Technology

Did Facebook Remove ‘Fetus’ Marriah Greene’s Profile?

Did Facebook Remove Fetus Marriah Greenes Profile?Over the past few days, a number of media outlets have covered the existence of unborn baby Marriah Greene’s Facebook profile. Greene’s parents, Matt and Ellie, wanted to find a creative way to announce their pregnancy to the world. So, they took to Facebook, created a profile for their unborn baby… and the rest is history. CNN has more:

The child attends Tummy University, enjoys soccer and swimming and talks in first person. And her friends talk back to her– in baby-speak, naturally.

Of course, it’s really her mother, Ellie Greene of Whitehouse, Texas, updating the page, but the fetus already has more than 260 friends.

When Ellie and her husband, Matt, decided it was time to announce their pregnancy, they wanted a quick, inclusive method, and what’s faster than Facebook to spread exciting news?

Below, watch a video report from KENS5-TV:

As of 7:30 p.m. Eastern time tonight, little Marriah’s profile was no longer active on Facebook. The Blaze reached out to Ellie and asked if the social network has removed the profile. Her response was brief: “I think so.”

Facebook has a strict policy that requires all profile creators to be at least 13 years of age:

If you are under age 13, please do not attempt to register for Facebook or provide any personal information about yourself to us. If we learn that we have collected personal information from a child under age 13, we will delete that information as quickly as possible. If you believe that we might have any information from a child under age 13, please contact us through this help page.

Could it be that Facebook counted Marriah among those individuals who are below the age requirement and, as a result, removed her account? We shall see. No word back yet from them on the matter.

Comments (88)

1 2
  • bobbknight
    Posted on June 2, 2011 at 12:56am

    Realize that the 13 year old age is a base mandated by federal law, no website is allowed to knowingly provide services to someone less than 13.

    Remember all the fear about MySpace predators?

    Report Post »  
  • Mateytwo Barreett
    Posted on June 2, 2011 at 12:39am

    Is this the Weiner story?
    Has anybody seen cybertwink here?

    Report Post » Mateytwo Barreett  
  • jrothra
    Posted on June 2, 2011 at 12:27am

    Facebook’s policy, section 4.5 states, “You will not use Facebook if you are under 13.“ Nowhere in the portion of section 4 preceding that does it refer to the profile creator as a ”person,“ They use the term ”Facebook users.“ The term ”person” is used only in 6.2, though “personal” is used in 4.1, 4.2, 4.4, 15.1, and 16.1, but that term designate the user not as a person, but that the information belongs specifically to the user. All that aside, there are two things to consider:

    1. FB has the right to set its own rules regarding its private business
    2. Claims it makes or implies about “personhood” are not legal declarations, thus not related to the when-life-begins debate.

    Report Post » jrothra  
    • Kimberli
      Posted on June 2, 2011 at 4:47pm

      This is CRAP!!! My 9 year old granddaughter has a FB page and they have not deleted it! I am going to delete my FB page tho you can bet on that!

      Report Post » Kimberli  
  • Captain Crunch
    Posted on June 1, 2011 at 11:37pm

    Obviously Facebook is being cowards and bowing to the Politically Correct powers. They know it was the mother who did it. Shame on Facebook!
    I think I’ll post on Facebook as an abortionist and give a play by play account from that perspective.
    Let them hear the primal screams.

    Report Post »  
  • grannyjojo
    Posted on June 1, 2011 at 11:19pm

    In my opinion Facebook just bought themselves a huge headache. If they now say they removed it because the “person” in question is under 13 then they just VALIDATED the idea that a fetus is a person. That throws a huge hit on the abortionists. If they removed it because they didn’t/don’t want people to SEE what a viable fetus looks like in the womb that was a mistake also. You can’t have it both ways. So whats going to be their answer? They have let tigers or whatever have a “facepage” so if this is NOT a human being then whats the problem? They can’use the reasoning that its too “hot” because they let thugs, terrorists, etc and they are about as hot a topic as you can get. t They are now going to have be creative to come up with a reason. I’m curious to see what they will use as their excuse. I personally think it was creative on the part of the mom to be, showing her baby’s growth and development before the baby is born. After having three children myself I can say without a doubt I knew that baby inside me was a peach and happy and all the rest. God bless her. “Every knee will bow and every tongue confess” And just for the record in case some don’t know my beliefs that BABY in the womb is just that a BABY, a HUMAN BEING….a fetus also (medically) but STILL a baby… God bless

    Report Post »  
  • WylE
    Posted on June 1, 2011 at 10:29pm

    If a fetus is not a person, how can it be a person under 13 years of age? This is proof, from the left, the fetus is a living human being and has a right to life.

