Warning! Do not download before hiding your IP with a VPN!
Your IP Address is .   Location is
Your Internet Provider can see what you are downloading!  Hide your IP ADDRESS with a VPN!
We strongly recommend using a reliable VPN client to hide yourself on the Internet. It's FREE!
Hide me now!

Facebook banned breastfeeding photos

Breastfeeding or nursing represents a way to feed infants and it’s also a natural part of being a mother. But the popular networking Facebook removed all the photographs which showed this type of mothers nursing their infants. And this wasn’t left unpunished as on Saturday many activists gathered round in front  of Facebook’s Palo Alto headquarters in order to make protests connected to this censorship. Yet, the Website clearly stated that they had no problems with breastfeeding and that they only try to keep away images of fully exposed breasts. But the activists think that the images aren’t obscene and shouldn’t be taken off the Website, even if Facebook’s decision is irreversible.

For example, Heather Farley put a photo of hers while breastfeeding her infant around Halloween, but the picture was removed in November. In addition, Farley was warned that she would have her account erased if another photo of this kind would have to be removed again. Barry Schintt, spokesperson for Facebook, stated that the pictures which show a nipple or areola are considered to be vulgar and violate the policy of the site. Thus, any kind of photo which presents such images has to be removed.

Source: Efluxmedia


Feel free to post your Facebook banned breastfeeding photos torrent, subtitles, samples, free download, quality, NFO, rapidshare, depositfiles, uploaded.net, rapidgator, filefactory, netload, crack, serial, keygen, requirements or whatever-related comments here. Don't be rude (permban), use only English, don't go offtopic and read FAQ before asking a question. Owners of this website aren't responsible for content of comments.
  1. Count Spatula
    December 28th, 2008 | 20:11

    Why would you seriously consider putting up breastfeeding pics up anyway? yeesh!

  2. QuadrupelQ
    December 28th, 2008 | 20:15

    What is there to protest about? If Facebook says the foto's are off, they're off. Protesting that only makes you a sad and bitter person, nothing more.

    If they want to show their breastfeeding photo's so badly, why don't they start BREASTFEEDBOOK.com!

  3. whattheF
    December 28th, 2008 | 20:15

    Is that you Martin?

  4. Dexter
    December 28th, 2008 | 20:17

    Facebook is rubbish anyway.

  5. ScHAmPi
    December 28th, 2008 | 20:18

    Pics of moms breastfeeding shouldn't be on there anyway. I agree with facebook on this :) .

  6. Jon
    December 28th, 2008 | 20:21

    Answer: Crazy new mothers.

  7. DarkestKnight
    December 28th, 2008 | 20:24

    Ewwwwwwwwwwwww, too damn right! why would we wanna see some old saagy pregnant titties?!?!?

  8. Trilala
    December 28th, 2008 | 20:25

    I would like the girl in the pic to offer me some breast feeding. TY

  9. ixtsy
    December 28th, 2008 | 20:27

    If they don't like facebook deciding what to show and what not, they should put their pics to their _own_ website.

  10. Code Monkey
    December 28th, 2008 | 20:32

    boobs in my mouth. mmmhmmm

  11. moli
    December 28th, 2008 | 20:32

    pissing and pooing "is a natural part of being a" human but should not be public.

  12. hikaricore
    December 28th, 2008 | 20:34

    You people are idiots. Just let the internet get censored little by little based on your backwards religion-based moral concepts… lets see how things end up in 10 years when you've all allowed this to go on too long.

  13. Jim
    December 28th, 2008 | 20:35

    #1, Not everyone is as hung up about nudity as you might think. Some people, for example, would take great offense to the drunken party pictures which are all over Facebook, the plethora of sexually implicit and/or explicit images (including those which feature minors), and so on. Things that are an affront or a source of embarrassment for some are not the same for others, so with that in mind it's easy enough to see why some people would want to post these photos.

    Given that having children is something fairly special, in some circles the opportunity for sharing the experience of breastfeeding with close family and friends is valued enough to outweigh any concerns about them seeing exposed boobies. It's natural, and some people are cool with that. I'd imagine that there is also a sense of pride in having these photos to share, as they are fairly iconic of the process of creating, and then sustaining human life.

