Banning Page 3 v right to 'Free Speech'

[HollyFP]

I had an argument discussion with someone on FB recently about Page 3s. I am voting for a ban, they started bleating on about right to 'free speech' and this being the first step to censorship and where would we draw the line...(that tempted me further but I resisted the goading)

Now I'm all in favour of free speech in theory but not when it's harmful to the vunerable, victimised or those who can't speak up for themselves. Page 3 is the 'socially acceptable' part of porn it seems in this country.

I was getting fairly pee'd off with this person ignoring my arguments about Page 3 and instead insisting that censorship is a dangerous line to tread.

What do you say to someone when they either miss the point or think the right to free speech comes above women's rights, IYSWIM?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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'

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'

"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.

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.)

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....

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...

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

What is then, ScottishMummy?

Education?

Because I think getting rid of page 3 is part of the education that needs to happen.

If we look at the smoking ban, should we have just tried to educate smokers not to smoke indoors and hoped that they all just went outside the restaurant/bar/pub to have a ciggie? There would be some who would respect others' rights not to be harmed by their cigarette smoke but plenty of others who just never would have bothered changing their behaviour.

The ban was necessary to make it culturally unacceptable.

And, as someone pointed out on the other thread, this is not a ban on tits or porn. There are still plenty of opportunities for breast deprived men to look at photographs of women naked. It's not like they have to look very hard for them.

What's your suggestion?

my suggestion is you moderate your tone and not be so snippy

just because i dont like something doesn't lead me to wish to automatically ban it

smoking is a poor analogy given smoking has demonstrable adverse health implications priamry and secondary.much as i dislike pg3 it doesnt cause ca or secondary illness in others.

And that would be saying something !

I would ban Page 3, mainly because to me, it's one of the single biggest factors in the 'anti-breastfeeding in public' society that has developed here.

Page 3 and all these men's magazines with breasts hanging out, have sexualised breasts to such a degree, that (most of) society seems to accept it, yet many of those same people see breastfeeding in public as revolting.

In summary, 'getting your tits out for the lads' is fine, using your breasts discretely for their most natural purpose isn't.

I was once discretely breastfeeding in a café, when I was told to 'go do that in the toilet' by a man who was reading (well gawping at) a copy of Nuts magazine. I soon set him straight.

Oops, meant to say, I'm obviously also against it as it's degrading to women etc.

However the BF thing also is a huge part in why I'm so against it.

Yes, having worked in international companies for my most of my career - most non-UK people (men and women) are very about Page 3.

Sorry to bore but I will say it again and again and again - it is NOT A FREE SPEECH ISSUE. It would be pandering to your FB friend to engage with him on those terms.

If anything I think it is a consumer issue.

Hatterbox - I would have set him straight with a well-directed hot cup of coffee

ScottishMummy - I'd just like you to back up some of your statements a bit more sometimes!

Moderate my tone and stop being so snippy?!!! Am I back in school?!

Pornography is harmful. People just don't want to believe the evidence that is out there.

And on the other thread on AIBU people have posted their own experiences of the verbal abuse that they've received, which comes from men's attitudes that women are sex objects and that a bit of verbal sexual abuse is just a bit of fun.

Smoking is a good analogy of where one person's choice can have an adverse effect on others. And this is the case with Page 3.

I was genuinely asking what you proposed to do about page 3. You say banning is not the answer. What do you think is?

Tonde's right, this is nothing to do with free speech. At all. Anyone who claims it is is just trying to twist the debate so that it is on their terms.

But practically there is no chance at all the Sun will stop P3.

Scottishmummy - Page 3 is just one part of a bloody awful culture that causes violence against women to be accepted. It is easier to harm someone you see as an object...and page 3 encourages men to see women as objects. In that respect, it harms a huge number of the population - it probably causes more harm, statistically, than passive smoking causes.

I agree with Jess, some back up to your statements woudl be helpful. A suggestion that she stops being nippy is not a helpful suggestion as to how to change our culture so that women are equal to men.

jess id like you to not make silly analogies,and i dont need to "back up" anything

you see like you,i am expressing an opinion.you may or may not likey but you ever so prefecty demanding tone is snippy