Topless women in newspapers are not ‘tough, rough, challenging’ ideas’
In a piece titled ‘Politician-Led Attack on Media Freedom is a Sentence on the public’, in The Australian last Thursday, Spiked Online editor Brendan O’Neill wrote an impassioned defence of free speech. O’Neill argued that attacks on press freedom were not only attacks on those who write and publish but also on the reader – hurting the “man on the street”. He condemned the “licensing of the press by the back door, the use of extreme financial pressure to make every paper, mag and zine bow before new codes of conduct.” He described (now failed) moves to regulate the press in Australia as a “wicked undermining” of the readers’ right to exercise their own moral judgement about the content. “…restrictions on the press are a sentence on the public, passed by elites who think we morons cannot handle tough or rough or challenging ideas”.
Tough, rough, challenging…
I support him on that. I’m all for giving as many column inches as possible to touch, rough and challenging ideas.
But O’Neill fails the argument when he includes as an example of content deserving the protection of free speech, the Page 3 semi-naked images of women, a regular feature in Britain’s The Sun newspaper. He labels as “censorious feminists” those who condemn the objectified and sexist images (over 87,000 so far in a Change petition, see below). Labelling the images as merely “saucy”, O’Neill mockingly collapsing the argument against them as being “because it makes men rapacious.”
By including The Sun’s Page 3 girls feature in his passionate treatise against the “mugging of press freedom”, O’Neil has undermined that fragile right. I was about to write about why, when I came across this piece by writer and actress Lucy-Anne Holmes, in Women’s Views on News (originally published in Huffington Post). Holmes has summarised it perfectly: “We are all affected by Page Three whether we buy it or not, because we all live in a society where the most widely read paper in the country makes ‘normal’ the idea that women are there primarily for men’s sexual pleasure.”
‘If you don’t like it don’t buy it’ – Brilliant! Why didn’t I think of that?
Guest post by Lucy-Anne Holmes, writer and actress currently working on the No More Page 3 campaign ‘to take the bare boobs out of the Sun’ newspaper.
This article appeared in The Huffington Post on 15 March 2013.
I’ve got a confession to make. I may have been a bit silly starting the No More Page 3 campaign. You see, someone just tweeted us something. “If you don’t like it, don’t buy it”, the tweet read.
There was I, ballistically campaigning about Page Three being damaging when, oh, I really am feeling very stupid now, because I could just not buy it and everything would be fine. So, I’ll be off then. Sorry about that. Or rather. No. Just no.
There are so many reasons why “if you don’t like it, don’t buy it” doesn’t work as an argument for Page 3, that I will be breaking out the big gun bullet points.
So, here goes. This is for you, Mr If You Don’t Like It Don’t Buy It and all the others before you, and that includes you, Nick Clegg.
1) I was most affected by these images at the age of 11 when my breasts were developing and my brother and his mates would be commenting on Page Three girls breasts everyday. I really looked up to my big brother and this situation taught me that my breasts were only there for men to look at. Mine fell short of the ones that were in the daily newspaper, therefore I was failing somehow and I was ashamed. I didn’t buy it. Read more here.
Click image below to sign the petition.
Like the ‘No more Page 3’ Facebook page.
March 25th, 2013 at 10:26 pm
I wonder if Brendan O’Neill would support malestream media publishing articles which are racist because content would merely be ‘enactment of men’s right to “free speech” and fact such articles promote white male supremacy over non-white women and men is irrelevant!
Oh but racism affects men and anything which affects men is ‘important and real’ hence ‘racism’ is not widely accepted by malestream media whereas malestream media considers women not to be human so therefore publishing pornified images of women for male readers’ sexual titillation is ‘mens’ free speech’ and is sacrosanct!
Once upon a time malestream media was an objective news outlet but that time swiftly ended because malestream media realised this was a very powerful propaganda tool to promote and justify male contempt and male hatred for women because we are female not male.
I wonder if O’Neil believes advertising in malestream media has no effect whatsoever on the male readers because it is just ‘advertising.’ If that is the case why does the advertising industry purchase space in malestream media publications given advertising does not influence male readers’?
So too misogynistic malestream media is a very powerful tool used by men and their male supremacist system to reinforce men’s lie that women aren’t human but merely exist to be of service to males. Dehumanising women and girls by constantly portraying them as mens’ sexual service stations works – otherwise malestream media would not publish degrading images of women and girls.
O’Neil’s claim that women should not read such misogynistic content is mansplanning because such claims could be used to justify racist articles. But racism is widely condemned because racism affects men and as I said above, anything which detrimentally affects men is real and important but male hatred and male contempt for women is ‘trivial because women aren’t human according to male supremacist system.’
March 26th, 2013 at 6:43 am
O’Neill is a troll. Remember his column attacking Savile’s victims?
March 31st, 2013 at 7:52 pm
Great article.
Too many people want to play the “free speech card” as a facade for questionable motives.