    To look at the other side of things, there are others, like the same type of people who are not accommodating of breastfeeding in public spaces (or the provision of appropriate facilities for 'private' breastfeeding in these places), are somehow mortified by the exposure which breast feeding entails. These people don't make a lot of sense to me, but they're certainly entitled to their opinions.

    I think it's also worth remembering that not all Facebook accounts are set to be viewable by the general public. Is it really hurting anyone if people who don't have irrational (in my opinion) hang-ups about breastfeeding, with their profile set to show their photos *only* to friends, having these kinds of pictures?

    Of course, there can be cases made regarding these types of photos making Facebook not safe for public viewing, and perhaps that's fair enough, but this goes back to the same issues regarding breastfeeding in public – some people think it's unsightly and somehow avoidable, whereas others take what I feel to be a more mature approach, and are comfortable enough with human sexuality to realise that this is natural and not something that anyone should be ashamed of.

    As an aside, it continues to puzzle me that we have found a way, and continue to find ways, to make 'dirty' so many fundamental aspects of who we are – in this case, sexuality and anything even tangentially related to it, such as breastfeeding.

    Anyway, this is potentially a non-issue anyway. The article does say that this isn't a complete purge of all breastfeeding photos, and that it's just those which contain fully exposed breasts. I can see some people still objecting to that, but ultimately Facebook are free to do whatever they want, and nobody has any enshrined right to attempt to dictate otherwise.

    Fake-edit: Apologies if this sounds like an attack, not my intention at all. Just some thoughts that pop into my head whenever people get all angsty over things like this.

  14. 666
    December 28th, 2008 | 20:39

    just another case of 'political correctness gone too far'….

  15. illmatic174
    December 28th, 2008 | 20:40

    if one of my friends wants to put pictures of herself breastfeedin, i want to see em !!

  16. Moonwolf
    December 28th, 2008 | 20:40

    kind of stupid if you ask me. It has so much porn on that site it is incredible. They don't have time to remove it. But sure does have the time to remove breast feeding group. So incredible stupid.

    But adding a group of Breast Feeding pictures…just another fetish for the morons that cant leave their mom tit.

  17. HexRei
    December 28th, 2008 | 20:45

    Quadruped, protesting is how you get a corporation to change its policy. Duh.

  18. Internet Lurker
    December 28th, 2008 | 20:46

    "Barry Schintt, spokesperson for Facebook, stated that the pictures which show a nipple or areola are considered to be vulgar and violate the policy of the site."

    Wait… does that include men's nipples too?!

  19. usatoouptight
    December 28th, 2008 | 20:50

    Another example of how the States are missing the joke, and paying attention to the wrong thing.

    With everything else that's going on, let's focus on breastfeeding photos!

    I think Barry is vulgar for caving in to religious zealots.

  20. PedoBear
    December 28th, 2008 | 20:53

    I support breastfeeding. 8===D~~~(.Y.)

  21. Yes
    December 28th, 2008 | 20:55

    Id t!ttyfcuk her.

  22. stevo17m
    December 28th, 2008 | 20:58

    what stupid sl*t mother would want their photo of their child been breastfeed on facebook/internet anyway? its almost as sad as half naked chicks taking photos of themselves in their bathroom mirror's reflection on myspace trying to get some attention from random people on the net. any mother that puts photos like that on facebook obviously isn't mentally able enough to be a mother, they shouldnt just take the photos of facebook, they should take the children off the stupid mothers..

  23. Kane
    December 28th, 2008 | 21:01

    +1 Facebook

  24. Beowulf
    December 28th, 2008 | 21:03

    ffs, who cares. Why is this even on rlslog? Do I come here to read about free speech or (the lack of) nudity? Maybe I do…

  25. Annon
    December 28th, 2008 | 21:05

    Damn Martin, do you think you could have found a younger looking girl? she looks about 12 ya pervert.

  26. mr. mdma
    December 28th, 2008 | 21:08


  27. 1uk3
    December 28th, 2008 | 21:17

    Screw Censorship!

  28. Angry
    December 28th, 2008 | 21:17

    +1 @24 Who the hell put this on RLSLOG? That person needs to be taken off the editors list. This is not a editorial blog.

  29. Weeeeeeeee
    December 28th, 2008 | 21:21

    I just love the fact that they actually protested against this.


