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

If it's really a policy

[dskoll]

If the cinemas really had a policy not to allow religious or political advertising in place before they were asked to run the ads, and if they've applied that policy consistently, then I don't think they should run the ads.

I wouldn't particularly be bothered by such an ad even though I'm a Dawkins-esque strong atheist. But if you're going to have a policy it has to be applied uniformly.

Re:If it's really a policy

[Anonymous Coward]

Now I'm mildly curious whether a literal reading of their policy would apply to Star Wars adverts as well, given that Jediism is a recognized religion in that country. I'm quite certain they wouldn't actually ban those.

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:If it's really a policy

[Beck_Neard]

Exactly. I'm pro-free-speech and against censorship of ideas, even if they're crazy and upsetting ideas. But you are allowed to not run ads in a private venue. That is the flip-side of free speech that people who don't really believe in free speech fail to understand. You are free to offend people, and they are free to choose not to listen to you, or to give you a platform for your ideas. You are free to camp out in front of the cinema and preach if you want. That's absolutely your right. But you can't insist that the cinema spend their time and money spreading your idea. That is not your right.

So it's curious why -- out of all the things that Dawkins could have been upset by -- he chooses to be upset by a cinema not displaying an ad for an Anglican Church. Would Dawkins be as upset as he is if it were an ad for a Jewish organization, or a Hindu one... or a Muslim one? I'm going to go out on a limb and say no.

Maybe Dawkins is the one who is being biased here.

Re:If it's really a policy

[hawkinspeter]

I don't think he was upset about it - he just tweeted about it initially as he thought it was a free speech issue. He then deleted it when people pointed out that it was more of a commercial decision, as you yourself have pointed out.

There's a stronger case for claiming that the Anglican Church is part of Britain's cultural identity rather than any other religion, but to be honest I'd be surprised at seeing any advert for any religion in the cinema. Dawkins does describe himself as a "cultural Anglican" so he might be slightly biased towards the CofE, but I suspect his strong atheist beliefs (non-beliefs) easily trump his cultural leanings.

Re:If it's really a policy

[dskoll]

I don't think Star Wars ads promote prayer or the Jedi religion, though.

But even though as I said I'm a hard-core atheist, I'd pray all day if I thought it would stop George Lucas from ever making another fucking movie.

Re:If it's really a policy

[Beck_Neard]

That's another thing about Dawkins that I find kind of unsettling and in conflict with his atheist message. He says that he likes the CofE because it's part of tradition and history, and is a tolerant establishment. That's all well and good. I prefer the CofE to, say, Catholicism or Southern Baptism, for precisely the same reason. But I think you should apply that kind of reasoning consistently. He's said that “I don’t buy the feeling that because we have Christian faith schools we therefore have to have Buddhist and Muslim and Hindu faith schools as well.” My question is: Why not? There are Buddhist and Muslim and Hindu schools of thought that are just as tolerant as the CofE is, and if one refuses to acknowledge that, one simply professes their ignorance. There are many temples and mosques and synagogues you can go in without being a person of that faith, and people will welcome you and talk to you and be nice to you and so on. Plus all of those religions are important to history - some directly to European history, others part of our shared human history. So why single out Anglicanism?

More and more people are becoming atheist every day because religions have outdated, nonsense beliefs and have outlived their useful purpose. So there's really no reason to defend one or another.

Re:If it's really a policy

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

But the very concept of the FSM is an abomination and I find the idea absolutely offensive!

Long live the IPU!

Re:If it's really a policy

[wisnoskij]

The Jedi religion onyl exists because of Star Wars films. And SW films or adverts for those films are obviously going to be huge adverts for the church.

Re:If it's really a policy

[ChunderDownunder]

Haha, yes.

I've had this discussion with a militant atheist friend who sees no irony in banning these ads before a SW movie.

Him: "Ban the ads. When I go to the cinema I shouldn't have to pay to have my kids brainwashed by a cult."
Me: "But youÂre quite happy to brainwash your 7yo kids for 2 1/2 hours on the ways of the Jedi?"
Him: "But Star Wars is make-believe, no one takes it seriously as a religion."
Me: "Tell that to the thousands of people who put Jedi as their religion on the census."
Him: "Mate, it's science *fiction*, none of it is real."
Me: "At one point neither were the writings of L. Ron Hubbard, yet Scientology exists."
Him: "You're not seriously suggesting it is appropriate to show ads before a movie from a religion claiming to be the way, the truth and the light?"
Me: "Well maybe not but in your rabid attack on religion in general I'm asking you to respect the rights and beliefs of those who follow the Jedi faith."
Him: "Seriously? It's *not* real."
Me: "Again, tell that to the thousands of believers who put Jedi on their census as a way of giving the middle finger to Richard Dawkins' atheist zealotry."

Re:If it's really a policy

[godel_56]

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.

In a TV story on this they said that the church had discussed the campaign with the advertising agents in the middle of the year and the agents had no problem with it then, so just when was this policy introduced?

If the policy was in place when the church first approached the theaters and the church wasn't warned, then I think they have a right to ask for their production costs back

Re:If it's really a policy

[vux984]

It shouldn't otherwise ads for everything from the "Passion of the Christ" to "Steve Almighty" would cross that line.

But I don't think they do, they are advertising the movie, not the faith itself, and I think its pretty reasonable and easy to tell one from the other.

Re:If it's really a policy

[reboot246]

If it's their policy, then the policy should be changed. You're either in favor of free speech or you're not. At least Dawkins is being consistent.

What's your excuse?

Re:If it's really a policy

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

No one is saying a private venue cannot ban certain speech. Rather it is perfectly fine to point out it is not necessarily a good idea to do so in a case like this.

Re: If it's really a policy

[Beck_Neard]

Could you be a bit more vague?

Re:If it's really a policy

[wonkey_monkey]

given that Jediism is a recognized religion in that country.

No it isn't.

Re:If it's really a policy

[Beck_Neard]

"I don't like it" is not the same as "It's not a good idea." To say that it's not a good idea, you have to explain why it's not a good idea. I see no hint of any reasonable explanation of that sort here. He's citing "free speech grounds" which are irrelevant, as I said. That's the point of his I'm addressing.

Re:If it's really a policy

[Cederic]

Isn't there a pastafarian sect that believes the FSM manifests as the IPU, and that they are thus the same?

I'm not saying I agree with them, but the factual basis for this belief is clearly inarguable.

Re:If it's really a policy

[digitig]

It seems you were too busy being racist to pay attention to the facts: this is not one theatre, it's the chains that control 80% of the theatres in the UK.

Or, since you refer to "muslin kids", perhaps you meant rag dolls, not rag heads?

Re:If it's really a policy

[digitig]

Who said they were in favour of free speech? They're in favour of maximising their profits.

Re:If it's really a policy

[rtb61]

Sure ban some ads but don't ban others, the ad seemed pretty reasonable and should have been tested upon it's own merits ie a broad range of people of many nationalities with a very broad demographic sharing faith. Jedi was on my census form and will continue to be so for as long as I live (although the appropriateness of the question being questionable and a government official threatening to penalise people if they wrote it it, might have had considerable bearing on that response).

Re:If it's really a policy

[youngone]

I was going to post dskoll's post, but worded badly.

Now I don't need to bother. Thanks dskoll.

Re:If it's really a policy

[youngone]

"Again, tell that to the thousands of believers who put Jedi on their census as a way of giving the middle finger to Richard Dawkins' atheist zealotry

I don't think anyone has ever been thinking of Richard Dawkins when they've put Jedi down as their religion. I'm sure that they're doing it as a middle finger to the Church.

Re:If it's really a policy

[Wootery]

Correct.

Re:If it's really a policy

[kevingolding2001]

"Long live the IPU!" (BBHHH)

Re:If it's really a policy

[agm]

Having free speech doesn't mean every company must say what you want them to. It's up to them what they show their patrons.

Re:If it's really a policy

[agm]

There is a certain amount of irony that an organisation whose primary business is to show people entertaining fiction is not willing to show people a different kind of fiction during adverts.

Re:If it's really a policy

[ChrisMaple]

Refusing to do business with someone because of their religious beliefs is different from refusing to permit them to promote their beliefs on your property.

Re:If it's really a policy

[ChunderDownunder]

yes, i read the article.

He's still a wanker I wouldn't sit next to at a pub.

Re:If it's really a policy

[KeensMustard]

Ah - so if the CofE had made an ad *about* the life of Jesus the cinema would be forced to run it?

Re:If it's really a policy

[KeensMustard]

I don't think anyone has ever been thinking of Richard Dawkins when they've put Jedi down as their religion. I'm sure that they're doing it as a middle finger to the Church.

If so, it's poorly aimed. I think the Church would be aware of the fact that there are people who hold to a different set of beliefs the contradict with theirs. Lot's of Christians die every week because of the simple fact that there are people who disagree with them.

