Thursday, February 24, 2011

Is Facebook too strict with nudity?

It seems Facebook has a vendetta for some reason against the human body. Even for simple things like bare backs on a woman.

Facebook banned breastfeeding photos. They've banned breast cancer photos. They've banned many of The Terra Cotta Inn photos and we did not even show frontal nudity. Then they've banned artwork from artists and art schools. I guess Facebook figures they haven't pissed off enough people yet, now it's time to ban photos of women who try to duplicate the famous Demi Moore Vanity Fair photo pregnancy photo.

Off course facebook says it's a violation of TOS, terms of service. They don't allow nudity or "post content that: is hateful." Yet, they allow groups titled I hate Israel and I hate America to exist. Those are OK, but dare show a piece of side boob? Never.

I know facebook is scared to death of cleavage, unless it is from hot babes. They would love to have everyone wear bathing suits from the late 1880's unless you're a Victoria Secret's models showing cleavage or bare backs. Then that's OK.

SF Gate carried this story:
"Does Mark Zuckerberg have a thing against maternal women? He lets the stripper shots slide after all.

Mother-to-be Angela Hurst hired a professional photographer to take pregnancy shots. The 34-year-old who lives in England wanted a portrait of herself in that striking naked pregnancy pose that Demi Moore made so famous when she appeared on the cover of Vanity Fair in August 1991.

She loved the images so much, according to the British Sun, that she used one as her profile picture on Facebook.

Three days later, Facebook yanked the photo because its terms of use bar nudity... It was meant to be a celebration of a pregnant body and Hurst was covering all of her "bits" just as Demi Moore did in her photo.

"I had a lot of messages from people, particularly women, saying how much they loved it," Hurst told the Sun. "It was something nice to remember my pregnancy by and was not sexual -- and if Demi Moore can do it, why can't I?"

When Facebook banned some photos of mothers breastfeeding their children because it deemed the images inappropriate for showing exposed breasts, mothers were outraged. Some 200,000 people joined a group called "Hey Facebook, breast feeding is not obscene!"

On the page's wall, members point out that Facebook allows many other types of photos in which women are revealing a lot of skin. Rebecca Love writes in: "How stupid are these people?? People can post pics of women with g-string bikini's barely covering nipples & other places, but a woman showing off her baby bump is obscene?"...

And then there are all those Brits who are pointing fingers at those prudish Americans...

For the full story Click here

What was interesting is the story first broke in the Sun newspaper in London. Facebook originally blocked the link to that story. I guess they have changed their attitude as they realized the stupid PR mistake they were causing.

And it would be so easy for facebook to solve this issue. Yahoo,flickr, google, tumblr, and I'm sure many more sites have 18+ pages. Facebook has our ages. Just create an 18+ zone. And Mark, I won't even sue you like your Harvard buddies did for giving you that idea. That one's on me.

Tom Mulhall
Terra Cotta Inn Clothing Optional Resort and Spa
Palm Springs, CA
Join our facebook page at


Albert Giesbrecht said...

Facebook hates adult nudity, but if you beleive the news reports, it's awash with child pornography.

Tom Mulhall said...

Wow, I never thought of child porn. I just found this story

All the more reason to not worry about some art school, or a bare back of a woman.