[sir_smurf]

I would guess that censoring a head of state is what made most people react.

From my European perspective:

This is a case of an american corporation imposing censorship based on american values (that almost no european care about) on an European head of state, where the message being censored is of historical importance while painting america in a negative light.

While other claims of censorship is easily shrugged of as unimportant this one makes it blatantly clear that an american corporation is trying to interfere in our democracy, something that is going to annoy a lot of people to the degree where they are going to at-least complain loudly about it.

[r_smart]

Thanks for that, it's an interesting difference from my own opinion, and totally understandable. I don't like it because it clearly (to me) is a censorship of art, and famous art at that. It violates principles of free speech as I understand it (from the US).

But the angle of it being an American company meddling in European politics is also an important idea. For what it's worth, I doubt they care about the picture's portrayal of America so much as the simple fact that it's a naked child.

There seems to be a fine line between diplomacy and meddling that hasn't been going too well lately.

[sir_smurf]

yes, I don't think that facebook cares so much about the america perspective of the picture, nor do I think that it's the major point for most people complaining about the censorship, but it is that little extra twist. Compared to if they had censored the photo of the man in front of the tanks on tiamen square in china; it would still technically be as bad, but I would guess that fewer people would complain as it would _feel_ less politically motivated.