From their perspective Jedism is just another crazy, discredited belief. Just like you, and the supposed Jedi's, Christians think that all such beliefs are wrong - expect their own. Why is Jedism an insult to Christianity but not yours? Because yours are right?

Re:If it's really a policy

[Copid]

So it's curious why -- out of all the things that Dawkins could have been upset by -- he chooses to be upset by a cinema not displaying an ad for an Anglican Church. Would Dawkins be as upset as he is if it were an ad for a Jewish organization, or a Hindu one... or a Muslim one? I'm going to go out on a limb and say no. Maybe Dawkins is the one who is being biased here.

Did you just make up a thing that he didn't actually do and then shit on him for the inappropriate response you fabricated on his behalf?

Re:If it's really a policy

[someone1234]

I agreed with your points except the last one. That seems to assume a lot.

Re:If it's really a policy

[davester666]

so what? Christianity exists only because of somebody named Jesus. Islam...Mohammed (sp?)

Is it not really a religion because it got started from a movie, so people don't really believe, because it's made up?

Re:If it's really a policy

[Hognoxious]

I know it's a long shot, but is it possible that the advertising agents lied slightly?

Re:If it's really a policy

[Crookdotter]

Your position doesn't really work as an argument nor as banter, and I wholeheartedly side with your friend.

Re:If it's really a policy

[Crookdotter]

It's more a middle finger to the government and their (punishable by law to refuse) need for data on the population.

Re:If it's really a policy

[xaxa]

I know it's a long shot, but is it possible that the advertising agents lied slightly?

It's also possible the church lied slightly. It's good publicity, no?

Re:If it's really a policy

[RuffMasterD]

No. Cinemas are commercial entities. They can choose to show a movie, or not, as they can do with any other movie. Many cinemas chose to show "The Passion of the Christ", a movie *about* the life of Jesus. Some chose not to. If the church has to force anything, then they are doing it wrong.

Re:If it's really a policy

[Half-pint HAL]

and will continue to be so for as long as I live

I think you mean "until I become more powerful than you can possibly imagine". The force is weak in you, young padawan.

Re:If it's really a policy

[AmiMoJo]

Not all religions are the same. The Jedi don't seem to believe in a god, and their only teachings are fairly mild and frankly trite philosophical points or concerned with mastering a made-up superhuman ability. Islam has some pretty hard core beliefs about the way you should live your life, the way you should treat other people and the penalties for doing things it doesn't like such as trying to leave (apostasy carries a death sentence).

The CofE is fairly mild by monotheistic standards, but even so has some very backwards views on things like the role of women and homosexuality. So yeah, I would quite likely find an advert for the CofE mildly offensive, and it would make me less likely to go to that cinema, or any cinema, next time. That's my right. It's a commercial decision for the cinema chain if they want to provide a platform for the CofE to offend and irritate their customers.

Re:If it's really a policy

[Half-pint HAL]

I don't think he was upset about it - he just tweeted about it initially as he thought it was a free speech issue. He then deleted it when people pointed out that it was more of a commercial decision, as you yourself have pointed out.

I.e. Dawkins opened his mouth and professed opinions on a topic he didn't understand...? I'm shocked! ...shocked, I tell you!

Re:If it's really a policy

[Half-pint HAL]

If we make the choice based on tradition, then we are not being tolerant to individuals, which makes Dawkins' standpoint inconsistent and hypocritical. Even more so, in fact, if you consider that there has been a very long-standing Jewish population in the UK (particularly London) whose lack of recognition in law (and hence lack of publically-supported faith schools) was part of a long traditional of intolerance towards Jews in Europe from Christian populations including Anglicans and Catholics....

Re:If it's really a policy

[AmiMoJo]

It's not true that the CofE is tolerant anyway. More tolerant than some other religions, but still a long, long way from where most the country is. Look at how much stuff is legal that used to be illegal based on the will of the Church. Blasphemy, same-sex marriage, abortion, suicide... And of course they have to have a special exemption from the law in order to discriminate against women, among other classes. The idea was that they would get the exemption to give them time to put their house in order, and decades later they still haven't.

Worst of all, some of their religious teachings are child abuse. Telling children that if they do perfectly natural and healthy things, that if they were born gay or trans, that if they have certain thoughts and feelings they will go to hell and be tortured for eternity is abuse. We put 18 certificates on films for a reason. Books featuring rape and murder and promoting them as being preferable to homosexuality are not allowed in the children's section of the library, and unless it says "Bible" on the cover reading such a book to children would get you in a lot of trouble.

Re:If it's really a policy

[Half-pint HAL]

Equality for cheese-cloth children! Say no to lactose intolerance!

Re:If it's really a policy

[tehcyder]

the thousands of believers who put Jedi on their census as a way of giving the middle finger to Richard Dawkins' atheist zealotry

I always assumed that, like the Flying Spghetti Monster, this was people having a dig at the absurdity of religion.

Re: If it's really a policy

[bohmt]

The difference for a company selling ads being?

Re:If it's really a policy

[MrKaos]

If the cinemas really had a policy not to allow religious or political advertising in place before they were asked to run the ads, and if they've applied that policy consistently, then I don't think they should run the ads.

Maybe it's not the kind of message the cinema chain wants to send? Maybe their free speech in their own chain of viewing theatres is a place that is free of that type of message and their freedom not to say a message is being infringed. This might also be worthy of consideration.

I don't think we would like being told we had to make certain associations if we didn't want to, so the freedom of speech issues might be deeper than they initially appear. Being told to be a mouthpiece for a message you don't want to send might be worse than censorship.

The irony in this situation and the complexity of the freedom of speech issues here are enough to make your head explode.

Re:If it's really a policy

[Coren22]

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

Re:If it's really a policy

[Rhipf]

But even though as I said I'm a hard-core atheist, I'd pray all day if I thought it would stop George Lucas from ever making another fucking movie.

Looks like you don't have to bother praying as this has already occurred (well ok he may make films but not Star Wars films).

Re:If it's really a policy

[KeensMustard]

Ah. So it comes down some random decision that Jediism is "not offensive" and the Christianity is "offensive". There goes the atheist meme that those 2 beliefs should be treated the same I guess.

If the church has to force anything, then they are doing it wrong.

I don't think the church is trying to force anything, rather expressing puzzlement at this inconsistency - even Richard Dawkins recognises that in a healthy society, it is not the job of businesses to shield people from information they might confronting/offensive, regardless of regulation or law.

Re:If it's really a policy

[AmiMoJo]

Slashdot has a moderation system that takes care of this. I don't know if anyone has actually been banned for abuse, but if they were causing enough of a problem then yeah, Slashdot should ban them.

Your point is just sophism.

Re:If it's really a policy

[youngone]

I don't have any beliefs, but if there's evidence I'll happily look at it.

Re:If it's really a policy

[KeensMustard]

I don't have any beliefs,

You mean you believe you have no beliefs. The rest of us don't share that belief.

Re:If it's really a policy

[KeensMustard]

Putting jediism on the census was for the same reasons as pastafarianism - neither were ever about mocking Dawkins, where would you get a dumb idea like that?

You are ascribing ideas to me that I've never expressed.

"BELIEFS" ARE WRONG.

Believe that if you want. Put it in all caps if it helps reinforce the belief in your wavering mind. But if true, then your beliefs are also wrong - by definition.

Re:If it's really a policy

[Hognoxious]

Lot's
Jedi's

You have some strange beliefs about apostrophe usage.

Re:If it's really a policy

[Hognoxious]

I don't think anyone has ever been thinking of Richard Dawkins when they've put Jedi down as their religion.

If they've heard of him at all they probably think he's the guy in the wheelchair with the weird voice.

Re:If it's really a policy

[Rakarra]

Ah. So it comes down some random decision that Jediism is "not offensive" and the Christianity is "offensive". There goes the atheist meme that those 2 beliefs should be treated the same I guess.

I suppose one difference is that Jedism and Pastafarianism are widely acknowledged as parodies. As much as adherents try to keep a straight face while snickering, no one, including said adherents, believe those religions are real. While there might be some among Christianity, Islam, whatever who don't believe in those religions, most in the religions actually believe there is a God and that the Bible/Koran/etc are true.

Meanwhile, Scientology falls somewhere in the middle. Started as a scam, almost certainly believed to be a scam by the higher-ups, while many on the low rungs, at least in the early few years, probably believe it's real.

I'm not sure if that really has anything to do with the theater decision. They'll know Jedism is a joke, but if it came to Christianity, someone might likely think that a number of folks actually care about this one way or the other.

Re:If it's really a policy

[Rakarra]

Don't you blaspheme Jedism.
Oh, you didn't realize that apostrophe misuse is one of the core tenets of the religion?

