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

  • It's me! Ha ha! wrote...
    I don't see anything offensive for obscene about that pic.
    February 20, 2013 6:42 am
    Unfortunately (Or fortunately!) Facebook is private and they can Censor as they see fit.

    AJ I wonder how long before someone else comes up with something similar to FB and begins to siphon off the users.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Rikki Doxx wrote...
    Alternate to Facebook
    February 20, 2013 4:16 pm
    Well there still is MySpace.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Oly80 wrote...
    THAT'S considered obsene on FB?
    February 20, 2013 7:15 am
    ...they don't check their younger users' pages very often do they?

    i'm not a big fan of tats. not a huge fan of this pic. HOWEVER what it symbolizes i'm all for.

    teenage girls doing duck faces in skimpy two piece bikinis is WAY more offensive.

    not to mention COMPLETELY inappropriate. but, no. let's ban the breast cancer surviors pic of her tat that shows NOTHING. literally.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • soo purletiv wrote...
    Not a fan of inking...
    February 20, 2013 7:35 am
    but the "artist" did do an amazing job here. I am amazed at how well she did in covering up the nipples. There is no sign of them, what so ever. }
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • crafty_lexi wrote...
    soo purletiv....
    February 20, 2013 8:04 am
    Maybe you're being sarcastic. Maybe you just don't realize. There are no nipples. This woman survived breast cancer by undergoing a double mastectomy. She has no breast tissue, no mammory glands, no nipples. She has scars. What the artist did is a beautiful job of covering scars. And the artist is an artist, not an "artist". You may not care for their style or their medium (ink, needle and skin as opposed to paint, brush and canvas) but this is an artist. But yes, FB only recently updated their policy to allow breastfeeding photos, after much protest. I don't imagine FB will continue to label this obscene if there is sufficient protest. As such, I'm posting it right now....
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • soo purletiv wrote...
    @ crafty_lexi
    February 20, 2013 12:57 pm
    My bad!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Moondoggie wrote...
    Millions of pictures
    February 20, 2013 9:24 am
    There are millions of pictures posted to FB every hour. Do you think they spend more than a fraction of a second studying each picture? Perhaps FB thinks it’s a young lady who hasn’t developed breasts yet. Would you all be ok if some perv posted pictures of underage girls?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Oly80 wrote...
    if FB only took a fraction of a second to look at that pic...
    February 20, 2013 9:33 am
    they wouldn't ban it, as it shows NOTHING.

    there's NOTHING showing but ink. carl's jr. tv ads are more revealing.

    how you make the jump from the pic above to underage girls i'll never know.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    Rightys,Whatever happened to the personal FREEDOM
    February 20, 2013 9:35 am
    That you hypocrites preach?Facebook has EVERY right to set its own standards as this Northwest web site does,or you or I could if we had a web site.I believe you guys define FREEDOM as what ever suits your fancy of the moment.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Oly80 wrote...
    yes.
    February 20, 2013 11:30 am
    but, at the same time, it's good for both sides to call out stupidity when they see it.

    seems like i (moderate dem) and more than a couple "rightys" are on the same page on this one. they shouldn't ban this and allow things much worse.

    BUT, they have Every Right to stand fast on their ban...of a breast cancer survivor’s picture of her tattoo that she got to cover the scars she got from dealing with her illness. it just makes them look, well stupid seems like such a weak word, but yeah. that.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • It's me! Ha ha! wrote...
    messiah101
    February 20, 2013 9:52 am
    We "Righties" are pretty much in agreement that FB can censor what they want. Can't stop them from it. Of course you MORON number ONE would love it if they Censored Christians or put more Hate Israel on it!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cbrew wrote...
    I think it's pretty lame....
    February 20, 2013 1:03 pm
    I don't think you should ban an image if it's not obscene... obviously facebook has the right to do it if they want to... on the other side, i don't think people should get all up in arms about it... You're making it out to sound like Facebook is targetting women or cancer survivors or something, they're just trying to keep their own butts out of a sling... that being said, you watch what facebook users put on their facebook accounts and you'll find partial nudity every now and again... so obviously they're not THAT good at censorship.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • CH wrote...
    I want to see the same thing
    February 20, 2013 1:25 pm
    in a double D.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • hpitantso wrote...
    New obscene? or just a "Beautiful Woman"
    February 20, 2013 3:34 pm
    I thought obscene was something you did to be offensive,this is a wonderful amazing body and she's alive to show her scares of victory over a deadly cancer that has taken too many women, mothers and family members.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • tlmbrt wrote...
    Get a clue!
    February 20, 2013 5:53 pm
    They would not show guys junk without balls, so why show a woman's chest without breasts? Facebook is privately owned and can exercise their own standards. STOP with the PC crap!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }