Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Jim Harris

GET UPDATES FROM Jim Harris
 

The Sexy Photo Facebook Doesn't Want You to See

Posted: 02/ 2/2012 4:26 pm

Recently I posted a sublime, cheeky photo on Facebook. The reaction from my friends was swift: Everyone loved it! Within just a couple of hours it had been liked by more than 100 people and shared by 50. It was very quickly going viral and from past experience, I know that within three days it would have been liked and shared by more than 1,000 people.

The photo was taken at the Louvre in Paris. Four women with their backs to the camera are standing in front of Henri Regnault's "Three Graces" -- a painting which features three nude women. In the art gallery three of the four women have stripped off their clothes to the point where their bottoms are showing. It's very tasteful, and very funny. People described it as delicious, delightful, hilarious. Friends in the art community all across Canada loved it. Reaction from francophone friends was overwhelming -- the French, of course, have such a strong joie de vivre and appreciation of the finer things in life.

You can imagine my surprise when I logged onto Facebook the next morning and found the picture (I'm including a second and different URL in case the first gets censored for any reason) had been removed due to its violating community standards. Whose community? Whose standards?

My community of friends on Facebook loved this pic. It got incredibly positive feedback. And the comments were funny: "If a picture is worth a thousand words, this one is worth two!" "Where was the security guard?" "Beautiful art mixed with realism!"

During the week that Facebook is launching its IPO -- this is all the more disturbing. Where will Facebook draw the line on standards? Is Michelangelo's "David" obscene? Will a photo of David be arbitrarily removed from Facebook? In the past I have posted an image of David and it wasn't censored. Now that I have drawn attention to it, will I log on tomorrow to find it mysteriously gone?

In reacting to Facebook's censorship, friends have said: "That was a harmless picture by my standards;" this smacks of "right wing morality;" "unbelievable;" it was a "harmless picture;" "what's the big deal?;" "would it have been removed if it was just the painting?"

This last point is interesting, because two of the maidens in the painting have their bottoms showing, but one is facing forward so it involves frontal nudity. By this standard, the maidens in the photo looking at the painting are more modest.

And let's face it, the average Calvin Klein ad is far more sexual and provocative. And these days, PG movies include nudity. One distinction made in film classifications is if nudity is sexual in nature or not. Clearly in the image, the nudity wasn't sexual.

Facebook as far as I can determine, provides no mechanism for appeal. The only procedure I can find is for appealing claims of copyright infringement.

From my understanding, Facebook's procedure is driven by complaints. That makes sense because with more than 250 million photos uploaded every day (as of August 26, 2011), so it's too overwhelming for Facebook to police it.

So somewhere someone complained. It may not have even been one of my friends, it may have been someone who shared the photo and one of their friends complained. We will never know. And that's just the point. How can some anonymous individual trump a community that finds something funny, delightful, enjoyable? And what is the level of complaints that triggers censorship? A single individual? A tiny percentage?

Since thie incident, I have looked into Facebook's policies, which state that users will not post content that "contains nudity" but the policy is clearly complaint driven for compliance. And what's the difference between a painting that is art and a photo that is art?

So what's the solution? Facebook should give the user the right to choose. It should warn me that "an individual or individuals has/have found this picture offensive" -- and then give me the option to either delete the photo, or unfriend whoever complained. I know that if I were given this choice I would have chosen to unfriend those who complained, then everyone would be happy.

On Facebook I have seen far more provocative pictures -- and those who post them I simply unfriend. I have unfriended individuals on Facebook whose opinions were racist, sexist, and violated my personal standards of decorum in the past.

And so dear reader, I look forward to your thoughts on this. I would very much welcome your comments and will be happy to respond!


 
 
 

Follow Jim Harris on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@JimHarris

Recently I posted a sublime, cheeky photo on Facebook. The reaction from my friends was swift: Everyone loved it! Within just a couple of hours it had been liked by more than 100 people and shared by ...
Recently I posted a sublime, cheeky photo on Facebook. The reaction from my friends was swift: Everyone loved it! Within just a couple of hours it had been liked by more than 100 people and shared by ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 31
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
07:14 AM on 03/09/2012
Well Jim, you've been ban from another site. Your picture have been erased on your latest link on Huff P :-)
10:47 AM on 02/13/2012
I'm going to post this picture on my FB account tonight,Sure i'm not the first to think of this.I think everybody should do the same
07:24 AM on 02/13/2012
Hypocrisy is an overriding feature of American culture and American politics in particular. On the one hand, the US purports to be an open and democratic country, emulated around the globe for its freedom of choice and individual liberties. On the other hand, there exists a fundamentalist religious fervour quite evident in the current primaries leading up to the Republican nomination. A previous comment referred to "bible belt standards" being dictated to the rest of the world. You can't have it both ways.

