Banning Page 3 v right to 'Free Speech'

Collaboration pure and simple. Wade didn't get where she is today by raising women's issues or by doing anything other than being really really good at functioning within (and upholding) the system. She's a red herring. Like Thatcher.

Thanks Jeanine I wasnt aware of that

@David51,
Wade succeeded Yelland as editor of the Sun in 2003. In 2009 she was appointed head of News International. If she wanted to get rid of Page 3 she has had ample opportunity - instead, I would argue that she oversaw a period where they significantly grew the brand.

Symbolic victories can be important, but not normally a suitable basis for legislation.

The Sun did actually have a 'hunk' feature at one time - they called it the Daily Male (get it?)

But yes I agree with the point that publishing a male equivalent of the Page 3 girl doesn't make things OK because you have to take the general background of inequality into account. The Page 3 girl is symbolic of inequality, the male version doesn't symbolise anything as far as I can see.

Some more history - when the Sun appointed Rebbekah Wade as deputy editor back in 2003 some people hoped that would be the end of page 3. However she wasn't able to persuade the chief editor (David Yelland) to drop it. A female chief editor for the Sun may be the best hope for getting rid of page 3 but Wade is currently up to her neck in the Andy Coulson scandal and I'm not aware of any other female candidates for the job.

I think symbolic victories are pretty important though.

They raise morale and enable people to go and achieve other victories.

flamingobingo My questions weren't intended to be rhetorical - genuine questions - where should the line be drawn. I suspect most people whould agree that it is not the nipple that is objectionable but the sexually provocative nature. In which case I think it is very difficult to define what is or isn't acceptable.

TondelayoSchwarzkopf suggest that this is quite easily done, but my recollection of the London Underground is that most of the advertising includes sexually provocative content.

My point really was that newspapers are full of sexually provocative pictures of both men and women (does the Mirror still have bikini/underwear clad 'babe' on npage 7?) and banning 'Page 3' ie banning bare breasts would be little more than an symbolic victory.

btw I never mentioned free speech.

kingofhivis I used to say I was very libertarian leaning and hated the idea of banning things...but I see things differently now.

Today's 'Any Questions' was very interesting. They were talking about sex offenders being allowed to appeal after a certain time span to have their names taken off the register. One of the speakers was saying that people are often more in favour of free speech when it comes to people they want to hear (this is a crap precis, btw!) and less so when it's someone who behaves in a way they abhor. But the point is wrt to the rights to free speech, as you say, where do you draw the line?

Free speech has to have some sort of continuum. I find it hard to believe that anyone who likes to use the 'free speech' argument would be in favour of us being allowed to have paedophilic photographs in national newspapers...I'm not saying page 3 is on a par with paedophilia, but I'm pointing out that there is a continuum.

I'm aware that I'm all for human rights, libertarianism etc., but actually I'm not in favour of people being allowed to pollute the air I'm walking through with fag smoke; I'm not in favour of children being harmed for adult's sexual pleasure; I'm not in favour of people being allowed to contribute to a industry that, indirectly, makes me and my daughters more at risk of sexual violence.

Where is your 'end point'? Where do you, personally draw the line?

I'd be really interested to hear scottishmummy's response too, but I see she's decided to abandon the debate...pity.

Removing page 3 is not a free speech issue. If we were asking for these images not to be produced, that would be a free speech issue. Page 3 is an issue of distribution.

If somebody wants to take a photo of themselves in only their knickers and hang that picture on their wall or give it to their friends, they are free to do so.

If a professional photographer wants to express himself by taking photos of women in their knickers and distributing them through over 18 sex shops, he is free to do so. The freedom of speech to create these images and show them to other people who want to view them is not the issue.

What is the issue is distributing those images in such a way that they are visible to people who don't want to see them and are visible to young children who should not be viewing sexualised images.

In addition to that, saying that any questioning of freedom of speech is thin edge of the wedge, slippery slope etc is nonsense. Most people are far too intelligent to think that we can only make moral decision based on some absolute principle. We make decisions based on context.

All democratic societies make decisions based on the specific context that the decision applies to. Stopping people saying or doing certain things is no more the thin end of the wedge of tyranny than putting paedophiles in prison is the thin end of the wedge of putting the entire British population in a death camp.

yes that is a good point

Jess that is a truly scary experiment :(

I don't think male nudity is the same thing at all though. Even if there were a well oiled hunk in every issue, even if he were naked, it wouldn't be the same because power relations between men and women are so entrenched.

Agree with HerBex

"And also, why don't they have a picture of a page 2 hunk opposite, with toned pecs and g string revealing oiled buttocks? Every single day?
Because their male readers would be made to feel uncomfortable, that's why."

