can come in, as long as they do not behave as mothers do". Replace "mothers" by "gays" there, and you get "don't show, don't tell"

dustingetz 15y ago

That raises an interesting question. If a business positions itself as a public service, SHOULD it retain the right to make up its terms?

sliverstorm 15y ago
Unless it is affiliated with the government, YES. That is all.

DanBC 15y ago

> Just like stores can refuse to serve customers. A store that refused to serve a woman because she was breastfeeding would be, in England, in some trouble. Clubs and stores can do a lot of things, but they also have to operate within the law. If the law says they're not allowed to discriminate against breast-feeding women then that's what they have to do. This weirdly ties in to all the "COMPANY will censor in certain countries because of local law"; in this situation companies will not censor in certain countries because of local laws.