[DS9]

Originally Posted by jy1541

I take it those defending Core Issues' right to free speech would also defend Abu Qatada if he decided to run some ads on London's buses?

You are correct.

[skp20040]

Originally Posted by DS9

You are correct.

Except what Core Issues wanted on the buses were adverts , not Freedom of Speech but paid for adverts.

If Core wants to stand on Speakers Corner and spout their tripe or chat about it on their website which you are free to visit or not then so be it, thats freedom of speech, adverts are precisely that ads , therefore they should not contain messages that someone can change their sexuality via therapy, which can be and are offensive. If someone wanted to advetise that you could change from black to white to avoid racism there would soon be uproar .

I am all for freedom of speech however horrid it maybe at times , but ads on buses are not freedom of speech.

[DS9]

Originally Posted by skp20040

Except what Core Issues wanted on the buses were adverts , not Freedom of Speech but paid for adverts.

If Core wants to stand on Speakers Corner and spout their tripe or chat about it on their website which you are free to visit or not then so be it, thats freedom of speech, adverts are precisely that ads , therefore they should not contain messages that someone can change their sexuality via therapy, which can be and are offensive. If someone wanted to advetise that you could change from black to white to avoid racism there would soon be uproar .

I am all for freedom of speech however horrid it maybe at times , but ads on buses are not freedom of speech.

I agree with you but only up to a point. If we were talking about Core advertising on ITV1, Facebook, in newspapers or on bill boards I'd be fine with those private companies rejecting the ads because it's business not free speech.

London buses are publicly owned and when government stops an opinion being aired it becomes a free speech issue IMO. Of course there is a simple solution - sub-let ad space on buses to a private company so the mayor can't interfere in future. But until then Mayor Boris shouldn't be banning ads.

[be more pacific]

Originally Posted by DS9

I agree with you but only up to a point. If we were talking about Core advertising on ITV1, Facebook, in newspapers or on bill boards I'd be fine with those private companies rejecting the ads because it's business not free speech.

London buses are publicly owned and when government stops an opinion being aired it becomes a free speech issue IMO. Of course there is a simple solution - sub-let ad space on buses to a private company so the mayor can't interfere in future. But until then Mayor Boris shouldn't be banning ads.

But don't you think the host of advertising has a duty of care to ensure that advertising is not misleading or discriminatory before it reaches the stage where members of the public complain to the ASA?

[Chester666666]

Originally Posted by DS9

Yes it does. Thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster for America or I'd think the Anglosphere was beyond salvation.

nonsense
one doesn't lead to the other like your imply

[Chester666666]

Originally Posted by DS9

Tough. Free speech means you can say your piece. No-one can be forced to listen.

ironic you referring to not listening

[DS9]

Originally Posted by be more pacific

But don't you think the host of advertising has a duty of care to ensure that advertising is not misleading or discriminatory before it reaches the stage where members of the public complain to the ASA?

No I don't. The person(s) or company doing the advertising have the sole duty of care.

[DS9]

Originally Posted by Chester666666

ironic you referring to not listening

I'm listening. I'm just not agreeing.

[MartinP]

Originally Posted by Chester666666

no
a gay guy said that he's happy to be gay, like straights are happy to be straight, you keep claiming that people would be jumped on as homophobes for being straight when this is a lie, people can be happy about their sexuality without being a bigot as they are secure in their own sexuality, it's the ones who are insecure who often leads the homophobic charge against LBG and then get caught with a person of the same sex

Good grief, how blinded by your own dogma are you? (see how you like the name-calling)
Go back and read the posts and come back with something that resembled the facts....

[be more pacific]

Originally Posted by DS9

No I don't. The person(s) or company doing the advertising have the sole duty of care.

So TfL should have to accept pretty much any advert, regardless of what it claims or who it's likely to offend, until the ASA intervenes?

[DS9]

Originally Posted by be more pacific

So TfL should have to accept pretty much any advert, regardless of what it claims or who it's likely to offend, until the ASA intervenes?

People or companies wishing to advertise should ensure their advert is in compliance with the law and regulations before going to TfL. Once that's assured there'd be no reason for a rejection of the ad.

[magratx]

Originally Posted by be more pacific

So TfL should have to accept pretty much any advert, regardless of what it claims or who it's likely to offend, until the ASA intervenes?

The trouble is that by banning the advert the group has been given more publicity than they could ever have hoped for.

I seriously doubt if many people actually read these ads on buses and even fewer probably register them in any meaningful way

[MarkLS12]

Originally Posted by DS9

People or companies wishing to advertise should ensure their advert is in compliance with the law and regulations before going to TfL. Once that's assured there'd be no reason for a rejection of the ad.

You must live in some stage binary world.
There are always shades of grey and advertisers frequently push at the boundaries.

This is a good example of that as the words of the advert do not really make much sense on their own and don't specifically mention "curing gays".
Once the penny drops and the message of the advert is understood, it is clearly offensive to gay people.

[vauxhall1964]

Originally Posted by Glowbot

I do know that... I didn't know that lesbians enjoyed anal though that's a bit new on me
Anal is ok once in a while but after a while it wears out the entrance. Vaginas don't wear out the same way.