    Report Post »  
  • AmericanStrega
    Posted on June 1, 2011 at 10:18pm

    Sorry, but I think the parents are silly for announcing their child on facebook.

    Report Post »  
  • Rayblue
    Posted on June 1, 2011 at 10:09pm

    Never went on facebook. Never will. Glad I never did.

    Report Post » Rayblue  
  • antirino
    Posted on June 1, 2011 at 9:40pm

    There are many dogs and who knows how many other animals that have facebook pages and nothing is done about it.

    Report Post »  
  • JohnFourteenSix
    Posted on June 1, 2011 at 9:17pm

    I could have sworn that lady just had a glob of tissue in her womb; at least that’s what all the anti-life “experts” say.

    Report Post » JohnFourteenSix  
  • robx
    Posted on June 1, 2011 at 9:11pm

    Groups, companies, causes and charities can all create Facebook profiles. Clearly this was a “group” or family Facebook profile. So why target this page, I want to know WHO complained!
    But another view is that by deleting the profile, if because of age, Facebook confirms that Marriah is an actual person! ha ha kind of backfires on whoever complained.

    Report Post » robx  
  • ladykrystyna
    Posted on June 1, 2011 at 8:57pm

    It’s obvious that the person who started up the page is NOT 13. Perhaps Zuckerberg needs to hire people who can think for themselves instead of just “following orders” with no thought behind it. I can just see a 20-something moron saying, “oh look, a fetus. Hey, that fetus isn’t 13, I must delete the facebook page.”

    If they want to have it up, they should work with FB to do that. Yes, FB can make rules, but I don’t see where any rules were broken.

    Report Post »  
  • geonj
    Posted on June 1, 2011 at 8:45pm

    now wait, does this mean the people at facebook think a fetus is in reality a person?

    Report Post » geonj  
  • FToth84
    Posted on June 1, 2011 at 8:30pm

    I thought fetuses weren’t people?

    Report Post » FToth84  
  • UlyssesP
    Posted on June 1, 2011 at 8:04pm

    People are way too hooked on FarceBook.
    Who cares. They have policies. If you don’t agree, don’t waste time on that website.

    Report Post » UlyssesP  
  • llotus
    Posted on June 1, 2011 at 8:04pm

    I think facebook is a curse from hell. Lotus.

    Report Post »  
    • Nobamazone
      Posted on June 1, 2011 at 9:14pm

      Here here, you just tied with atomicstorm in my book (for best post)

      Report Post » Nobamazone  
  • angelcat
    Posted on June 1, 2011 at 7:59pm

    Could it be they didn’t want to discourage abortion by presenting the fetus as the person it truly is?

    Report Post »  
  • jim
    Posted on June 1, 2011 at 7:57pm

    Facebook is again trying to be the “thought police” here, denying any view that the fetus is a living human being. They want to fall in step with abortion advocates who despise fetuses. Meanwhile, Facebook has no problem supporting views like… trees deserve a vote, animals can get a lawyer, the earth has every right that a person does…

    Report Post » jim  
    • Atomicstorm
      Posted on June 1, 2011 at 8:31pm

      The Under Age 13 rule is due to COPPA. It is too much paperwork to allow people under the age of 13 to use their service and there is the inevitable possibility that the children will be targeted by predators. While Facebook may arbitrarily enforce this rule, it is a rule nonetheless. It is not an acknowledgement of a particular political bias and it cannot be read into that it is an admission that a fetus is a child, but it could be debated.

      Report Post »  
  • kspatriot
    Posted on June 1, 2011 at 7:53pm

    Do you suppose all the dogs that have Facebook profiles are over 13 years old too?

    Report Post » kspatriot  
  • kspatriot
    Posted on June 1, 2011 at 7:50pm

    So…..a “fetus” IS a person in the eyes of Facebook. Hmmm……bet the left wing loons won’t like that.

