Subscribe to Breaking News
Loading ...UK: Anti-Gay ad violated standards
12.03.2008 4:47pm EST
(London) Britain’s advertising watchdog has banned the re-publication of an ad that condemns homosexuality.
The Advertising Standards Authority said the ad violated its industry standards by vilifying gays.The ad had been placed in the daily New Letter, a Belfast publication, and bore the headline: “The Word Of God Against Sodomy.”
The ad was sponsored by the Sandown Free Presbyterian Church and appeared days before Belfast’s Gay Pride parade.
Below the headline, the ad stated: “The act of sodomy is a grave offence to every Bible believer who, in accepting the pure message of God’s precious word, express the mind of God by declaring it to be an abomination.”
In a response to an investigation by the ASA the church said that it could not be held responsible “if readers were offended by the message of the Bible.”
The News Letter told the ASA that it was aware the ad was likely to be controversial but agreed to publish it on the basis of free speech.
In its ruling, the ASA said that the ad went too far and many readers were likely to find it unacceptable. The ASA ruled that the ad should not appear again in its current form.
Sandown Free Presbyterian Church pastor Rev David McIlveen, however, is not repenting.
McIlveen said the ruling was “setting a very dangerous precedent.”
“By determining that portions of the Bible have breached advertising standards on decency the ASA is taking the view that the printing and publishing of certain biblical texts is indecent,” he said in a reply to the ASA.
“This is an offence to every Bible believer.”
McIlveen also rejected an ASA recommendation that it seek regulatory approval before publishing future ads.
And what if I took out an ad saying that people who believe a ridiculous mythology book like the Bible should seek out pschiatric help? Would the the “reverend” protect my rites and feel that I was setting a “dangerous precendent”? Hardly. Good call and hopefully the world is waking up to the fact that organized religion and the divisive rhetoric it spews forth has devolved into a cancer on the human race.
“McIlveen”
A name very similar to the words “villain” and “Machiavellian.”
Coincidence? I think not.
The pastor says it’s a “dangerous precedent” if the ASA determines that certain bible passages are indecent. In my opinion, whoever’s job it is to determine that something’s indecent for general public view, has to do so regardless of whether it’s a bible passage. If he lets indecency through just because it came from a religious document, he’s not doing his job.
It’s true that it would be quite a new precedent for public entities to hold the bible up to the same moral and ethical standards most people have today. With its stories of a “Supreme Being” committing global murder (Great Flood), turning a man into a child-killer (Abraham and Isaac), and requiring human sacrifice to satisfy his wrath (Christ’s Crucifixion), the bible has a great deal to lose in the new deal, wherever it’s determined such things are not appropriage for, say, children and gentle ladies.
KONSTIPATED Konservative Kristianist Kultist Krazies (KKKKK) hate GLBT people.
What a surprise (NOT!).
The Free Presbyterian “church” is one of the big reasons “The Troubles” continue in Northern Ireland (aside from the Sassenach stealing people’s land 300 years ago and only landowners having the vote to this day [!]). They are on a par with Fried Phelps and Assburrow “Baptist” “church,” only with “Presbyterian” in their name.
Cheers,
Bud Burgoon-Clark
2nd class citizen
on account of
PAGAN FERTILITY CULTS
McIlveen might have a better case if so much of the bible was not indecent and below the standards of humanity.
The bottom line is that everyone has the freedom of speech or no one does.
I don’t like the message that was sent in this ad either. But if they don’t have the right to send the message, then my right of free speech is subject not to rights, but to the whim of some bureaucrat or of whatever is a popular opinion at any particular time.
Let them have their say. Their opinion will seem more stupid as the truth becomes more visible.
Neil Said: December “The bottom line is that everyone has the freedom of speech or no one does.”
In reality, there is no such thing as free speech. Words, both written and spoken, are used to elicit responses, sometimes emotional which can lead to actions. Would you still be as supportive if someone placed an ad calling for the enslavement of blacks, called for anti-abortionists to bomb clinics. Words can often cause extreme pain and while the old cliche about sticks and stones is often cited, how many of our gay teens committ suicide each year because they are told over and over that their lives are worthless, that they are an abomination. How many Matt Shepards are mudered because of words of hate that have been brainwashed into impressionable minds. “Free speech” comes with responsibility and many are all for the right, but few want to take responsibility. Many of humanities greatest atrocities have been because of words (ideas made tangible). Hitler spoke out against the undesirables in a pure Aryan society and this led to the Holocaust. The words that form the Bible and other religious texts have been used for centuries to oppress humanity. Its time to realize that even “free speech” has a price.
