I said to Patrick, "Anyone who can get off on medieval representations of the BVM nursing Jesus --"

"--Is a lot more Catholic than I am," said Patrick.

Which was good enough that I gave up on whatever it was that I was going to say, and now can't remember.

Agreed, almost entirely.

I have qualms about the comment that breastfeeding is the "only way" to properly feed an infant. I have an 8 month old daughter who is breastfed and is thriving. I have friends who can't and/or choose not to breastfeed. Their children are also thriving.

Treating breastfeeding and images of breastfeeding as an obscenity is stupid and wrong and I hate it. But I'm equally annoyed by the notion that part of the defense of breast-feeding is insisting that children who are fed on formula aren't properly cared for. There's really quite enough pressure on new mothers as it is.

Point taken, Sarah S.

Are you sure this is still a live issue? I thought that LJ had apologized, agreed that breastfeeding pics were OK, and promised to make sure everyone who worked there knew that:

http://community.livejournal.com/boob_nazis/1763041.html

Sigh... First, John Ashcroft gets all a-twitter over the bare bronze breast of Lady Justice, now this...

Cory, as far as I can see, that official statement from LJ doesn't say much more than "we're not against breastfeeding" and "trust us, we're good guys."

The fact that the ensuing comment thread is full of comments that are now unreadable because they're from suspended users suggests very strongly that people are still getting suspended over this.

Question... If my default icon showed a flesh-eating zombie, would they object? Probably not. Much as I love America, it has a weird sense of values. I remember when I was still reading Cinefantastique, there was an issue where they put little black boxes over a woman's nipples, but had no problems showing disembowelled females. They got a lot of derisive letters over that, and mine asked what they'd do if they had to print a photo of an exploded breast.

Patrick and Teresa, thank you so much for getting involved with this. I've posted about it several times and have read an enormous amount of abuse directed at breastfeeding moms. I'll be taking part in the strike, too.

Here's a link to a press release about the issue.

And Cory, no, it isn't fixed. Six Apart altered their FAQ--this is the original--to claim "nudity" wasn't allowed, and in their letters to breastfeeding moms, LJ Abuse is noting that any breastfeeding images where areola shows around the baby's mouth or against the surrounding skin are inappropriate. In addition to being specifically contrary to many laws protecting breastfeeding, which note that nursing is not indecent even if the areola shows during or incidental to breastfeeding, it will lead to discrimination based on skin color.

No, LJ didn't back down, and lots of people who've complained have basically got answers that said, roughly, "we love breastfeeding, oh, yes! We don't have anything against breastfeeding mums. But we have to protect against the risk that your icon might be seen unsolicited or by a child. So, tough." If you believe that it could be inappropriate for children or the unexpecting to even see pictures of breastfeeding, then what does that imply for breastfeeding acceptance?

And Sarah S, while I accept that new mothers have a load of guilt put on them, babies are not well-served by the notion that breastfeeding and bottlefeeding are equally good choices. Of course it's a modern technical marvel that children do thrive on artificial baby milks. But cow/soya milk fed babies do less well than breastfed, on average, across a whole range of indicators and well into their later life. And the idea that the artificial milks are 'good enough' or 'almost as good' discourages women from trying breastfeeding, and discourages healthcare providers from providing adequate breastfeeding support to new mothers.

This objection doesn't apply, of course, to the women who choose to bottlefeed using breast milk. It just seems to me like rather a lot of hard work compared to breastfeeding.

Sarah S, yes, the benefits of breastfeeding are significant enough to both mother and baby to justify ardent support of the practice (click link at bottom of that page for an extensive list of references).

I have and would never bug an individual woman about her choice, because of the point you make about there being enough pressure already. But sometimes I have had to bite my tongue to be that nice, because formula is not just as good. The only thing it has that breastfeeding doesn't, is a bigger (huge) advertising budget.

I strongly, strongly suggest that this thread avoid discussions of the merits of breast vs. bottle. I've seen that degenerate into massive flame wars before. It's a highly emotional issue even for people who have done both breast and bottle feeding. Too many women feel that their worth as mothers is tied to their ability to breastfeed (or lack of ability to breastfeed) their children and too many women get too damn competitive about breastfeeding (and many other mommy issues).

And that's not what this thread is about.

Melissa--

You're quite right. I'm sorry to have been the one who seems to have started that.

I don't particularly care one way or another, though I do think it's interesting that we're heading to a mommy war ten comments in. Sadly, this is to be expected; I have never heard two people who feed their babies differently acknowledge that fact without one.

I think it's a silly rule, but the idea that nipples are pornography unless there's a baby to show that you're using them the natural way-- nope, just as silly. I can sort of see what they're trying to do and why. I can see why people are upset on all sides. Livejournal seems to have figured out its members-- upset them, wait a week for it to spread everywhere, often in a much more objectionable form, apologize and explain changes, and then most of the typing legion will be tired of it, even if things are just the same as they complained about earlier.

I completely agree with Melissa Singer's comment and I urge everyone to read it again if they missed it. As she says, that's not the argument this is all about.

People getting their knickers (or nursing bras) in a twist are ignoring that this applies only to DEFAULT icons -- the icons that show up if you don't select otherwise. Even free users can have and use five other icons, which can show as much nipple as they want.

Honestly, I think it's LJ's right to say whatever they want about default icons, and I understand why they don't want to get into case-by-case debates over icons. Making a rule (no nipple, period) and sticking to it is easier. I think it's slightly pointless, given the five-other-icons factor, but I'm having a hard time seeing this as a big deal or a blow in the mommywars.

If breast-feeding had as big an advertising budget as formula, the politicians would probably class it as pornography.

[Assume giant bold, blinking, horizontally scrolling text for the next paragraph]

"Think of the Children!!!"

[Back to normal]

Now, I'm not sure that pornography is entirely a good thing, and it certainly isn't gender-neutral. I think a big factor in that is that pornography, expecially still pictures, is very short on context. You can't tell what the why is, and from the pictures alone it's sometimes hard to tell if the woman is having fun.[1]

And that's a lot like this LJ business--a rule against nudity that completely misses a vital chunk of context.

And LJ Icons are pretty small pictures anyway. The best I can say about LJ admin is that they're running scared from some pretty sick lawyers.

[1] Just to be clear, I can accept that a lot of strange stuff is fun for the participants. But it's a bit like some things not being Kosher[2] because they look enough like a breah of the rules to mislead people about what's OK.

[2]Well, that's the Jewish minutiae. Only cats and chocolate left to cover.