Yeah, I'm not sure why either. Probably because Lucas had no idea how to use the possessive when he wrote the script to Star Wars, and that trend has been passed from that holy document to its adherents.

Re:If it's really a policy

[KeensMustard]

I suppose one difference is that Jedism and Pastafarianism are widely acknowledged as parodies.

Parodies of what though? A parody that bears no resemblance to the thing it attempts to parody is not clever or insightful. I think that Jediism and Pastafarianism (As parody, I'm not talking about the people who take them seriously) is more of a strawman than anything else.

While there might be some among Christianity, Islam, whatever who don't believe in those religions, most in the religions actually believe there is a God and that the Bible/Koran/etc are true.

I can't speak to Islam terribly well, except that Allah is never represented in images, and his actual appearance is never discussed. So he in no way resembles the FSM. The same applies to Christianity - Christians follow Jesus, who, from all reports, had a normal amount of arms and legs - and (according to Christianity) still does. So the FSM doesn't parody either religion very well.

And then there is the question of what this farce actually achieves. I suppose there is a certain amount of personal satisfaction in mocking others - by belittling others, it makes your own beliefs seem more sensible and rational. But that is just feelings. In fact, I suspect that habitually mocking others is a sign of insecurity. In this case, the pretend pastafarians are suffering from a lack of self reflection. The mockery they make of other peoples beliefs apply just as much to their own beliefs. Only they can't see it.

Re:If it's really a policy

[jeremyp]

Jediism is a recognized religion in that country.

Wrong.

There only recognised religion in the sense that it has any special legal status is the Church of England.

Re:If it's really a policy

[jeremyp]

"Again, tell that to the thousands of believers who put Jedi on their census as a way of giving the middle finger to Richard Dawkins' atheist zealotry."

1. It's Britain, so it would be two fingers, not the middle finger.

2. I doubt if any of them did it as a way of spiting Richard Dawkins, and even if they did, that would indicate that they did it as a frivolous act, not because they truly believed in the Jedi religion.

Re:If it's really a policy

[Coren22]

You claimed that it was ok to ban religious speech. What if they were banning any advertising directed at women, or any advertising containing black people? It may be different here as it is the UK and not the US, but in the US this activity would be considered against the law just as refusing to serve black people would be against the law.

Re:If it's really a policy

[RivenAleem]

I don't get how they are using the word censor, or ban in discussions. The church offered them money to run their ad before the movie. They declined the money on the basis that the ad doesn't fit within their guidelines for the ads they show before movies. End of story.

If the church came up to me and said, "we'll pay you money to wear this (justpray) tshirt" and I refuse, am I guilty of censorship? Have I banned their ad somehow?

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

[Brian_Ellenberger]

Wrong, wrong, you could not be more wrong. The First Amendment to the Bill of Rights (which doesn't even apply here obviously) is the legal mandate of the Enlightenment concept of Free Speech which goes far beyond what I could describe in a short reply.

It is sad and sickening to see so called liberals slowing becoming the greatest opponents of a marketplace of ideas, of free discussion and debate, of taking and understanding rather than mandating like the worst fascists of the 20th century

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

[pruedz]

Erm... The 1st amendment is about free speech, and I'm not even american... Anyway, that's UK, I doubt that the 1st amendment is a point here...

Re:he should know better

[LynnwoodRooster]

Great! Then Government cannot force businesses to accept some clients with whom they disagree, correct? After all, freedom of speech and freedom of association only relates to the Government and not individuals, acording to your position.

Re:he should know better

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Of course, "free speech" is a construct of the United States. Not all countries recognize it. Same with separation of church and state, which the UK definitely doesn't recognize.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

What is this First Amendment you speak of?

I've looked all through our common law, legislation and statutes right back to the Magna Carta and cannot find such a thing.

Re:he should know better

[Kjella]

If you made some kind of public statement and your employer/landlord/bank called you up and said it's not compatible with being an employee/tenant/customer of ours anymore I think most people would call it a free speech issue. Granted, we're not really being consistent because half the time we want to protect dissenting opinions from the wrath of the majority and the other half we want obnoxious and offensive speech to have consequences. Like when Brendan Eich was forced to step down as CEO of Mozilla, was that right or wrong? Some think it was right, that the LGBT community had a right to cause a shit storm. Others think they blatantly silenced an opposing voice by harassing his employer. But the government wasn't involved, so there was no free speech issue right?

Re: he should know better

[JaredOfEuropa]

The fact that you are free to say what you want does not mean that I am under any obligation to offer you a platform to speak from. I support the right of these cinemas to not run ads they think might cause trouble, even if I agree with Dawkins that it is wrong to pander to the perennially indignant in this way. Thankfully people or businesses are still free to make their own wrong decisions.

A big problem with free speech issues is that a lot of people seem not to understand the difference between allowing something, tolerating someting, agreeing with something, and endorsing something.

Re: he should know better

[narcc]

The First Amendment to the Bill of Rights

You mean "of" not "to". It completely changes the meaning.

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

[scamper_22]

On the contrary. Societal attitudes to free speech do matter.
Only in some kind of pure libertarian world would what you say be the end all. But we don't live in that world.

You can't just deny someone's business because you don't want it.
We live in a world where anti-discrimination is a big thing and is regulated. We live in a world where the channels of speech (Internet, tv, newspaper, movies...) are all considered outlets of speech and validly should not discriminate.

Re: he should know better

[khasim]

The First Amendment to the ...

Correct.

It is sad and sickening to see so called liberals ...

Also correct.

BUT ... it does not matter. In the end it is up to the business whether it will run X or not.

By way of example: if I paid you $10 to put a sign on your lawn saying X would it be wrong for you to refuse to put a sign saying Y on your lawn for $10?

And that's where we are at with this. The theatres refuse all religious / political ads. That way they do not endorse X or Y. Nor can they be seen as supporting Y.

Re:he should know better

[Nemyst]

"Free speech" in a legal sense is indeed only about governmental intrusion, and the definition is largely specific to the US, so mentioning it for a UK matter is already not particularly relevant. It's not like Dawkins is claiming that what they are doing is illegal either.

What Dawkins is talking about is the principle, the ideal of free speech. That is applicable to anything and anyone, anywhere. You can most certainly decry a lack of free speech in any situation, even when concerning private corporations.

Re:he should know better

[AK Marc]

So you should have the right to have whites only stores. Put personal pressure on all your friends to only have whites only stores. And make sure you don't sell your house to a non-white person. Because all that worked out so well before.

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

[sumdumass]

How far apart is "we sell advertising space but not to the likes of you " from "we rent rooms but not to the likes of you "?

If you offer something in commerce, do you think it is proper to refuse that offer to anyone who is part of the same society that allows you to prosper?

Re:he should know better

[Beck_Neard]

Exactly. Free speech means you can't face legal consequences for what you say. That was a revolutionary concept in its time, as most governments throughout history made it a major offense - often punishable by death or extreme torture - to criticize the government in any way. The idea that you could live under a government and face no consequences whatsoever for even the harshest words against that government was a mind-blowing concept. Thankfully, nowadays its a routine and expected concept, so we aren't blown away daily for just how amazing it is to have that freedom. But free speech never meant that everyone gets a fair share of everyone else's time and money to spread their ideas. That's not only NOT what free speech is, it's also against capitalism and individualism.

Re:he should know better

[rocket rancher]

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.

uh, what? what does the first amendment to the US constitution have to do with a group of british theater owners deciding what can and can't be seen on their theater screens, which are located in Britain, and not in the US?

Re:he should know better

[Anonymous Coward]

or better.. it's more incredible how many people think other countries, even "western" countries, have "free speech" in the first place.. usa's "1st amendment" is what is most often cited.. yet that applies to only a small fraction of the global population (i.e. usa, and then only in certain instances)...

in this case the uk has no constitutionally protected right of free speech comparable to usa's.. and certainly nothing that applies to private businesses in their own venues. the theatres are free do show whatever the fuck they want to and reject whatever they don't want to show.

the church can buy adverts in other media that will, or may be required to, display/broadcast them,....

my own opinion... there should not be any fucking adverts before, during, or after a motion picture presented in a theatre setting, except for a small promo for the snack bar perhaps, and of course, a couple of trailers for upcoming features.

Re: he should know better

[dskoll]

The theatre chain is not objecting to who is trying to run ads. They're objecting to the content of the ads.

I'm sure if the Church of England paid for an ad about, oh, I dunno, cars or running shoes, the theatre chain would be happy to run it.

Re:he should know better

[An Ominous Coward]

A business is not a person and does not have freedom of association. The people running a business have freedom of association, but when they voluntarily organize effort under a certain entity, that entity may be granted certain legal protections but in exchange must follow other laws, including those concerning non-discrimination.

Re:he should know better

[blogagog]

You are speaking only about the 'legal' term "Freedom of Speech". The real issue is much bigger.and has nothing to do with the government in this instance. Or legal issues. It is simply that people in power of the various forms of media can (and in this instance do) impose their belief or lack of it upon others.

