Beware of sharing baby photos on Facebook. No pants. No diapers. No service.
That's what happened to Melanie Gillis, a professional fine art photographer who specializes in family, maternity and baby portraiture.
Melanie explains, "I have a Facebook album where I showcase my clients' photos. Prior to Mother's Day, I logged in to my account to find a warning that Facebook had removed one of my photos, and that if I continued to post such material, I would be suspended." The child in the photo is only one-and-a-half.
Fearing permanent suspension, Melanie reviewed her album to ensure there were no other baby bums or privates showing. Not good enough. "Over Mother's Day weekend, I posted a new album to celebrate the holiday and show my work. I received lots of appreciative Likes and posts from my Facebook community."
A few days later, Melanie received another warning -- this time, due to the photo of a nude 10-day-old baby whose private parts were not even showing.
Facebook suspended Melanie for 24 hours, warning her that if she posts any more photos of this nature, she could face permanent suspension.
"I haven't done anything wrong and I should be allowed to share my work. I'm also a local business relying heavily on social networks and word of mouth. Now I'm afraid to post a picture."
So who really determines the fate of Melanie's photos? Clearly not the artist. Not the community. Not even the parents themselves. But even with all of its fans, this problem is bigger than Facebook.
We're governed more and more by top-down decision making driven by the fear of prudes on the one side and perverts on the other. Should fascists and pederasts really be deciding what we consider socially acceptable? They say you can't be too careful. Really? Tell that to Melanie. You got a few people afraid of hammers and another few who may abuse them as a weapon. Shall we remove hammers all together?
After she regained access, Melanie posted to her status and explained what had happened. If you would like to see the thread of posts that followed, as well as the Mother's Day album, you can check out her page on Facebook, or check out her website.
If facebook removed the photographer in question's photos, it's because an individual who was looking at said photos reported them.
"[facebook] allow[s] pictures of crushed body parts and scantily clad teenage girls making fools of themselves"
Try reporting those pictures.
Once facebook gets a complaint on either one of them, odds are they're going down.
Constitutional rights of freedom of expression don't apply to private enterprise or their public websites. The freedoms we feel "infringed"n by Facebook and other private enterprises don't apply: Our constitutional rights are only protected against being infringed upon by government - not private enterprise.
In the Free Market, corporations don't have to respect human rights, constitutional freedoms or any law that does not directly relate to their activities.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/corporation
http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-928983-2.pdf
Phillip I. Blumberg, The Multinational Challenge to Corporation Law: The Search for a New Corporate Personality, (1993) discusses the controversial nature of additional rights being granted to corporations. See, for example, the Business Corporations Act (B.C.) [SBC 2002] CHAPTER 57, Part 10
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Manslaughter_and_Corporate_Homicide_Act_2007
Even the comments on HuffPost are moderated...which really is a polite way of saying censored.
I believe there are reasonable limits to be applied to freedom of expression - hate speech laws are a cause of mine - but I also believe that corporations should be more heavily regulated by the government - instead of regulating the government as they currently do.
However the one fact that remains true is this: If it's your website you can do what you want. If it's someone else's then you can do what they LET you. If the consumer doesn't like it, then the consumer's duty is clear: find or found a better site.