"that's not the argument this is all about" is an awfully slippery slope. As a result I'm torn between disgust at the Oklahoman sensibilities of the LiveJournal management (the state defines as "harmful to minors" any non-special-case image where the breast is not "completely and opaquely covered") and anger at the gratuitous bashing of tens of millions of women whose circumstances the basher knows nothing about. Result: apathy, which is unfortunate, because LiveJournal is pretty clearly wrong and stupid here.

Grr, it's the thin end of the "All flesh is pornographic" wedge.

Talking of flesh, I wonder whether the footage of me in my undies has been braodcast in the UK yet... (checks bravo tv website...)... apparently not.

I mean, I show nipples, so according to LJ, it must be pron, right?

I have to say that I agree with Elisabeth. Then again, I never had a particular political or cultural commitment toward breastfeeding, during the times that I was doing it; I was just too cheap to buy formula and too lazy to bother with sterilizing bottles in the middle of the night.

Elisabeth, I think you're missing that this policy is targeted, by definition, at women performing a biologically female, non-sexual act. It's therefore implying there's something sleazy about this biologically female, non-sexual act. I have a problem with that.

The solution, of course, is pasties...

[Which would truly make the pictures obscene, while satisfying LJ's ridiculous rule.]

I am an MD, and a strong believer in the value of breastfeeding and a strong supporter of breastfeeding in general. I nursed all three of my kids (two were twins) until they were well over a year old, and never had to flash in public. I learned to use a blanket at home, and nursed my kids everywhere, in church, in the mall, everywhere, without flashing a boob. It's not that hard.

Hate to be the stick in the mud, but it's their site, and if they don't want nudity, and your icon flashes the boob, they have a right to ask you not to use it. You don't like it, go somewhere else.

I think making this about breastfeeding gives the impression that women have to be exhibitionists to breastfeed their children, which isn't true.

Oh, baloney. Of course it's (to an extent) their "right" to be arbitrary in all kinds of ways. It's also their users' right to point out when their behavior is arbitrary, capricious, wrongheaded, and hurtful.

There are all sorts of ways to be an asshole while staying within one's "rights." Discussing stuff like this entirely in terms of who has what "right" leads directly to exculpating all kinds of bad behavior.

It's also specifically reasonable to take some bites out of Six Apart's hide, and LiveJournal's, because both companies have gone to considerable effort to promote a sense that they're warm-n-fuzzy community-oriented operations that deserve to be cut slack by their customers. When it's evident that, in return, they're mistreating those same customers, they deserve criticism for it.

Making a rule (no nipple, period) and sticking to it is easier.

Except that's not the rule. The rule is "no female nipples, period." If this is just about nudity, then the least lj could do is be consistent.

Pasties? Like this?

Presumably an early-weaning aid.

"Hate to be the stick in the mud, but it's their site, and if they don't want nudity, and your icon flashes the boob, they have a right to ask you not to use it. You don't like it, go somewhere else."

I haven't seen anyone disagree with the fact that livejournal is acting within their rights. I believe the issue is that people disagree with what they are doing and encouraging people to protest by not using livejournal for a day, which would be "going somewhere else" as a demonstration of dissatisfaction with the service that livejournal provides.

Organizing boycotts and voicing opinions about the conduct of a business or organization is also a right that the users have, and this post is an encouragement to people who think that images of breast feeding shouldn't be banned on livejournal to take some collective action.

I think that women's breasts are not dirty, need not be hidden, or banned. Especially in the case of breastfeeding. It's absurd to ban these images, and it does perpetuate the idea that a woman's body is unclean. I think it's a very healthy thing to do to question why livejournal is taking a position against images of breastfeeding, and to pressure them to change their ludicrous policy.

Well, I'm going to get my downstairs neighbor to take a pic of ME holding out my nipple (milkless though it will always be) and make it my default LJ icon. Then it will be clear that they're discriminating based on gender.

But they'll probably claim that hairy boobs are OK. Someone else will have to challenge that; I'm not shaving even to piss off SixApart.

But isn't that an interesting idea? Fellow male LJ users, do your part by showing your parts!

And right on, Patrick.

Elisabeth, it's LJ's right to have whatever rule about icons they want, and it's our right as users to say "Hey, we don't like that rule," and protest if they don't heed us, to take our weblogs elsewhere.

The fact that it's "just the default icon" is a load of bull, as far as I'm concerned. Default icons are more visible, yes, but a user's non-default icons are just as easily accessible to any minor -- and there are plenty of icons that are much more offensive than partially exposed breasts in the context of breastfeeding. I have half a mind to post a hundred of the most offensive icons I can find under the heading "LJ Approved."

I agree that it would be nice if the Mommy Wars didn't intrude upon Making Light. But as long as the main body of the post tells me that I didn't feed my daughter "properly," but with a "poor substitute," and implies that I must be ignorant and uneducated to have done so, the Mommy Wars are already happening here. Sarah S. didn't start them, and I hate like hell to see her apologizing for having done so.

I'm all for breastfeeding, all for breastfeeding icons, and all for breastfeeding in public. But I'm having a hard time being all for this protest, because its strongest proponents seem to spend so much of their LJ time bashing women like me. There has to be a better way of promoting breastfeeding, but most of these folks don't seem very concerned about finding one.

I've updated my default userpic in solidarity. It's not breastfeeding, but I think the irony of censoring it will make up for that

I learned to use a blanket at home, and nursed my kids everywhere, in church, in the mall, everywhere, without flashing a boob. It's not that hard.

It wasn't that hard for you, you mean. I can't be sure my daughter's eating properly if I can't see what the attachment's like, and I have one or two problems with sticking my head under a blanket while feeding her.

As far as bottlefeeding as a creation of Satan goes, my policy is to assume that any well-educated and caring mother who isn't breastfeeding must have a damn good reason for it, and not embarrass her by demanding specifics. That still leaves the sad question of women who don't breastfeed because they aren't well-educated about the benefits, but like Rivka says, it should be possible to get the word out without shaming bottlefeeders.

"I think making this about breastfeeding gives the impression that women have to be exhibitionists to breastfeed their children, which isn't true."

No it's not true, but it also puts breastfeeding on a level with say, men urinating in public: That it's a natural activity that one should "do in private, not talk about, and wash your hands afterward."

The point isn't that they have the "right" to do it. (Which they may not have, if the previous posts regarding protections on images of breastfeeding are accurate.) The point is that this should not be viewed as salacious imagery to begin with.

Again, as with the pasties issue, the no-nipple rule would seem to indicate that a woman standing stark naked with her arm across her breasts to cover her nipples (or with a strategically placed ribbon "gift-wrapping" them) is acceptable and therefore less pornographic than breast-feeding.

This would then send -- or at least reinforce -- the message that there is something wrong with breastfeeding in public, whether it is done "covered" or not.

Xopher:

OK, no shaving ... What about some temporary dye? Some nice dayglo-hued fuzz around the nipple to really draw attention to it?

Oh yeah, and BTW, Rivka's right.

pedantic peasant: I'll buy a package of orange Kool-Aid on my way home!

I find it amazing that they're getting wigged out over breastfeeding icons (many of which are from medieval, sacred art) when one of the LJ communities I used to read had one user who posted with an animated icon of a woman giving a blowjob. Hello, mixed priorities!

"I'll buy a package of orange Kool-Aid on my way home!"

Ahh, you've gotta love a do-it-yourselfer!

Paul, if you think Melissa Singer was gratuitously bashing anyone, you didn't read her carefully enough.

Everyone: We are not going to argue the pros and cons of breastfeeding here. This is a discussion of LiveJournal's unfortunate policy of banning icons that show women breastfeeding.

Here are the ground rules: Breastfeeding happens. It's good that it happens. It's neither indecent nor a sexual act. Granted, some fetishists are into it; but then, some fetishists are into shoes, and LiveJournal doesn't ban icons showing them. Not all mothers breast-feed their babies. If that's their choice, that's fine too, and I don't want to see or hear anyone saying otherwise.

If you want to argue about it elsewhere, there's a nice new open thread just waiting for your comments.

I apologize for letting this argument develop before I noticed it and temporarily shut down comments here. At the moment I have no intention of deleting the comments that have already been posted, but if the argument breaks out again I'll be disemvowelling or deleting new instances, and may zap the earlier ones to discourage further outbreaks.

If that makes it difficult or impossible for any of you to participate in the discussion here, I'll be very sorry. I regret the necessity. I apologize in advance. Nevertheless, be assured that I will do it.

Cartainly banning icons that use medieval paintings of women breastfeeding is over the line in 'being inoffensive to everyone'. (The people who are offended by paintings of bare female breasts - do they object to paintings of Eve also?)

What is this, National WebHosts Go Nuts Week?

I'd like to add that LJ's problems with the abuse team go way beyond the breastfeeding icon issue. It's an attitude problem they've had for a long time, giving contradictory answers, or simply refusing to give answers. It took over a thousand emails for them to actually give a response to the community - many other people who've raised important concerns about privacy, and inconsistent application of the rules, simply get ignored. The rot goes deep. (There's been a blog about general LJ abuse problems for a few months, along with a petition asking Six Apart to listen to users on this.)

As Elisabeth points out, it's really important to keep the default icon/non-default line clear.

LiveJournal has long had a policy that some kinds of icons are inappropriate as *default* icons. This is because you can come across the default icon in various searches, on someone's profile page before you read the rest of their journal, etc.

While there are arguments on whether this is the best place to draw a content line, it's one of the more reasonable options. It's also been in place for years, and documented consistently during that time, even if the specifics of "Exactly what's okay in a default icon" have gotten clarified as various issues arise.

There are also some legal standards issues: a lot of the laws about what's okay online as far as exposed skin, etc. are pretty darn vague in places. (It gets even more complicated if the people posting are under 18, even if they're posting pictures of themselves.)

This leaves online sites (including LJ) having to try to figure out how to navigate that vague language and lack of legal precedent without walking into being a precedent setting legal case unintentionally. These could be *big* legal cases: it's understandable that sites get a little nervous.

Now, add MySpace into the mix. MySpace claims to have a substantial number of employees working *solely* to review images posted on the site for inappropriateness. (My guess is at least 45 people, working full time, based on some number crunching I can go into if anyone's curious.)

LiveJournal doesn't do that: they only respond to concerns when someone reports a problem (again, for some specific legal reasons having to do with common carrier status, and the fact it's a very vague area of the law right now.) People do also report people to get them in trouble, which is, I understand it, how this whole thing got started in the first place.

However, MySpace's choices - and the *very* large amount of publicity, positive and negative they've received since about January - is causing ripple effects in many more places than just MySpace. Parents are more aware of what their kids might be seeing online. This is good. But they're also placing more pressure on sites to protect their kids - which is not always so simple. Or good.

I've done two presentations on online interaction and what parents should and shouldn't panic about to parent associations at the school I work at this year. The school is generally more liberal than not, parents are generally well-educated and thoughtful.

At the same time, many comments I've heard, even from parents who've clearly thought/learned some about the issues have been fearful, worried, etc. Even about stuff like breastfeeding images. Or male nipples, which are less ambiguously legal in many contexts.

And these worries, in turn, are rippling out to other online sites. Including LJ.

For all sorts of practical reasons, there's obviously some need for clarity. Obviously, the line was explained badly, originally. This is partly due to the annoying vagueness of the legal language, and partly because I don't think this specific issue had come up before.

But it's also understandable that sites need to try and transverse a sword edge between personal expression and stuff that may dump them into a nasty legal battle, major parental concerns, etc. This particular decision (that it's okay in anything *but* default icons) seems pretty darn reasonable to me in that light. Not ideal, maybe. But not "OMG, BREASTS ARE EVIL!" either.

The last thing I'd like to remind people is more personal. I spent 18 months as a volunteer for the LiveJournal Abuse Team (from January 2003 to August 2004). Most of the answers from the Abuse Team are handled by volunteers (overseen by LJ employees) who handle a large number of cases, generally much better than comparable paid services. (Not to say there couldn't be improvements, but realistic practical expectations are good.)

These people do it in their free time (a commitment of 8-10 hours a week - often substantially more) because they feel strongly about the site. Much like people have contributed their free time to making Absolute Write or other sites the incredible resources they are, only with more specific training, time commitment requirements, etc. The employees who work for Abuse almost always work more than 40 hours, including nights, weekends, checking in on holidays, etc.

These people are also my friends. Some of them have slept on my couch. They've been people who've helped me, listened to me, given me good ideas. I've seen them spend hours of their time, and their own money in long-distance calls when someone reports a post that sounds like a suicide note. Good, thoughtful, caring people, just like exist on many online sites, including Making Light.

And while this has blown up, I've seen my friends, people I care deeply about, insulted, called names, attacked, sworn at, etc (including for an icon of a female clothed torso as a default icon). Not so much fun. And, really, not helping solve the issue, either.

While it's absolutely fine to disagree with site policy, or to raise concerns, I hope that civilised and mature people can recognise that there are better and worse ways to do that, and keep the fact that there are real people on the other end of that email address in mind.

The Abuse Team is overloaded with work almost all the time. If you have concerns about policy, it's best to coordinate that, so that the people directly involved in a concern are the primary point of contact.

It is also important to remember that sometimes what someone says the Abuse Team said and what they actually said are different. Sometimes that's not intentional, and just the effect of a certain amount of playing 'Telephone' or someone misunderstanding something. Sometimes it's been more intentional (and yes, I've seen documented evidence of that one).

It's hard for the Abuse Team to deal with, because they treat all cases as confidential (i.e. only dealing with the people directly involved about any specifics, people who can see details sign non-disclosure agreements, etc.) So, when seeing what was said, you are only seeing (and will only see) one side of the story about a specific case.

By all means, encourage clarity. Encourage people to ask specific questions in a focused way that can be clearly responded to (rather than everyone writing in, which takes up massive resources and delays any meaningful answer.) If you can back up a specific concern with relevant legal data (not just "Gee, other sites get away with it") that can be reviewed by lawyers, provide details.

But I continue to hope that civilised people can keep that potential for miscommunication or misunderstanding in mind, and avoid going overboard in any direction, including assuming that the policy is because people are opposed to breastfeeding, or breasts in general, without something like actual evidence to that effect.

Actually, I'm appalled by the idea that LJ abuse complaints are being resolved by a cadre of volunteers. LJ is a for-profit business, not a charity or a fanzine.

How much parental concern are we talking about here? Are we sure this isn't just the same frothing mob of right-wing loonies that reliably object to the evil content of YA books they've never read?

I'm too sick to stay particularly polite, and the only opinon I have on bottle vs. breast is breasts are a poor source of bourbon.

But, a one day blackout? Please. If you really feel that Six Apart is wrong, and you cannot support a company that takes such an action, cancel your account.

The amount of regard a company that bills monthly to a one day blackout is nil. Indeed, if I were them, I would encourage the blackout, if it means you won't cancel your account, and I'd still get your money come next billing cycle. You'd get your moral indignation, and I'd still get your money.

Note that Six Aparts response is "We don't want to offend you" not "We're thinking about changing this policy." Why? They're thinking they'll lose more money without the policy than with.

So. If you think this is wrong, cancel. Stop giving them money. Enough people do this, they might change. Somehow, though, in a world where we need to use NSFW frequently, I doubt it.

The funny thing about this is that your blog is a syndicated feed for LJ users to subscribe to. So your images are showing up on LJ today:
http://syndicated.livejournal.com/makinglight/249877.html

I'll be curious to see how the LJ Nazis react.

It will indeed be interesting.

Meanwhile:

We're not having the "inappropriate use of the term 'Nazi'" argument, either.

Thank you for your cooperation.

It's hard for the Abuse Team to deal with, because they treat all cases as confidential (i.e. only dealing with the people directly involved about any specifics, people who can see details sign non-disclosure agreements, etc.) So, when seeing what was said, you are only seeing (and will only see) one side of the story about a specific case.

Yet when you ask them directly about your own case these days, they simply ignore you. An LJ abuse team member recently posted something about how the abuse team operates which directly contradicts my recent experience with them. I asked them how they explained this. They ignored me. I wrote to Mark and Denise (the abuse team managers), they ignored me. I copied my email to Anil Dash and other Six Apart contact addresses. Not a word.

When I first got on LJ I thought I'd actually like to volunteer to work abuse one day, as I've moderated quite a few high-traffic discussion boards, but that was before experienced their capriciousness personally. Having a lot of work is no excuse for outright rudeness to customers.

Six Apart is *not* targeting breastfeeders. They are cracking down on images that can be seen in certain public places in preparation to protect their community space from some frightening pending legislation in Congress. In doing so, they changed their policy about what was acceptable -- but did *not* change the policy that they only issue warnings to users against whom a user has filed an abuse complaint.

LJ Abuse went after LJ user hardvice who'd had a complaint filed against his naked woman icon, and hardvice intentionally started filing abuse complaints against breastfeeders and pagans because he (correctly) surmised they'd react strongly when warned.

LJ abuse should be more careful about allowing volunteers to write unboilerplate prose when dealing with abuse situations, yes. But in a time when Congress is debating whether or not social networking sites are filled with debauched pornographers, Six Apart's attempt to set clear rules (in this case, "no female nipple or areola") for default icons is a completely legitimate case of self-protection. Whether or not we agree with society's silly double standards about female nudity is not Six Apart's fault.

And the threads on the LJ breast feeding sites which compare not being allowed to have your default icon (and just the default icon; every other icon you have can be jaybird nekkid)showing nipple to anti-miscegnation laws is, shall we say, over the top?

Jenett, this is one area in which the policy actually needs to change understand that the abuse team was acting only under orders. I have no idea why you felt it so necessary to point out that they're such good and wonderful people. As far as I can tell, everyone here is upset over the policy not the people.

If the LJ abuse team set the policy, then they're not good wonderful people as far as I'm concerned, they're people you like who're acting badly. If not, the thing to do is circumvent them, and draw enough attention to the issue to influence a policy change, because the policy is deeply flawed, and I can see no effective way to change policy other than mass cancelations of accounts, or by directly talking to the Six Apart policy-makers.

As far as I can tell, the Six Apart policy makers are making polite noises, but not actually doing anything. God knows why, they're note telling us anything more than that they're considering the issue, and that they're really nice people, and we shouldn't hate them.

Keepin the policy the way it is is stupid, and makes LJ and Six Apart look like jerks. Modifying the policy for breast-feeding would be a far more sensible thing. It might piss off some of the religious right, or some of the more asinine men who'd complain that they can't have regular naked porn-breast boobies, but at te end of the day, a change in policy makes the most sense, and leaves the people in control looking sensible instead of like jerks.

I am surprised no one's mentioned DOPA yet: see the PBS writeup at http://www.pbs.org/teachersource/learning.now/2006/05/new_federal_legislation_would_1.html

It's the "Deleting Online Predators Act", and is another attempt to deny access to places like LiveJournal, Xanga and MySpace, as far as teenagers go. I have read (but can't find the citation at the moment, sorry) of schools that have even threatened disciplinary action against any student that even uses MySpace: apparently when you're a teenager, your school owns you 24x7.