  30. Preacherofjebus
    December 28th, 2008 | 21:23


  31. E71
    December 28th, 2008 | 21:27

    The Jim Carey/Krista Allen elevator scene from Liar Liar comes to mind.

    Ma Ma.

  32. Censorship
    December 28th, 2008 | 21:28

    I agree little by little censorship has taken over our "free" american lifestyle.
    While I personally would not want pics taken of my wife breastfeeding, I got into it with my mother in law she wanted to take and show pics of it, not everyone feels that way, like my mother in law.
    I dont mind other people haveing posting or doing anything else with there body, I am just a private person, lucky for me so is my wife she agreed with me about it.

  33. asdef-
    December 28th, 2008 | 21:33

    Americans…speechless I are.

  34. Meyouhehe
    December 28th, 2008 | 21:57

    Stupid Americans… so prude

  35. nin
    December 28th, 2008 | 21:57

    who cares? facebook is crap with or without censorship.

  36. F­uckers
    December 28th, 2008 | 21:57

    I think it would be hilarious if the Facebook owners just completely pulled the plug, took their millions of dollars, trashed the servers, and watched as a massive media s­hitstorm erupted when users start killing themselves because they can't "poke" each other any more.

  37. 1uk3
    December 28th, 2008 | 22:00

    @32: The internet isn't just American! I say it again: screw censorship of the internet. I've never come across anything like child porn etc so imho censorship isn't needed.

  38. iheartliberals
    December 28th, 2008 | 22:04

    I love all you crazy conservatives and your wacko viewpoints. You know the view that violence is acceptable while nudity and sexuality are bad. Just take a look at what movies are allowed to be shown in theaters or what is allowable content in videogames.

    The truth is that violence is bad, has always been bad and will always be bad. Nudity is not bad, has never been bad and never will be bad. Those are the facts. It is strange that society has somehow twisted things so people believe otherwise. It's almost as if there was a purpose to it. Remember that saying "Make love not war" what if we twisted it around…

    On a side note why is it that it is acceptable to show a woman's entire breast but the nipple is considered offensive, whereas a man's nipple (arguably the same thing) is not considered offensive? Should logic not prevail here?

  39. 1uk3
    December 28th, 2008 | 22:05

    @38: Agreed! You're spot on correct in your views. Well done. :)

  40. Old Commie Pinko etc
    December 28th, 2008 | 22:09

    It is to be expected that mostly young people who predominantly use rlslog would hold these weird puritanical ideas on breastfeeding. The hypocrisy is unsurprising also – that is a group who delight in downloading so called pirated material remonstrate with those who post breastfeeding pix because the corporation who owns facebook prohibits such pix.
    These ninnies have been subjected to such intensive brainwashing by the corporations they imagine they are resisting with their downloads that they can't even understand where the impetus against the breastfeeding pix comes from.
    It sure isn't from the god-botherers; after all as has been pointed out upthread, there are plenty more salacious snaps allowed on facebook.
    The pressure comes from the milk 'formula' corporations (eg Nestle or Anchor whose SanLu product has murdered and maimed thousands of babies in China this year) thay are determined to make breastfeeding seem dirty and unnatural.
    It is bottle feeding which is dirty and un-natural, and has become one of the largest causes of infant mortality, particularly in areas where water supplies are low quality, but also in more 'developed' societies because breastmilk assists the development of an infants immune system, which formula doesn't do.
    This means babies who are bottle fed are at greater risk of infection, slow development, poor teeth. A host of other health problems that were once almost wiped out in developed societies have returned.
    But go right ahead the more of you who grow up and have kids that are bottle fed, the less nasty little puritans there will be around in a couple of decades.

  41. kopper
    December 28th, 2008 | 22:12

    oh God like my best always says this the "new age mothers"

    I was thinking only low self-esteem teenagers and some other stupids college guys were around facebook now we need to add these mothers showing their breast oh God now all is about being famous or kinda important for other people

  42. simko
    December 28th, 2008 | 22:16

    agree with facebook decision ,

  43. Doube D.
    December 28th, 2008 | 22:17

    I believe they should only allow photos of mothers who A.) have d cups or bigger B.) are sexy enough to appear in an adult magazine and C.) have 2 or fewer kids. TYVM


  44. e3m88
    December 28th, 2008 | 23:07

    stupid mothers.