You'll only realize it's a problem when they block something you yourself believe strongly about. Not sure what to do about it other than going back to monopoly-busting.

Re: he should know better

[JaredOfEuropa]

It's more like: "we rent rooms but not if you're having a drunken blowout with wall to wall vomiting in them". Can a hotel refuse service to people because of their beliefs? They can if those people are for example preaching in the lobby, but otherwise no. Can a christian hotel refuse service to an unmarried couple if they belief that couple will have sex at the hotel? Kind of a borderline case... I'd say no because by accepting the couple the hotel is not forced to speak in a voice they find objectionable (they may still gain a reputation they don't like but that's a separate issue). But if they make it clear in their policy that they do not allow unmarried couples to occupy a single room, then that's their business.

Free speech must extend to organisations such as ad agencies, cinemas, and newspapers. As an organisation they must be free to speak in the voice they want, and not be forced to publish material they find objectionable. Or should a conservative newspaper be forced to run liberal articles.

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.

Re:he should know better

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Dawkins acknowledged that point; FTFA:

He told the Guardian: “My immediate response was to tweet that it was a violation of freedom of speech. But I deleted it when respondents convinced me that it was a matter of commercial judgment on the part of the cinemas, not so much a free speech issue. 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.”

Re:he should know better

[LynnwoodRooster]

So - explain how the movie theater case is different than a rental hall, in deciding what they allow to be shown/done in their facility.

Re:he should know better

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

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

Governments can do anything in principle. The question is what a particular government can do, and what that means for the kind of society it creates. European governments can interfere with freedom of speech and freedom of association with near impunity; while European constitutions pay lip service to these principles, they are so riddled with exceptions that pretty much any restrictions can be justified even on constitutional grounds. In the US, both freedom of speech and freedom of association are protected by the US Constitution, although that still doesn't always stop the US government from interfering with them; viz, non-discrimination laws.

Re:he should know better

[LynnwoodRooster]

So, if for example you had a rental hall, you have to rent it to whomever desires to rent? But if you have a movie theater, you can pick and choose to whom you rent the screen?

Re:he should know better

[dskoll]

No, it's not. The cinema is saying: "We don't run political or religious ads." That's discriminating on content, not on who the advertiser is.

A caterer who refuses to cater Catholic weddings is discriminating on the basis of religion. Whether or not the caterer works at a Protestant, Catholic or atheist wedding, she'd still presumably do much the same thing, so there's no difference in the product or the content, only in who she's doing it for.

This thing is so ridiculous. Any advertiser can accept or reject ads based on any criteria they choose, as long as the criteria are based on the content of the ads and not on who's paying for the ads.

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.

Re:he should know better

[Woldscum]

BUT, the "Church of England" is the government. You do not go to the courthouse to record your marriage in England. You go to the local parish church.

Re:he should know better

[AmiMoJo]

It's a purely commercial decision. People hate the cinema experience enough already, with the fake start times and the sticky seats and the annoying ads. I'm order to make sure enough people will tolerate it they have to avoid any kind of controversial ads, which means no politics and no religion.

Re:he should know better

[91degrees]

No. Free speech is the freedom to speak. Whether from the government or a private institution.

Cinemas don't offer it and never have done. Nor is there anything wrong with this.

Re:he should know better

[Wootery]

That's actually an interesting comparison, despite the idiotic way you raise it.

The confectioner didn't have any luck arguing that we don't bake gay cakes was merely a permissible 'discrimination on content' rather than against people.

Re:he should know better

[Wootery]

I would say all theatres do not support such wholesale free speech as typically they'll play just a Hollywood blockbuster and not a movie produced by a 12 year old for a school art project.

No. You're just being silly. A cinema is a business, not your personal soapbox. What gets shown is up to the cinema owner, not you.

Re:he should know better

[dskoll]

A confectioner is well within his rights to refuse to convey a homosexual message (whatever TF that is) on his cake.

But he's not free to refuse to bake a normal cake, the same as he'd bake for everyone else, just because the customer happens to be gay.

I know you see the difference and are simply trolling at this point.

Re:he should know better

[dskoll]

I wasn't aware of that particular cake case. I think the verdict was wrong and in this case, the baker's freedom of expression was violated.

Re:he should know better

[sumdumass]

Why? I wasn't aware that Mr Dawkins sold advertising space at his speeches. If that does happen, yes he should be required or obligated to run an advertisement that sounds like a prayer or whatever if someone pays him to.

The principal here is not the content. It is the denial of commercial services to members of society based on their speech or whatever they do not like about them. Mr Dawkins is only tangibly connected here because of his outspoken atheist views and someone asked him about this. Of course he took the high road and doesn't think speech should be suppressed even if he disagreed with the speech.

Re:he should know better

[dryeo]

America, isn't that the country that has as part of its Constitution that Congress shall make no law restricting speech and yet has executed people for speech? Oh right, it is only some speech that is protected and there are tons of exceptions such as publishing the blue prints for nuclear weapons and giving them to the enemy.
Which is better, a country with a noble Constitution that is ignored whenever expedient or a country that is honest about things like national security being a good reason to limit speech?

Re:he should know better

[dryeo]

So the Germans are honest about their restrictions on speech unlike some other countries that have noble constitutions that are routinely ignored.
Not long ago, I was listening to the radio and they were talking about a band called the Fuckups (or was it the Fuckheads?) and the DJ was talking about the problems he had due to his show also being broadcast in America where there were these restrictions on speech, to protect the youth,which meant that speech such as shit and even fuck that was legal in my country had to be censored due to the Americans prudish laws about speech designed to "protect youth" and protect the dignity of certain religions.
When you look at certain countries, rights are well defined but ignored. I think the Soviets took this to the extreme with a very good but ignored constitution.

Re: he should know better

[dryeo]

BUT ... it does not matter. In the end it is up to the business whether it will run X or not.

By way of example: if I paid you $10 to put a sign on your lawn saying X would it be wrong for you to refuse to put a sign saying Y on your lawn for $10?

A business is not a person in the UK. In NI a bakery was sued for not wanting to supply a cake with a gay marriage message on it so maybe if the church pursues legal means they might have to. I'm not a lawyer but the law in this area seems quite different in the UK to the USA.

I'm sure that if the bakery had a policy of not putting messages on cakes, they would have won. Same with a policy of not doing wedding cakes. Same with the theatres, their policy is no religion or politics rather then only ads from certain churches and certain political parties.

Re:he should know better

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

America, isn't that the country that has as part of its Constitution that Congress shall make no law restricting speech and yet has executed people for speech?

Interesting. What case would that be?

Oh right, it is only some speech that is protected and there are tons of exceptions such as publishing the blue prints for nuclear weapons and giving them to the enemy.

The US Constitution authorizes the federal government to do certain things; adjudicating treason is one of those. Whether you consider that an infringement on "free speech" is immaterial.

Re:he should know better

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

and the DJ was talking about the problems he had due to his show also being broadcast in America where there were these restrictions on speech

Those are not restrictions on speech, they are restrictions that are part of the licensing of spectrum for broadcast. He can talk about the "Fuckups" on cable or the Internet all he wants.

When you look at certain countries, rights are well defined but ignored. I think the Soviets took this to the extreme with a very good but ignored constitution.

Correct. So do most European constitutions. The US Constitution, however, does not define any rights for the people at all, it does something much better: it defines powers of the government (thirty enumerated powers).

Re:he should know better

[dryeo]

One famous case was the Rosenbergs or whatever their name was.

The US Constitution authorizes the federal government to do certain things; adjudicating treason is one of those. Whether you consider that an infringement on "free speech" is immaterial.

Actually amendments actually amend (change) the Constitution and just because everyone thinks free speech shouldn't apply in certain cases doesn't mean that free speech no longer exists in those cases.

Re:he should know better

[dryeo]

and the DJ was talking about the problems he had due to his show also being broadcast in America where there were these restrictions on speech

Those are not restrictions on speech, they are restrictions that are part of the licensing of spectrum for broadcast. He can talk about the "Fuckups" on cable or the Internet all he wants.

It is still restrictions on speech passed by congress, who had no right to do it according to your point below this.
Would you be OK with the government restricting speech in public parks, under the name of licensing? You can still practice free speech in your private yard so your speech isn't really restricted.

When you look at certain countries, rights are well defined but ignored. I think the Soviets took this to the extreme with a very good but ignored constitution.

Correct. So do most European constitutions. The US Constitution, however, does not define any rights for the people at all, it does something much better: it defines powers of the government (thirty enumerated powers).

Actually originally it only defined the powers of the Federal government, in a time when the States were much more sovereign.
As any fool can see, the American Federal Government barely pays lip service to those 30 enumerated powers and Americans seem very good at rationalizing away the expansions of power outside the 30 enumerated powers.

