Yes, I see what you mean Vijay. However, when trying to provide for a ”safe” community for minors, it is imperative that these kinds of photos be removed. The photos that were removed showed too much of the woman’s breast. Although, there were still some photos that were not removed due to the fact that they didn’t show to much.

Although I am defending Facebook on this, I only do so because they are not trying to censor the public’s view but trying to keep a stable and clean community for ALL ages. Now, if they were deleting pictures because of race, gender or origin then I would be opposed to this. But the circumstances are much different in this case. I have nothing against the act of breastfeeding but when it comes to showing more than you need to, then it crosses the line in a public scene.

On the contrary, there is nothing wrong with a child or young teen seeing a photo of a woman nursing a baby. If anything, it would be good for them to see breasts in a more natural state. When the breasts are being used for their purpose (society tends to forget that breasts are for babies to feed from, not for men to ogle at) they should not be seen as inappropriate for any reason.

Which I do not disagree with. But that is not my entire argument. Not only does Facebook hold a Media’s position on how much they can show for pictures, but they outline in their terms and service that such conduct is unacceptable. Although, I do see what you mean and it makes sense, but I don’t believe Facebook’s mission is for a place for people to come and look at those things. Facebook says it welcomes such photos when they ”don’t show too much”.

This debate is going to come down to not ethics and what someone should or shouldn’t see, but what Facebook defines nudity as. In the media terms, they define it as showing the nipple is deemed nudity. But it does not matter if all but one child has seen such images in the US or the world, if 1 more child sees it then Facebook could be prosecuted. So by deeming these pictures nudity, they are covering themselves for legal prosecution and attempting the hold a ”clean” community.

”I wanted to ask you that who decides what is acceptable and ’what is too much’”. Now now, lets not go down this road. This will be a never ending argument if we begin this. However, I will say one thing. By using Facebook’s services and space you are abiding by THEIR rules and THEIR terms so THEY get to decide what is acceptable. That is the truth and there is no way around that as long as people opt to use their service.

Anant, the problem with appealing to the ”general public” is that you will see roughly 40-40 split in opinions. 40% of the people will agree where 40% will not (leaving 10 for undecided). I, for one, agree that Facebook has all the rights to deny these pictures since they clearly go against their terms of service.

These mothers, in my view, are taking this fight the wrong way and are seeing everything Facebook has said as hostile. When Facebook referred to the mother’s pictures as being ”obscene” and ”displaying nudity” they meant nothing more than the basic fact of the word and that being that they showed too much. NOT that they were obscene in a way of disgusting, gross and foul. Nothing about the natural process is of that nature. Facebook is merely backing up their obligation of keeping a clean community by removing such pictures.

Let me give you a scenario. What if someone displayed pictures of them having sex? Isn’t that on the same principal? Under the impression they were trying for a baby it is deemed a ”beautiful thing”. But isn’t this the same kind of case?

Take another case for example. What if you were renting out your basement or something of that nature and someone came in and began living there paying you rent. When they first came to you, you had them sign a contract displaying things they can and cannot do. A couple of these things was to not destroy any property and to not display pictures on the wall that suggest violence or nudity (I’m reaching here, obviously hypothetical). What if the person began displaying pictures on their wall with violence and nudity. Would you require them to take it down because it is against your rules or would you let them keep it up because the guy next door has some borderline pictures?

Folks, what I am trying to get across in this long comment is that this decision does not come down to moral or ethical decisions but down to what Facebook thinks is nudity and obscene and what isn’t. They have all rights to remove such pictures whether it is some girl doing it to be ”cute” or some girl breastfeeding her child. Either way, it is what it is and they aren’t being removed because of the context in which it is displayed. They are being removed because it is going against the policy they have had and enforced for years.

I hope I am getting across what I am meaning effectively. I do see your point Anant and Lea. However, it does not come down to context as much of it is what it is. Thanks for the replies, I appreciate everyone actually reading my stuff :).

I will keep with the story and report any major developments either as a new story or in a comment here depending on how big. Thanks again for the comments.