Happy Sunday, Destroyers, Last week, a beautiful bouncing baby boy was born at Taronga Zoo. Photos of him and his mum were flashed around the world – including this story and pictures from the Daily Mail showing the baby breastfeeding, with the same pics also freely posted on their Facebook page: dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2815233/Kisses-cuddles-beautiful-baby-Watch-proud-mother-gorilla-bond-tiny-new-arrival.html https://facebook/DailyMail/posts/806924152700668 However, in the very same week, this happened (again): “A picture showing a new mother breastfeeding her premature baby for the first time was removed by Facebook after a user complained it contained ‘offensive’ nudity. Emma Bond, 24, said she wanted to share the image of the ‘special moment’ with Carene, who was born 12 weeks early. Miss Bond had been told her daughter was unlikely to survive more than three days when she was born prematurely on October 3 weighing just 2lbs 2oz.†telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-health/11195373/Facebook-removes-mothers-breastfeeding-photo.html Facebook reinstated Emma Bond’s pic, but declared that while photos of breastfeeding women are permitted, nipples must not be on show. There does still seem to be much confusion about what’s allowed, though, and it seems impossible to keep - ahem - abreast of what the guidelines are: dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2814355/As-Facebook-reinstates-banned-breastfeeding-photograph-FEMAIL-asks-one-rule-celebrity-mothers-normal-women.html?ito=social-facebook Destroyers – both Emma Bond’s pic and the adorable photos from Taronga Zoo show female mammalian nipples. Yet one is considered offensive by Facebook, and the other isnt. Is there a difference? Should Facebook see breastfeeding pics – whatever the species – as normal, natural and beautiful, or are they right to ban photos showing human nipples?
Posted on: Sun, 02 Nov 2014 00:02:20 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015