Page 3 topless models

Great decision! What a firm and objective action in a week where freedom of press is at the forefront! What a brave and courageous move for the Sun to buckle to an incredibly loud and incredibly annoying minority, and remove a staple of its newspaper! I am so happy that, in a week where the world is in shock after a radical group tried to impose their own moral laws upon the press and force them to remove images from their publications, the Sun respond by taking a stance, and removing images from their publication after a radical group try to impose their own moral laws upon the press.

Ridiculous comparison. The Sun have a right to print those pictures, but campaign groups also have the right to object to them and pressure them into getting rid of them. No More Page 3 never sought to ban The Sun from printing those images - they campaigned tirelessly and they have been successful in their aims. Companies bow down to outside pressure all the time because their image is important to the success of their business. It's not anti-free speech to draw attention to aspects of a companies behaviour that you don't like.

It is a loud but small minority group who campaigned in forcing a company to accept their views on what it is 'acceptable' to publish, and to reflect it by removing page 3. The fact their campaign was successful does not validate not authenticate their aims, it just means a large company bowed to lobbying and those who shouted the loudest.

And what would have happened if The Sun hadn't made the decision to remove page 3? Would any of their staff have been killed? Would their business have been severely damaged? Would they have faced legal action? Nope, they made this decision because they thought it would make their business look good. The Sun have much more power than No More Page 3 and everyone else who was involved in the campaign - they were not silenced. The Sun were completely free to make a decision about their business. I would suggest that it is you who is anti-free speech if you think that people shouldn't be able to organise to criticise organisations.

You don't seem to understand the concept of a comparison. I am stating the situations are alike, with the parameters being stated (a minority group attempting to impose their views on a publication). I am not stating that No More Page 3 went into the offices of News UK and shot 12 people, nor am I stating that this group are actively murdering anyone who shows topless images. Further, I believe people should be free to criticize organisations (for example, CH should have been free to criticize the organisation that is Islam without fear of being murdered). I don't, however, believe that the minority should get to dictate what is and isn't acceptable, and most polls I have seen (both on here and in wider circles) suggest that the majority of the country do not think Page 3 should have been banned.

You don't seem to understand the concept of a comparison. I am stating the situations are alike, with the parameters being stated (a minority group attempting to impose their views on a publication). I am not stating that No More Page 3 went into the offices of News UK and shot 12 people, nor am I stating that this group are actively murdering anyone who shows topless images. Further, I believe people should be free to criticize organisations (for example, CH should have been free to criticize the organisation that is Islam without fear of being murdered). I don't, however, believe that the minority should get to dictate what is and isn't acceptable, and most polls I have seen (both on here and in wider circles) suggest that the majority of the country do not think Page 3 should have been banned.

I understand your comparison perfectly, thanks. I am saying that The Sun were in no way forced to make this decision. No More Page 3 have no power to dictate what is acceptable so The Sun must have thought that axing it was in some way beneficial to them.It is fundamental to free speech that we are allowed to criticise others (individuals and organisations) when we disagree with something they have done or said. Doing so is not an infringement of their free speech as they are entitled to accept the criticism or disregard it. I have noticed that the idea of free speech is often used as a way to divert criticism away from something - yes, you are entitled to say offensive things but if you do you have to accept that a lot of people are going to think you're a dick for it.

It isn't a ban. It's a voluntary decision by a very rich and powerful global corporation to drop part of the way it built that power up (preying on the sexual fantasies of working class men) as it has realised that majority public opinion has shifted against such a blatant piece of sexist exploitation being displayed in a 'family' newspaper day in, day out.

And speaking of minorities, Rupert Murdoch is a minority of one in a planet of 7 billion. Other than money and power, is there a good reason why he should be free to push this stuff like a drug because he wants to make even more money, regardless of the messages it sends to women and young children in the households where it is received?