Jessica ([info]jessi5000) wrote in [info]blog_sociology,
@ 2006-05-31 17:48:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
press release
Popular Blogging Site Restricts Use of Breastfeeding Photos:
LiveJournal cites images as 'inappropriate' and sends mothers to the virtual restroom.

Wednesday, May 31st, 2006 - Women on the popular blog site LiveJournal are calling foul at the company’s decision to brand images of breastfeeding as ‘inappropriate.’ Many users of the site have joined together to urge LiveJournal’s parent company SixApart to address their concerns and reevaluate the policy.

Small "userpics" of no more than 100 by 100 pixels represent LiveJournal members throughout the site. Users can define one of these icons as "default icon" which plugs it into the user's public profile. These default icons were originally not permitted to be ‘sexually explicit or graphically violent.’ Recently, icons which depicted breastfeeding were cited as being ‘inappropriate’ by the LiveJournal abuse team, a group of volunteers who monitor complaints on the site. After clarification was requested, LiveJournal changed their FAQ to reflect a no nudity rule and is claiming that icons with visible areola or nipple are not permitted. Whether or not areola is visible in a photograph is dependent on a number of factors, including skin tone of the mother and physical changes during pregnancy.

Claimed Live Journal Abuse Staffer 'Erin' in a post on the site, "That's really a matter for the FCC to decide. LiveJournal's policies on this mirror what would be allowed on primetime TV or in a PG-13 movie." However, this is not true. The FCC does not consider the act of breastfeeding on television to fall under the definitions of indecency or obscenity.

Breastfeeding is exempt from nudity laws throughout the United States as well as countries such as Canada. Advocates are urging LiveJournal to adopt the same criteria. "It is regrettable that LiveJournal has chosen to target breastfeeding mothers instead of standing up for the protection provided them by law," says Carrie Patterson, executive director of ProMom.org, a non-profit organization dedicated to increasing public awareness and public acceptance of breastfeeding. Advocates state that the feeling that breastfeeding should be hidden only fosters the idea that the natural act of nourishing a child is scandalous.

Breastfeeding bloggers who have refused to change their default icon have been suspended from the site. These users, as well as others questioning the policy, have been treated poorly by the site’s volunteer abuse team, something that is not unusual according to other site users.

More than 1,000 LiveJournal users complained, and SixApart issued an apology to the group. However, the company refuses to consider modifying their policy and continues to suspend users whose default icons are deemed inappropriate. Although LiveJournal stated a clarified rule, mothers are still reporting major inconsistencies in its application.

The breastfeeding debacle is only the most recent in a long line of incidents that have people wondering if the abuse procedures as a whole should be reviewed for fairness and propriety. Complaints have been raised about users' privacy, inconsistent enforcement of the Terms of Service, conflicting information and responses from abuse team members, and discourteous replies to users seeking clarification on the rules.

Activists are now working together to get this policy changed and to clarify the policies and procedures of the LiveJournal abuse team. While some are refusing to continue paying for the service, others have moved to different journaling websites to protest what they feel is a violation of their rights. For more information, contact Carrie Patterson at 678-513-6329 or carrie@promom.org or visit http://www.promom.org/bf_info/mp.html.

What do you think?



(Post a new comment)


[info]bradamant
2006-05-31 09:54 pm UTC (link)
Is it just me or are there loads of people who have "dirtier" icons than that? Does it only matter if it's your "default icon"? The paintings of the Virgin Mary are particularly silly to object to.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]sea_of_tethys
2006-05-31 09:58 pm UTC (link)
Yeah, I've seen icons that were completely pornographic - this is craziness!

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]dcherrycoke, 2006-05-31 10:07 pm UTC

[info]montanajen
2006-05-31 10:19 pm UTC (link)
Yep

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]montanajen
2006-05-31 10:20 pm UTC (link)
and those that can be offensive.

really, it's not like we all have such delicate sensibilities

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]idemandjustice
2006-06-02 02:04 pm UTC (link)
It only matters if it's your default icon. You can have other icons that are pretty much as pornographic as you want, I guess as long as the places where you use them allow them.

