Below is a catalog of posts and pictures that were banned on Facebook for violating their “community standards.” The pictures are in reverse chronological order. Most were originally published on the Safe Seattle Facebook page, which I manage.
Facebook doesn’t tell users what specific standards they’ve violated, but here are some that they might have applied, however inappropriately …
May 17, 2021 ~ Do you think she’s in danger?
The following post was removed for allegedly violating Facebooks community standards about sexual exploitation. Even though the pictures were blurred and no locations were mentioned. The story is obviously not about sex but about drug use.
Do you think she’s in danger?
Reader: Mid-afternoon on a day last week. I was driving along a major arterial in Ballard when I saw a fully naked woman face-down on the corner in front of one of the shops there. Her legs were sprawled out and she had blood smeared on her torso and other parts of her body. (I found out later that she was not wounded, so this must have been menstrual blood.) Although this was a high-traffic area for both foot and car traffic, it looked as though nobody had stopped to help, so I pulled over and called 911.
As I was describing the scene to the dispatcher, the woman began rolling around, flailing and flopping all over the sidewalk. She then sat up and started twitching, scratching herself, swatting invisible flies around her head, and talking to the air.
By this point, two other passersby had stopped, and I could see that one of them was also calling 911. One of them, a young man, tried talking to the woman, but she wouldn’t respond. She just continued chatting away with her imaginary associates in a language I didn’t recognize and was probably just gibberish.
As you can see from the photo on the right, her shoes and clothes were strewn about on the sidewalk. After a few minutes (while we were waiting for either medics or police to show) the woman stood up, picked up her shoes and clothes, and, still stark naked, walked about aimlessly in traffic at the intersection, stopping cars and nearly causing collisions. Eventually she made her way to another shop where she stood on the patio and resumed her gyrations and conversations with imaginary partners.
The good Samaritan guy showed up again, approached her and offered her a bottle of water, which she took from him and drank up in the blink of an eye. He tried talking to her again but she continued ignoring him and went back to her hallucinations.
The first SPD officer then arrived. He approached her and said, “The nice people at this establishment say they need you to move on,” whereupon she snapped to for a moment and said, “I really appreciate that,” but she continued flailing and made gave no indication that she was going to leave.
He tried a different approach. “Have you had any drugs today?” he asked. “I don’t believe in that,” she replied.
He asked her if she wanted to go to the hospital, but she shook her head and said no.
“You want to buy some coffee?” he said. “You’re gonna have to put your clothes on to do that.”
At this point, he turned to me and the other two people who’d stopped and asked us what had happened. We told him what we’d seen, but, as it turned out, none of us had been there for the opening act.
Mind you, we weren’t the only people on the scene. We were just the only ones who appeared to be paying attention. This was all playing out on the patio of a boutique food shop with customers inside and individual pedestrians, couples, and even families passing by on the sidewalk just a few feet away. Except for a few of the kids, not one of them stopped or even turned their heads to look.
I asked the officer if there was REALLY nothing he could do. “What would you LIKE me to do?” he snapped. The frustration in his voice and actions was unmistakable.
I said, “Take her in for a psychiatric evaluation and or medical check.” He told me the police can only do that if the subject requests it, and this woman had clearly declined his offer.
I wondered if what we were witnessing was drugs or mental illness. “Drugs,” he said emphatically. “Look at her eyes.”
(Yes, I had noticed her eyes were bugged-out and wild.)
The officer told me there the woman wasn’t breaking any laws, since neither nudity* nor public intoxication are crimes in Seattle. He said the only way they could arrest for nudity is if someone complained that they were “offended.”
“Are you offended by her?“
“I am not offended by her nudity, but I am deeply offended by the entire situation.”
“Well, if you’re not offended by the nudity we can’t do anything.”
“Do you think she’s in danger?”
“Sure, all kinds of danger,” he replied.
Two more SPD cars then arrived and the three of them began working jointly to persuade the woman to put her clothes back on. Eventually, she began dressing herself, but in her drug-induced confusion, she couldn’t figure out what piece of clothing went with what body part. She tried to wriggle both legs into a neck gaiter, and an officer said, as politely as you can imagine.
“Ma’am… I don’t think that’s where that goes.”
When the back-up arrived, the first officer told me to stick around in case any of them had questions for me, but now he said I was free to leave, and since I had an appointment to get to, I did.
