By Graeme Archer, Telegraph
It's not a freedom of speech or conscience issue, please. Unless – what about if a "Christian" charity decided to pay for bus adverts, that said "Graeme Archer's lifestyle is an abomination and we think it would be better for him to pervert his instincts, turn his back on love – other than our eerily sexless version, sanctioned by our unproveable theology – and spend the rest of it as an emotional cripple."
That's speech, of a form, and to express the sentiment would be a freedom. It's a rubbish advert in terms of copy, but that's not my point, which is that it's legitimate for the man in charge of London's transport to have the power to ban adverts if he feels they're being needlessly offensive. I don't want to live in a libertarian's wet dream. Freedom to express ourselves isn't the be-all and end-all of living in peace with one another.
Ed: Of the 500+ comments currently following this article, the overwhelming majority do not take Graeme Archer's position.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.