But it does seem stupid to me that while one can breastfeed in public, livejournal won't allow it to be a default pic.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]duffey
2006-05-31 09:55 pm UTC (link)
I don't see why people want to display themselves breastfeeding in an icon but that's me. Either way it's all pretty dumb.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]alex_jon
2006-05-31 10:21 pm UTC (link)
They're trying to create an identity through their ability to accept semen like a kroger accepts bottle returns.

Masturbation icons should be LEGAL

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]jessi5000, 2006-05-31 10:27 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]alex_jon, 2006-05-31 10:32 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]jessi5000, 2006-05-31 10:36 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]alex_jon, 2006-05-31 10:38 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sea_of_tethys, 2006-05-31 10:42 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]alex_jon, 2006-05-31 10:46 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]alex_jon, 2006-05-31 10:42 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sea_of_tethys, 2006-05-31 10:43 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]alex_jon, 2006-05-31 10:49 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]meremeremere, 2006-05-31 10:52 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]alex_jon, 2006-05-31 10:53 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sea_of_tethys, 2006-05-31 11:18 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]alex_jon, 2006-05-31 11:19 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sea_of_tethys, 2006-05-31 11:23 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]alex_jon, 2006-05-31 11:24 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sea_of_tethys, 2006-05-31 11:26 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]alex_jon, 2006-05-31 11:27 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sea_of_tethys, 2006-05-31 11:30 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]indighost, 2006-05-31 11:08 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]alex_jon, 2006-05-31 11:13 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]idemandjustice, 2006-06-02 02:15 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]33mhz, 2006-05-31 10:34 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]jessi5000, 2006-05-31 10:41 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]alex_jon, 2006-05-31 10:44 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]jessi5000, 2006-05-31 10:53 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]alex_jon, 2006-05-31 10:56 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]jessi5000, 2006-05-31 11:00 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]alex_jon, 2006-05-31 11:02 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]jessi5000, 2006-05-31 11:14 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]alex_jon, 2006-05-31 11:17 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]jessi5000, 2006-05-31 11:20 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]alex_jon, 2006-05-31 11:23 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]idemandjustice, 2006-06-02 02:35 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]idemandjustice, 2006-06-02 02:34 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]glossolalia, 2006-06-02 06:47 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]alex_jon, 2006-06-02 06:49 am UTC

[info]jessi5000
2006-05-31 10:31 pm UTC (link)
It's not about promoting pictures of yourself breastfeeding. It's about wanting the liberty to have a picture of your child feeding as your icon. Culture has rendered breasts are purely for sexual entertainment, but they are inherently made for feeding babies and providing nutrition that nothing else (not even formula) can duplicate.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]alex_jon, 2006-05-31 10:37 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]jessi5000, 2006-05-31 10:45 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]alex_jon, 2006-05-31 10:48 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]pinkpolarity, 2006-06-01 11:59 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]duffey, 2006-05-31 10:54 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]alex_jon, 2006-05-31 10:56 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]duffey, 2006-05-31 10:58 pm UTC

[info]sea_of_tethys
2006-05-31 09:59 pm UTC (link)
I think this is madness. Thanks for letting us know about it, I'm off to complain to them.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]sea_of_tethys
2006-05-31 10:40 pm UTC (link)
They don't actually seem to have a complaints feature, so I had to put it in as a support request because I couldn't find any other way to contact them... I'll let you know how I get on. Bleh.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]realcdaae, 2006-05-31 10:50 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]alex_jon, 2006-05-31 10:51 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]realcdaae, 2006-05-31 10:53 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]alex_jon, 2006-05-31 10:57 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]realcdaae, 2006-05-31 10:59 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]alex_jon, 2006-05-31 11:00 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sea_of_tethys, 2006-05-31 11:15 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]alex_jon, 2006-05-31 11:17 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]realcdaae, 2006-05-31 11:52 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sea_of_tethys, 2006-05-31 11:05 pm UTC

[info]auryanne
2006-05-31 10:01 pm UTC (link)
I don't see why it's such a big deal to use something different for your default.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]jessi5000
2006-05-31 10:02 pm UTC (link)
That's not the point - it's the principle of the thing.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]auryanne, 2006-05-31 10:23 pm UTC

(Reply from suspended user)
(no subject) - [info]jessi5000, 2006-05-31 11:22 pm UTC

(Reply from suspended user)
(no subject) - [info]jessi5000, 2006-05-31 11:43 pm UTC

(Reply from suspended user)

[info]indighost
2006-05-31 10:15 pm UTC (link)
If you only have just the one icon, why should you have to upload something else?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]auryanne, 2006-05-31 10:23 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]indighost, 2006-05-31 10:25 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]goddess_in_red, 2006-05-31 10:44 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]amandavanessa, 2006-05-31 10:49 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]indighost, 2006-05-31 11:04 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]mirukux, 2006-05-31 11:24 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]indighost, 2006-05-31 11:25 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]indighost, 2006-05-31 11:11 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]lovemarigold, 2006-06-02 04:41 am UTC

(Reply from suspended user)
(no subject) - [info]indighost, 2006-05-31 11:34 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]hallwayjulie, 2006-05-31 10:26 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]duffey, 2006-05-31 10:55 pm UTC

(Reply from suspended user)
(no subject) - [info]merrybeth, 2006-06-01 05:37 am UTC

(Reply from suspended user)
(no subject) - [info]merrybeth, 2006-06-01 09:17 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]pinkpolarity, 2006-06-01 12:01 pm UTC

(Reply from suspended user)

[info]mehitabelmmoss
2006-05-31 10:03 pm UTC (link)
Seeing as non-default icons can be sexually explicit, and users can post explicit pictures.....and many default icons are pretty darn suggestive if not totally graphic - I would see a breastfeeding icon as very pleasant and peaceful.
I breastfed 2 kids. Lactating breasts are motherly, not sexy. And I generally felt comfortable breastfeeding in public.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]squid_ink
2006-05-31 10:14 pm UTC (link)
And I generally felt comfortable breastfeeding in public.

I think the problem is OTHER people may not be comfortable with seeing it.. I tend to agree with the below comment, SixApart probably saw something libelous or was threatened legally and just rolled over.

(personally I could care less one way or another, but I'm really not crazy about any sort of censorship.)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]jessi5000, 2006-05-31 10:29 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]squid_ink, 2006-05-31 10:33 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]mehitabelmmoss, 2006-05-31 10:30 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]squid_ink, 2006-05-31 10:35 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]montanajen, 2006-05-31 10:24 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]alex_jon, 2006-05-31 10:58 pm UTC

(Deleted post)

[info]amandavanessa
2006-05-31 10:51 pm UTC (link)
But breastfeeding isn't illegal, or immoral, or offensive, and almost every state protects mother's right's to breastfeed in public anywhere the mother is allowed to be. So...what are they protecting themselves from?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(Deleted post)
(no subject) - [info]jessi5000, 2006-05-31 10:56 pm UTC

(Deleted post)
(no subject) - [info]jessi5000, 2006-05-31 11:03 pm UTC

(Deleted post)
(no subject) - [info]jessi5000, 2006-05-31 11:14 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]realcdaae, 2006-05-31 10:58 pm UTC

(Deleted post)
(no subject) - [info]realcdaae, 2006-05-31 11:04 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]amandavanessa, 2006-06-01 02:10 am UTC

(Deleted post)
(no subject) - [info]amandavanessa, 2006-06-01 02:37 am UTC

(Deleted post)
(no subject) - [info]amandavanessa, 2006-06-01 03:21 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]amandavanessa, 2006-06-01 03:30 am UTC

(Deleted post)
(no subject) - [info]jessi5000, 2006-06-01 03:53 am UTC

(Reply from suspended user)

(Deleted post)

(Reply from suspended user)

(Deleted post)

(Reply from suspended user)

(Reply from suspended user)
(no subject) - [info]realcdaae, 2006-05-31 10:53 pm UTC

[info]33mhz
2006-05-31 10:29 pm UTC (link)
Livejournal: Serious fucking business.