There is a big backlash going on against places that teens communicate, and this is part of it. Does anyone believe that LJ would care about this if the right wing wasn't pushing the "Internet = Bad" storyline? LJ is wrong, but they are not the enemy. The enemy is the right wing fear machine and people like John Ashcroft, who are afraid of even bronze nipples.

I did a bit of quick checking over on LJ.

What you can do is go to your LJ account management page, Journal|Manage, and click on the Delete Journal link.

This should bring up and Account Status page with the subhead "Journal Activation Status".

Here you have a choice between being "Activated" and "Deleted".

Important

The LJ system guarantees you a 30-day grace period to switch back to Activated. You might get longer, because the unrecoverable delete is when they run a purge process, and they don't do that every day.

And if you're a paid member they'll still keep your money.

The thing is, up until the purge all your comments will still be there, and everyone will see that you've switched status. So perhaps you can be sneaky, and make a few comments just before the protest starts. (But don't say stuff you wouldn't otherwise say.)

I dunno. It seems to me that any policy that defines images of the BVM nursing the Infant Christ as obscene is a policy with a problem.

And the idea that such an image is inappropriate for childen, who are, after all, the ones being fed, is nuts.

The funny thing about this is that your blog is a syndicated feed for LJ users to subscribe to. So your images are showing up on LJ today

I'll be curious to see how the LJ Nazis react.

They won't. The issue is solely with default icons, that's it. It has nothing to do with nudity elsewhere on lj.

Further up, Aconite said: I think you're missing that this policy is targeted, by definition, at women performing a biologically female, non-sexual act. It's therefore implying there's something sleazy about this biologically female, non-sexual act. I have a problem with that.

Which is just simply not true. Livejournal has a stated and spelled out policy regarding what is and is not allowed in default icons. As these things often are it is somewhat arbitrary and not open to exceptions and special cases. Honestly, I can't say I blame them. When dealing with a site as big and diversely populated as livejournal, having directly stated, universal policies and applying them across the board seems to me to be the only feasible option.

I have a gorgeous icon that features female nudity. It's an art photograph of a female athlete taken by a famous female photographer. It's not porn. It's certainly not obscene by, I think, any US legal definition. But it is not appropriate as a default icon by the stated rules of the site.

I can only imagine the disaster if LJAbuse had to weigh each icon individually and make an arbitrary ruling as to whether it was "art" and therefore ok or "a natural act" and therefore ok.

Common Carrier neepery.

Forget arguements centering on common carrier status for internet disputes. For practical purposes, ISPs have protections similar to Common Carrier, (thanks to bits of the DCMA, and the Communications Decency Act,) but they aren't actually covered by common carrier status. (Ironic, huh?) The details are complex, and beyond me, but essentially, broadband providers aren't common carriers according to the FCC. (Somehow I think that applies to dial-up providers.)

The application of common carrier status to an internet enabled service, like LJ, is murky at best. I'm sure C. E. Petit has something to say about this, but I'm too lazy to look it up.

-r.

Down here in Raleigh, the schools do indeed own a student 24-7. A couple were granted permission to leave campus one day when their off-campus class trip was cancelled, and one of their mothers walked in on them at home having sex. As a result, they were both suspended for the remainder of the year, even though they were not on campus and not at a school sponsored event.

I believe there was another incident where a student using a home computer inappropriately (I think it involved MySpace and posting almost-naked photos) was suspended by the school, even though the actions didn't involve the school at all.

Speaking as an LJ volunteer (although not a member of the Abuse team), I have to say you've got the wrong end of the stick on this one. The policy has always been "no nipples or areolae in default userpics". The change to the FAQ was only made because they realized it wasn't clear enough - the actual Terms of Service already forbade this, although not in sufficiently specific language. But it was definitely made clear in the personalized responses that the various participants in this "protest" received from the Abuse team.

(And, of course, using images like this in /posts/ , as well as non-default icons, is and remains just fine, so of course nobody is going to come after this feed for it.)

There is not and never will be any kind of movement to "crack down" on breastfeeding icons on LiveJournal. There's a simple rule: no pictures of nipples or areolae. Whether there's a baby in the picture is irrelevant to the enforcement of that rule. And it's the same standard that, say, the FCC uses. Do I personally think that's a great standard? No. But LJ didn't create it; they're just trying to stay with a common USian decency standard (being based in the U.S. legally and physically).

And, finally, blaming the Abuse team for the whole thing, as so many of these people have done, is incorrect. They're enforcing site policy, and I have yet to see any evidence that they've done so incorrectly. If you want the site policy changed, the Abuse team is not the place to address your complaint, any more than the police are the right place to address your complaint if you want the law changed.

Actually, LJ never touched their Terms of Service. The *FAQ* was updated to clarify things when it became obvious there was confusion. Curious how wide that misinformation has spread.

Your readers unfamiliar with LiveJournal may not realize is just how contentious this fight is -- and how silly.

Yes, it's just about default icons, the ones that show up in searches for users by location, interests, etc. Users are free to use breastfeeding icons in any other manner they see fit. Over 100 breastfeeding icons even, should they pay extra for that many of 'em.

And LiveJournal only investigates/enforces the rule should someone complain. So even if one used a potentially offensive icon, it would still have to actively offend someone enough to receive a formal complaint before it would be an issue.

But what makes the whole thing extra-special dumb is that the most vocal of those outraged about this aren't protesting the rule against nudity or nipples -- they're only protesting the banning of icons featuring breastfeeding, essentially taking the position that a lactating breast is superior to a non-lactating breast and should be regarded as such. Milk boobies = special boobies that deserve special treatment. Say wha ... ?

And anyone using the argument, as many have, that breastfeeding is a natural biological functio, not sexual, and therefore should not offend should then ask themselves how they would feel about stumbling across pictures of someone evacuating their bowels. That's also a natural biological act, and not sexual -- should that be okay as an LJ icon as well? (And yes, I'm comparing the two for this purpose, despite knowing it'll get at least one "you're comparing wonderful breast milk with stinky poo?" Yes. Yes I am.)

I simply can't buy the argument that a ban against default LiveJournal icons will have any sort of an impact on how the next generation of mothers will feed their young. And considering the many, many real problems that deserve attention, seeing this many people get worked up over whether or not somebody should be allowed to identify themselves to the LiveJournal community as a 100 x 100 pixel picture of a lactating breast ... well, that's obscene.

The Lactivists called the FCC and asked how they regarded breastfeeding. They were told breastfeeding is perfectly fine with the FCC.

Also, many of the people who got the first notifications about their emails were NOT told anything about this "no nipple or areola" rule. It took a couple of days before the abuse team told anyone that was their rule, and it's still not in the FAQ.

Dawn: theoretically people would have to be actively offended, but in reality people file LJ abuse reports for all kinds of reasons, including because one community doesn't like another community. People reported these icons purely to cause trouble.

In answer to the other question that came up: LJ uses volunteers because it's a small, open source project. And because a lot of us believe in the goals of that project sufficiently to donate our time to keeping it alive.

Did the person in question ask what the FCC thought of exposed nipples? Because "breastfeeding" is OK on television if the nipple is hidden. Just as it is in LJ default icons.

Cory: LJ have not only backed down, they're continuing to suspend users. For example, see: http://yonmei.livejournal.com/645710.html.

National WebHosts Go Nuts Week?

I was wondering why everyone seems to be off their nut of late. WTF?

The only thing I can think of is that it's spring and with all the warm weather and whatnot a swarm of new bugs just hatched that crawl up people's butts, stab a stinger into their brain to disable their "common sense" lobe, and make them do stupid stuff.

When you think about it, that's the only logical explanation.

Dawn: theoretically people would have to be actively offended, but in reality people file LJ abuse reports for all kinds of reasons, including because one community doesn't like another community. People reported these icons purely to cause trouble.

Gotcha. When rattling off my comment I didn't take into account that this whole debacle was started by one ticked-off guy who was told not to use a nekkid lady picture.

Charlie, that link is to a friendslocked post.

Patrick named this post "Live Journal's attack on women and mothers." I'm both and have never in the slightest felt attacked by LJ's policy on default icons.

Rick Keir is right: LJ is not the real enemy on this, they are responding to forces beyond their control. I find the amount of energy being expended over this over at LJ to be rather appalling.

Patrick -- the online support presence for both Borland and Microsoft is almost entirely volunteers; tech support questions are answered by volunteers who get free stuff from the company in exchange for their efforts. LiveJournal's system doesn't strike me as being much of a stretch from that.

I have no idea why you felt it so necessary to point out that they're such good and wonderful people. As far as I can tell, everyone here is upset over the policy not the people.

Josh: part of the problem here is that the "protestors" have been behaving extremely poorly. They failed to make use of the mechaniams that LJ has actually created specifically to allow users to bring up changes they want made to the site. Instead they spammed a vital first response service (and I use the word 'spammed' advisedly) asking for information which they already possessed. This is the same service that is used to respond to, to pick an example out of the air, reports of LiveJournal users posting in their journal about how they're going to commit suicide, or about the crimes they committed last night.

They also made a number of personal attacks against members of that service, misquoted one of them in a press release, tried to get hold of personal e-mail addresses to harass them, and so on. There is no excuse for behaving in that way, no matter how much you believe that you're in the right.

I guess I am just fulfilling Dawn Taylor's prediction.

I am stunned and disgusted that she finds breastfeeding analogous to taking a crap, since "[t]hat's also a natural biological act, and not sexual"! Such a simile reflects a depravity in our culture, not in Ms. Taylor (as far as I know).

Some lines have to be drawn, and LJ is drawing the line on the "breasts are narsty, even when used as biology and/or God intended" side of the line.

Pfaughh.

I'm also amazed by the irony that the historical complaints about LJ Abuse which keep getting raised here and elsewhere are that they are capricious and random, and yet here they are being attacked for setting an inflexible policy and not deviating from it for special cases, even when the special cases, like FairestCat's, are clearly not obscene.

If the policy were "no nipple or aereola, of either sex, unless breast feeding is involved", how long would it be before a trollposted a pornographic breast-feeding picture? Or before a breast cancer community that posted survival photos got upset? Then they'd be back to making special cases, and we'd be back to the usual complaints that they're capricious and random.

Given DOPA, LJ's policy is a very reasonable one to make.

There is, of course, a bigger picture.

1. Livejournal was acquired some months ago by Six Apart, who (if I'm not mistaken) are a publicly listed corporation these days.

2. Six Apart have a legal duty to maximize shareholder value.

3. Livejournal's business model was to provide a service, and make money by selling a premium version of said service. But was this the maximally profitable business model? With over a million active customers, obviously there should be other ways to squeeze revenue, without raising prices. The obvious one is to sell advertising space to advertisers. This could be used to make a profit off the (previously non-paying) free accounts, and to induce free accountholders with an aversion to advertising to cough up for a paid account.

4. With the shift to an advertising-based model, LJ is no longer simply selling a blogging service; it's selling eyeballs to advertisers, while the blogging occupies the same niche as editorial content in a commercial publication (like a magazine or newspaper). Advertisers have certain expectations about editorial content -- and not causing offense to potential customers is one of them. There are also, I believe, distinctly different legal constraints on a publishing medium that carries advertising as opposed to a service provider. (For starters, it can't claim to be a common carrier.) I'm unclear about the ramifications of this -- perhaps Charles Petit could comment? -- but I'd be surprised if the degree to which Six Apart are legally responsible for the content of Livejournal wasn't one of them.

Bluntly: I fear that Livejournal users are just waking up to the fact that they have ceased to swim in a medium of free expression and have been turned into content generators who are tolerated just so long as they attract advertising hits and don't cause a fuss.

The "delete your account on June 6th" protest is calculated to achieve just one thing: if enough people do it, it will dent the advertising click-through revenue that day. Whether that'll be enough to convince Six Apart that they've made a big policy blunder is a question that remains unanswered. But the one thing this whole debacle proves is, you should never trust a public corporation to hold your blog or social network, because they will always try to place the interests of their shareholders ahead of the desires of their customers.

*facepalm*
I've been watching this unfold, having had the uh "fortune" of witnessing it all erupt, and jadelennox is completely right. The LJ user hardvice received a complaint about his default icon, and he objected to it, so instead of having a meaningful dialogue on his own with LJ/Six Apart, he opted to start complaining specifically about breastfeeding icons, going around and targetting said breastfeeding icons, because he knew that this would happen. He specifically went out of his way to poke a hornet's nest of often zealous people (as already indicated in this thread) in a way to make trouble, because he disagreed with a complaint made about a default icon he had that violated the very specific/clear LJ/Six Apart TOS.

Now Six Apart/LJ is having to deal with said zealots, and getting them on all sides, and trying to figure out how to navigate the minefield of government laws in the process.

And Making Light has played right into hardvice's intended goals - congratulations. Frankly, of all people, I would have expected y'all to do a bit more research into how this all started before promoting this to begin with - it's what you encourage people to do in writing/editing/publishing situations, and I'm baffled why the advice to do your homework is good in one setting and not another.

Way to contribute to the problem and not the solution.

FairestCat: Livejournal has a stated and spelled out policy regarding what is and is not allowed in default icons.

Yes: and up until 19th May 2006 that policy said that nothing graphically sexual nor anything graphically violent was acceptable. Sometime on Saturday 20th May, after the first suspension e-mail was sent out to a woman using a icon with a breastfeeding pic, FAQ 111 was changed to replace "graphically sexual" with "nudity".

idonotlikepeas: The policy has always been "no nipples or areolae in default userpics". The change to the FAQ was only made because they realized it wasn't clear enough - the actual Terms of Service already forbade this, although not in sufficiently specific language.

FAQ 111 spelt out quite clearly what was and was not permitted in a default user icon. You can see a screen dump here of the pre-20th May version of FAQ 111 that SixApart forgot to edit to match the current version: the LH Abuse guidelines used to be "users default userpic contains graphic sexual or violent content" and the action was "email the user requiring them to choose a non-adult userpic". (How much more "non-adult" can you get than a baby breastfeeding?)

Dawn: essentially taking the position that a lactating breast is superior to a non-lactating breast and should be regarded as such

No, that's really not the point. The point is that breastfeeding is not indecent. As PickledGinger points out: "One needn't be a nursing mother to be outraged at LJ Abuse's tuptotrephophobic declation that any image that includes a micron of nipple may not be used 'in places on the site where one would not reasonably expect to find sexually explicit content'" Even a person who finds naked breasts indecent may - indeed, should - make an exception for a woman who is breastfeeding. (Indeed, in some countries, including California in the US, tuptotrephobic people are required by law to stifle their feeling of offense at women breastfeeding.)

Dawn: And anyone using the argument, as many have, that breastfeeding is a natural biological functio, not sexual, and therefore should not offend should then ask themselves how they would feel about stumbling across pictures of someone evacuating their bowels.

You may be interested in discussion on that point here on that very point.

Charlie:

The problem with your theory is that this policy (and warnings for default icons with exposed nipples) predates the acquisition by 6A.

Yonmei:

FAQ 111 is not the Terms of Service. It's a summary form of the requirements that's written so that people don't have to read the actual legal language that the ToS contains. It was updated to be a more accurate summary of that language, not to change the ToS (which has remained the same throughout).

If LJ is now corporate owned why is it run by volunters? Cheap buggers. Hide behind the free labour of love myth to guilt trip complaints.

God, after years of lurking, and it takes this nonsense to make me spam all over the comments here? Orange Mike, it's the self-proclaimed boob nazis themselves who've prompted the comparison between breast feeding and poop, since much of their defense for why nursing images should be all over the place is that it's:

1. natural,
2. necessary for the baby's health and well-being, and
3. sometimes must happen in public, because the baby doesn't have an adult's control over biological acts

Exactly how is that not like chaning a baby's diapers? Whether someone believes that it's *necessary* to feed a baby is something we can all agree on -- and I think we can also all agree that babies need their diapers changed. If natural and necessary are enough to lead to "and I should have the right not only to do this thing in public, but to wave images of it everywhere", then the same applies to baby poop. Saying that's not true is merely a fetishization of nursing as somehow special and holy (or carrying the crap taboo to a ridiculous extreme). For some women, nursing *is* special and holy. For others, it's painful and difficult, and for still others, I'm sure, poop is special and holy.

LiveJournal isn't run by volunteers - some of us just agree to help out because we believe in the service, irregardless of the fact that a small group of people profit by it. Does Redhat write all its own code?

There isn't anything in the TOS that could be used to justify banning pics of a breastfeeding baby. I've read it through several times.

Six Apart's attempt to set clear rules (in this case, "no female nipple or areola") for default icons is a completely legitimate case of self-protection.

This is a fine and logical statement, as many of the statements supporting their decision are. Unfortunalty this fine logic tends to do a wingover straight into the desert floor as soon as one remembers that the fuzzy scan of the "Breastfeeding Baby Jesus" woodcut is also verboten. Then they stop looking so much like they're living in fear and start looking like something you'd get if you had 8th graders try to imitate Kafka.

Jeez, you people, don't you get it? Women are all supposed to be thin, lithe, full-lipped, 20-somethings with large (covered) breasts, no brains, no body hair, and no body functions.

That's what Cosmo and Vogue and all those other magazines told me. They talk to me. Yeah. They do.

::slapping self:: Wait... wait... I'm okay again. I'll be good and take my meds. Sorry. Carry on.

Patrick:
The use of volunteers has issues, but frankly, so does *not* using volunteers. Volunteers go through an extensive (2-3 month) period of training which involves reading old cases, handling current ones under close supervision, etc. Tricky cases are generally checked over by multiple people.

Volunteers are also available to handle things on weekends, holidays, at 3am. (There's been a few lives saved via a suicide note alert that came in in the wee hours. Or people who were willing to be around on holidays.)

Burnout or other life stress is an issue - I'd hate having someone answer stuff who really couldn't focus or didn't want to be there (but who needs the paycheck). These things aren't impossible to manage in a paid setting, but can be trickier and are generally not cheap.

Also note that the *vast* majority of things reported are either not even close to violations of terms of service, or are very easy to handle by providing some basic info. I'd guess based on past experience maybe 5-10% of reports need more than a standard, very straightforward, policy reply.

Teresa:
That's a whole long big other topic.

As the site's gotten bigger, the more serious threats have increased somewhat. I've seen anecodatal evidence that suggests there's a change in parental/other response, but there's not a lot of data yet.

Anecodtal professional discussion (in school library and educational settings) suggests that parents who want to consider themselves involved with their kids are starting to overreact more (threating law suits, etc. first off rather than starting by asking questions, educating themselves, etc.) And they're the ones with the money, time to pursue, etc.

(Whether or not they're *actually* involved, is another question. My definition of involved parents means you keep an eye on your kid and deal with them doing stuff you don't want yourself. You don't take it out on the site unless they're clearly being way stupid or doing something illegal. However, that's not what a substantial number of people actually do.)

I'd consider it irresponsible of a site not to keep that potential overreaction in mind. I might disagree with particular decisions, but I recognise there's better and worse ways to deal with that.

Christine:
This week happens to be a particularly bad week to get hold of people, due to some previous scheduling (training, discussions of policy, etc. in person meetings which involve plane flights. People are online less, not using their normal net connection methods, etc.)

