The Guardian is fully supportive here:
Facebook and Instagram’s parent company could soon free the nipple. More than a decade after breastfeeding mothers first held a “nurse-in” at Facebook’s headquarters to protest against its ban on breasts, Meta’s oversight board has called for an overhaul to the company’s rules banning bare-chested images of women – but not men.
In a decision dated 17 January, the oversight board – a group of academics, politicians, and journalists who advise the company on its content-moderation policies – recommended that Meta change its adult nudity and sexual activity community standard “so that it is governed by clear criteria that respect international human rights standards”.
And yet if any such post on such a service were to be called “Page 3” The G would then choke with rage.
There is, though, a stonking, to the Moon, business idea. Assume that the rules do change. Set up an account which is indeed called Page 3. That success then being near infinitely replicable, Page 3 of the 70s, Asian Page 3 and so on and on and on – Readers’ Wives Page 3 anyone? Might as well really adopt social media mores and get the audience to do most of the production work, right?
I’d argue that what they’re really saying is that the woke can flash their boobs at anyone, but if a bloke looks at them it’s visual rape.
“overhaul to the company’s rules banning bare-chested images of women – but not men.”
Where am I going to get my fix of The Hoff?
“governed by clear criteria that respect international human rights standards”.
I can hear the sound of a very large gravy train. It’s a fundamental right to whip your kit off in some countries and a whipping offence to even show a bit of ankle in others…
“governed by clear criteria that respect international human rights standards”.
Yeah right.. Just got my FB account back after being hit with the Banhammer for “Inciting violence against a religious entity.” and “inciting violence and/or threatening physical harm to a public person” and “unauthorised use of copyrighted material”. (not kidding…)
The occasion: A meme pic in a booklovers/bibliophile group concerning a japanese “decluttering” Guru taking her statement that “ideally one should keep no more than 30 books, ever.
Which, to a booklover, is sacrilege of the highest order…
My reply (and terribad offense against Nuggan): An animated gif taken from Holy Grail.. The “Burn the Witch!” scene..
With Facebook stipulating in the “Suspension of Service” that my offense had already been judged by a human member of their Inquisition, so while I was allowed to protest, it probably wouldn’t change a thing…
Now this ain’t my first rodeo with Meta, so a phonecall to a lawyer friend sorted things within a day. Still waiting for the formal apology, though. Seems they think “thank you for making our review process better.” , while quietly re-enabling my account counts as an apology.
But yes, this is how Silly things have become….
Seems stupid to argue there’s no difference between male and female bare breasts – at least in terms of legal implications. If it’s a sexist distinction, it’s only one replicating a sexist divide in many countries’ cultures and legal systems.
In particular, a pic of a bunch of fifteen year-old lads topless at the beach or in a swimming pool wouldn’t trigger any legal alarm bells. I suspect you can watch age-group swimming competitions on TV where the boys are topless (presumably someone broadcasts the Youth Olympic Games) and nobody bats an eyelid. Anyone distributing pics of topless 15 year old girls at the beach (they probably wouldn’t be allowed in a public swimming pool, which is another sign) is going to get in very hot water.
Maybe society should move on with how we perceive female breasts, or maybe we should clamp down on the bare male chest, but we are where we are. And laws on Internet providers showing pics of under-18 girls’ breasts are pretty firmly set internationally so Meta won’t be able to totally remove the “sexist” divide even if they liberalise things for adults.
Re Tim’s idea: can’t just run old page 3s due to the need for model releases. Also weren’t some page 3 models just seventeen before the required age got pushed up to 18? There are old tabloids in newspaper archives that presumably count as child porn now – wonder what effect that has for “buy a newspaper from the day you were born” type services.
Some folk went to law in New York. Tits are tits, male and female both. So, now females have the right to go topless in NY.
Well Tim, that’d be useful for an aged reactionary like me. That way I can tell who the real women are.
But there are still other legal differences particularly related to electronic transmission of images – even if a fifteen year girl can go topless around NYC, a picture of her doing so (even if she took and distributed it online herself) is going to hit legal issues that a fifteen year old lad wouldn’t.
Anon, AIUI the change to the law in 2003 created a strict liability offense of possession, but, strangely enough, no page-3 carpet underlay cases ever came to court. Even one of the cases that did, drew from the bench the dry observation that that year had not been a vintage one for parliamentary drafting.