Bigots over breasts
2009-06-18 14:05
The distinction between free speech about contentious issues has always been a bit blurry to me. I believe that people shouldn't be allowed to incite violence against others, and disagree with the beliefs of at least half the people on the planet (this is something being a News24 columnist has taught me) but don't think that it's really possible to legislate what people feel or think.
Whether or not they have a right to publicly speak out about what they feel or think is the difficult issue. Anyone who has an opinion will at some point offend someone. At that point, it’s all too easy for the offended party to cry "hate speech".
Without getting too caught up in the semantics of that argument, it's been interesting to note that social networking site, Facebook, refuses to ban groups that publish offensive material. It's only at the point that the groups make a call to violence that Facebook gags them, which is in keeping with American legislation about freedom of speech.
So, as offensive as they may be, Holocaust denialists, anti-Israel activists and anti-Muslim groups have all found a home on Facebook. Tragic as this is, it does make the site all-encompassing of the society it represents.
Oddly, though, at the same time as bigots and racists are allowed to have their say, pictures of breastfeeding mothers are classified as "obscene" and their owners are forced to remove them from the site.
This sparked an outcry among breastfeeding women, who feel that nursing their children is the most natural thing in the world, and images of this shouldn't be restricted.
In response, Facebook released the following statement: "Photos containing a fully exposed breast (as defined by showing the nipple or areola) do violate those terms (on obscene, pornographic or sexually explicit material) and may be removed, spokesperson Barry Schnitt said in a statement.
"The photos we act upon are almost exclusively brought to our attention by other users who complain."
Honestly, as far as I'm concerned, so what? So what if people complain? They're sad, sorry, uptight, unnatural people who don't accept the most natural act in the world as the beautiful thing that it is.
How can Facebook classify breastfeeding as something "obscene, pornographic or sexually explicit", while still allowing bigots and racists to proliferate, even in the face of extensive petitions from other users to remove their groups.
Aside from the fact that breastfeeding is best for both the child and the mother, and that women should be supported in their choice to do the right thing, a woman holding a child to her breast has as much right to freedom of expression, if not more, than a bigot who calls for companionship in his hatred.
What's really astonishing about the Facebook ban is that while it hides behind the First Amendment in protecting freedom of speech as it is based in the United States, nowhere in that country is it illegal to breastfeed in public. So it's decision to ban breastfeeding mothers is based on its own prejudice, rather than any legal foundation.
I, who almost never join groups on Facebook, will be appending my name to the call of the "lactivists" to allow their photos to be uploaded and their freedom of expression to remain intact.
Georgina Guedes is a freelance journalist. She thinks that breastfeeding in public is far less offensive than watching children being fed McDonalds by their parents.
Send your comments to Georgina
Disclaimer: News24 encourages freedom of speech and the expression of diverse views. The views of columnists published on News24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of News24.
- News24