Everyone has a story. What's yours?
 Linda Thomas
twitter: @TheNewsChick
About Linda
Linda is the morning news anchor and features reporter for KIRO Radio. This is her local news blog, with an emphasis on social media, technology, Northwest companies, education, parenting, and anything else that grabs her attention.

If you have a news tip or story idea, I'd love to hear from you...

To leave a voice message for Linda about any of her stories call toll free 1-855-251-2363

Follow Me on Pinterest


Facebook,_BreastCancer.jpg
This image has been removed from Facebook, and reposted, several times. The photo from book Bodies of Subversion: A Secret History of Women and Tattoo by Margot Mifflin Powerhouse Books.

The cancer survivor's photo Facebook considers obscene

February 19, 2013 @ 5:48 pm (Updated: 6:50 pm - 2/19/13 )

Facebook has made moms mad before by banning photos that show breastfeeding. Now they're angering breast cancer survivors as they remove a photo of a woman's tattooed chest.

Seattle artist Tina Baforo is behind the tattoo Inga Duncan Thornell had inked on her chest following a double mastectomy.

Thornell says it took one Sunday a month over two-and-a-half years to complete the design.

An Ontario-based tattoo company posted the image, featuring a colorful, intricate design that covers the woman the same way a sports bra would. Lee Roller says after he shared the picture it was removed because it violated Facebook's rules on nudity.

The image has since been shared more than 122,000 times with more than 150,000 "likes."

Facebook's policy allows a little wiggle room on whether this kind of image would be considered obscene.

Although the social network states it has a strict policy against the sharing of pornographic content and any explicitly sexual content, "We aspire to respect people's right to share content of personal importance, whether those are photos of a sculpture like Michelangelo's David or family photos of a child breastfeeding."

Many of the Facebook post's 18,000 comments say there is nothing offensive about this.

"Beautiful," writes Carma Marshall, "Thank God she is still with us to share this."

While Facebook is making sure photos posted aren't obscene, they're also doing something taxpayers might consider outrageous.

Facebook reported 2012 U.S. profits of $1.1 billion, but didn't have to give Uncle Sam any of it, according to Citizens for Tax Justice.

The public interest group breaks it down here, reporting that Facebook is the recipient of a free pass on federal and state income taxes for 2012.

Beyond not owing any taxes, Facebook will also actually receive net tax refunds of $429 million.

By LINDA THOMAS

More from Linda Thomas

MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (23)


  • Add A Comment

  • rational wrote...
    Facebook and offensive
    February 20, 2013 7:00 pm
    Never wasted my time on Facebook, and no, I don't find the photo offensive or obscene. Not a big fan of tattoos, but that isn't really the point.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • dori monson fan wrote...
    the headline is misleading at best
    February 20, 2013 10:43 pm
    did facebook ever say this picture is obscene? or is "obscene" the word that feminists put in facebook's mouth and mynw ran with?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Snout wrote...
    Not offensive just gross.
    February 21, 2013 4:33 am
    And ugly. It looks like the opening cartoon scenes of a Monty Python episode.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cuba_pete wrote...
    It's simple
    February 21, 2013 7:48 am
    Though it's a fabulous story of survival and a nice work of art, the policy is there for a purpose. There are other places where this can be shared with people who will appreciate it for what the survivor intends. It is Facebook's right to refuse the publishing of the content. It's as simple as that.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FaeKnight wrote...
    Facebook is the one being offensive here with their false morality.
    February 21, 2013 12:58 pm
    Breasts are idolized as beauty in our culture. But let a nip slip, and it's a scandal! Post a photo of a chest without breasts, without nipples, and adorned with artwork in their stead, and it's OFFENSIVE??? This woman has undergone a brutal and barbaric amputation of her breasts to save her life. Her tattoo is therapeutic, to help her feel good about her body again. Facebook should apologize. AND in their apology, they should donate AT LEAST $1MILLION to one of the following foundations: *The Breast Cancer Research Foundation *National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program *The National Breast Cancer Coalition *Unite For Her Oh, and donating to Komen is adding insult to injury. Komen is basically a brand name that contributes ONLY 20c of every dollar to breast cancer research compared to 90c from the NCRB. And Komen's lobbying effort doesn't match the NBCC who got more money in awards from congress for breast cancer research. But if you're looking for pink swag, go see Susan.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • hpitantso wrote...
    FaeKnight wrote... Told the truth
    February 21, 2013 7:18 pm
    They say if you tell the truth you shame the devil, Komen and those ran like it shame on you.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }