Richard Dawkins Opposes UK Cinemas Censoring Church's Advert Before Star Wars (theguardian.com) 319
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.
If it's really a policy (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:4, Funny)
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: (Score:3)
"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: (Score:3)
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? Becau
Re:If it's really a policy (Score:4, Insightful)
I find you quite offensive, should Slashdot ban you so as not to offend anyone?
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
But the very concept of the FSM is an abomination and I find the idea absolutely offensive!
Long live the IPU!
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
"Long live the IPU!" (BBHHH)
Re: (Score:3)
given that Jediism is a recognized religion in that country.
No it isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Correct. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
I know it's a long shot, but is it possible that the advertising agents lied slightly?
Re: (Score:2)
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 insi
Re: (Score:2)
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" s
Re: (Score:3)
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 hav
Re: (Score:2)
Could you be a bit more vague?
Re: (Score:2)
"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.
Church of England (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now I don't need to bother. Thanks dskoll.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
he should know better (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's incredible how many people confuse the universal principle of freedom of speech with the 1st amendment.
Freedom (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2, Informative)
That's because only the First Amendment provides a clear and consistent articulation of what "free speech" actually means:
The US Con
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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 (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
A big problem with free speech issues is that a lot of people seem not to understand the difference between allo
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Correct.
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
And again this is what you and other misunderstand (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
Free speech and private companies. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"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: (Score:2)
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 b
Re: (Score:2)
Dawkins acknowledged that point; FTFA:
Re: (Score:2)
Re:he should know better (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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 exce
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Oh, and I watched the ad (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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! (Score:3, Funny)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
so what? we already have paid religious ads on TV, radio, newspapers in the USA. it doesn't matter
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.)
Can't really agree (Score:2)
Is the solution not obvious? (Score:2)
Pray for God to miraculously switch the advertising disks.
More likely, it's about money. (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
enough already... (Score:2)
...with worrying about possibly getting someone offended. I'm totally with Dawkins on this one.
Re: (Score:2)
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
It's okay... (Score:2)
I'm running AdBlock on my glasses.
Sounds like a commercial decision, not ideological (Score:2)
you people are all missing the point (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
What about Dawkins? (Score:2)
And what if other beliefs want to do so? (Score:2)
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.
It's to prevent idiots from fighting (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Pay to be selectively annoyed, no thanks. (Score:2)
Then again perhaps religious advertising before a movie would help you suspend your sense of disbelief thereby making the cinematic fiction more immersive.
Unexpected, this was (Score:2)
Obvious solution (Score:2)
All the Church needs to do is turn this into a full-length film, then this can be the trailer.
business as usual, sheeple (Score:2)
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!"
The controversy is the the theater's fautlt. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: Humn.... That one is hard. (Score:2)
Most religions don't specifically use the Lord's Prayer.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:On the grounds that they might 'offend' people. (Score:5, Insightful)
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...