I am in favor of honoring a private group’s right to say and listen to what they want to. I do have a problem when that speech is broadcast or printed to the general public and, to use the article’s term, “vilifies” others. If you are in a church or a lecture and you don’t like the topic you can walk out. If the speech is broadcast or printed, it recieves a public approval or it does not. The use of government censors to control speech is somthing I find objectionable however, the UK has laws that prohibit that sort of expression and I don’t have a problem with laws being enforced. It may be that some freedoms are infringed upon but if laws are passed by elected representatives then the electorate can change those laws by changing the representation.
I’m with Neil on this one.
One of the things that has appalled me during the gay-marriage fight is the complete lack of understanding and respect for our country’s constitution (in particular, the notion of “equal treatment under the law”). Most of the comments show an equal disrespect for the current US free speech laws and a disrespect for the first amendment. Please rethink your positions!
Also, it’s important to note that the laws in regard to free speech and hate speech in the US and Europe (and Canada) are different. In the US, people are pretty much free to say what they want about a group of people; however, if they cross the line and commit assault or some other crime, then extra time gets added onto the sentence as a “hate” crime. So, it’s OK to hate and to speak hate…just don’t act on it. (I support this approach…I don’t want our government to become the Thought Police.) In Canada and much of Europe, it’s illegal to speak hate speech, minus any other criminal action. The pastor in this story has a very valid point: why can’t he be free to preach biblical passages verbatim? Isn’t there a huge conflict between freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and attempts to control hate and oppression?
As ugly as his message is, he has a very valid point, IMO.
Maybe if germany had a hate speech law that was enforced way back, we wouldn’t have had WWII. And there are real problems with hate speech – like when it drives people to commit crimes against humankind, and the cause – the pastor of hate, eg. gets off scott free instead of being held as an accessory before the fact – in the US legal system that makes him as guilty as the person who commits the crime.
And what if Saudi Arabia had an enforced hate speech law (instead of having turned the country’s culture over to Islamic Wahabi extremeist) for decades – do you think 9/11 would have happened?
The worlds single greatest problem these days is hate speech by relgious extremists, be they christian, Moslem, or even the orthodox Jews (I’m nominally Jewish btw) who said that “gays were like bird flu” – in my book a call for extermination of the same group of people who shared hitlers ovens with their cousins, the Jews of germany. As an aside, I have told my wife who expects to go to Israel next year that I simply will not go. And if I hear more of this crap from the Israeli orthodox, she will discover on travel day that her passport just happened to have a bad date with the shredder.
Disappointing to see freedom of speech being supressed. Like it or not, they have a right to say whatever they want, however they want. Makes me glad to live in this country.
Actually, some speech is prohibited in U.S. law. We are not allowed to say things that would incite violence. Watch the Bill O’Reilly discussion with Megyn Kelly. There is a link to it on Withers’s article about O’Reilly. This type of ad may be subject to removal even in the U.S. I can’t say that I completely support free speech. I am with Megyn though on the fact that I do not want the government controlling what is said (I can’t believe I’m agreeing with Kelly…I guess hateful people can get into law school too). There isn’t really a good solution to this. Government stands on the idea that people can actually make decisions that are fair for all citizens. I’m afraid this may not be possible. I think allowing for individual free speech in gatherings and regulating what is put in the public forum may be the best answer. But I do lean left-of-center…To me, it seems that oppressed people are satisfied if the law is on their side…and those getting everything they want, are distressed when they begin to get regulated. This is what we are seeing. The last stand of the Christianist Nationalists who are getting distressed because others may finally be equal under the law.
Free speech must include the the freedom to flaunt your ignorance. As others have mentioned, there are reasonable limits, but what’s wrong with a church taking out an ad to publicize their ignorance and intolerance? Many people probably thought that the church was a place that cherished a God of love. Everyone is better off knowing that they do not.
The thing that bothers me most about many free speech discussions is that people claim that free speech means that nobody can criticize the content of their speech. WRONG. The very essence of free speech is that I am free to respond to another person’s speech and hold them accountable for what they say. Free speech does not mean unchallenged speech.
Ironic quote of the day: “Better to keep quiet and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.” — Mark Twain
I must agree. We can’t demand equal marriage rights (for whatever reason we’re doing that) and not try to protect everyone’s basic rights. Divisive rhetoric? Sure. It’s an ad, people!
Yet another reason why I refuse to travel to the UK.
It is funny that the leftist in the community do not tolerate Freedom. It seems the left (and the stateist on the right) feel people have freedom of speech and freedom of thought only when it is congruent with the lefts ideologies (and the stateist on the right are guilty of this too).
The answer to “hate speech” is more speech to ridicule shame and give other view points not CENSORSHIP. How can one live in a “free society” yet not have freedom?
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty, than those attending too small a degree of it. -Thomas Jefferson.