Source: drmomma.org
A picture of a nude captured African woman being trophied around by a white man has been deemed too explicit for Facebook.
NO one knows for sure the identity of the people in the photo, the origins of the photo or if it is even real. However it has spread through the newsfeeds of many black users of the social networking site for the last week – that was until Facebook abruptly took it down. I first saw the photo earlier this week when fellow Facebook friend, local attorney and activist Michael Coard shared the photo from one of his friends. The image is both striking and haunting, offering up all sorts of commentary about the objectification of black women, our bodies both past and present. And according to Philadelphia Magazine, which first picked up the story, before the image was removed the photo generated dozens of comments and shares.
The author of the Philly Magazine piece contacted Facebook, which responded back to the request by saying, “The company does not “make any exemptions for nudity due to an image’s documentary context.” The statement went on to explain Facebook’s official terms.
“You will not post content that: is hateful, threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence.” But Facebook’s own Community Standards page makes it clear that there are, in fact, some exceptions to its nudity rule, such as a photo of “a sculpture like Michelangelo’s David or family photos of a child breastfeeding.”
Coard believes that Facebook’s Community Standards policies might be a bit racially insensitive and verging on censorship. However, in the same week that Facebook went public, the company banned the photos of one grieving mother’s deceased infant son, who was born with a rare disorder, Anencephaly, which prevents the brain from developing. Likewise, the site social networking site banned several photographs of a woman showing the scars from her triumphant defeat of breast cancer for being ‘pornography’. And most recently, about 60 protestors gathered at Facebook headquarters in Menlo Park, Calif. and staged a nurse-in to rally against the widespread censorship of photos showing mother’s nursing.
So while the removal of the picture of the nude African woman might have some racial components to it, I think what is much more prevalent is how easily Facebook can deem any part of the female form (including childbirth, which is usually associated with womanhood) pornographic, regardless of the context. The same site, which allowed “pro-rape” joke groups to remain active for several months (and only be removed after intense public pressure), now has a no-tolerance policy to breastfeeding moms and historical images of nude African women as captives. All of this makes it appear that Facebook not only hasn’t figured out how to differentiate between pornographic and healthy exploration of the female form but how inadequate it has been in taking their own rules regarding violent statements and possible criminal behavior against women seriously.
For a social networking site built on the concept that it’s users live to be an open book for the world to view and share alike, Facebook certainly appears repressive when it comes to certain aspects of a person’s life, particularly those involving the fairer sex. So what do you all think? Is Facebook Community Standards policy justified in the removal of pictures they deem offensive such as women breastfeeding or nude African female captives? Or does the social networking site have issues with women?
