Banning Page 3 v right to 'Free Speech'

we have free press that includes pg3,wouldnt ban it.dont like it but excessive ban it and knee jerk censorship isnt answer

It's Friday and I can't type coherently anymore...

outweigh...obviously

and save them from reaching up a few shelves...

is what I meant to say...

Holly - it's like smoking - should the rights of one person to smoke in a pub outweight the rights of someone to not be harmed by breathing their smoke?

If something that benefits a minority has a very negative impact on 51% of the population, should we not seek to make that thing less acceptable?

What often gets to me about liberals who go on about freedom of speech is that they think they'll 'sticking it to the man' and yet the people benefitting from this 'let people do what they do' approach are the people making money from it - the capitalists. I often imagine the people at Liberal Conspiracy to be these hippies sat around say 'yeah man, let people do what they do' - for example, with the whole should lads mags be age rated and put on the top shelf with the other soft porn mags debate. They said not and what's wrong with seeing girls portrayed in an overtly sexually objectifying way anyway - if people want that stuff, let them buy it.

But the only people benefitting from that attitude are the men who want to buy it (save their poor wrists from reaching up a poor shelves - the poor dears will be needing all their wrist strength for when they get home) and mainly WHSmith who are the biggest supplier of magazine porn to shops in the UK. So yeah, great....stick it to the man by supporting WHSmith....

Sorry, rant over....

I just think there must be a commercial reason for it to exist in this day and age and a shop window for the brand must be it.

It's not like the girls get paid very much. (Another one of my gripes is the myth that lapdancers / glamour models are paid vast amounts for their services - they are not and it's a fairly short and brutal career - look at what happened to women like Jo Guest and Maria Whitaker.)

"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 guarantee you if it sold more papers it would be on there.

Franchises - yes Tondelayo hadn't thought of that. Was there not also a point when Rebecca Wade took over where she made a big deal out of not getting rid of it? 'it's OK boys, I may be one of 'them' but I'll continue to maintain the low low standards you've come to expect'

I don't see page 3 as being a rights issue. If it is, why not have a page 3-free version of the sun for general purchase and an 18 rated page 3 inclusive version that is kept with the rest of the soft porn on the newsagent shelves.

I struggle to see that in this day and age it is a commercial factor either - tits are everywhere. I think they hold onto it out of laziness or to serve the related franchise (calendars, website) which could STILL exist without being in a 'cough' newspaper 'cough'

Page 3 is unacceptable BECAUSE it's an every day mundane accepted part of our society.

The content isn't offensive as such,it's the reason why the page even exists that's offensive.

But in as much as I can see the reasons to question page 3 I can also begin to see the reasons why the gossip rags should be looked at too.

Clearly our 'rights' get in the way of each other's sometimes. My right to enjoy my garden might get in the way of my neighbour's if I interpret that as having music blaring. That's where we need to employ thinking which is where so many people go wrong IMO. I mean what 'right' is your friend defending? A man's right to look at nipples with his tea in the morning?

Forget Facebook, if anyone wants to talk about Page 3, it's on Mumsnet (224 posts right now):

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/1151706-to-be-fed-up-that-we-still-have-Page-3-in-2011

But, what would be the legal framework for banning this, or anything else that offends people? As far as I know, there's nothing the law can do short of a prosecution for obscenity. And as pornography goes, you have to admit that Page 3 of The Sun is pretty mild stuff; the reason it's so especially offensive isn't the content, but the way it's carried around under everyone's noses, truly a blatant demonstration of "the mainstreaming of pornography". But as far as attacking it legally goes, I just can't imagine how it could be done. New law in Parliament? Ha ha, can't we just see that under the Tories. But it wasn't exactly a major topic for Labour either.

Yes they do, which is why it passes unnoticed.

But if it were a regular - come and point and stare and despise the Jewish person on page 3 sort of thing - then everyone would notice and think it was outrageous.

Also on this one, it's very rare to come across someone who actually believes in unmitigated freedom of speech. The vast majority of people do not think child porn should not be censored. So then it actually becomes a decision of what should and shouldn't be banned, which is a different conversation, and then opens up all the other stuff.

Herbex - alas I think you do get the kind of portrayals of black people you mention. They just do it more subtlety.

fantastic, TondelayoSchwarzkopf

I don't think this is a free speech issue - unless nipples can talk.

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.

Ask him if he would support a picture of a black person every day in a national newspaper being portrayed as an idiot, a mugger or a black and white minstrel, or a Jew being portrayed as a Fagin or a Shylock every single day and if not why not?

Because that is what they are doing to women.

Holly - try linking to for your friend.

Melissa McEwan touches on this quite a lot at Shakesville. "my rights end where yours begin" and the difference between "freedom to" and "freedom from".
Women have a right to be free from objectification, which trumps mens right to objectify us.
As usual I can't find the right post at Shakesville. Will keep looking.

I believe you could move to get a consensus from the readers of the paper.

That way freedom and democracy wouldn't be an issue and there is a chance it would be removed by popular demand.

The link between pornography and rape is debatable, and it should be debated.

But all the complaining on earth is never going to end pornography or prostitution.

Freedom is not subjecting children to objectifying women in a supposed newspaper.