To conflate/confuse Page 3 and Charlie Hebdo?

[Babycham1979]

AIBU to think that there's a major irony in that many of the people vocally celebrating the end of Page 3 are the same that were cynically claiming 'Je suis Charlie' last week?

Surely it's the height of hypocrisy to claim in one breath that Charlie Hebdo should be allowed to publish Mo cartoons, but that the Sun shouldn't be allowed to publish Page 3? What about freedom of speech; the right to offend; pluralism; Enlightenment values and everything else the same people were banging on about last week?

For what it's worth I support Charlie Hebdo's stance, and I think Page 3 is a tawdry, mildly-sexist anachronism. However, I see a logical inconsistency here!

Is it (yet another) case of the likes of Harman only representing the views and interests of bourgeois European women?

Fucking hell. what are you talking about? political satire is not the same as a woman getting her tits out for titillation in a supposed newspaper.
I think you need a rethink

Yeah, cause when i saw page three, i went in and shot everyone at the s*n. Didnt sign the petition, nope. First thought was mass murder. Ffs.

I see what you're getting at but surely the difference is one is a cartoon the other is an actual human?

You do understand the difference between politics and tits don't you?

Satire is there to lampoon and challenge the powerful, page three just feeds into the culture of power imbalance between genders.

YABU - page three has been the subject of debate, petitions and peaceful protests about the way it sexualises women in society. As a result of the non-violent action by those who have spoken up, the paper has decided to bow to the will of the masses (albeit potentially temporarily) and withdraw the feature. This is in no way similar to the Charlie Hebdo situation, where shocking violence was used in an attempt to silence a publication which printed controversial material.

No one is murdering Sun journalists for Page Three. They would just rather the paper didn't do it.

I'm quite sure you can see the difference. I'd be worried if you couldn't.

In fact your OP is so muddled and provocative I shouldn't respond but I can't resist.

It's Sun Bingo, isn't it?

Whats the cash prize for s*n bingo nowerdays? Not seen an ad for a while

I didn't like either

I glad page three had gone

Freedom of speech doesn't allow you to oppress people - many women hated page three and found it intimidating being squashed on a tube or bus next to someone looking at it then at them ... Repeatedly

Mind you I wouldn't use the sun as bog roll

J96

Treating one half of humanity as having value mainly for titillation

versus

Treating the whole of humanity as a fair subject for satire

Nope, not seeing why there is any hypocrisy in celebrating the end of one and the continuation of the other.

'Freedom of speech' was exercised in people saying that they found Page 3 inappropriate, and the business deciding to take action on that. The Sun did not print those pictures as part of any 'right to offend', they did it because they used to sell more papers that way. And now they think they're alienating potential customers so have ended them.

I worry for the future if people genuinely can't see the difference between Charlie Hebdo and Page Three.

But I wouldn't want to see their staff shot unless it was mackenzie

you seriously can't compare the two! one is satirical and one is just tits.

Personally I don't see the whole fuss about page 3 but some people obviously did, and they expressed this and signed petitions in the thousands, I'm not uncomfortable around images of breasts or breasts as a whole which is why I never bothered to get involved in it all.

Yup, definitely some strong opinions on here. Not much rational thought though. In turn....

Adsy, 'political satire' is being more than a little generous to the original Hebdo cartoons. In fairness, last week's cover was probably their most thoughtful. The earlier ones were crass, heavy handed and unfunny. Not that this should preclude their being printed.

Limited period, really? Because it winds you up? I didn't say 'Harperson' at all, used only one exclamation mark, and provided a cogent and consistent argument.

Ghosty, 'free speech doesn't allow you to opress people'? That's exactly what some of the critics of the Mo cartoons have been accusing Charlie Hebdo of doing.

I want to like Charlie Hebdo, but it's a poor man's Private Eye. I don't want to like the Sun, which is convenient, because I don't. However, I do think both rags should be free to print what they want, whether I like it or not.

That rag is a comic with added misogyny. It's not just page three.

I don't think the saying is "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to show tits for the lads."

Ghosty, at least we agree on one thing; Kelvin McKenzie would be the first against the wall.

I think the OP has made some valid points. As someone who grew up in the era of political correctness and multiculturalism I find the whole free speech argument makes me a tad uneasy.

When I was at University our union had a policy of no platform for racist, or sexist speakers; no hate speak basically. I don't think we would have been comfortable with the Charlie Hebdo brand of satire.

And now suddenly, in the Carlie Hebdo aftermath, there is this climate of say what you like and if someone gets offended it's their look out. I'm just not comfortable with that. It doesn't feel right to me.

Babycham1979 Very little winds me up these days. I just retain remnants of idiocy I feel obliged to respond to.

One day soon that will pass too. But until that day comes...

Free speech isn't a thing anyway - press freedom is important but no one has the right to print anything they like without come back or legal challenge

Page three has long served a purpose of reminding women, in t public, that they are just tits and ass - I won't defend the scums right to do this - it had no useful purpose

The Sun is printing what they want though.
They have decided they no longer want to print topless women on Page 3. Good on them. They wills till publishing topless ;picture on the website etc so don't get too excited.

What you seem to be saying, OP, is you don't think people should have an opinion disliking page 3? Why on earth not?

I can like or dislike the Sun.
I can like or dislike CH.

The Sun is free to print what they want as is CH.

None of us are free to kill people who 'offend' us, or to kill people completely unrelated to the 'offence' just to make a point.

Oh and I am not and was not a supported of CH either ..,I don't think their staff deserved to die but I disliked a lot of their satire

No, actually, I agree
I cannot really articulate it, but... i agree.

Freedom of speech does allow you to opress people though Ghosty. You can't just give freedom of speech to the non racist, non sexist, non disabilist people, otherwise it's not really freedom of speech.

True freedom of speech let's people say what they like and to hell with the consequences, that's why it makes me uneasy.