I don't think if straight people got intercourse taken from them they would be as happy as gay people. I mean if straight people had to get buy on blowjobs and handjobs, would be a bit boring.

this is the second post from you claiming that anal sex 'wears out' the anus. Where do you get this nonsense from? All of us have sphincters that pass on a daily basis things (faeces) of the same width as a penis and i don't hear anyone complaining their backsides are being 'worn out' as a result of doing this endless times!

[rusty123]

Originally Posted by MartinP

What, exactly is the advert saying that is false? (note, not the people who paid for it and any of the things that they do, just the advert)

The standard process is that an advert is put up and if there are complaints then the ASA can make a judgement and fine the person or company putting up the ads. Why should this advert not follow the standard procedure?

I find it bizarre that people are cheering on a politician for deciding what can and cannot be advertised. I appreciate that this is a theme that gets gay people very angry, but I don't think it's worth throwing away important principles in the meantime.

We all should expect to be offended every so often, and if you feel strongly enough, go through the usual channels to complain.

AFAIC the "advert" is either promoting a miracle cure that doesn't exist or the notion that you are in a hell-bound underclass if your sexual orientation is one a religious minority have a hang-up with and you can't keep it in your pants.

I don't find it offensive - that's the wrong word. I find it all simply...sad/borderline pathetic.

Why bother going through the motions of waiting for the inevitable complaints to roll in to act? I don't equate applying a bit of common sense as being us throwing away an important principle.
The people behind the ad knew what they were doing and the most likely outcome. Perhaps their intent was to perpetuate the myth that the "native" christians are the ones being treated as an underclass - who knows?
It gives them their five minutes of fame and promotes their cause either way. Moreso by sensationalising it into becoming a national news story. An advert on a London bus wouldn't normally reach as far as me in leafy Gloucesterhire afterall [or perhaps that's just me being too cynical]

[Chester666666]

Originally Posted by DS9

I'm listening. I'm just not agreeing.

you aren't listening though

[Chester666666]

Originally Posted by MartinP

Good grief, how blinded by your own dogma are you? (see how you like the name-calling)
Go back and read the posts and come back with something that resembled the facts....

Those are the facts
But then again you don't like facts, just like the fact that definitions of someone's attitude is not name-calling

[Glowbot]

Originally Posted by vauxhall1964

this is the second post from you claiming that anal sex 'wears out' the anus. Where do you get this nonsense from? All of us have sphincters that pass on a daily basis things (faeces) of the same width as a penis and i don't hear anyone complaining their backsides are being 'worn out' as a result of doing this endless times!

Anal sex poses all kinds of unreasonable health risks , as the anus was not engineered for things going in, only out.
It can often lead to prolapse, hemorrhoids, fissures, or infections. not to mention ecoli.

[wallster]

Originally Posted by Glowbot

Anal sex poses all kinds of unreasonable health risks , as the anus was not engineered for things going in, only out.

The engineering works perfectly well for anal sex.

Originally Posted by Glowbot

It can often lead to prolapse, hemorrhoids, fissures, or infections. not to mention ecoli.

You can get those things without having anal sex or are you claiming that everyone with those conditions have been engaging in sex? We get infections through our mouths so maybe we should just keep them firmly closed

[Nick1966]

Originally Posted by wallster

We get infections through our mouths so maybe we should just keep them firmly closed

LOL.

It's what comes out of my mouth which gets me into trouble.

[omipalone]

Originally Posted by Glowbot

Anal sex poses all kinds of unreasonable health risks , as the anus was not engineered for things going in, only out.
It can often lead to prolapse, hemorrhoids, fissures, or infections. not to mention ecoli.

1) The anus was not engineered - arseholes have been around a lot longer than humans (despite there being a similarity, at times, between the two)

2) My grandmother had prolapses, piles, fissures & infections but that was related to her inflammatory bowel condition & not that she took it up the tradesman's entrance

The bus campaign was offensive - there is no such thing as 'cure' gays (especially as it is scientifically accepted that such a thing does not exist despite centuries of harm and abuse happening under, often, religious based claims).

[vauxhall1964]

Originally Posted by Glowbot

Anal sex poses all kinds of unreasonable health risks , as the anus was not engineered for things going in, only out.
It can often lead to prolapse, hemorrhoids, fissures, or infections. not to mention ecoli.

You're avoiding my question:where is the evidence that anal sex 'wears out the a***hole' as you put it?

[foonk]

Originally Posted by vauxhall1964

You're avoiding my question:where is the evidence that anal sex 'wears out the a***hole' as you put it?

Well, prolonged passive anal sex can lead to what is termed as a "patulous anus".

Not that this is anyone's concern except perhaps the owner and their partner/s

It was the right decision to pull the "cure" ad.

There is no cure for sexual preference.

[wallster]

Originally Posted by Nick1966

LOL.

It's what comes out of my mouth which gets me into trouble.

As long as you don't spit on public transport, I'm sure it can't be that bad

[wallster]

Originally Posted by foonk

Well, prolonged passive anal sex can lead to what is termed as a "patulous anus".

Constipation and other conditions cause that too. Normal anal sex is unlikely to cause any damage.