  45. Fear
    December 28th, 2008 | 23:16

    I fear, I might enjoy this. A breast is a breast by any other name. :D sickly good.

  46. Kingy
    December 28th, 2008 | 23:19

    @31. Also reminds me of Me Myself And Irene where the womans breast feeding her baby on the bench and she turns round, turns back again and Jim Careys sucking the nipple with all milk round his face..


  47. Julio
    December 28th, 2008 | 23:23

    You are really dumb people…

    There are people from many cultures and countries that use facebook; to de arabs or to many religious communities showing a woman's breast is obscene because women are objects of desire and lust by men…

    The people of facebook want as many users as possible and if these people see these images they will move to another site…

    Simple as that

  48. Titan
    December 28th, 2008 | 23:27

    Idiot puritanical Americans. The difference between male and female 'breasts' is that women produce milk, and are generally bigger. That somehow makes them obscene? Because some guys decided they should be sexualized? Some people find feet really sexy,..eyes as well, perhaps that should be censored and considered vulgar. But of course every American should have the right to own guns, so they can shoot up places. But a nipple is awful. "Land of the Free" indeed..

  49. Mr Logic
    December 28th, 2008 | 23:38

    Only an exhibitionist would upload a pic like that. It's a private thing

    If you really wanna show the world your tits; there are many other sites that would be happy to accept those jpegs

    It's Facebook, Not Faceboob

  50. K
    December 28th, 2008 | 23:58

    I think it's silly to ban images like this in something as private as Facebook, but I have no problem with nudity. In my opinion though, these women are hypocrites, in normal situations they wouldn't parade their tit's but because 'they're doing something natural' it's all of the sudden OK to flash away. I'm sorry ladies but your hooters don't become invisible just because you've got a brat in your arms.

  51. fuall
    December 29th, 2008 | 00:34

    #12 is right

  52. UKshouldREVOKEusaINDEPENDENCE.joke. :)
    December 29th, 2008 | 01:11

    does this apply to facebook uk/europe/africa/russia/aus+NZ etc? or just fb USA? either way…
    i agree with various comments – the internet is not just american, infact its mostly chinese, korean, russian and indian – we just dont look at those because we speak english etc.
    i also agree that facebook is a free service, its rules are company wide to protect it from lawsuits – technically you can sue in some countries if your child – encouraged to use a website – then sees nudity on it (i dont agree with this since the internet should be a global rule-free service in my view, with all users responsible for what they each choose to 'view' but some people will attempt to make a buck from anything these days). so i understand the stance. i also see the argument about political correctness, but i disagree on the afore mentioned grounds.

    people who are so obsessed to the point of protesting… you embarass me as a human – protest about something worthwhile, child trafficking, animal cruelty, global warming… but a company bannning nipples… ffs! LAME

    …and why is this on rlslog? its not a rls? come on Martin, dont be such a potato surfer.

  53. Society_down_the_drain
    December 29th, 2008 | 01:26

    Yeah, let it be C. Aguilera or B.S. or Demi or … then you all be queuing for hours to get a sneak preview. Now that some mothers wanted to show breastfeeding their kids, doesn't matter if I like it or not, you all are agaisnt it!
    Such a bunch of hypocrats!

  54. Soviet
    December 29th, 2008 | 01:41

    Martin is the worst pedofile of them all.

  55. Censorship
    December 29th, 2008 | 02:38

    1uk3 I think you have mistaken what I wrote, I am against this and all other forms of Censorship
    I personally do not want to show off my wife's breasts, but I do not have a problem with someone showing.

    That is my choice, If someone does not want to look its simple, dont look.

  56. hikaricore
    December 29th, 2008 | 03:05

    I'm not quite sure if #55 believes that it's his decision as to whether his wife can show her breasts or not, but that comment comes off kinda strange.

  57. johnny blaze
    December 29th, 2008 | 03:21

    Facebook can do whatever it wants. Don't like it? Then don't use it.

  58. Jay
    December 29th, 2008 | 03:22

    December 28th, 2008 | 22:04
    I love all you crazy conservatives and your wacko viewpoints. You know the view that violence is acceptable while nudity and sexuality are bad. Just take a look at what movies are allowed to be shown in theaters or what is allowable content in videogames.

    Uh…numbn&^s, since you opened your mouth how about we show what a moronic dumbs&^t you are. The makers and owners of Facebook are totally LIBERALS!! And they have admitted it! SO before you start calling names and attacking Conservs, make damn sure that you have your political ideals correct. Would also suprise you to find out thatConservs are the biggest attackers of censorship on the net, at least here in te states they are. It , and it was a LIBERAL that wanted to tax the net.I was a LIBERAL that started the DCMA. It was a LIBERAL that started the RIAA lawsuits and it was a LIBERAL (the recent VP Pick) Joe Biden thatwill place even MORE restrictions on the net as by looking at his voting record and his record in the Senate, you can see he hasdone more damage to the Net then anyone else combined..and now he is the VP with power to do even more damage.

    next time you want to attack someone,make damn sure you know what the h3llyou are talking about.

  59. mazaggati
    December 29th, 2008 | 03:35

    I don't understand. You don't see nipples. So does that mean those things don't exists?

    December 29th, 2008 | 04:00


  61. Censorship
    December 29th, 2008 | 04:19

    @56 while the comment may seem strange to you it may just be the wording.
    Put it this way if you read the first comment I wrote my wife and I are in agreement about our privacy, What I am saying is our belief does not preclude others there belief.
    and even more clarification if my wife decided she did want to show herself online or elsewhere then she would prolly not stay my wife, it would be the choice I would take.

  62. joni
    December 29th, 2008 | 04:39

    Americans…. so stupid.

  63. Jack
    December 29th, 2008 | 06:02

    Imagine, 10-15 years down the line, those same pictures can mentally scar the crap out of the kid being breastfed.
    Or they can be used by bullies to humiliate him. Next thing you know, he's got a gun. He enters the school cafeteria and opens fire, killing many. Then he goes to jail or juvie … all because his mom wanted to show off her breastfeeding skills.

  64. Laura
    December 29th, 2008 | 06:03

    So why they didn´t banned too the photos with babies feeding with artificial milk?… if is ofensive seeing a baby eating natural food, is worst to see a baby eating low quality milk (if we compare formula with mom milk)

  65. John
    December 29th, 2008 | 06:12

    @Laura (64),
    It's not about the baby, it's about the breast.

  66. Hmmmm
    December 29th, 2008 | 06:15

    This is stupid ….. this is what happens when patriarchy and organized religion rules the world. Your body is a dirty thing that should be hidden, especially a woman's body even when doing some as non-sexual as breastfeeding.

  67. Hmmmm
    December 29th, 2008 | 06:19

    @ joni you wish this had something to do with being American as if we all think the same. As dumb as saying oh that's Europeans or middle Easterners for you.

  68. hikaricore
    December 29th, 2008 | 06:55

    No no, it's America… most of Europe has gotten the fuc|( over itself on issues like this.

  69. Darth Joebob
    December 29th, 2008 | 07:00

    Sure Jack, imagine if you had a brain…yes, about as likely as your scenario.

  70. Nobody
    December 29th, 2008 | 07:03

    I am offended by facebook's vulgar decision.
    Does that mean I can have it removed?

    Stupid question?
    Well, stupid decision…

  71. bob
    December 29th, 2008 | 07:51

    Rapidshare links please!

  72. KronosDeret
    December 29th, 2008 | 07:51

    And again company scared of overly moral zealots censors one of its products… aaach history you sweet lover :)

    When does this happen? When does our boddies, the whole things that carrie us around, began filthy? Whats immoral about living flesh? Why are you ashamed and angry of your own bodies?

    And why the hell is anything sexual automaticly BAD? One of the only things that remain nice in life, the genuine proof of love… what happened to us?

    Pictures of wild parties are okay, hikes, celebrations are okay, my first gun shooting is okay, hunting and sports are okay… why the hell is mother with her child not okay? What does she do that offends you? I dont know, maybe I havent been taught to loath my body, maybe I dont see why its offensive because nobody told me so.

    Use your brain and get over things that someone put there and that dont have reason to be there.

  73. SpaceGhost
    December 29th, 2008 | 08:02

    So why the hell is this posted here on RLSLOG again?

  74. tits
    December 29th, 2008 | 08:39

    crap, more censorship. how are we going to see naked pics on facebook if people can't even upload pictures of breasts bein sucked on by a baby?

  75. nin
    December 29th, 2008 | 09:39

    @73 SpaceGhost – really good question.

  76. hikaricore
    December 29th, 2008 | 09:47

    Well lets see why is this on rlslog…. well it's news involving censorship and the internet. Filed under tech news. If you ignorant sh!ts had been here a little longer you'd know this site is for announcing scene releases AND posting random news about the internet and technology. For the most part whatever the hell the staff here see fit to post is fair game. So why don't you go troll somewhere else, you're not needed here.

  77. xawier
    December 29th, 2008 | 10:31

    Just another stupid puritan idea made into reality. You all are looooosers! What's so vulgar about breast? :) lol you're like lil kids in there… but be proud of yourself… !!

  78. FL4ME
    December 29th, 2008 | 10:41

    Why is half naked men pictures are allowed and women aren't ?

  79. seeeck
    December 29th, 2008 | 10:44

    why would someone put such pics up anyway? :S

  80. moli
    December 29th, 2008 | 11:43

    again: pissing with your sexy penis is not a sexual act but i do not want to see photos about anybody taking a piss.
    this is exactly the same with the breastfeeding. it is very PRIVATE.

    myself find seeing a STRANGER breastfeeding as distgusting as watching someone taking a poo.

  81. aurelia
    December 29th, 2008 | 13:49

    Should we prohibit all those pictures of Madona breastfeeding Jesus? We could see her naked breasts and naked child Jesus on many famous pictures and statues. It wasn't obscene in the Middle Ages.

    Only sick people could think of mother breastfeeding her child as sexual act and something filthy.

    Or, it is correct to post breastfeeding pictures as long as you could not see "a nipple or areola" (which "are considered to be vulgar", but why only female nipple or areola, and not male, physiologically they look the same).

    Naked body is not a vulgar or obscene, its just a body. It becomes vulgar and obscene only in our mind, we made it dirty or glorious, our imagination and prejudice

  82. tanny
    December 29th, 2008 | 13:57

    I'm a facebook user and i was actually shocked by this article… as for the article at hand debates could go on and on about how right or wrong it is…i personally do not see something wrong with a mom posting a breast feeding picture in her private album on facebook itself…i would do it also, to post it in a open group where strangers can access it no i wouldn't…so it all boils down to terms and circumstances, hence why the debates could go endless…
    when i am appauled on is the fact that facebook took the time to pin point a breastfeeding picture while porn bots and VERY many fully naked people has been able to sneak in pictures and various application throughout facebook,
    i was a avid user of social me. i got a kick out of tagging my friends making fun jokes till i had to remove it, it was to a point i couldn't access it when when my child was around cause every second picture that popped up was a chick with her fingers up her twat of a man holding is manly members… and to think…children use facebook and these applications can be added very easily…
    i think its high time facebook gets their crap together and censor where it is important….

  83. ronnie
    December 29th, 2008 | 14:17

    Im sure if that nice girl had a 9mm in one hand and a nice cigar in the other with her tits hanging out, face book would not ban it.

  84. Nibbler
    December 29th, 2008 | 15:25

    @76 hikaricore

    No actually Mr "too-quick-to-attack-others" if YOU had been here a little longer YOU would realise (as others do) that these 'Tech' news posts (95% of the time by Martin) are ALWAYS semi controversial with the SOLE intention of generation large numbers of comments on the boards (and subsequently a large number of return visit hits by people checking responses to said comments)… thus this in-turn allows Martin to make even MORE money from the advertising space he sells… (higher hits = higher rates)

    On topic… get over it, Facebook is free and offers a fairly useful service to many, if you don't like their policies then don't use it, but they can do exactly as they like… and why not… isn't that the reason everyone would like to be their own boss?

  85. Flopper
    December 29th, 2008 | 15:49

    If u have the urge to share ur breastfeeding experience with others, do it somewhere else, the policy clearly states that no "nude" pictures are allowed. Sure breastfeeding is a natural thing, but just like moli said (number 11 i think) "pissing and pooing is also natural", so, if someone wanted to he could upload pictures of him pooing and pissing?… no. And y r they so angry anw? do they feel that Facebook is being sexist or smthng? They are trying to protect ur tities from sick bastards with which the internet is full of.

