Richard Dawkins Opposes UK Cinemas Censoring Church's Advert Before Star Wars (theguardian.com)

An anonymous reader writes: A controversy has erupted in the United Kingdom following the decision of the three theatre chains that control 80% of the movie screens in the country to refuse to show an advertisement for the Anglican church. The 60 second advertisement is for a new Church of England website, JustPray.uk, the purpose of which is to encourage people to pray. The Odeon, Cineworld and Vue chains refused to allow it to be shown due to a policy not allowing political or religious advertising. Richard Dawkins supported the Church on free speech grounds, stating, "I still strongly object to suppressing the ads on the grounds that they might 'offend' people. If anybody is 'offended' by something so trivial as a prayer, they deserve to be offended." Dawkins was joined by fellow atheist, Conservative MP Sarah Wollaston in backing the right of the Church to show the advertisement, stating "As a gentle atheist, I'm not offended by Church screening gentle cinema adverts; we shouldn't reject our deep cultural roots in Christianity." The assistant secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain said he was "flabbergasted" by the decision to refuse to show it. The National Secular Society found it a "perfectly reasonable decision." The Anglican church had wanted to show the advert prior to the screening of the upcoming Star Wars movie given the expected large, multi-generational audiences.

Comments

Re:If it's really a policy

[Anonymous Coward]

They have had the policy in place for some time and they do apply it consistently. The Church is employing a very clever advertising campaign which has resulted in them being plastered across the world. They literally could not have paid for better advertising than they've received off the back of this very clever campaign.

Re:he should know better

[Anonymous Coward]

Erm... The 1st amendment is about free speech

The US first amendment enforces free speech in a specific, limited context. The concept of free speech itself is much broader, not to mention older.

Re:he should know better

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

It's incredible how many people confuse the universal principle of freedom of speech with the 1st amendment.

That's because only the First Amendment provides a clear and consistent articulation of what "free speech" actually means:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The US Constitution doesn't grant you a right, it places a clear limit on government: it can't pass laws limiting the freedom of speech or the press, period. Note that the First Amendment doesn't actually create this limit; the limit was already implicitly present in the original US Constitution. The First Amendment only reminds everybody of specific consequences of general Constitutional provisions.

When you look at the constitutions and laws of other countries, they are ill-defined rights with massive exemptions.

Here is the drivel that passes for a "freedom of speech" guarantee in the German constitution (basic law, Artikel 5):

(1) Everybody has the right to state and distribute his opinion verbally, in written form, and as images, and to obtain information from generally accessible sources. News media, radio, and film may report freely and without censorship.

(2) These rights may be limited by other laws, by the need to protect youth, and/or by the need to protect human dignity.

(3) Art, science, research, and education are free. Freedom of education does not absolve individuals from a requirement to be faithful to the constitution.