Some people seem shocked that I don’t agree with the recent decision to not run the ‘gay cure’ advert on London buses because I made a complaint about the Christian groups ‘Healing on the Streets‘ and an advert they were handing out.
I find it concerning that so many people cannot understand why I would have a problem with one advert and not another.
The ‘gay cure’ advert is offensive and horrid, but we all have a right to be offensive because of a little thing called ‘freedom of speech’. Remember the recent controversy over the Jesus and Mo cartoon being used by Atheist groups on University Campuses and how most of us non-believers were outraged that one group could use their offense to this to censor the other group? Remember being angry that Rhys Morgan could be threatened by his school with expulsion if he didn’t remove the offensive cartoon from his personal blog? Well, those atheists and skeptics who were angry in those instances but protested the ‘gay cure’ ad and are happy that the ‘gay cure’ advert has been blocked are being hypocritical.
The ‘Healing on the Streets’ advert was different because the claims were found by the ASA to be misleading and in breach of CAP codes, and as a result they were told not to use those adverts anymore. That wasn’t an issue of censorship because they are still allowed to do what they do, they’re just not allowed to make specific health based claims on the adverts.
Hopefully the adverts for the ‘gay cure’ weren’t rejected because of social pressure by those who were offended. Hopefully they would have been rejected anyway because they breach CAP codes or are misleading (i.e. being gay isn’t an illness), but if not and they were blocked because people were offended, that’s just bloody shameful.
I agree, strangely. Basically, let them have their freedom of speech, and by doing so they will turn off even more people to the idea of religion. They’re really just advertising the fact that they’re bigots, which is likely to do them more harm than good IMO.
Clearly anyone suprised has not read your blog, it seems like the stance you’d obviously have taken.
I think the important distinction is: were they “banned” or “refused”? I’ve seen articles use both terms.
If offensive speech is “banned” then I’m against the ban, but if a company wants to “refuse” to provide a platform for hatred I’m all for it.
I think it depends on what grounds they refused, though.
I think I agree with Gordon that,if a company wants to refuse to advertise something they find offensive that’s fine – it’s up to them. It’s different from it being banned – they just don’t want to do it. Offending people should be legal, but that doesn’t mean you should necessarily offend people or allow yourself to be a platform for that.
I don’t know – I think there’s implied claims in this, that are factually wrong. There’s no evidence that Ex-gay therapies work, and they seem to be more of a PR stunt at the expense of a lot of people, persecuted into paying them money.
It’s like advertising “I use homeopathy, and it works for me!” No direct claim, but…
Did I not clearly state that if it was blocked because it was misleading then it was ok? Did I not actually write that? The answer is ‘yes you did, Hayley.’
You are right, I just find it unlikely that people would think it’s offensive without thinking it’s wrong and misleading. The misleadingness is the only reason to get upset about it.
I think generally anything should be allowed to be advertised, unless it tells people to attack others, for example (incties violence, wihch is different from inciting hatred – even hatred can’t really be legistlated against because it’s in a person’s heart).
On the HOTS advert, I believe it should be allowed because they weren’t selling anything and the ASA’s remit is for marketing around products and services that are being sold. This means the question of whether it is true whether God can heal isn’t even relevant in this context. The same could be said of a gay cure thing. If some one is trying to sell a gay cure (whether it’s a drug, a prayer, or whatever, then it seems that they should be liable to backing up their claims, as that’s what the ASA is there for (to ensure individuals/companies don’t exploit others for their own personal gain by making things up).
So I would agree with Hayley that something being offensive shouldn’t be grounds for a ban (although a provate company or individual has the right not to give a platform to things they don’t like), but I also think that things only products/services that are being sold and have potential to be sold on false grounds should be liable to bans. If we can ban things that are being advertise but not sold then all manner of things could suddenly be banned just because what the leaflet doesn’t have indepth research behind it currently (research that the individual probably couldn’t conduct because they’re not making money).
My initial reaction, when I started reading this, was to disagree with you. But once I got to the last paragraph, I realized I did agree for the same reason you give. The same sex issues really bring out the high emotions on both sides and it is easy to get riled up. This post illustrates that one needs to withhold issuing an opinion until reading the whole article from start to end.
The anti-gay ad is a lie. The Jesus and Mo cartoon offends by choice Not by nature. It is OK to ridicule people for their beliefs, not for what they actually are. There is no law with respect to lampooning religions or criticising them in the UK. I think it was 2006 when the vote went through the HOP but was defeated by Mr Tony Blair, who abstained.
Pingback: “The Wheels on the Bus Go…..Straight?” | DaveD's Blog