“I agree that I have read and understand the terms and conditions” has to be the most common lie among millennials today.

For the most part, millennials skim through or just about completely ignore the fine print we agree to when we sign up for an account on social media. Often the terms and conditions are filled with policies and guidelines that users need to follow: no nudity, violence, copyright infringement or hate speech.

So when a woman by the name of Rupi Kaur had a photo taken down on Instagram last week for “violating” community guidelines, she was upset, but she was not surprised.

Her response addressed many of the issues that are not only present in society, but also on social media. According to the guidelines on Instragram, it asks users to keep their clothes on and be respectful in terms of content because of the underage users. Yet Instragram and other social media sites must recognize that this form of censorship only protects ignorant minds.

Kaur’s photo features a woman fully clothed, lying on her side with her back to the camera and reveals small menstrual stains on her pants and bed. Instragram took the photo down and Kaur’s response garnered much attention. She uploaded the picture again and stated: “I will not apologize for not feeding the ego and pride of a misogynist society that will have my body in an underwear but not be OK with a small leak when your pages are filled with countless photos/accounts where women (so many of whom are underage) are objectified, pornified and treated less than human.”

Censoring a woman’s menstrual stain reinforces the idea that a normal human process, one that allows for the regeneration of our species, is disgusting. This form of censorship silences the social changes that need to be enforced in our culture.

And this isn’t the first time Instagram unnecessarily censored its users. Canadian photographer Petra Collins had her Instagram account deleted for posting a picture revealing her pubic hair from the sides of her bikini, yet she, like Kaur, was not nude. Other women who post pictures in underwear or bathing suits do not have their content removed because what separates Collins’ photo from the slew of other nearly naked women is that her bikini line was unshaven.

The content of Kaur’s and Collins’ photos is natural occurrences that don’t harm the fragility of anyone’s innocence. We have become a society more shocked by nudity than violence and we have normalized nudity to equate with sexuality.

Instagram has since apologized and restored Kaur’s and Collins’ photos, yet social media needs to re-evaluate what should be considered unacceptable or acceptable content.

The most recent wave of feminism has taken a stance against the sexualization of women’s bodies. Many prominent figures like Scout Willis and Miley Cyrus have taken to social media to make it clear that they do not want to be censored for exposing themselves with famous hashtags like #freethenipple.

Currently the minimum age of most social media sites is 13, and Instragram and other mediums have the right to want a safe environment for their young users. But the truth is these images cannot be more shocking than the thousands of murders and massacres displayed on newsstands every day, or even the pictures of sexualized women that are not removed from Instagram.

This kind of censorship of natural and non-sexualized bodies doesn’t protect young minds, instead it limits their exposure to the changing idea that our generation has worked so hard to implement.

Laritza Salazar is a sophomore newspaper and online journalism major. Her column appears weekly. She can be reached at lcsalaza@syr.edu.

Published on March 30, 2015 at 11:21 pm