Facebook to reinstate censored image of ‘napalm girl’ after Mark Zuckerberg accused of ‘abusing power’
A Facebook spokesperson said: 'After hearing from our community, we looked again at how our Community Standards were applied in this case'
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Facebook has made a u-turn over its decision to censor an iconic image of a child victim of the Vietnam War after it was removed from the social media platform under nudity guidelines.
CEO Mark Zuckerberg was accused of “abusing his power” by the editor of Norway’s biggest newspaper after Facebook deleted an article containing the 1972 image of nine-year-old Kim Phuc running down the street without any clothes on after sustaining severe burns in a napalm attack.
Aftenposten’s editor-in-chief Espen Egil Hansen wrote a front-page open letter to Zuckerberg expressing concern that his “editorial responsibility” was being restricted by Facebook.
When Aftenposten reported the ban and shared the picture again, they reportedly received an email from Facebook demanding it to be taken down or pixelised in conjunction with its nudity guidelines.
The email said: “Any photographs of people displaying fully nude genitalia or buttocks, or fully nude female breasts, will be removed." Before Aftenposten could respond, they claim the article had been removed.
Facebook initially defended the move on Friday, saying in a statement: “While we recognize that this photo is iconic, it’s difficult to create a distinction between allowing a photograph of a nude child in one instance and not others."
But following intense backlash, Facebook have now said they are reinstating the image and allowing uses to share it due to its “status as an iconic image of historical importance.”
A Facebook spokesperson said: “After hearing from our community, we looked again at how our Community Standards were applied in this case. An image of a naked child would normally be presumed to violate our Community Standards, and in some countries might even qualify as child pornography.
"In this case, we recognize the history and global importance of this image in documenting a particular moment in time. Because of its status as an iconic image of historical importance, the value of permitting sharing outweighs the value of protecting the community by removal, so we have decided to reinstate the image on Facebook where we are aware it has been removed.
"We will also adjust our review mechanisms to permit sharing of the image going forward. It will take some time to adjust these systems but the photo should be available for sharing in the coming days. We are always looking to improve our policies to make sure they both promote free expression and keep our community safe, and we will be engaging with publishers and other members of our global community on these important questions going forward.”
The opening letter written by Mr Hansen, who referred to Zuckerberg as “the world’s most powerful editor”, said: “I am upset, disappointed – well, in fact, even afraid – of what you are about to do to a mainstay of our democratic society.
“Even though I am editor-in-chief of Norway’s largest newspaper, I have to realise that you are restricting my room for exercising my editorial responsibility. This is what you and your subordinates are doing in this case.
“I think you are abusing your power, and I find it hard to believe that you have thought it through thoroughly.”
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments