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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[Coren22]

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

he should know better

[aepervius]

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

Re:he should know better

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:he should know better

[swb]

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

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

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

Re:he should know better

[Rhapsody Scarlet]

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

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

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

Re:he should know better

[dskoll]

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

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

Re:he should know better

[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.

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: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...

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.

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.

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.