Re:he should know better

[AthanasiusKircher]

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.

Except the ones who are "complaining" (in your terms) are ALSO exercising their free speech rights. Sure, a company should not be compelled to broadcast speech, but on the other hand they presumably want to attract customers. If they refuse to broadcast speech in a way that customers find unfair, the customers may not come. If enough people complain about such policies in public forums, the companies might be convinced that broadcasting the speech is in their interest. THAT is ALSO the "system working," by allowing complainers to exercise THEIR free speech rights, even if you don't agree with their perspective.

Re:he should know better

[jrumney]

This thing is so ridiculous. Any advertiser can accept or reject ads based on any criteria they choose, as long as the criteria are based on the content of the ads and not on who's paying for the ads.

So if they were to reject ads featuring black actors that would be OK, since the actors are part of the content of the ad?

Personally I am offended by advertising in general, but if they must have it, it seems a bit silly to refuse an ad because it intices people to harmlessly talk to an imaginary being in the sky, meanwhile they are perfectly happy to accept ads for companies like McDonalds and Coca Cola who are causing actual harm to the health of society.

Re:he should know better

[Beck_Neard]

Nice try, but anti-discrimination laws are... somewhat different from the free speech issue.

Re:he should know better

[ChrisMaple]

People with legal access to government secrets sign an agreement acknowledging that they understand and will abide by the laws relevant to those secrets. There are also laws concerning acquiring secrets one is not permitted to acquire.
Additionally, "free speech" is absence of prior constraint, not absence of repercussions for damage. That covers the theoretical problem.

On a practical basis, get real. Passing nuclear secrets is attempted murder and an act of war.

Re:he should know better

[ChrisMaple]

"Freedom of expression" is far too broad. It would include things like a man removing his clothes and masturbating in front of a group of nuns and small children.

The primary purpose of freedom of press and speech is to protect a mechanism for limiting government power and abuse. It is the freedom to transmit ideas. Freedom of expression covers a much wider range of activity, too much of which is undeserving of protection.

Re:he should know better

[dryeo]

On a practical basis, get real. Passing nuclear secrets is attempted murder and an act of war.

Of course it is, which is why most countries have limits on free speech such as no giving out secrets to do with national security. Only America has no limits written into their constitution and then has unwritten limits which just encourages the fucking politicians to ignore their constitution. Once they're used to ignoring the highest law in the land it comes easy to ignore the other laws. And the American people just go along with it and keep voting the same arseholes in over and over.
Free speech is really important and should have the minimum limits possible but it turns out there are necessary limits like the old "loose lips sink ships"

Re: he should know better

[ChrisMaple]

Your post is illogical. "Color of their skin" is something a hotelier can see, "the sexual acts they may or may not partake of" are pure speculation. FWIW, a hotelier can take steps to prevent his property from being trashed.

Similarly, "the content of their character" is pure speculation unless they announce their intentions (something that only fools and troublemakers are likely to do.)

"The content of the ads" is a business decision; they don't want to display material that could discourage customers from returning. Content is part of the service they're providing, and they're providing it to anyone who'll pay for it. This is different from your proposed hotelier, who would not be providing service to anyone who'd pay for it.

Re:he should know better

[ChrisMaple]

This is not 80% for one theatre chain, it's for three chains.

Big theatres are a substantial capital investment, modern digital projectors are also not cheap. The set of businesses interested in running a theatre chain and financially able to do so is not large. There are also some economies of scale..

Re:he should know better

[thegarbz]

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

Well actually yes they can. Advertising is a heavily regulated industry.

By the way from your first sentence you missed "religion" in your list of protected cases.

Re:he should know better

[Gavagai80]

Refusing only Muslim ads but not those of other religions would be analogous to refusing ads with black actors. Categorically refusing religious ads would be like refusing any ads that promote racial identities, which is fair.

Re:he should know better

[xaxa]

In some sense the government is involved in this case, since the Church of England is the established church of England.

Several bishops sit in the House of Lords, and debate the passing of laws.

Re:he should know better

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Actually originally it only defined the powers of the Federal government, in a time when the States were much more sovereign.

Yes, and now it also enumerates and limits the powers of states.

As any fool can see, the American Federal Government barely pays lip service to those 30 enumerated powers and Americans seem very good at rationalizing away the expansions of power outside the 30 enumerated powers.

True, the US is far from implementing the ideals of the Constitution, but it is actually making progress. As someone who actually immigrated to the US from Europe, I can assure you from personal experience: the situation is a lot better in the US than in Europe.

Re:he should know better

[NoOneInParticular]

So "freedom of speech" means "freedom of speech"? I don't see a definition in the article you quoted, just a blanket statement that it cannot abridge the thing that it fails to define. This has lead in the US to endless confusion: is yelling "fire in a theatre" freedom of speech? Is money speech? Honestly, it is much clearer what is protected in the German version. You might not like it as it might sound too constrained, but at the very least it is a definition, not an empty phrase.

Re:he should know better

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

You might not like it as it might sound too constrained, but at the very least it is a definition, not an empty phrase.

As I was trying to explain to you: the First Amendment doesn't need to define "free speech" because it isn't the source of free speech rights in the US in the first place. The extent and meaning of free speech rights has been defined by the enumerated powers in the original Constitution. That is, Americans have the right to free speech at the federal level for the simple reason that the US Constitution does not give the federal government the power to limit it. The First Amendment was put in as an additional safeguard in case the enumerated powers were interpreted too expansively by courts (which they have been since the early 20th century).

Most of the debates about "free speech" you see in the US are not at the federal level (where the US Constitution is quite clear) but in the extension of Constitutional guarantees to the local and state level, something that is inherently difficult.

The German definition of "free speech" provides no meaningful protection at all, since under it, German parliament can restrict speech pretty much arbitrarily, and they do. For example, anything you say that might make other people angry or attack their dignity is illegal under German law.

I should also add that one of the strengths of the US legal system is that much of the legal doctrine is developed through case law, instead of through legislatures. You can no more write a bug free legal code from scratch with the kind of minimal understanding legislators have than you can write a bug free large piece of software from scratch; good legal codes, like good software, requires extensive testing and bug fixing.

Re:he should know better

[Wootery]

No, this is all very wide of the mark.

Free speech refers to government: that the government doesn't silence people for saying unpopular things.

A cinema refusing to show your video isn't an assault on free speech. That's simply their right.

You may not have bothered to go to any of them, but that does not make the idea silly.

I was quite clear, but again: what I was calling silly was your idea that a cinema that refuses to show your film is assaulting your freedom.

Re:he should know better

[Hognoxious]

No, because an offer isn't a contract.

Re:he should know better

[sumdumass]

But if someone offers to pay him, does he not have an obligation to run/perform that advertisement before his speech?

No, he is not selling advertising space to the public. It is not part of his business.

The advertising group already has a policy about the type of adverts it will run, this CoE adverts goes against the policy, your argument that the cinemas should run this advert despite their existing policy is equivalent to Dawkins being obliged to say a prayer before his speeches if someone offered to pay him to do it despite his existing policy of not having advertising before his speeches.

Not at all. My argument is why is discrimination in offerings to the general public acceptable in one form and not others. This is especially important when the discrimination is about religion, race, nationality, sexual preference and so on. If the goods
(in this case advertising space) are regularly offered for sale to the general public, then discriminating based on religion or sexual preference or race or many other things should not be allowed.

Dawkins didn't comment on this because someone asked him about this, he choose to comment on it on Twitter after hearing the news.

And for once, Dawkins is 100% correct in doing so. Censorship or counter to intelligent discourse and even detrimental to society.

Twitter is for twits who like to say things without thinking about them, to highlight that point he did actually delete the tweet after hearing some counter-arguments and actually thinking about what he said. I do like and respect Professor Dawkins, but perhaps he shouldn't have a Twitter account so that he can refrain from commenting on things he hasn't given adequate thought to.

He probably deleted it because of simple harassment by others. If your beliefs cannot exist without being challenged, they do not need to exist in the first place. Imagine if every advertising company decided that anti Christianity advertisements wouldn't be allowed. Imaging Dawkins' ability to get his message out if he was censored because of his religious beliefs? I doubt you would have even heard of him.

fictional deities need to advertise

[Anonymous Coward]

let us prey....

Oh, and I watched the ad

[dskoll]

I watched the ad, and just like the Anglican Church itself, it's pretty wishy-washy and ineffective. I expect audiences are more likely to hoot with derision than get offended.

Re:Oh, and I watched the ad

[MightyMartian]

The Church of England is supposed to be wishy-washy. It was built that way from the Elizabethan Compromise forward. It's a big wishy washy mishmash that's supposed to attract everyone from near-Nonconformist types to Crypto-Catholics.

It's all or nothing!

