"Almost everyone in Lexington has heard the story of how a woman left a local restaurant in June after being asked to "cover up" while breastfeeding her baby. Kentucky law prohibits interference with a mother breastfeeding her child and says breastfeeding "shall not be considered an act of public indecency and shall not be considered indecent exposure, sexual conduct, lewd touching, or obscenity."
The recent controversy has reignited a global discussion about public accommodation, cultural norms and free speech that has tens of thousands of people focusing on a global online network with millions of members. It's also opened up a Pandora's box for large-scale networks who want to consistently apply standards of decency for online communication and activity.
On September 12, the Toronto Star published a story about Karen Speed, a breastfeeding advocate from Edmonton whose Facebook account was canceled. Facebook is an online social network utility with more than 30 million members worldwide. Speed was told that pictures on her Facebook page were "obscene" and violated the site's terms of use. Speed's group had been getting more attention, both online and off, after the controversy in Lexington. The rhetoric only escalated after the media coverage.
When contacted directly about this issue, a Facebook spokesperson provided a statement: "Facebook does allow mothers to upload and share photos of themselves breastfeeding their babies, and those photos remain available on Facebook as long as they follow the site's Terms of Use. Photos containing a fully exposed breast do violate those Terms and could be removed."
Indeed, there are several pro-breastfeeding groups on Facebook, and there are several pictures of moms breastfeeding their kids. However, the pictures that Karen Speed posts on her own Web site do not show a "fully exposed breast" that would violate Facebook's terms of service. If there's another photo that triggered the decision to ban her, Speed isn't sharing it now. In response to Facebook's decision, a protest group has organized within Facebook that counts more than 20,000 members (Full disclosure: this columnist has joined the protest group).
Sadly, other decisions by Facebook demonstrate how difficult it can be to consistently apply standards to speech. In August, the BBC reported on the growing prominence of "pro-anorexia" groups on Facebook and other social networks in which people (mostly young women) claim this medical condition is a "lifestyle choice" and exchange advice on extended "fasts" lasting several days and how drugs like cocaine and ecstasy can aid in weight loss. The Edmonton Journal reported on September 10 a review of Facebook found at least 350 "pro-ana" groups, some with more than 1,000 members.
Research conducted at the University of Missouri and published in the International Journal of Eating Disorders looked at the impact of pro-anorexia Web sites on college women. The study found that "women exposed to pro-anorexia Web sites had greater negative effect, lower social self-esteem, and lower appearance self-efficacy post-Web site than those who viewed a comparison Web site. "They concluded that pro-anorexia Web sites are "a troubling new form of thin-ideal exposure that warrants further examination."
However, when asked why Facebook was banning pictures of breastfeeding moms while allowing pro-anorexia groups, a spokesperson said, "Facebook supports the free flow of information, and groups provide a forum for discussing important issues. Many Facebook groups relate to controversial topics; this alone is not a reason to disable a group."
As of press time, Facebook has not clearly addressed the obvious disconnect spelled out here. Because Facebook has not discussed their thinking on this issue, their decisions seem arbitrary and even harmful. On the one hand, they appear to be banning speech that promotes a healthy lifestyle for both women and children. On the other, they're allowing speech that promotes starvation and drug use, mainly among young women — speech that at least some people believe violates their terms of service as "harmful" — even when that speech is brought to their attention.
Online social network utilities like Facebook can do powerful and constructive things for people. And the people who manage them are smart to err on the side of allowing speech, even if it is "controversial," while trying to establish some guidelines everyone can follow. But when those managers fail to apply even well-restrained context to their guidelines, one easily sees the harmful inconsistencies.
The best thing people can do now is follow the research on both of these issues. Dr. Leigh Ann Simmons, a Ph.D. with faculty appointments in both the department of family studies and the department of health services management at the University of Kentucky, points to research suggesting that pictures of breastfeeding moms are helpful. "Research shows the more that breastfeeding is positively portrayed, the more it normalizes the practice as a healthy developmental stage of life," she said. "These positive portrayals increase rates of breastfeeding, which is better for babies and also better for moms."
As for Facebook, Simmons doesn't think they're entirely inconsistent. "Apparently," she said, "they're consistently against eating."
David Wescott is a Lexington-based senior associate for APCO Worldwide, a global public affairs firm headquartered in Washington, D.C. He writes a blog about technology and communications issues called "It's Not a Lecture," which can be found online at http://itsnotalecture.blogspot.com
"