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?

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.

yes that is a good point

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.

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.

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.

I think symbolic victories are pretty important though.

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

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.

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

@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.

Thanks Jeanine I wasnt aware of that

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.