Question on First Amendment VS Facebook Policy | The Naturist Page

I don’t know much about CA, USA laws, however isn’t Facebook breaking the First Amendment on simple non-sexual nudity? It’s not obscenity. Im confused. I’m bringing this topic up because I read an article such as this one from the First Amendment Center where they talk about how the First Amendment does not protect pornography & obscenity — yet Naturism isn’t ponography or obscenity. Facebook users are getting their non-sexual/obscene photos, accounts, pages and groups either blocked or removed and more and more people are turning to Twitter where they strongly believe in the freedom of speech.

In one paragraph of the article states, “Even more fundamentally, nudity does not equal obscenity. The Supreme Court recognized this in Jenkins v. Georgia, when it ruled that the film “Carnal Knowledge” was not obscene. Justice William Rehnquist wrote in that 1974 case that “nudity alone is not enough to make material legally obscene under the Miller standards.”” So, does mean Facebook is breaking The First Amendment? I honestly do not know since I never lived in the United States or California for that matter.

Do you think that it would be possible to use this against Facebook to change their policy and allow non-sexual/obscene nudity and ban those who are obscene or with sexual intent to offend others just as the First Amendment stays? It’s a question i’m sure a lot of of left us scratching our heads.

32 thoughts on “Question on First Amendment VS Facebook Policy | The Naturist Page”

  1. Facebook is ok w depicting images of extreme violence such as the daily inundation of photos and videos of Palestinians being shot to pieces by the IDF but heaven help those who post tasteful photos of nudists and naturists living their lives. I don't get it either. Facebook can't even handle photos of nursing mothers.
    Strange to me…

  2. Facebook, Twitter, Naktiv, etc all have a right to make their own rules. A user on Twitter recently had to change her naturist profile picture to a clothed one, but there is also porn on Twitter which makes no sense. At least Facebook tries to be consistent.

  3. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."

    The first amendment only applies to government censorship. As a private company Facebook can ban what it wants.

Leave a Comment

New Report