It was 7 or 8 minutes from the time I called 911 to when the first officer arrived and the entire episode was about 20 and the whole thing felt surreal, from beginning to end. The woman’s behavior was shocking enough, but what was also shocking is that of the dozens or hundreds of people who passed by, no one seemed to take notice. I know they saw the woman and were aware of what was happening, but for some reason, they refused to look. Maybe they’re just learning to accept this as the new normal.
*There is no law against nudity. There is a law against “indecent exposure.” Washington’s indecent exposure law makes it a misdemeanor to “make any open and obscene exposure of his or her person or the person of another knowing that such conduct is likely to cause reasonable affront or alarm.” In other words, there must be lewd or obscene behavior for an officer to take action. In order for the police to make an arrest, we must have witnesses currently in the public place where the nudity is occurring who must make a complaint.
–Excerpted from: https://spdblotter.seattle.gov/2008/11/14/is-nudity-illegal/
August 8, 2018 ~ North Aurora Prostitute
This picture was sent in by a resident of the North Aurora neighborhood in Seattle. It shows a prostitute working the street near SHARE’s Licton Springs “low-barrier” homeless camp. I added some text to the picture, which was originally shared to the page by a reader, but that text was removed by Facebook before I could save it. In my comments, I noted that since the Licton Springs camp went in, prostitution has increased in this neighborhood, and I suggested that woman in the picture might be an example of that:
See an expanded story on the Licton Springs camp here.
After Facebook removed the post, I wrote a post complaining about that, and a Facebook employee who reads the Safe Seattle page contacted us and offered to look into why the first post was removed. He got back to me after making some inquiries and explained that Facebook review staff removed the post as a violation of their policy against bullying. Specifically this:
I responded that prostitution is criminal activity and not “sexual activity” in Facebook’s sense of that word, and while he didn’t disagree, I knew that the Facebook review team had made their decision and weren’t going to reverse it. I then asked the Facebook staffer, rhetorically, whether Facebook’s policy meant that Safe Seattle readers were not allowed to discuss prostitution occurring on their streets. He replied that he thought we could discuss prostitution, as long as we did so carefully.
Facebook claims they removed the post for the commentary rather than the picture, but that’s clearly not true. An all-text post speculating about whether there are prostitutes on North Aurora would not have been removed. Conversely, this picture alone, without the text speculating that the woman might be a prostitute, would not have been removed. It was the combination of picture and suggestive text that got the post removed. Fortunately, the picture had been shared to us by a reader and I merely added the text. Had I posted the picture directly, Facebook would have banned me as well as pulling the post.
July, 2018 ~ Anti-Defecation League
or “A picture’s worth a thousand turds”
A variant of this picture was reported and removed. It also earned the owner of the Seattle Looks Like Shit page a ban. The image shows a man defecating at the entrance to the Ross clothing store at 3rd and Pike in downtown Seattle. Feces are visible dropping from the man’s buttocks onto the sidewalk. It’s gross, but it really happened. In fact, it’s a regular occurence in this area.
Seattle Looks Like Shit is a popular page that has been featured in the local media and regularly posts content of this type. I agree that the picture is generally offensive and that it does violate Facebook’s “community standards.” However, at the same time, I feel that the Facebook policy puts Seattle in a bind, because it effectively prevents us from talking with each other about scenes that occur daily on the streets of our city and therefore affect us all. How can the citizens be mobilized to stop this behavior if we aren’t allowed to tell each other that it’s happening?
June 9, 2018 ~ Sex in the Cemetery
The note and photos below document criminal activity. They were sent to us by Ari Hoffman, a Jewish man who has been fighting a years-long battle against the desecration of the Bikur Cholim cemetery in Seattle, where members of his family are buried. You can read more about Ari’s saga here.
This couple was caught having sex in Seattle’s Bikur Cholim [Jewish] cemetery. No arrest was made, but we filed a report anyway. Saw them wandering the neighborhood later in the day. –Ari Hoffman
This material was originally published on the Safe Seattle Facebook page in late May 2018. Because the crimes were alleged rather than proven, faces in the top photo were blurred, but the second photo was left unblurred because the individuals’ faces were not clearly visible. Two weeks after it was published, the second photograph was flagged by someone “brigading” the page and trying to take it down. Facebook removed the photo on the grounds that it violated the company’s mysterious “community standards” and without further explanation or appeal banned the poster from using Facebook for three days, with a warning that they could be booted from the social network permanently if further violations occurred.
Do you like what I do on the Blog Quixotic? Then please reward it!