  86. Timbo
    December 29th, 2008 | 16:26

    to be fair (and I am) I'm glad theyve banned that, if id seen that birds nips i'd have probly a hoyed up. Which dump F threw one up her ????


  87. anomynous
    December 29th, 2008 | 20:22

    Who wants to see that ugly-a55 b!tch's tit anyways?

  88. dosguy
    December 29th, 2008 | 20:25

    Censorship is disgusting and perverted. Anyone who thinks the human body is such should closely examine their religious beliefs. People should boycott Facebook and any other venues practicing censorship.

  89. CorryT
    December 29th, 2008 | 22:22

    Strange things happening on the other side of the Atlantic ocean. In most parts of Europe it's perfectly normal to see women breastfeeding their child in public. It has nothing to do with showing off.

  90. hikaricore
    December 30th, 2008 | 00:32

    Nibbler you're a tool.

    If I were still posting on a news site of any sort as I've done in the past and came across this topic, I'd have posted it too. There is no large revenue generating conspiracy as you believe. Seriously if you and your others who have realized that Martin is trying to become rich don't like it around here, you could just stop visiting… Also if you'd like you can have my tinfoil hat to wear so rlslog can't transmit advertisements into your brain.

  91. common sense
    December 30th, 2008 | 04:42

    December 29th, 2008 | 10:31
    Just another stupid puritan idea made into reality. You all are looooosers! What's so vulgar about breast? lol you're like lil kids in there… but be proud of yourself… !!

    Are you really that stupid? Guess what moron, it was the ACLU that first filed the first batch of complaints in this case. It was the mythical MMM(million mom march) who never even came close to 50,000 total all over the US according to police and park ranger counts, who filed another batch of complaints. It was SAG who filed yet another batch of complaints (screen actors guild)and it was the National Athiest group that filed the yet another batch of complaints, h3ll even GLAAD filed a batch of complaints demanding that if they are going to show a womans breast then they had better allow mens d(*&s or get ready to be sued, and by reading the posts here it clearly shows that we have a few of these members else why are they so concerned with mens parts? NONE of these groups have anything to do with Conservatives and would ban them in a moment if they could. Yet everyone from the idiotic Old Commie Pinko with his flat earth conspiracy posts right on down to the dumbest dweeb still living in his mommy's basement, are trying to make it out like this is all the conservatives fault when according to the Facebook records themselves, over 98% of the complaints filed about this issue were from left wing liberals!!

    Seems that a vast amount of you posters have a serious case of "foot in mouth" disease as you let your brains kick in well after you used your keyboards.

  92. Wow
    December 30th, 2008 | 08:52

    Wow, is this what women have been reduced to fighting for now? Putting up images of their tits on facebook?


    There once was a time where they fought for equality in something that mattered: the real world.

  93. costa200
    January 2nd, 2009 | 12:46

    I LOL @ prudish americans…

  94. supermama
    January 4th, 2009 | 20:20

    This way we are never able to learn well about breastfeeding and how it's done through internet. What if Jack Newman had such a censureship on his site?!
    Also, especially in the Netherlands, breastfeeding must become more common amongst people. That starts also by people seeing more often breastfeeding happening in the world.

  95. Sarah Amateur
    April 25th, 2011 | 09:17

    A good name is better than riches.

  96. low cost cialis
    August 22nd, 2012 | 06:37

    Impotent gentlemen in no way experienced it so good. Viagra pioneered the oral cure for Erection Dysfunction. Plus the baton, it seems, may be transferred to Cialis. Between, Levitra also created its existence felt. But Cialis may be the potential drug which includes the globe on its ft.

  97. Handy Orten
    September 12th, 2012 | 22:19

    Impotent males never experienced it so very good. Viagra pioneered the oral treatment for Impotence. As well as the baton, it appears, is transferred to Cialis. In between, Levitra also created its presence felt. But Cialis would be the long term drug which includes the entire world on its feet.

  98. sildenafil citrate in bangalore
    December 6th, 2013 | 03:40

    levitra cialis and viagra sildenafil citrate

  99. Tadalafil
    February 11th, 2014 | 04:04

    sildenafil for scleroderma

Leave a reply


rent this ad space