Blogs Wed Mar 6, 2013 - 11:31 am EST
On Facebook, full-frontal female nudity is ok (if it’s pro-choice)
Yesterday, we reported on the protest happening Thursday featuring billboard-sized photos of women’s genitalia on the campus of the University of Cincinnati.
Interestingly, the pro-abortion groups behind the display have set up a Facebook “event” page to coordinate the effort. The page prominently features a photo of the lower half of a woman’s body, completely nude, the private parts prominently on display.
Yesterday I reported this page to Facebook, reasoning that full-frontal female nudity was clearly a violation of their “community standards” policy. After all, an event page is a completely public page that anybody can access.
But as of today the photo remains prominently featured on the event page. I see from our comments section that other pro-lifers have also reported the page, evidently to no avail.
While it is true that the photo is not particularly sexual, it is certainly pornographic in the sense of being obscene, and there are very few parents who would want their children looking at graphic photos of women’s genitals.
This is a far cry from the debate about whether Facebook should allow tasteful images of women who are breastfeeding (which they have rightly decided to allow). The photo in question serves one purpose, and one purpose only: to depict genitals (and thereby to shock).
Click "like" if you want to end abortion!
The persistence of the photo raises rather important questions about a double standard when it comes to how Facebook enforces their community standards policy.
On Facebook any post of a graphic image of abortion is subject to rapid censure. Even being a celebrity is no guarantee of immunity. Earlier this year, Saturday Night Live star Victoria Jackson was banned from Facebook for 24 hours for posting a photo of an aborted baby.
At the same time, the social networking site famously removed, and then restored and apologized for removing a leading abortion activist’s post giving detailed Do It Yourself instructions for performing an illegal self-abortion!
And now, it seems, pro-aborts can get away with posting graphic nudity. All, I suppose, because it’s in the name of the “cause.”
The irony, of course, is that a graphic photo of an aborted baby actually educates people on the reality of a very important social justice issue. It serves a discernible purpose. Many people have no idea what an abortion actually looks like. A photo opens their eyes to the truth and provokes meaningful debate based upon critical facts that were previously missing from the debate.
But how, exactly, does a crass photo of a naked woman educate or create meaningful debate? It doesn’t. It merely shocks and provokes. It is a marketing ploy, no more, and an offensive one at that. This kind of nudity has no place on a public social networking site.