(Reply to this)


[info]extraneousrooot
2006-05-31 10:33 pm UTC (link)
Cumshots are okay but nursing isn't. Nice.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

(Reply from suspended user)

[info]gomezticator
2006-05-31 10:35 pm UTC (link)
Like others, I'm at a loss as to why naked and porn icons are Ok but breastfeeding is not. Are you sure this is a legit press release?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]jessi5000
2006-05-31 10:39 pm UTC (link)
yup - I know people who've gotten in trouble for having a breastfeeding picture as their default icon.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

some of the icons which have resulted in bans - [info]jessi5000, 2006-05-31 10:40 pm UTC
Re: some of the icons which have resulted in bans - [info]sea_of_tethys, 2006-05-31 10:44 pm UTC
Re: some of the icons which have resulted in bans - [info]realcdaae, 2006-05-31 10:52 pm UTC
Re: some of the icons which have resulted in bans - [info]alex_jon, 2006-05-31 11:29 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]lizblackdog, 2006-05-31 11:07 pm UTC

[info]realcdaae
2006-05-31 10:56 pm UTC (link)
Also worth reading... http://ljabuse.blogspot.com/2006/05/livejournal-and-customer-relations.html

(Reply to this)


[info]realcdaae
2006-05-31 11:53 pm UTC (link)
Oh, forgot to add, there's also a petition about LJ abuse in general, and Six Apart's (lack of) customer service.

http://www.petitiononline.com/ljabuse/petition.html

A few of the comments on it:

Beverley Andrews: I wish to lend support to this petition. LJ Abuse needs to be staffed by individuals who are able to think rationally and put aside their own personal feeling towards members. Rules/guidelines need to be clearly laid out and the owners of LJ should make sure that not only the users stick to the rules, but also that the abuse team stick to the rules, not changing them in order to save face or validate an earlier banning. This issue runs deeper than breastfeeding pictures. I could not care less about pictures of nipples, but I DO care about being governed by a corrupt and inconsistent body of people who refuse to even discuss the reasons for their decisions.

Robert Dalton: Highly unprofessional for 6A to neglect concerns of customers. Abuse team on LJ needs fresh start with competent management. Privacy concerns MUST be addressed!

Melissa Aldinger: Numerous complaints of violation of privacy, harassment, copyright infringement and inappropriate content have been ignored and brushed off though they clearing violated LJ's TOS. I am disgusted with the way the issue was handled.

Rob Bennett: I am an longtime paid LJ user with no past run-ins, or friends who have had run-ins, with LJA. However, as an observer of LJ culture it has been patently apparent to me that a reform and EXTENSIVE personnel shakeup for the LJA team has been in order for at least the last two years.

(Reply to this)


[info]brokenbubble
2006-06-01 12:04 am UTC (link)
I still don't get why people think breastfeeding should be exempt from nudity laws in the first place.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]jessi5000
2006-06-01 12:13 am UTC (link)
For one thing, breastfeeding doesn't neccessitate a topless woman or anything like that. Sometimes, a woman is feeding her child under her shirt or a blanket and it may slip. It doesn't make sense to prosecute someone for that, just as we wouldn't prosecute a woman who accidentally tucks her skirt into her hose. The minimal nudity exhibited isn't for sexual purposes, and in fact the breasts are serving a utilitarian purpose. Walking around naked, on the other hand, doesn't accomplish anything.

But more importantly, breastfeeding is FEEDING A CHILD. If that isn't allowed in public, women will effectively be imprisoned in their homes, if they choose to breastfeed - which has long been proven to be the best method of feeding an infant.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]brokenbubble, 2006-06-01 12:16 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]realcdaae, 2006-06-01 12:19 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]brokenbubble, 2006-06-01 12:25 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]realcdaae, 2006-06-01 12:42 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]brokenbubble, 2006-06-01 12:48 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]sly_soprano, 2006-06-01 01:34 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]brokenbubble, 2006-06-01 01:43 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]sly_soprano, 2006-06-01 01:44 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]jessi5000, 2006-06-01 12:23 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]brokenbubble, 2006-06-01 12:30 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]jessi5000, 2006-06-01 12:35 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]brokenbubble, 2006-06-01 12:38 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]realcdaae, 2006-06-01 12:44 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]jessi5000, 2006-06-01 12:45 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]brokenbubble, 2006-06-01 12:48 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]sly_soprano, 2006-06-01 01:33 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]brokenbubble, 2006-06-01 01:42 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]sly_soprano, 2006-06-01 01:44 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]brokenbubble, 2006-06-01 01:49 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]sly_soprano, 2006-06-01 01:55 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]brokenbubble, 2006-06-01 02:00 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]sly_soprano, 2006-06-01 02:07 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]brokenbubble, 2006-06-01 02:09 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]sly_soprano, 2006-06-01 02:12 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]jessi5000, 2006-06-01 01:51 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]sly_soprano, 2006-06-01 01:56 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]brokenbubble, 2006-06-01 02:02 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]lovemarigold, 2006-06-02 04:50 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]sly_soprano, 2006-06-01 01:36 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]sly_soprano, 2006-06-01 01:32 am UTC

