So according to reports, Page 3 is no more. Thanks to the campaigning of the No More Page 3 campaign which, for some reason in a world of 24/7, high speed access to hardcore online pornography, decided to set their sites on the appearance of breasts (and only breasts) in a newspaper.
So why does this upset me? I’m on the far left (The Sun tends to the right), I’m a soft, fluffy, liberal type, I believe in equality, right? So why would the end of an inarguably archaic institution in a right-wing tabloid, owned by the excreble Rupert Murdoch upset me?
Well, that’s the test of conviction isn’t it? Will you still stand up for a principle when it aids and abets people or ideas you don’t like? Free expression is a fundamental human right and it extends to people who say things and make things that I personally do not like and to things that you, personally, do not like either. Personal taste or offence cannot be any useful guide to what speech or art should be repressed – if any. The only valid basis upon which it could be possible to do so is actual, demonstrable harm.
Pornography has often been referred to as the ‘canary in the coal mine’ for censorship and that canary is definitely starting to look a bit peaky. The Page 3 issue is just the latest of these problems and its important to contextualise it within the continuum of what is going on in the United Kingdom. The Page 3 ban comes on the heels of other events:
- Opt-Out, automatic internet filtering.
- The ‘Extreme’ Porn Ban.
- BBFC Ban on Spanking/Fisting/Female Ejaculation and more in porn production.
- Anti-Sex Worker Campaigning (Swedish model of criminalising sex worker clients).
- Anti-Sex Worker Campaigning (Exploiting sex trafficking to create guilt by association).
This is really just the tip of the iceberg, when even feminist artists like Leena McCall are being censored because of the adult nature of their work – by fellow feminists – the problem is obviously even more acute. The attacks spread beyond pornography into writing, computer games, comics and all other media too. Despite there being a broad swathe of choices available for people to exercise their personal discretion and taste, somehow the mere existence of things that people object to is enough to motivate some to try and take it away.
And that brings us to Page 3.
Page 3 is an archaic, outmoded, superceded institution. In an age when you can get 24/7 live, streaming, hardcore pornography on your smartphone or tablet anywhere you go, some bare, newsprint breasts hardly seem relevant. Working to censor Page 3 is not locking the stable door after the horse has bolted so much as locking it after the horse has bolted, disappeared, retired to the south of France, married a nice mare, settled down, raised some colts, retired, died and been recycled as glue for binding reprinted copies of Black Beauty. Protesting it is a irrelevant as the page itself.
So why would you, why would anyone bother with doing so?
No More Page 3 gives their reasons for doing so on their web-page, but they do not stand up to scrutiny.
They Say it Isn’t About Censorship
This seems to be a current tactic of those who do wish to censor, denying that it is censorship. They operate under an extremely narrow definition of censorship that is utterly outmoded. To limit censorship to government is to deny that there are many other ways in which free expression can be choked. Violence limits free speech, either in its execution (book burnings, murderous attacks on cartoonists) or in the threat that it will take place. Unwarranted shaming, lies and demonisation, whipping up a moral panic can do the same thing. This last is what NMP3 has done, based on nothing more than offense, no different in moral basis than Islamist violence over cartoons, only different in execution and extremity.
They Say It’s Sexist
Sexy isn’t sexist. Sex isn’t sexist. There are differences in audience, gendered behaviour, gendered sexuality etc. Rather than sexist, this is about demonising male sexuality. It is sexist, however, to presume that men automatically view women as objects (pictures, incidentally, are objects).
They Say it Isn’t News
Neither are TV listings, fashion spreads, opinion pieces, feature articles or – in my opinion – sport. I think newspapers are multi-role organs with more to them than simply news. I also think that there’s more than one possible way to go about creating and filling the medium. Contrast, say, The Guardian with a supermarket tabloid.
They Say Children Can See It
We’ve all suckled on breasts from a very, very young age. Looking at them seems not to be such a big deal. There’s an inconsistency between being offended over breasts in a newspaper (optional, consensual) and not being offended by breastfeeding (public, not optional, non-consensual viewing). There’s also an inconsistency the other way around from those offended by breastfeeding who would defend Page 3. Both are, of course, harmless. I would far rather young boys and girls got an eyeful of healthy boob on Page 3 than the fashion pages and their size zero heroin chic. Come to that, porn has a much, much wider variety of body types and ages and presents a far healthier and broader representation of women’s bodies than mass media and fashion alike. Not to mention that Page 3 has always had jokey, humorous edge and the idea that sex and sexuality are fun is a much better message to give to kids than pressuring it out of existence. They cite studies in support of the claim that it causes harm, but those studies are not without criticism or challenge, or even contradiction – not that you would know it.
They Say it’s Oudated
Given. However it does not mock or disrespect women and the models are consenting, as are the readers. Many careers have been started there and the demands on the models are few. The oudated nature of it is a great deal of what makes it so harmless, even positive. Our moral perspective, as they put it, had moved on with the sexual liberation of the 60s and 70s. NMP3 has taken us backward, not forward, back to a much older set of puritanical values where the female body is something to be hidden away and sex is something to be repressed. We already know that doesn’t work and the progress to develop beyond that was hard won.
They Say They Have a Right to do This
And they do, they have a right to protest it certainly, a right to express their displeasure but I don’t believe they have a right to lie, to misrepresent studies or to claim that there’s anything more to this than their own personal distaste and offence. I believe lies and misrepresentations constitute fraud and that decisions based on bad information rarely lead to positive or effective solutions. If the argument is to be made, it should be made on a factual basis, not by whipping up moral panic and erasing the experience of the great many women who believe differently to their campaign. I also don’t believe that when a matter is harmless and entirely consensual, that there’s any basis upon which such a thing should be banned or stopped is deeply questionable.
They Say They’re Not Anti-Sex
And yet… (they also backed the ‘Extreme’ Porn Ban).
They Reject ‘Don’t Buy It’ as a Solution
Yes, The Sun can be found all over the place. So can the Daily Mail which contains all sorts of horrible, nasty shit (just in word form). You still have to pick it up and open it. Don’t buy it, don’t read it, don’t look at it are all still valid solutions.
The whole thing is based on unproven concepts and ideas, on overstating the influences of media, in rejecting the voices of dissenting women and ignoring men entirely. It is a campaign by middle class pseudo-feminists (extending far beyond matters of equality) and against largely working class men. It attacks something that it already admits is outdated and irrelevant, making the campaign outdated and irrelevant and it sets us back over 50 years when it comes to the liberation of sexuality.
In and of itself it doesn’t look like a significant battle in the increasingly heated gender-wars. In context however, it is a big warning sign of just how bad things have gotten and just how much under threat free expression genuinely is. It’s not under threat by government, it’s under threat by mob mentality, sentimentality and private groups and we need to organise better to resist it. Even when it’s something as pointless and seemingly silly as boobs in a newspaper.
The Dude's Abode 