    Report Post » kspatriot  
  • korbin
    Posted on June 1, 2011 at 7:47pm

    Well I hate Face Book its invasive beyond what you allow. I think if this was a picture of an aborted fetus they would be just fine.

    Report Post »  
  • The_Almighty_Creestof
    Posted on June 1, 2011 at 7:43pm

    Name the kid “Festus” and start a new page…with GunSmoke graphics : )

    Report Post »  
  • Exrepublisheep
    Posted on June 1, 2011 at 7:42pm

    The disclaimer says it all. NO ifs and, or butts. Under 13? No account for you!

    Report Post » Exrepublisheep  
    • Starkadder
      Posted on June 1, 2011 at 7:57pm

      Really? when my 11 YO set up a facebook using a neighbors computer and I informed them and asked it be removed they lectured me about “filtering software” and did not remove the page. no filter on my system will effect the niehbors computer. I finally had to take her cellphone away until she removed the page herself in front of me.
      If I can prove its my child AND the child is a minor you damnwell take it down now.
      A parent has the right to control a childs web presence, period

      Report Post » Starkadder  
    • Atomicstorm
      Posted on June 1, 2011 at 8:25pm

      There are a plethora of people who have put their children up with their own facebook so that they have representation in their “family” tree. They still have them this day. I can think of at least 20 individuals just within my own circle.

      Report Post »  
    • MyAgendaIsTruth
      Posted on June 2, 2011 at 2:07am

      The facebook account is FICTIONAL since a baby yet to be born cannot actually read, write, type etc… The parents are over 13 therefore the account is valid. If you say they are impersonating someone there are about 200 million facebook accounts that are fake and are impersonating someone (usually someone famous).

      Report Post » MyAgendaIsTruth  
  • boxy
    Posted on June 1, 2011 at 7:41pm

    Slow news day, I guess.

    Report Post »  
    • Atomicstorm
      Posted on June 1, 2011 at 8:27pm

      Just to note, that this site is meant to be informational whether YOU agree that it is relevant or not. They [The Blaze] have a responsibility to provide content through a variety of news genre and it is your responsibility [as the internet surfer] to find which topics are of the most interest to you or which topics have the best opportunity for you to continue to troll, like this one.

      I can speak for many people, who are like me, by saying that I enjoy reading articles that are not politically based. If you live in politics, you will certainly go mad.

      Report Post »  
    • Nobamazone
      Posted on June 1, 2011 at 9:11pm

      Atomicstorm gets my vote for best post since I’ve been home for work!!!
      I agree, read what you want, don’t read what does not interest you, you choice, there are millions of other articles you can read. Life is not all about you and what you want. Always baffles me when I read those who think an article is not news worthy enough for them. Simple fix, DON”T bother to read it, or the comments, or take your time to actually post that YOUR wasting your own time. Me, me, me…. so many only care about ME. GEEEEZE

      Report Post » Nobamazone  
    • jrothra
      Posted on June 2, 2011 at 12:17am

      I noticed many, such as you, commenting on this report’s seeming lack of newsworthiness. Just a three questions:
      1. If you don‘t think it’s news, why read it, and then comment on it to boot?
      2. Should only those things which you consider “newsworthy” be posted? If so, why not start your own news site and publish what you choose?
      3. Are human interest stories only the interest of those in a local area or can those outside that area also find it of interest?

      Report Post » jrothra  
    • MyAgendaIsTruth
      Posted on June 2, 2011 at 2:03am

      Do you people (or should I say trolls) on here complain on all your progressive blogs about slow news days and why are they covering a story?!?

      If you don’t like what the editors & writers of the Blaze cover then go somewhere else and cry to the progressive bloggers. The Blaze will do stories about what they think is news worthy. Since you don‘t own the Blaze you don’t really have a say other than go somewhere else!

      Report Post » MyAgendaIsTruth  
  • Dustyluv
    Posted on June 1, 2011 at 7:39pm

    We all need to put these up. Make it a nightmare for Facebook censors..

    Report Post »  
    • MikeDiesel
      Posted on June 1, 2011 at 7:45pm

      Why? Facebook has an age policy. Are they not allowed to enforce it? And why the crap is this news anyway? I mean, I could see it playing on the local at 6PM, but why here?