I don't think page 3 should be shown in a national newspaper, because it puts women in a subordinate role, a sexual fantasy to be ogled at by the ruling class i.e. men.

Can you imagine if male commuters had to sit next to young women opening the pages of national newspapers with pictures of men posing in underwear. It wouldn't last for long, because men would be made to feel uncomfortable, as if they were second class citizens to be ogled at for their bodies.

Are page 3 type images allowed on adverts in the London Underground? Why should they be allowed in national newspapers?

Hatterbox, I think you are right that these violent video games and violent movies and horror films do shape the minds of the viewers. It may have made your cousin think that these things were not so unacceptable.

I also wonder if becoming a page 3 girl might not be subject to age and sex discrimination laws? That might be interesting.

Are Page 3 not restricting the RIGHTS of men and women over the age of 25 by excluding them from gainful employment?

No-one's talking about banning pictures of bare breasts - they are talking about a national newspaper that is targeted at families reconsidering having sexually provocative pictures of young woman in a prominent position. There are numerous restrictions on sexual or violent material in easily accessible, commercial content - why is page 3 not subject to this?

I have in the course of my work created many many TV ads for 18 rated movies - none of these were allowed to be shown on prime time terrestrial TV - that is NOT a restriction of freedom of speech or expression. I was not allowed to show tits or guns on posters on the london underground or have bloody knives on packaging - this is not a restriction of the rights of the creators - it is a recognition that in an advanced society certain considerations need to be made to those who are exposed to images that may affect them.

Besides, if it's just bare breasts - why do they all belong to young, slim 18-25 year old women all pouting wetly at the viewer - why not include granny or uncle Dave? Why not a renaissance nude or a breastfeeding mum?

I wonder if it's worth asking a legal expert if as Page 3 is a brand and there is no public interest or news value to it then it should be counted as advertising or advertorial and governed by those restrictions? Wonder if this is worth a legal challenge...or if it has been done already?

What do you propose would be banned? Bare breasts, or should all sexually provocative pictures of women be banned? What about the underwear pictures in the dear deirdre page? Would you support a ban of pictures of men where their nipple are exposed?

Now I'm not a fan of page three or lads mags or lapdancing, but I have that hypocritical liberal dislike of banning things as I feel that definning in law what is and isn't acceptable would be very difficult.

I agree with Jess and flamingo.

Page 3 impacts me. It impacts how men see women and how they treat them. I don'[t know how anyone can defend it when we look around us at all the objectification of women that surrounds us, it's disgusting that we're being treated as objects for entertainment. It contributes to women being cat called in the street and ultimately to the abuse of women in a myriad of ways.

I know this is a different issue, but I remember watching an episode of Jo Frost's Parental Guidance, and with the help of some 'experts' she carried out an experiment of how violent video/computer games can desensitise children to violence.

Half of the children were playing non-violent video games, the other half violent ones, and after playing the games for a set period, they were shown a range of violent images (with their reactions monitored in a similar way to that in the PT article).

The brains of the children who had been playing the non-violent games reacted to the images, but the majority of those who had been playing the violent games, their brains didn't react.

Anyway, the point of that, was I know there are violent video games that have women characters which the player can fight, the Grand Theft Auto games are an example. Given the popularity of such games, it concerns me what kind if effect they are probably having too.

Indeed, my very own cousin is an avid player of the Grand Theft Auto games, and I'm ashamed to say he's currently awaiting sentencing for a violent attack on his girlfriend on Christmas Day. This is not the first time either.

While that PT article is a disappointing read, sadly it's not a surprising one.

Thankfully, I'm now watching the Tony Porter talk, that's lifting my spirits back up.

I absolutely agree. I now think that a "real man" is one who stands up to a group of men and says that he doesn't want to go into a lap dancing club, for example.

Here's a link to Psychology Today:

Cat calls. Cougars. Sex objects. Recent research suggests that these are not just expressions; some male brains neurologically deny sexualized women "humanity."

^A study by Princeton psychologists hooked up men to an fMRI machine. After being hooked up, these men were shown pictures of both men and women. Some were scantily clothed; some were not.

The results showed that images of people activated the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC), which is highly involved in social cognition (e.g., recognizing human faces, when separating one person from another).

The exception was when men high in sexism viewed pictures of sexually dressed women. These pictures did not activate the mPFC for sexist males. This suggests that these men's brains did not perceive these women as fully human.^

Sexy women are seen as objects, Psychology Today

FlamingoBingo - I agree, there are men who do feel under pressure to 'cave in' and 'act like a man', and in fact something I failed to include in my previous post, was that the morons my DH used to work with got to another man in the office who wasn't like that at first.

His way of stopping their bullying was to join in.

It makes me thankful that I found my DH, as far from being the 'wimp' they thought he was, he was clearly the strong one for standing up to them.