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

he should know better

[aepervius]

Free speech is only about governmental intrusion and obstacle to speech. This is not about private person (cinema) telling the church , "no we do not want your advertising". It is incredible how many people bring "free speech!" up in conversation where it is not warranted.

Re:he should know better

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:he should know better

[swb]

It is incredible how many people bring "free speech!" up in conversation where it is not warranted.

It's actually more incredible how many people think that freedom of speech is only a concept in relation to governmental restrictions on communication.

Obviously private party restrictions on speech aren't a violation of 1st Amendment rights, but it should be more than obvious that freedom of speech can be threatened by private restrictions on speech by refusing access to media, venues or physical places which are commonly accepted as public spaces.

Re:he should know better

[Rhapsody Scarlet]

Obviously private party restrictions on speech aren't a violation of 1st Amendment rights, but it should be more than obvious that freedom of speech can be threatened by private restrictions on speech by refusing access to media, venues or physical places which are commonly accepted as public spaces.

Well it can be, but it seems to me that this is a pretty poor case to try and apply this principle. The Church of England tried their luck, probably suspecting that they would get rejected, got rejected, uploaded their ad to YouTube instead, got their story in the newspapers, on television, and even on Slashdot now, and likely got a far larger audience than they would have had they not got rejected in the first place.

The principle of freedom of speech is certainly a good thing but it is not the only right in the mix. Companies controlling their platforms also have the right to not be compelled into carrying speech they disagree with. This is why it's important that there be numerous platforms, so anyone rejected from one can just go to another and find someone willing to broadcast what they want to say. That way both rights can be upheld and everyone should be happy. That's exactly what has happened in this case so I'm shedding no tears for anyone. The system is working, I see no reason for anyone to be complaining.

Re:he should know better

[dskoll]

Well, no. The government can force businesses not to discriminate against customers in certain protected cases (age, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc.)

But they cannot force a business to provide a platform for someone's point of view. That's very different.

Re:he should know better

[wisnoskij]

But they already provide the platform. This cinema is just choosing to discriminate on who they let up on the platform based on religion. It is like a Baker choosing not to cater Catholic weddings.

Though I completely support the idea in principal

[dotancohen]

...what really will happen is that in a few years the advertisements will be full of religious propaganda and proselytizing. Allowing _one_ advertisement is fine, but it opens the door to a whole slew of continually-worsening ads. And being "protected religious speech" they will contain other messages, such as anti-Israel, pro-Sharia, neo-Nazi, and anti-Muslim messages. The competition will be fierce!

Of course, the same could be said about any type of advertising. But by experience the religious nutcases' ads will be far worse than the for-profit corporations' ads.

you people are all missing the point

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the Star Wars movie. They're just asking you to pray that it'll be better than the last three.

I'm a strong atheist, and I'd do that shit.

Re:On the grounds that they might 'offend' people.

[narcc]

How about the on the grounds that the ads might persuade more people to become theist? As an atheist, that is all the reason I need to suppress the ads.

So ... you don't believe that atheism can adequately compete in the marketplace of ideas and thus the only way it can succeed is by forcefully silencing the competition?

It must be difficult for you...

It's to prevent idiots from fighting

[rhazz]

When you gather a bunch of strangers in an enclosed space and you want everyone to sit quietly and enjoy the show, you don't throw out the suggestion that they start talking about a hot-button issue like religion or politics. People get defensive about that stuff, and it's common enough for people to talk about the ad that just played. I doubt many people would be offended by the ad itself, but it's easy enough to imagine some person in the audience seeing the ad, and in the quiet moment after the ad muttering something about religion X, or politician Y, when they didn't realize the guy sitting next to them is a die-hard X-worshipping Y-supporter.

Re:If it's really a policy

[Coren22]

I find you quite offensive, should Slashdot ban you so as not to offend anyone?

The controversy is the the theater's fautlt.

[macbeth66]

The only thing offensive about any of this, is that they show any ads at all. I paid to see the movie, not your ads. Now, if you want to show ads at the beginning and that lets me in for free, then I'm all for it. Otherwise, bugger off.