Re: Titties on Facebook

At 01:46 AM Friday 12/10/2010, Jon Louis Mann wrote:
> > Yes, I am a hater of censorship. But it's not fun
> > to get _here_ and distill hate against Iran's or
> > China's censorship.
> > Alberto Monteiro
>
> > How is different than, say, guidelines that
> > discourage obscenities on a mailing list?
> > Doug
>
> > Because breastfeeding is not obscene - as those sociopaths
> > and perverts that own Facebook think, and try hard to push
> > this evil and babykilling meme into children and their
> > mothers.
> > Alberto Monteiro
>
>Alberto, are you saying it's okay to use obscenities on
>this list, rather than censor speech, no matter who may
>be offended by it?  I disagree with you that the owners
>of FB are evil perverts and baby killers because they
>choose to respect the morals of some of their users
>who are offended by breast feeding pictures.  I'm sure
>they personally don't have a moral position on breast
>feeding, but are going along with it for business reasons.
>
>I just don't understand why it is such an issue.  What is
>going on with Wikileaks is a far more important issue of
>government censorship.  The people who own FB can do whatever
>they want.  They probably figure they will gain more users
>than if they allowed rampant porn on FB.



My guess is that they are doing it because the laws in many locations 
across the U.S. at least used to (and probably still in some 
locations:  there are any number of lists, many predating the 
Internet, of outdated laws that sound ridiculous to people today but 
are still on the books) say that having any part of the [female] 
nipple or areola (or in at least one case I heard of, "any 
differently-pigmented portion of the female breast," which perhaps 
applies to women with birthmarks or perhaps even tan lines) is 
legally considered "obscene" or "public indecency" or something like 
that.  Not so much to discourage women from breastfeeding their 
infants, but to prevent them from walking around town or performing 
in various "gentlemen's clubs" topless.  And various types of "net 
nanny" software block and report any search for any string containing 
the word "breast," even though that may prevent a woman from learning 
about how to examine herself for cancer or about her options if she 
is diagnosed, primarily to keep junior-high-school-age males from 
using the computers in the school or public library to search for 
titillating images (p.i.), because whether one agrees or not, or 
whether one objects to health information being unintentionally 
censored, it is still the law in most locations that such images must 
be kept out of the possible view of minors under the age of 
18.  (Hence why "Playboy" and other such "men's magazines" are 
generally kept behind the counter, or in a separate section of the 
book/magazine store, and only available for sale to adults who ask 
for them, at least in some states/cities.)



>I found some even more perverted pictures on FB,
>but out of respect for Debbie, I won't put those up.



So you don't think any of the other women (or maybe even some men) on 
the list would be offended?  Debbie (and only Debbie) has to be protected?


. . . ronn!  :)