[narcc]

Not content with being reviled near-universally, Dawkins seeks the ire of the few crazy extremists who still take him seriously.

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.

Re:Though I completely support the idea in princip

[iggymanz]

so what? we already have paid religious ads on TV, radio, newspapers in the USA. it doesn't matter

Freedom

[phorm]

And even that doesn't mean that *I* (or any other entity) need to retransmit your speech. It's just a guess, but if this were an Islamic or Jewish religious message I'd bet Mr Dawkins wouldn't have much to say about it being blocked.

NO religious or political messages is a reasonable policy so long as they don't start picking and choosing.

Personally of rather see no f***ing ads at all. In a theatre where I paid money to see a show, 10-15m of ads is disgusting.

Re:Freedom

[ShanghaiBill]

In a theatre where I paid money to see a show, 10-15m of ads is disgusting.

Obvious solution: Show up 10-15 minutes later, and you won't see them.

Re:Freedom

[UnknownSoldier]

That's not a practical solution -- good luck getting *good* seats then. That said, this only works once the movie has been out for 2 weeks and you go during the day when the place is mostly empty.

Re:Freedom

[CastrTroy]

Are you telling me that theatres in the UK don't have assigned seating? They have a it at a few theatres where I live. It's the only way I'll go see a movie. That, or like you said, wait until a few weeks when the crowds have died down and be assured a good seat. But if it's a popular movie and the movie has just been released then I don't mind paying a couple extra dollars for reserved seating.

Re: Freedom

[Crookdotter]

That's Professor Dawkins to you.

Re:Freedom

[phorm]

The only place I've seen this is in Korea. Canada, USA, and IIRC Australia all have get-what-you-can seating

You can do what the hell you like with ads

[Anonymous Coward]

You can run whatever ads you want in the cinema and I don't give a rat's ass.

What I hate is the blatant insertion of ads IN THE FILMS. GAAH!

Re:Though I completely support the idea in princip

[jklovanc]

The difference is that you can change the channel on the TV, change the radio station or read a different article in the newspaper. In a movie theatre there is no option to turn the advertisement off. The audience is captive.

Can't really agree

[Derekloffin]

For one, this is a private entity, and they are censoring on a fair grounds. But, probably more importantly, cinema is different that most other media in this regard in that you have a pseudo captive audience. You, as a movie watcher, can't change the channel, can't mute it, and even walking away is going to take you probably more time than the ad runs for. With religion being one of those things that can REALLY upset people, I think the chains are doing the only intelligent thing they can in the situation, avoid it entirely.

Re: Humn.... That one is hard.

[Fwipp]

Most religions don't specifically use the Lord's Prayer.

There is a reason

[transfire]

As long as the Church of Satan can run their ad too..... yep, and that's why they have such a policy.

Is the solution not obvious?

[SuricouRaven]

Pray for God to miraculously switch the advertising disks.

More likely, it's about money.

[SvnLyrBrto]

The advertising slot right before Star Wars has got to be just about the most valuable ad space in all of cinema. I'd guess it's more likely that the Anglican church did not want to or could not afford to (They're not exactly Catholic rich, after all.) pay the rate that the slot is worth; and the "don't want to offend people"is some PR flack's notion of trying to save face and make the theater chain look less capitalist.

Opinions

[szymon]

According to the post, we have the opinions of the Anglican church, Richard Dawkins, Sarah Wollaston, the Muslim Council of Britain and even the National Secular Society...but has anyone asked the Jedi?

enough already...

[iMadeGhostzilla]

...with worrying about possibly getting someone offended. I'm totally with Dawkins on this one.

Re:enough already...

[sg_oneill]

Normally I tend to think Dawkins is bit of a dick (And I say that as someone who is also a rusted on atheist) but yeah.

A lot of liberals seem terminally worried about offending with religion , but its not clear whos getting offended.

Most atheists , me included, take a live-and-let-live approach to religion. Its fine as long as its not going after me. The muslims are 99% of the time completely OK with christianity (Seriously, Jesus is their second most important prophet) , Jews are non evangelical and pretty much dont bother with brow beating gentiles. Hinduism and Sikhism are totally into religious pluralism, its kind of in the DNA of their religions. So whos left? Pagans? (Hippies). Eh....

Theres no war on christmas, except in the minds of nutty conservatives and confused liberals.

It's okay...

[93 Escort Wagon]

I'm running AdBlock on my glasses.

Sounds like a commercial decision, not ideological

[Smigh]

If the net is cast that wide and applies to religious and political potential ads, then I don't see Dawkins problem. It doesn't sound like they're taking a stance against that church, it sounds like they want to provide a certain experience to their costumers, and that ad didn't meet those requisites. There's nothing to agree or disagree with here other than whether their criteria for ads are beneficial for their bottom line or not.

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...

And again this is what you and other misunderstand

[aepervius]

"What Dawkins is talking about is the principle, the ideal of free speech. "

But even the most far out ideal of free speech DO NOT require private party to endorse and repeat your own opinion or speech. This is why free speech , freedom of expression , liberté d'expression and such like are always about governmental restriction. You and me and any other have no right to force other private party to carry our speech or get it heard. I repeat, the church, Dawkins, me aepervius or you nemyst have a right to express ourselves without governmental interference, but we have no right whatsoever to force a 3rd private party to carry our speech.

This is essentially why this is not a free speech issue no matter what you look at it. Private party may at any moment, or any time, chose what they publish or show (usually this become a bit more complicated when you look at communication lines and common carrier rule, but here with cinema it is clear cut).

What about Dawkins?

[AndyKron]

Dawkins has been hard to pin down lately.

Free speech and private companies.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Free speech concerns do not apply to private companies, and in fact forcing a company to carry some speech it does not want to carry would be a violation of its rights too. But that is true only when there is competition and alternatives available for the patrons. When group of companies that collectively control a significant chunk of their market act in a discriminatory manner they can be compelled. This was the logic used in enforcing de segregation and civil rights laws on private companies all over Jim Crow south.

Re:Free speech and private companies.

[Nikkos]

"Free speech concerns do not apply to private companies, and in fact forcing a company to carry some speech it does not want to carry would be a violation of its rights too"

It really should though, if the company in question gets a large percentage of their revenue from government.

personally I'm all more making the First Amendment viral in that sense - get government money, have to follow constitutional restrictions and/or allow for constitutional rights.

Re: Humn.... That one is hard.

[SuiteSisterMary]

Crom, I have never prayed to you before. I have no tongue for it. No one, not even you, will remember if we were good men or bad. Why we fought, or why we died. All that matters is that two stood against many. That's what's important! Valor pleases you, Crom... so grant me one request. Grant me revenge! And if you do not listen, then to HELL with you!

Church of England

[frovingslosh]

How can one possibly be opposed to a church that was founded by someone that wanted to divorce and murder his wives? The church of England shows the true value of religion.

Re:Church of England

[dryeo]

I thought it was that he wanted to divorce instead of having one of his wives executed. Of course one of the main motivations was the traditionally Christian one of acquiring wealth and power to prove that you're worthy of entering the Kingdom of Heaven as obviously God rewards the faithful with riches and a variety of wives and punishes the unfaithful with poverty and a nagging shrew for a wife.

Re:Church of England

[Snufu]

Henry VIII makes Darth Vader look like Ghandi.

Re:Church of England

[Half-pint HAL]

I am no Christian, but don't confuse the corrupt hypocrisy of the elite with the religion. "It is easier for a rope* to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven."

* Due to inconsistencies in spelling before the invention of dictionaries, and the fact that the New Testament authors weren't native speakers of Ancient Greek, their misspelling of the Ancient Greek for rope has led to the mistranslation of this passage as referring to a camel, which is just stupid. One letter, people, one letter. Just think about it.

Re:Church of England

[vandamme]

The story I heard was that there was a certain city gate in Jerusalem called the Eye of the Needle, where a person had to stoop down to walk through it. Horses, tough. Camel, NOOO way.

Re:Church of England

[Half-pint HAL]

That's speculative made up stuff. There's also stuff about some possible path between two cliffs that is too narrow for camels. But there's one letter different in "camel" and "rope", and the metaphor makes a heck of a lot of sense if you assume a spelling mistake.

Re:Church of England

[dryeo]

I guess I should have used the sarcasm tag, though sadly there are a lot of Christian sects, with a lot of power, who honestly do believe that God rewards the faithful and punishes the wicked by using wealth.
I believe that Gandhi said something like "I really like your Christ and his teachings, not so much his followers"

And what if other beliefs want to do so?

[Dereck1701]

I recall a controversy here in the US when an atheist group wanted to run some Superbowl/subway advertisements. Religious groups instantly began claiming persecution. I'm all for allowing one religious group to advertise, as long as they don't have a hissy fit whenever another group chooses to do so.

Re:And what if other beliefs want to do so?