RMontpellier
BoomerWarrior
photo
Leslie James Dalzell
One day at a time
01:04 PM on 02/09/2012
We must protect THE CHILDREN!;(
03:54 AM on 02/09/2012
You mention Michelangelo's David. Censorship is wide spread in US based sites. They basically dictate bible-belt "community standards" to the rest of the world. I once had a painting of mine removed from photobucket (of all places) depicting 4 images of David in a landscape. In October 2008 I already blogged about this after reading some plain dumb TOS on another US based site: http://artofthemystic.blogspot.com/2008/10/vatican-plea-to-uncover-virgin-mary-and.html
02:48 AM on 02/09/2012
Without the facebook censorship I would never have seen this picture. This is a further evidence of the "Streisand effect"
08:47 PM on 02/08/2012
Hi everyone,

I just saw this article by Mary Elizabeth Williams on Salon.com. It seemed appropriate to the conversation here.

http://www.salon.com/2012/02/08/facebooks_hypocritcal_breastfeeding_controversy/

[Now if I could just get HuffPo to stop using the Frog as my profile pic, everything would be perfect!]
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jacker222
03:39 PM on 02/08/2012
It's an interesting point...is Facebook "public"? It's run by a private, for-profit, entity. Do we, as the users, have any right to complain about Facebook's policies at all?
08:47 PM on 02/29/2012
No, we can use Facebook or not. That is our choice. If we choose to use it, and want to complain or rebel or protest against it, we play little games to get away with posting stuff that might cross a line or two. We're cattle all bumping into each other. Should we do this, or not. Where do we go? Who do we follow?
Faecesbook has power of easy access. You can message anyone you know anytime you like from wherever in the world you want to. (As long as you don't mention the words "Holy", "Shit", and "Pope" in the same sentence when you're posting from Rome... a friend of mine learned that first-hand. They blocked her until they figured out whether she had violated any of the Facebook commandments or not... She was kept in a Facebook holding cell while she awaited her verdict.)

People love easy, and that's what fb provides.
There is one thing the robot hates, though. And that is human nudity. It abhores the flesh of the humans. It can tollerate faces (that's a given) and maybe a hand, or an ankle... Never any of our filthy private parts. The robot has not yet learned the art of such seductive and archaic advertisement (legally), and so it censors every little exposition of flesh that it can. Facebook is Bollywood's answer to the internet. Lots of dancing, and silly faces. But beyond that is FORBIDDEN!
10:39 PM on 02/05/2012
I'd certainly agree the picture is funny, but there are plenty of private channels other than Facebook for sharing the photo, and the Internet never waits until the kiddies are in bed.
03:29 PM on 02/08/2012
Well, I grew up in a time and in a place where nudism was in fashion (70s) and many people around me did it, and I can assure you that after seeing so many naked bodies on the beach I am perfectly balanced sexually and emotionally. So, I wonder, what is the problem if kids see a non-sexual nude? Should I keep mine from seeing David's sculpture?
04:48 PM on 02/08/2012
technically, "kiddies" are not supposed to have facebook profiles, maybe facebook should address this problem, and set up security measures for the children whose parents let them have facebook profiles; since the world's future belongs to our children it is not fair to block children, but their needs to be some kind of settings in place where adults who friend children need to know them personally to be able to message or friend request them.
03:24 PM on 02/05/2012
I honestly thing the photo's funny. I'd like to know the story behind it. (no pun intended).

Maybe it was censored for actual butts on display...Who has gone to the beach? I mean there's more shown than in the photo. I am a 20-something and I've seen worse party photos.
08:43 AM on 02/09/2012
As you wish to know the story behind this picture, as i m kind and as i know the story, I will tell you:

2 years ago, "Le Louvre" ( famous museum in Paris, France ) and "L'école international de théâtre Jacques Lecoq" ( famous theater's school in Paris, France ) organized a litlle performance for the visitors where the students should create some litlle shows around the sculptures and pictures. So, the students take this picture the night during there rehearsals.
11:14 AM on 02/22/2012
Ah ok. So it was essentially performance art...LOL. That just makes it funnier.

I know some galleries that had actual full on nude models and projected images of classical art on them. It was apparently a major draw and a hit.
02:14 PM on 02/05/2012
There are two methods of censorship encroaching on us. The one enforced through laws and another enforced by narrow minded users with agendas. The sheer mass of participation in social media and even commentary sections like this has created the need for self moderation. This can often be used as censorship by the users themselves. There are actually people paid to distort social media by interaction. Of course there are vigilante style groups doing it too. An innocuous looking method for self regulation can often be twisted into censorship by those with sufficient zeal or actual financial backing.
06:01 AM on 02/05/2012
So, they deleted your picture. Ummmm - - -wish they deleted mine received yesterday - a naked man having sex with a donkey, apparently in Denmark Bestiality Holiday Farm - -HUH
05:59 AM on 02/05/2012
So . .. They deleted your picture? I wish they would delete the beautiful photo I received yesterday of a naked man having sex with a donkey in Denmark Bestiality Farm Holidays.
12:20 AM on 02/05/2012
Odd the Facebook will censor this obvious bit of cheeky humor but ignore Facebook user's photo collections that are barely not nude and can be only interpreted as overtly sexual and often under-aged.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:03 AM on 02/05/2012
"Facebook should give the user the right to choose."

Any user who objects to Facebook censorship should exercise their very important right to stop using Facebook.