Facebook Says No to Nursing Mothers, Yes to Anti-Semitism

Interesting that Brian Cuban wants to ban "hate groups". As a lawyer did he not take a oath to uphold the Constitution? Wasnt it the Nazis and Communists who wanted to outlaw freedom of speech? Anyone with a few functioning brain cells should know that neo Nazis and Holocaust deniers are major buffoons. Why even pay attention to these clowns

The remedy for bad speech is more speech. Those who deny that Jews were systematically massacred in Europe in the 1930's and 1940's by the Nazis and their collaborators are, in my opinion, quite mistaken. But so are those who deny, or are even unaware of the far greater number of deaths (all combined) of Gypsies, Communists, Socialists, Trade Unionists and Slavs -- carried out by the same forces at the same time in the same area. And what about the slaughters, nay, genocides, of Aborigines and Tasmanians in Australia, and of Amerindians in the Americas -- especially in these our United States, where they were systeamtically slaughtered and starved to near extinction? Where are the Holocaust Memorials to these populations? And where do we find commemorations of the slaughter and cultural genocide of the Transatlantic Slave Trade?

This isn't strictly true - there have been racist or Anti-Semetic groups that I have found and reported that are later (usu. within a week) removed.

I just don't understand the desire to expose your lactating breasts to the world. I have no desire to expose myself to friends and family, in the name of feeding my child or otherwise, and really can't understand the stink women make over being asked to remain clothed in public forums (including facebook photos).

Yes, it's a natural function and a beautiful moment with your child. A private moment, whose photographs will bring back many happy memories. However, I do not want to see your breasts. Your brother-in-law does not want to see your breasts. Your father/brother/gf from work do not want to know what your breasts look like. It's too private and too personal and it makes viewers uncomfortable - not always b/c of anything sexual, but because it's inherently intimate. A moment no one can tap into but you. And b/c those emotions aren't available in the same way to the viewer, they're left knowing what their aunt/cousin/best friend's breasts look like when they never wanted to. It's an emotional and mental breach that some people resent.

Meg - I have to say that your post is the best stated argument against the photos of breastfeeding that I've ever heard. I breastfed 2 children, often in public. I, like most mothers, was very discreet. Most of the time people had no clue. As long as the photos on facebook are tasteful, I don't have a problem with them. I see more boob in my office where women are wearing low cut shirts with push up bras and seem not to care that all can be seen. That offends me.

I don't understand how Facebook can consider a photo of a woman breastfeeding obscene but not consider obscene the quizes on "What sexual position are you?" and "How horny are you?". I saw one just last night that had a picture of two women half dressed making out.

The greatest benefit of Facebook is that it has many groups on the site that you can join. So if you are interested in Chicago Cubs you can research Chicago Cubs in the groups section and you will be able to find friends on there that like the Cubs. This is just one example, I know that you can join groups of your favorite football team, television show, or whatever you want for the most part! If you can't find a group for your interest, you can simply create one!

James
http://EmailCharger.com

@Sally:

Where the heck do you work at and as what? Business's incorporate strict policies ( including dress codes) nowadays...it's very rare women are able to get away with that.

By this same argument, shouldn't I be allowed to post pictures of myself and my girlfriend having sex? After all, that, too, is a natural function and a beautiful, heartfelt moment between two people in love.

As far as free speech goes, the First Amendment doesn't protect speech you like; it protects speech you hate. And that is in the ear of the beholder. While I am fully convinced that the Holocaust happened, I think that if someone wants to attempt to present evidence in a scientific (or at least Socratic) manner, they should be allowed to. We put a value judgment on this particular argument, but the same could be said of dissenting views that seem not so controversial. To wit:

1. The moon landing was faked.
2. Jesus of Nazareth never existed.
3. The US government orchestrated 9/11.

All the above are viewpoints that people are allowed to express freely (and be branded a nutjob) without it being branded "hate" speech. Now it may be that a tempered hand has to be exercised to determine whether a given Facebook group is promoting hate speech, and act appropriately, but I don't think a group should be removed merely for denying that the Holocaust happened, no matter how ludicrous I think their viewpoint is.

If you'll excuse me, i must now go start a group about how the Barack Obama is the Second Coming of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.