[soccerisgod]

Calling atheists a "religious group"? That made me smile :)

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:It's to prevent idiots from fighting

[Xtifr]

By that logic, advertisements for sports should be banned as well. I suspect that mentioning Arsenal is about 10x more likely to generate an actual fight than mentioning the Church of England.

Re:It's to prevent idiots from fighting

[rhazz]

If it was actually likely to cause a problem then maybe it should. The only ads I can recall seeing at the theatre are either for retail (cars usually), other movies, or travel destinations. Pretty safe material, though I suppose a BMW commercial might infuriate some folks these days!

Re:It's to prevent idiots from fighting

[rhazz]

Well for starters, I go to the movie with friends and yeah, I do talk to them. Try it some time. Since most ads are pretty lame they are indeed usually ignored, but I occasionally do see an M. Night Shyamalan trailer that requires me to express disgust - nobody ever disagrees with that though. Do you really think a political ad featuring Trump would go by in a movie theatre without anyone saying anything?

Re:It's to prevent idiots from fighting

[ChrisMaple]

You're one of those people who talks in the theatre, disrupting other people who paid good money to get the best experience. Please leave now.

Re:It's to prevent idiots from fighting

[rhazz]

We're talking about the pre-show ads here, what are you talking about? Unless you're suggesting that a Honda commercial is part of the show people paid to see? Cable TV must be heaven for you.

Re:It's to prevent idiots from fighting

[Hognoxious]

Ah, the Martini-Cinzano wars, I remember them well. Much blood was spilled, and not a little lemonade.

we need java multicore

[Anonymous Coward]

maybe if java multicore designed the ad, it would b okay for everyone. java multicore has Object methods and can design ads to be nice. you need java, though, and like 3-cores. or more.

Pay to be selectively annoyed, no thanks.

[dsmatthews9379]

While I appreciate Richard's rational observations, about this matter of principle I'd rather not have to put up with any form of annoyance if I have to pay for it.

Then again perhaps religious advertising before a movie would help you suspend your sense of disbelief thereby making the cinematic fiction more immersive.

Re:Pay to be selectively annoyed, no thanks.

[Anonymous Coward]

At one time in my youth I liked going to cinemas. But when the ads before the movie started to take 20-30 minutes, I stopped going to to cinemas.
Same thing with DVD:s. When they started accusing their (paying!) custormers of theft, I stopped buying DVDs. That accusation always pissed me off, and ruined half the movie for me.
Torrented movies never had either defect :)

Re:Pay to be selectively annoyed, no thanks.

[Anonymous Coward]

Then again perhaps religious advertising before a movie would help you suspend your sense of disbelief thereby making the cinematic fiction more immersive.

Or it would heighten your critical sense, and lower your tolerance level due to irritation and frustration, thereby making you remark more easily all the mistakes of a weak to average scenario and realization, thus destroying any possible immersion.

Re:Though I completely support the idea in princip

[Xtifr]

Well, just to start with, they could cut that short by limiting it to ads for the official state religion.

(Do please remember that we're discussing England here, not the US.)

Unexpected, this was

[wassomeyob]

Obligatory.

Obvious solution

[wonkey_monkey]

All the Church needs to do is turn this into a full-length film, then this can be the trailer.

Re:Though I completely support the idea in princip

[Anonymous Coward]

So what happens when there are three of these ads during the ad run? Are you going to save your dump for each time?

business as usual, sheeple

[nazsco]

anyone that knows advertisers (or publishers, in this case) know that the premium spot (which a 60s ad before the season block buster is) will never the turned down. Those are the bread winers for any ad publisher.

what those premium spots do have are extras. i bet this one has a "for 10% more you get the premium spot with some controversy!"

Anti-Jedi Sentiment?

[LostMyBeaver]

In two years, my son will have a confirmation in a church. A Church is a wooden building with a big statue of skinny dead guy (generally believed to be white and British) dangling from a cross run by a man wearing a dress for those of you who didn't know. He will have a confirmation because drinking some wine, eating a cookie and getting paid large sums of money to put on a stage performance where no one sees anything but his back is not a bad gig for a kid if he/she can get it. I remember being in a school play where I pretended to be a great roman leader. I figure my kid can pretend to be a Christian for 10 minutes. Besides, it'll make his grandparents happy and they're very old an deserve to hope for at least one child who might believe in things like Santa Claus and invisible super-beings who can create entire universes in 7 days but can't make British comedy funny.

I am forced to wonder however if the placement of these ads, while harmless in themselves are being rejected mainly for the same reasons the Anglican Church threw a tantrum over Harry Potter. I remember them being hell-bent against Harry Potter because it made witches seem to be good.

Now, a new film which from the trailers leads me to feel like it's a film based heavily on reintroducing the Jedi "religion" to a new generation in a culture of heathens who seem somewhat similar to English pagans. While I'm far to lazy to Google it, I recall reading that the Jedi Church has quite a few members in England. While the majority of members joined it to simply list a religion as their association which wasn't an actual religion, this movie could seem very threatening to the Anglican Church.

To be fair though, watching an advertisement about what I still believe must be the absolute silliest and meaningless tradition of most religions... prayer that is, it's pretty harmless in itself.

I wonder however if we should worry about the next real issue which would be that this would in fact open the door for the English Church of the Jedi sponsored advertisement should be allowed to also remind people to vote... or donate money to charities like Make a Wish. Something like "If you were a member of the Church of the Jedi, instead of paying for wine and cookies and candles, you could direct your tax money to meaningful charities like ...."

At the end maybe a silly joke like "You'll still have to pay for men in dresses"

What free speech isn't.

[kuzb]

Freedom of speech means you can mostly say what you want free from legal reprisal provided it is not damaging or defaming someone. What it isn't is the right to force your way on to anyone's podium in order to present your message.

I 100% disagree with Dawkins on this one. There is no freedom of speech issue here.

Re:Though I completely support the idea in princip

[KeensMustard]

Of course. The slippery slope! This can only lead to infamy! Dogs and Cats living together!

Re:Though I completely support the idea in princip

[phantomfive]

...what really will happen is that in a few years the advertisements will be full of religious propaganda and proselytizing.

Only if they work.

Anyway, I'd rather have pro-sharia advertising than another ad for heartburn medicine. The entertainment factor would be higher.

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

[KeensMustard]

Of course - wait a minute, which one was the lunacy again? I've forgotten.

Misleading title

[KeensMustard]

I'm surprised by the title. Richard Dawkins is one man - amongst many who were a bit taken aback by the about face on the part of the cinema management.

What is surprising is the apparent support from the secular society. That should have been the headline.

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

[penguinoid]

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...

Strawman.

It's entirely obvious that
1) Ads convince people of things.
2) People are opposed to things with sufficient conviction that they would not want to see ads supporting that thing.
3) The "marketplace of ideas" is not a winner-takes-all, which is why for example there is more than one religion.

How would you feel about an ad supporting teen promiscuity, terrorism, a particular murder-for-hire business, etc? Or don't you believe that non-murder can adequately compete in the marketplace of ideas and thus the only way it can succeed is by forcefully silencing the competition?

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

[narcc]

Where to begin ...

Strawman.

Nonsense.

It's entirely obvious that
1) Ads convince people of things.
2) People are opposed to things with sufficient conviction that they would not want to see ads supporting that thing.
3) The "marketplace of ideas" is not a winner-takes-all, which is why for example there is more than one religion.

Yes, perfectly obvious to everyone. How this relates to my post is a mystery.

How would you feel about an ad supporting [...]

How I feel doesn't matter. That cannot be considered sufficient justification for denying others their rights. You're still free to personally oppose it, speak in opposition, produce your own ads offering a counterpoint -- just like they are. That's the nice thing about the freedom of speech. It protects everyone, not just those with which some authority happens to agree.

When you act to suppress speech with which you disagree, you're tacitly admitting that your own ideas aren't capable of competing adequately on equal footing. This is no different than the opposition to atheists ads you've seen before. One group is terrified that they'll end up marginalized if a competing viewpoint gains wide acceptance. It's cowardly, among other things.

A far more courageous, and reasonable, response to ads promoting ideas you dislike is to counter with your own ads. It's simply foolish to say "I'm justified in suppressing your speech because I disagree with your ideas" as the other side can offer the exact same justification. When you're the minority, doubly so!

Let's try this: What would your response be if there was opposition from CoE members to an atheist ad being shown at the same theater? Would you still agree that they're justified in suppressing that speech? Replace "atheism" in my post with "Christianity", "Judaism", "Islam", or whatever. Would your response to my post have been different? Why do you think that's the case?

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

[penguinoid]

When you act to suppress speech with which you disagree, you're tacitly admitting that your own ideas aren't capable of competing adequately on equal footing.

