Jump to content
IGNORED

FB bans mom for posting photos of son who lived 8 hours


gustava

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 107
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I agree the Duggars went way over the line with Jubliee. But with this woman, she probably only intended for the pics to be seen mostly by friends and family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't Smuggar post pics of his "lil sis" on his facebook too?

I seriously eye-rolled at this article because Boob and Mullet are praised for showing the world how to properly grieve the loss of a child. This grieving mom just wanted to post pictures, mainly intended for family, to show that even though her son lived 8 hours, she thought he was beautiful and a fighter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everybody has said it before - you can have underage twats and twits like Courtney Stodden doing softcore porn on facebook and they'll put her page right back up with copious apologies, and let her flash the entire cyber public... Those pictures of beaten animals that rip your heart out and make you want to vomit with rage... everybody can see. Sexting and texting and cyber bullying - that's perfectly fine.

But family photos of a clearly loved baby boy... Unreal what people find "offensive".

There's really nothing illegal with this, but I surely hope that couple raises holy hell and becomes a thorn in Zuckerberg's ass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't Smuggar post pics of his "lil sis" on his facebook too?

I seriously eye-rolled at this article because Boob and Mullet are praised for showing the world how to properly grieve the loss of a child. This grieving mom just wanted to post pictures, mainly intended for family, to show that even though her son lived 8 hours, she thought he was beautiful and a fighter.

He posted a ton of the funeral on instagram. I don't know about ones actually of the baby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He posted a ton of the funeral on instagram. I don't know about ones actually of the baby.

Thank, I couldn't remember for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't Amy also put pictures of Jubilee's feet on FB?

On Twitter, actually. But yes. I thought that was really classy of her :roll: I don't even get the impression that Amy is really that close with any of the Duggars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what they classify it as, but it seems like there have been several stories lately of facebook deleting pics and sometimes banning accounts over pics that show visible medical conditions. It's messed up, but I think it started to stop people from sharing pics of unrelated people, not their own children and family members.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Facebook is known for making stupid rash decisions. This is the same place that took down pictures of a mom nursing her infant because it was nudity, yet doesn't think twice about some bimbo with fake boobs in a way too small bikini. Remember Zuckerberg is only 28 and a male. He's much more interested in fake boobs than real babies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is ridiculous. I am going to report every soft porn photo I see. Of course Facebook does nothing about those photos. I wish there was a way we could reach a real person at Facebook.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Facebook is known for making stupid rash decisions. This is the same place that took down pictures of a mom nursing her infant because it was nudity, yet doesn't think twice about some bimbo with fake boobs in a way too small bikini. Remember Zuckerberg is only 28 and a male. He's much more interested in fake boobs than real babies.

Um, wow... That's a very stereotypical statement. Zuckerber's age and gender have nothing to do with what content other people report and facebook employees delete.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a suspicion it was the woman's "friends" repeatedly reporting the photo(s) as offensive. I doubt Facebook hires photo trollers to find things to ban. It relies on community-generated reports.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dead baby pages, they've been around forever (long before Facebook), they can be creepy, but... when they're original postings obviously made by someone sincerely meaning well as a memorial, I can't snark it too hard.

My own thought is, for the abortion discussions and whatnot too, it's a baby when the parents want it and create a child in their mental space. And so perhaps if Facebook doesn't want them being forwarded forever, they can just say make that friends only. I don't know, but people are sincere in posting those pictures and they do it from good feelings (the original posters). I can only feel terrible sadness for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dead baby pages, they've been around forever (long before Facebook), they can be creepy, but... when they're original postings obviously made by someone sincerely meaning well as a memorial, I can't snark it too hard.

My own thought is, for the abortion discussions and whatnot too, it's a baby when the parents want it and create a child in their mental space. And so perhaps if Facebook doesn't want them being forwarded forever, they can just say make that friends only. I don't know, but people are sincere in posting those pictures and they do it from good feelings (the original posters). I can only feel terrible sadness for them.

Some of the photos of the child's Anencephaly are not for the faint of heart. On most of the dead baby pages children with this defect are artfully draped and posed, as in some of the shots the Walker family posted.

I don't have a problem with folks giving friends and family access to pictures of their child, regardless how graphic some are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a suspicion it was the woman's "friends" repeatedly reporting the photo(s) as offensive. I doubt Facebook hires photo trollers to find things to ban. It relies on community-generated reports.

That's my suspicion as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So here's a flip side. Last year a woman in Ohio sued a hospital that did take photo's of her dead child without her permission.

CINCINNATI -- Heather Werth said she was devastated when her son, Joey, died in the hospital 16 weeks after he was born premature. But she said even more devastating was that someone sent her a photo album filled with pictures of her son taken after he died.

"I had memories of Joey. I don't have those anymore. They've been replaced by this," Werth said pointing to the photo album.

Good Samaritan Hospital and unknown employees of the hospital are named as defendants in the lawsuit.

Werth said she told hospital officials that she didn't want any pictures taken of her son after he died.

Instead, she received the album with 154 pictures in it. Werth said Joey was placed in more than 20 poses.

"He was treated like a doll. He was flipped and he was flopped. He was dressed and he was undressed. He was put in a blanket. He was posed. He was laying on his belly. He was laying on his back," Werth said.

Werth is suing for emotional distress, abuse of a corpse and negligent supervision by Good Samaritan Hospital.

"To me, they played with him. And this was something that didn't take five minutes to do. They played with him for a long time," she said. "I held him when he passed and I should have been the last person to bond with him."

A representative for Good Samaritan Hospital said they would not comment on the lawsuit. They also wouldn't say whether the practice of taking pictures after death is a standard practice at the hospital.

Werth said she will destroy the pictures once the lawsuit is settled.

"Every day I see these pictures in my head. It's the first thing I think of when I get up, and it's the last thing I think of when I go to bed," Werth said.

Read more: http://www.wlwt.com/news/27969363/detai ... z1vNzBnFye

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There I can understand the hospital... they worry about what happens when the parents DO want photos of the kid later that they "missed out on." The baby meanwhile doesn't have any idea either way.

But absolutely any such pictures should be tagged and placed in an archive somewhere, never to see the light of day UNLESS the parents come asking. If the parents never do, they should just be destroyed. Mailing them unrequested to the parents is beyond the pale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the way Werth describes the photos its sounds like the hosp called in NILMDTS. I didn't know that they would do photos without the permission of the parents. I bet Werth settled out for some large money. The hospital blew it big time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's terrible! People get away with way more gruesome stuff than anencephaly. And the fact that it had to be one of her friends who reported it... Anyway, it's not against any of facebook's rules, so surely they have to put them back up, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's just..........ew. Facebook needs to work on their priorities.

I read the comments following the article. I can't tell if this one is sarcasm or not, but it is irritating:

"Facebook is right. I always feel harassed and bullied by someone else's heartbreak. Being distracted from my own stuff by these pictures has all but destroyed me. Thank God the offending content is now gone. "

(sorry for not putting that in actual quote format, I'm still kind of new to this site and it takes me a while to figure things out)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.