      Report Post »  
    • Locked
      Posted on June 1, 2011 at 7:49pm

      I agree with Mike. Facebook is a private company with its own rules. Don’t like the rules, don’t follow them, but don’t be expected to use the service.

      Attempting to start a revolution of sorts by spamming these will just lead to IP bans.

      Report Post »  
    • Nervous Investor
      Posted on June 1, 2011 at 8:19pm

      I’m with you DustyLuv. If the page really was from a child under 13 then I would support the Facebook policy …. in fact I would support blocking folks under age 21. In this case however, it is clearly the parent of the fetus doing the posting and showing that the Fetus is a REAL PERSON already. The left probably finds this hard to accept being so invested as they are in the destruction of early life.

      Report Post »  
    • Wilkins
      Posted on June 1, 2011 at 8:24pm

      So FB is saying Marriah is a ‘child under 13’? A ‘child’? A human ‘child’? A human life?

      Report Post »  
    • TomFerrari
      Posted on June 1, 2011 at 8:45pm

      Quite clearly, it is NOT the child’s own account, but a ‘spoof’ account, not unlike BRONX ZOO COBRA or other such accounts. If BRONX ZOO PEACOCK can have a facebook account, so can an unborn child.

      Double standard here. fb needs to rethink before they get sued by somebody.

      Hello? Gloria Allred?
      Hello? ACLU?

      Report Post » TomFerrari  
    • SingerGuy
      Posted on June 1, 2011 at 8:49pm

      That’s exactly where my mind went. FB has just certified that life begins before birth. I wonder if that’s the message they meant to send? ;-)

      Report Post » SingerGuy  
    • RepubliCorp
      Posted on June 1, 2011 at 8:52pm

      What is Facebook? And who cares?

      Report Post » RepubliCorp  
    • CatB
      Posted on June 1, 2011 at 9:10pm

      I too was wondering if the animals and other faux postings are over 13 and yes it sounds to me like this VERY liberal creator of FB is saying that this is a “child under the age of 13”.

      Report Post »  
    • jb.kibs
      Posted on June 1, 2011 at 9:13pm

      they dont allow kids.

      Report Post »  
    • Patriot Z
      Posted on June 1, 2011 at 9:22pm

      mike you do know that its not the fetus who opened the page right? its her ‘above 13 yr old’ mother. so there 13 and above rule dosent apply and any logical sense . why here? because facebook seems to have a problem with a mothers baby page, but no problem with creaing accounts for hamas and for having women beaten with cords for the evil sisn of driving. it seems that the tech support they hire to moderate, are extreamly incompotent at best

      Report Post » Patriot Z  
    • PubliusPencilman
      Posted on June 1, 2011 at 9:55pm

      “If BRONX ZOO PEACOCK can have a facebook account, so can an unborn child.”

      TomFerrari,
      There is an important difference here. How many peacocks are subject to cyberbullying? Is it a crime to display risque photos of peacocks? Childrens’ FB pages are a liability that the people at FB are trying to avoid with there clear and straightforward policy.

      How many of you were cheering about that redneck’s “english only” policy at his restaraunt? And now you don’t want to allow people to set policies for their private businesses?

      Report Post »  
    • ConsiderThis
      Posted on June 1, 2011 at 9:56pm

      Thank you Facebook!
      Glad to have to have you declare the unborn child is a viable human being.

      Report Post »  
    • theonefromabove
      Posted on June 1, 2011 at 10:53pm

      Facebook can do what they want. You have to remember that.

      http://politicalbowl.com – Political Videos

      Report Post »  
    • Bible Quotin' Science Fearin' Conservative American
      Posted on June 2, 2011 at 12:10am

      You’re being as selective with what Facebook rules you acknowledge as you are with the Bible.

      In addition to people under 13 not being allowed to have an account, no one is allowed to have more than one account and FB reserves the right to terminate accounts on this basis. I’m assuming the mother has a personal facebook page and FB would be within their own stated terms to delete hers as well.

      Report Post » Bible Quotin' Science Fearin' Conservative American  
    • dkhartman
      Posted on June 2, 2011 at 12:19am

      Hey Pencilman – are you not realizing the point…. The person in charge of the FB page is NOT under 13 so that ‘rule’ doesn’t apply. And if you‘re saying they can just discriminate where they’d like, then you have more problems then can be dealt with…. The ‘redneck’ didn’t discriminate against age, race, height, weight, etc etc. So it’s quite different.. All he asked was to be able to communicate with his customers which isn’t much to ask in a well educated country like America, right? Haha

      Report Post »  
    • Conservative Hippy
      Posted on June 2, 2011 at 12:27am

      Its probably a fail safe filter on their server to delete any profile where the creater puts in a birthdate that would make the person under 13 years old.

      Report Post »  
    • No1YaKnow
      Posted on June 2, 2011 at 12:37am

      Facebook removed it because they don’t want to recognized Marriah as a person. The mother created the profile, OBVIOUSLY. Guess some missed the fact that minister of propaganda might be going to Facebook? (Robert Fibbs)

      Report Post » Marci  
    • the_ancient
      Posted on June 2, 2011 at 1:56am

      @PATRIOT Z , and everyone else

      You do understand that Facebook is a PRIVATE company and has the right to remove any content from its service it wants to with out your permission, dont like it, dont use the service.

      Personally anyone that uses Facespace, mybook or nitwitter needs to have a CAT scan anyway, stupid fads… I thought these sites went away with Geocities and Friendster but they are like roaches they keep coming back.

      Report Post » the_ancient  
    • Jim AZ
      Posted on June 2, 2011 at 3:25am

      If they use that reasoning, then IT IS the opinion of fb that the unborn are children.

      Report Post »  
    • treshall
      Posted on June 2, 2011 at 6:40am

      …while Zuckerberg is sucking up to Obama- sickening.

      Report Post »  
    • BlazingInSC
      Posted on June 2, 2011 at 8:13am

      @MikeDiesel – It’s funny how everyone like you is defending Facebook and their enforcement of the “age policy”… Yeah, THAT same selectively enforced age policy. They are not consistent in their enforcement, so they don’t get a pass for this because it is very obvious what their motivation is for removing the profile.

      Report Post »  
    • bertr
      Posted on June 2, 2011 at 9:24am

      Its rare to see a comercial organization that’s pro-life enough to consider the unborn human beings and support the rights of the unborn, I might just write facebook and thank them for open support for the rights of the unborn

      Report Post » bertr  
    • Dale
      Posted on June 2, 2011 at 9:56am

      Wilkins
      So FB is saying Marriah is a ‘child under 13’? A ‘child’? A human ‘child’? A human life?
      ———————-
      Excellent point!

      Report Post » Dale  
    • Avidmonkey
      Posted on June 2, 2011 at 10:05am

      I know people who’s dog has a FB page. It’s still up.

      Report Post » Avidmonkey  
    • princess
      Posted on June 2, 2011 at 12:50pm

      Why??? Duh! They are excited to share their special news with friends and family…the reason for Facebook in the first place. Common sense knows a baby is not sitting at the computer. Again, common sense not legalistic stupidity.

      Report Post » princess  
    • MikeDiesel
      Posted on June 2, 2011 at 1:00pm

      @BlazinginSC
      “It’s funny how everyone like you is defending Facebook”

      Everyone like me? You don’t know anything about me, so I’m not sure how you can group me with anyone, other than the category of “People Who Disagree With You About Facebook”.

      Let me tell you something, champ. I hate Facebook. I don’t have a Facebook page, but I’d bet you do. So who is really supporting them? It isn’t me.

      That being said, Facebook is entitled to create and enforce (or not enforce) any Terms of Use policy it likes, provided it doesn’t break the law (which this clearly does not).

      So, I don’t really know what else to say except…suck it!

      Report Post »  
    • Bible Quotin' Science Fearin' Conservative American
      Posted on June 2, 2011 at 1:09pm

      Try actually reading the terms and conditions. FB doesn’t need the age requirement to delete this page. They are allowed in their terms to delete pages when a person has multiple accounts like the mother obviously does.

      I‘m sure you guys have read the constitution and the bible the same way you’ve read the FB terms and conditions. By that I mean you haven’t read them.

      Report Post » Bible Quotin' Science Fearin' Conservative American  
    • ghostsouls
      Posted on June 3, 2011 at 11:02pm

      Get real does anyone in their right mind actaully believe an unborn fetus created it’s own facebook page…wtf/e

      Report Post » ghostsouls  
1 2

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love