That's the point where your post becomes a strawman. When you act to suppress speech with which you disagree, you're deciding that the negative effects of that speech outweigh the negative effects of suppressing that speech. Not some nonsense about losing in the marketplace of ideas, and definitely not some nonsense about "the only way it can succeed is by forcefully silencing the competition".

Incidentally, there is no country where you can speak freely without your speech being forcefully suppressed.

See Hitchikers guide

[andrewbaldwin]

These were already suggested in the late 70s -- peril sensitive sunglasses.

At the time it was a reflection on the (then revolutionary and new) photosensitive lenses

As Captain Kirk might have said.....

[Crookdotter]

What does God need with an advertising campaign?

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

[narcc]

When you act to suppress speech with which you disagree, you're [...]

Abandoning the same principles upon which you yourself depend. Acting directly against your own best interests. All because of ...

the negative effects of that speech

I see. Fear. Pure and simple fear. Fear of ideas is very dangerous, which is why protected speech is so important. You depend on it greatly, yet you'd deny others the same liberty -- because all the what-if's have you terrified.

Not some nonsense about losing in the marketplace of ideas

Don't be foolish. If you thought ideas with which you disagree couldn't out-compete your own, you wouldn't be so damn terrified of other peoples thoughts, opinions, and ideas. Certainly not so afraid that you'd act against your own best interest, abandon important principles, and actively suppress the rights of others.

You don't worry about the content of the mad ravings of a crazy man on a street corner, nor something more wide-spread like a serial killers manifesto published in the newspaper, because you know that no one will take their ideas seriously. Their ideas simply can't compete. You do, however, care a great deal about the mad ravings of public figures as they are seriously considered by a large number of people.

Incidentally, there is no country where you can speak freely without your speech being forcefully suppressed.

That's dishonest at best. There are limitations on speech here. None of which, you'll note, have anything to do with ideology. Competing ideologies, after all, are what are under discussion. I'm free to write and publish all sorts of vile nonsense promoting the legalization of murder-for-hire services, pro-terrorism propaganda, and, yes, even pro teen promiscuity pamphlets.

Presumably, you'd actively suppress those ideas as well. You certainly seem to think I would. The difference between you and I, obviously, is that I'm not terrified by the ideas and viewpoints of others. So, no, I would not act to suppress those ideas.

I'm also aware of the dangers that comes from suppressing speech. How much have you, and this modern atheist resurgence in general, benefited from that liberty? What do you think the consequences would have been had the politically powerful majority been able to take forceful action to suppress those ideas? Don't you think they strongly believe that "the negative effects of that speech outweigh the negative effects of suppressing that speech" and would thus be justified by your own reasoning?

You're afraid of competing ideas, by your own admission. Assuming that you don't also fear ideas that have no chance of success, you clearly don't believe your ideas can compete favorably in the marketplace of ideas as evidenced by that same fear.

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.

I'm not sure why in this case anybody should

[ToddInSF]

give a shit what Dawkins' opinion is.

Re:Though I completely support the idea in princip

[iggymanz]

Plenty of people will have moral or philosophical or religious objection to other kinds of products/services/careers advertised in theatre ads. For example, the armed forces advertise. products that cause the massive increase in diabetes in the US advertise. bankruptcy mill lawyers advertise. etc. etc.

tough shit, suck it up and endure, then enjoy your movie.

Re:Though I completely support the idea in princip

[jklovanc]

Nice goalpost change. The theatre has a right to not make their customers "suck it up". I belong to a group where religion and politics are forbidden subjects. It is quite pleasant.

Re:Though I completely support the idea in princip

[iggymanz]

what right? theatre has right to sell advertisement space; don't like it don't go there.

Re:Though I completely support the idea in princip

[jklovanc]

theatre has right to sell advertisement space

The theater also had a right to not advertisement space to any segment that chose as long as they do not discriminate within that segment. For example they could not take Anglican advertisements but refuse Catholic advertisements.

You missed the point of this whole discussion. This theater chain does not sell advertising time to any religious/political organization. Some say they should be forced to as it is censorship while I, and many others, say they should have the choice. If they chose to sell to religious advertisers then your "suck it up" argument would be valid. That is not the case here. This is a discussion as to whether or not the theaters should be forced to sell to religious/political advertisers. I say no.

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

[penguinoid]

So then you'd have no problem with me going around saying, "I'll pay $1000 to anyone who would murder narcc" and wouldn't want me arrested if I did that? That is, after all, speech, and you don't believe the government should suppress speech, right? Or do you, perhaps, think the negative consequences of suppressing that sort of speech are less than the negative consequences of allowing it?

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

[narcc]

"I'll pay $1000 to anyone who would murder narcc" and wouldn't want me arrested if I did that?

That is, as you are already well aware, a completely different issue. An issue, I might add, that is completely unrelated to the one under discussion.

I'm not surprised, as you hinted at this earlier. I even took the time to preemptively address this in hopes that you wouldn't bother wasting everyone's time with pointless sophomoric nonsense. As I believe you already know this, I'm now very interested in seeing you respond to my earlier challenge, repeated below.

Getting back on topic: What would your response be if there was opposition from CoE members to an atheist ad being shown at the same theater? Would you still agree that they're justified in suppressing that speech? Replace "atheism" in my post with "Christianity", "Judaism", "Islam", or whatever. Would your response to my post have been different? Why do you think that's the case?

We can safely assume your response would have been different. I can tell you why, if you're interested. First, however, I'd like to see your honest response.

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

[penguinoid]

How would you feel about an ad supporting a particular murder-for-hire business?

How I feel doesn't matter. That cannot be considered sufficient justification for denying others their rights. You're still free to personally oppose it, speak in opposition, produce your own ads offering a counterpoint -- just like they are. That's the nice thing about the freedom of speech. It protects everyone, not just those with which some authority happens to agree.

So then you'd have no problem with me going around saying, "I'll pay $1000 to anyone who would murder narcc" and wouldn't want me arrested if I did that?

That is, as you are already well aware, a completely different issue. An issue, I might add, that is completely unrelated to the one under discussion.

Nope, I'm not seeing it. If you had been consistent and supported freedom of speech for all speech no matter the content, I would have respected you. Disagreed, but respected you. Just to be clear: I do believe that some speech is harmful and it would be beneficial to suppress, eg murder for hire offers, and as such I can't resent Mr Anonymous Coward his opinion that a similar thing holds true of commercial religious advertizing. That said, I do not trust any authority figure to make the distinction. In particular, people must be free to speak in support of illegal activities because otherwise bad laws can't be opposed.

I also consider media and communications companies to be a worse threat to free speech than government -- government can't stop you from speaking, can merely punish you afterwards, but the media and communications companies can directly censor your speech.

Going back to the first posts, all I have to say is "So ... you don't believe that narcc's life being worth more than $1000 can adequately compete in the marketplace of ideas and thus the only way it can succeed is by forcefully silencing the competition?"

Would your response to my post have been different [if it were an atheist ad being blocked instead]? We can safely assume your response would have been different. I can tell you why, if you're interested.

Is the reason because your post would have been different and therefore a different reply would have been appropriate?

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

[narcc]

Nope, I'm not seeing it

I think you do.

In particular, people must be free to speak in support of illegal activities because otherwise bad laws can't be opposed.

As I've already said, there is no issue with speaking in support of illegal activities. I took great pains to explain this to you, in anticipation of the nonsense in your previous post.

Is the reason because your post would have been different and therefore a different reply would have been appropriate?

My response would have been identical. Now, are you going to answer or not?

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

[penguinoid]

So ... you don't believe that narcc's life being worth more than $1000 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...

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

[narcc]

As I've said before, if you think murder for hire is acceptable, you're free to speak out in it's defense, form groups of like-minded people, and even lobby for its legality.

However, until such time as it is legal, acting on that belief will remain illegal. You can't legally offer or otherwise engage in those services. That is obviously not a free speech issue.

You know this already, yet despite my admonitions, you persist. Why? What could possibly motivate you here? Embarrassment?

Now, are you going to answer my question? I suspect not, as you know that you wouldn't have objected to my post at all. I bet you would have even nodded your head in agreement. The reason is obvious -- your post was not motivated by reason, as you imply, but by ideology.

Reason needs to be applied uniformly. It's useless otherwise.

Re:Ban Coren22 the libelous impersonator

[Coren22]

Perhaps you should be banned for you libel. I did no impersonation, I saw that someone had posted claiming to be your hero and brought attention to it. Perhaps you should also be banned for impersonating a security expert, as you clearly don't qualify.

Re:Ban Coren22 the libelous impersonator

[Coren22]

Tech blunders like claiming you don't post to Slashdot with Proxy servers and that you instead use Network Bridges, like they have the functionality to do it. Perhaps you should rethink your approach, as you clearly don't know how networking works.

The best way to find reason...

[Pherdnut]

Is to bore everyone to tears with Unitarian Universalist ads until we can all agree that religious advertising is a terrible idea.