Options
Was given the axe too page 3 another attack on freedom.
Adamsk
Posts: 1,384 Forum Member
✭✭✭
Does anyone think that giving Page 3 the boot was another attack on freedom like Charlie Hebdo.
0
Adamsk
Posts: 1,384 Adamsk
Posts: 1,384
Comments
I agree there was also a double standers issue somewhere in it.
I bet not.
Were people murdered over it? If not, then no its wasn't like Charlie Hebdo.
If they have given into those radical feminist campaigners then yes it is another attack on freedom of speech and freedom of press. The more worrying thing, is what is next on their agenda to get censored? That was always my point of defending page 3, not that i read the Sun or cared for it but that it getting axed will give more power to the easily offended and radical feminists.
That was not the point he was making. Take the violence out of the equation the principles are basically the same. In that we have let a small minority of easily offended extremists dictate what is printed
They may have just decided to make a change and do something different.
Oh come on! It was a ridiculous concept. It took those campaigns to rid us of it because the rest of us couldn't be bothered getting off our arses to complain. It is not an attack on your liberty to ask why topless women can't be in a newspaper (or what bills itself as one). Just like it isn't an attack on your freedom that topless women can't be on TV before the watershed.
Now if they can FULLY apologise for Hillsborough, sack kelvin Ratbag mckenzie as a columnist they will begin to make amends.
To be honest as men we don't have a lot to look forward to in life but these groups to seem to suck the small aspect of fun out of it. Mum's net like a blackhole sucking the us into the void of blank featureless robots. Or womens magazines with their 10 point list why we are no good and endless pictures of how we should look if only we had not been worn down by the endless drivel that real life gives us.
Thank god for Pubs and beer our one last escape or that 90 minutes of football each week to lose ourselves from the reality of being another punch bag.
I guess Voltaire's famous quote: 'I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.' doesn't strike a chord with you then?
True, they didn't use big bazookas whereas page 3 does.
Maybe cause the scum is the highest selling one with the highest publicity? It makes complete sense.
A man's chest isn't considered to be a sexual area that needs to be covered 24/7. I couldn't walk around topless in Summer, but a man could. Are women allowed to be stripped from the waist up on daytime TV?
How can women ban men from doing things?
They can't, even if you're married to them- same goes for men banning women doing things, only happens in abusive relationships.
Don't put up women telling you can't do stuff- same goes for men telling women can't do stuff.
why was it a ridiculous concept? There's nothing ridiculous about the naked female body. and why shouldn't women appear topless before the watershed? are you sure they can't? The watershed was a legacy of the late Mary Whitehouse and should be relaxed. We are not living in the Victorian ages now you know
If breasts are allowed before the watershed, so should penises.
Only thing is you won't see penises before the watershed.
Breasts and penises are not the same. Breasts are allowed on daytime TV, but only if they're attached to a man.
That wasn't the point,
In the many instances I've seen them bare chested there was no need to be like that other than for reasons to excite those in audience, probably those at home watching as well.
They are mostly the same let's be honest. Both have bodily functions yes. Both also serve a sexual purpose.
The difference with a mans chest is that men have very limited sexual expression through their chests.