"Is it art or is it pornography?"
There are many examples in art where this is an obvious question. Artistic nudity, for example. How much is too much? Visible genitalia? Nipples? Areola? Is it the gesture? The context? What makes an image acceptable to one person but not another?
And then, there are times when this shouldn't be an issue, and yet, for some reason it is. Take this month's cover image by Sonja Steyn. Does it offend you? The act of breastfeeding one's child is federally protected in the United States and Canada (as well as many other sensible countries) from indecency laws, regardless of incidental nipple/areola exposure as a result of the child latching on/off. This is also upheld as state law across the US with new legislation being introduced across the country to uphold the protections of this act from said indecency laws. The FCC does not consider the act of breastfeeding on television to fall under the definitions of indecency or obscenity.
Yet, it is an image very much like this one that started a firestorm with the popular blogging site, Live Journal. A woman in one of the parenting groups to which I belong was cited with having a default icon which breached the site's terms of service, which originally stated that default icons not be "sexually explicit or graphically violent." Her 100 x 100 pixel icon was neither; it was simply an image of a nursing child. Of course, she fought back. Many others in our online community, myself included, contacted both Live Journal, and their parent company, Six Apart on her behalf. Mid-battle, Live Journal changed their FAQ's original wording from "sexually explicit" to "nudity." Yet, per federal law, as well as California State law (where the company in question is located) breastfeeding is not considered "nudity." A letter writing campaign ensued, with both Live Journal and Six Apart receiving well over 1000 angry emails wanting to know how the icon in question fit either version of the FAQ. We've been getting the run-around from Six Apart ever since. As recently as today, LJ users with "obscene" breastfeeding icons have been issued suspension notices, included two mothers using Old Master icons of the Blessed Mother nursing the Christ Child!
Why is this relevant to an art site like EBSQ? Because we, as an arts organization providing resources for artists to represent their own work directly to the public, have to walk the fine line between freedom of expression and having to make the hard decisions about how much is too much. People will always be offended. If not by the content itself, then by the guidelines which restrict content. And these lines are important to protect both the company and the people using the service. But EBSQ respectfully disagrees with Live Journal and Six Apart's stance on this particular issue: by either standard set forth in both recent versions of their FAQ, particularly in light of federal protections for breastfeeding from nudity/indecency laws, images of breastfeeding one's child aren't nudity. Neither do they meet the original standard of "sexually explicit" nor "graphically violent." And ultimately, breastfeeding is something which needs to again be seen as THE cultural norm, rather than something that should be hidden away in the virtual bathroom.
For more information on "Nipplegate '06" please visit ProMom.org
Amie Gillingham
executive director, EBSQ
1 June 2006
|