Hundres of abuse reports by interested bystanders gums up the system - of course no one's going to get personal replies to their specific questions. (And, while this is going on, all the other stuff that normally comes in still needs to be dealt with. Including things like the occaisional RL threat, helping law enforcement, etc.) That'd be true even if everyone was a paid employees, btw.

It also, obviously, complicates responding to specific cases or questions in a timely manner. Particularly if there are still ongoing policy discussions.

Trust me, the people checking on the support and abuse boards want stuff handled too. (For one thing it's a pain to deal with responses when there's a lot of old cases taking up space. It's harder to focus and gets pretty depressing and overwhelming.)

Given the amount of mail and strong emotions this case has generated, I think letting people take their time and discuss things thoroughly is probably a better long-term goal.

You get to disagree: all I'm really asking people to remember is that there are human limitations on the process: people need time to read and respond. They need time to discuss. They're human beings with opinions and emotions too, and if they're getting sworn at, attacked, etc. that's going to add more time, probably, for them to be able to respond professionally.

Polite, thoughtful, concise communication from people directly affected using the appropriate technology (the Abuse form - and following the instructions - for abuse questions, for example) will help make everything run smoother. Patience helps: the world will not end if the answer to this takes a week. Or even a month. (Whereas, some of the other cases that may come in may have immediate real world consequences.)

I agree that some frustration is understandable, on all sides. My big wish is for people to realise that, keep the human being stuff in mind, and keep the other stuff in perspective.

idonotlikepeas: part of the problem here is that the "protestors" have been behaving extremely poorly. They failed to make use of the mechaniams that LJ has actually created specifically to allow users to bring up changes they want made to the site.

What would those mechanisms be? Ones that aren't routinely ignored, that is.

The organized protest email went to the official contact address, not to the abuse team. Certainly a bunch of people wrote to the abuse team about it at first, before people pointed out they should be contacted other addresses.

I'd like to see evidence for this planned harassment of abuse team members you referred to.

Like jadelennox, I must express a certain sadness at being drawn out of so much time spent lurking for this, of all things.

Further, throughout this crisis I have drawn a great deal of inspiration from the "slushkiller" post in this very blog, which has for some time been for me the canonical example of a plea on behalf of an overworked person who only wants others to see her point of view and to understand the nature and necessity of certain types of professional response.

To see this misinformation spread here is... disheartening to say the least, although of course I can see where someone without a full apprehension of the facts might be upset.

I'm sorry; I appear to have stirred up a hornet's nest. I don't actually spend much of my time on LJ (or anywhere else) bashing mothers who don't breastfeed, honest. And I'm trying to follow Teresa's rules here; please don't disemvowel me.

My post was slightly poorly worded (hey, it was LJ after all); mothers get a shedload of guilt from all directions, and the last thing they need is people giving them a hard time about the way they feed their babies.

My part in this protest is, however, all about women feeling comfortable about feeding their babies in public; and seeking to live in a world where feeding a baby isn't described as 'exhibitionism' or 'flashing a boob'.

I wouldn't give a stuff about the icons issue were it not for the broader implication that the opinions of people who don't want to look at babies breastfeeding are more important than the opinions of the babies.

And I fear that does seem to put me on one side of the Mommy Wars, because the result of this attitude is that people growing up see babies being bottle-fed all the time, but hardly ever see babies being breastfed (they're being 'discreet', or hiding in separate rooms, or under blankets, or never going out at all). And that's the thing that in my view has to change, and why I'm making a fuss.

I don't personally think that breastfeeding boobs are special, but they're the only sort that I care enough to complain about, and it's only because I think the lack of positive depictions of breastfeeding in our society is bad for babies.

Jenett: Thank you for the response. I know Mark has been responding to abuse complaints over the weekend, but that's presumably more simple than looking at older cases. I suppose I've found in the past that asking polite questions didn't get me any actual polite responses, so I'd rather given up hope of getting one this time. I'll just have to wait and see, I guess!

Yonmei: The ToS uses words like "inappropriate". It does not, I must admit, mention nipples. Just as it does not mention penises, which also may be used non-sexually and are also a beautiful and wonderful part of life, and are strictly prohibited in default userpics. I have yet to hear an argument in their favor, alas.

Avery: The quality of the image isn't in question. Once you've set a simple rule like "No pictures with nipples may be default userpics", you must follow it. Else, what purpose setting such a rule?

Christine: The suggestions forum would be an excellent place to start. Most changes to LiveJournal originate there, and it provides a simple method of indicating support or disapproval (via commenting) that does not jam the system and is read by LJ staffers. At this point it's irrelevant, of course, since the people that need to be aware of the issue have been made aware of it by the poor behavior as well, and the damage to the image of that issue by said behavior has been done.

Jenett: Volunteers are also available to handle things on weekends, holidays, at 3am.

Yes, that's true: the rewriting of the FAQ happened at a weekend, which was why I at first assumed it was LJ Abuse covering up after one of their members had sent a "cease and desist" notice to someone for using an icon which was certainly not "graphically sexual or violent".

As it appears the new policy was official SixApart policy, not just LJ Abuse going bonkers, I guess the volunteer who edited FAQ 111 on Saturday 20th May was just showing an example of Winston Smith dedication.

I'd be interested in seeing a response to Yonmei's 1:54 post; I took a look at the ToS myself, and the only thing I could find that would be relevant would be the prohibition on "obscene" content. Is my understanding correct?

idonotlikepeas: The ToS uses words like "inappropriate".

Exactly. Completely inapplicable to breastfeeding, which is - in California, in Scotland - completely appropriate anywhere.

I am stunned and disgusted that she finds breastfeeding analogous to taking a crap, since "[t]hat's also a natural biological act, and not sexual"! Such a simile reflects a depravity in our culture, not in Ms. Taylor (as far as I know).

I'm only slightly depraved, at least compared to my younger, wilder years.

I fail, however, to see how my use of that comparison reflects cultural depravity. And I stand by it as an analog, albeit one made with my tongue firmly lodged in my cheek.

Like many people, I was raised to believe that there's such a thing as appropriate public behavior -- that many behaviors, while natural, are best done in private. Nose picking, farting, scratching one's genitals, the clipping of toenails, pooping ... that sort of thing. And having someone, whetever their age, suck on one's nipples falls squarely into that category.

As a progressive, intelligent woman I can see how demanding a mother retreat from public when she needs to feed her baby is, at best, inconvenient. At worst, it's cruel. I do not believe it should be against the law, and I applaud changes that have been made in that regard.

But I also still believe that one should take the sensibilities of other people into account, particularly in a public venue. I would