[info]mehitabelmmoss
2006-06-01 02:02 am UTC (link)
THose of you who think seeing breasts as indecent better keep away from pools and beaches. A lot of male breasts to be seen openly.

(Reply to this)


[info]merrybeth
2006-06-01 05:52 am UTC (link)
Never really though of lj as porn free. There are heaps of worse icons than these. And journals. And entire communities.

Is it the baby that is offensive? Because that is the only difference I can see between these icons and many others that are still around.

(Reply to this)


[info]arcanum_dogma
2006-06-01 05:47 pm UTC (link)
when one rents a dwelling, there's usually a lease that specifies what one can or cannot do. my lease forbids the practice of musical instruments and vocal practice. both my wife and i are musicians (formerly professional in my case, presently pro in hers), asking us to "not practice our art" is very similiar to this issue. i use mutes and other means to keep the volume at an inaudible level. my wife is a soprano, she violates the lease during the day with tacit agreement from the affected tenants and the management office. however, the telly and stereo are allowed — yup, it's inconsistent.

however, it is the "law."

i illustrate the above because my method is akin to keeping the "offensive" icon off of the default thus making it a conscious act to use it (my offensive icon is erotic without a doubt). my wife's method allows for our landlord to evict us if they so choose. however, we knew that coming into it and did not have to take the apartment if the rule was viewed as a violation of our rights (legally, it is not). the same is true in this situation. the rules are publically available; if you don't agree with them the don't use the application. it is not a question of free speech or rights in any manner. we, the users, have agreed to abide by certain rules in order to post. is it possible that rules are a little silly? sure, i think this one is really silly. however, i agreed to abide by it.

six apart, et al, have not violated my freedom of speech. they have requested that i stay within "house rules" while posting content. their rules are fairly easy, much easier to abide by than those that govern the institutions in which i teach. i don't much agree with the rules (i tend to use profanity as if it were punctuation) but i follow and enforce them as i am not the owner of the college.

the latter is the telling point. we do not own either the application or the servers that host this application, we rent. ownership gives one the right to determine how a product is used.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Not quite correct.
[info]siderea
2006-06-02 01:03 am UTC (link)
(1) False analogy. Far more apropos would be if you had been living your your aparment for years, allowed to practice, even giving lessons in your home, and then suddenly one year, you were told that there was a change to the lease forbidding playing, and if you didn't like it, you could find a new place to live.

Or, for another analogy, its as if you signed up for a credit card at a fixed rate of interest, and then they unilaterally changed it to variable interest. I had a credit card company do that, and claim they were within their rights to make such unilateral changes. A court of law disagreed and found them liable in a class action lawsuit.

LJ changed the rules. It's a valid question whether they had a right to do that.

(2) False analogy, because there's a legal difference between banning a form of expression (making music) and banning a particular content (the depicting of breasts). What they did was far more analogous to banning only jazz singing, or only political songs, or only lewd cantus firmi. Banning on the basis of just what content something carries is a much dodgier proposition.

I'm actually surprized that 6A's lawyers are letting them do it, because it opens up certain interesting legal liabilities. Other sites have taken the position in court that "we do not filter, therefore we cannot be legally responsible for any illegal material our users post". This invokes "common carrier status", which is why the phone company can't be sued if you slander someone over the phone. It's the legal idea "we carry all messages without examining them, so we can't be responsible for their content."

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(Reply from suspended user)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…