What’s wrong with being offended?
August 26, 2008 – 7:54 pmIf Want Longer Lasting Sex on a billboard is confronting to you, or you support the ASB’s call to remove the Advanced Medical Institute’s ads, ask yourself what’s wrong with being offended?
I was discussing the billboards on Aussie tech forum Overclockers today and was surprised at the number of people who supported the ASB’s decision.
Most folks thought the ads were annoying and were glad to see them given the boot, others admitted they had no objections to them but accepted others did. I don’t recall anyone admitting that the ad offended them, but the overwhelming majority appeared to support the methods used by the ASB.
That’s worrying for a country on the verge of Internet censorship and fighting for an R18+ games rating.
Even if you dislike the ads (or the penis piano ads on television, or the late night SMS ads), supporting a decision to remove any form of media because you or someone else found it ‘confronting’ or offensive sets a dangerous precedent.
If we follow that logic there’s reason to ban everything. Science books, the bible, celebrity magazines, pornography, violent films, computer games. Everybody finds something offensive.
All of these games have offended or outraged family groups and concerned parents at some point. Would you support them being banned because others find them inappropriate?
Some people accept it as the cost of free speech, but others believe it is their right not to be offended, as if it were a crime. They are of course judge, jury and executioner, deciding what’s a breach of their moral code. A code they believe should be followed by you and me.
We’ve all been offended at some stage in our lives, probably every week. If not, it’s likely we aren’t confronting issues we should be. Imagine if every time you were offended by something you could stop it from happening. Would you, even if it meant restricting another persons free speech?
Think of how many times you’ve offended someone or confronted them with a topic they may not have liked. Imagine if they had the right to restrict what you could say. Few of us would let that fly.
It’s hard to stick up for erectile dysfunction (pun intended), but as net censorship looms and gamers fight for their right to play uncensored video games, allowing any form of censorship to slide will only help those who see to have our rights restricted.
Terms like sexualisation and protecting children are being thrown around when we all know the real agenda is far from being in the best interests of children.
If we accept these excuses now and say one form of censorship or suppression is fine, than those excuses will continue to be used again and again, but with more weight.
- Mike
11 Responses to “What’s wrong with being offended?”
Brilliant article!
By Tuna on Aug 27, 2008
Indeed, a worthy rant. It reminds me of many experiences I had in the USA, where such great care is taken to remove “offensive” things, and some people act as if they have a right not to be offended. Any normal, sane human being should be able to cope with finding something offensive. It might be impolite, but not a reason to compromise our principles of free speech.
By Colin on Aug 27, 2008
Mike,
Good point, during the furore about the Henson art I heard many talkback callers saying it was inappropriate. Inappropriate who cares?
Free speech to critise is fair enough but the control freaks in our society don’t just express their opinion, they demand bans.
Those of us against censorship are at a disadvantage, as by our nature we don’t try to impose our values on others, sadly they don’t play by the same rules.
By Terrence Valter on Aug 27, 2008
I find the piano ad annoying,and the “Hot Russian babes want you” grates as well. Know what I do? Change the channel. Billboard? walk on by. Why do peole find that so hard to do?
By Stevian on Aug 27, 2008
Tuna: Cheers mate.
Colin: Principles of free speech for those types are unfortunately not applicable until they themselves want to exercise them.
Would you say the USA is worse when it comes to removing the offensive?
Terrence: It’s hard for me to think what it would be like to be one of those people. Demanding something be banned just because I don’t agree with it. The thought sickens me
Stevian: With ads like Hot Russian Babes, I’d say it’s often a case of the complainant wanting it gone to rid the urge.
By Mike on Aug 27, 2008
Mike, I understand your point here, for the record I am particularly opposed to the governments ill conceived web censorship plans, but you are missing the point here and in doing so you are constructing an argument counter productive to your cause.
Q: Would you oppose a billboard outside your children’s school depicting a man defecating in to another man’s mouth?
A: Of course you would! - So the question is about ‘where’ not ‘if’ we draw the line.
I believe that line needs to be drawn where people who may be offended by something can reasonably avoid it in their everyday lives.
It is easy to avoid an image nested in a website (unless it shows up in a web search for ‘Tomas the Tank’), or within the pages of a magazine, this is less true of a billboard which by it’s very nature is in your face.
Furthermore the company who’s billboards you are defending here are far from an idea ally in this campaign.
By Eric on Nov 17, 2008
I think the issue with the Billboards in particular that most people object to is the lack of selectivity in their audience. I actively support an R-18 classification for games and I strongly believe that it is my responsibility as a parent to “think of the children” and control their exposure. I don’t have a problem with “adult” advertising on TV (particularly in an appropriate timeslot and channel), magazine or even on the Internet as I can exercise some control over these things.
The problem with a 3 meter high billboard on a main road is that it difficult to stop my 6 year old from reading it. For me the problem isn’t the word “sex”, it is the word “longer”. Answering a question about sex can be handled in an age appropriate manner. Explaining longer is far more difficult.
I think there is a clear distinction between censoring the activities of individuals in private homes (R18 games for example) and censoring things that are clearly visible in a public space - a much broader definition of “community standards” must be applied in this case.
By Paul Wilkinson on Nov 17, 2008
@Eric:
Cheers for your comment. I’m not suggesting that there is never cause for the removal of a billboard (the scenario you suggested being a good example).
Censorship in public space is a controversial topic, and it’s not something that’s black and white.
What I am saying is that if one approves the removal of the ‘Want Longer Lasting Sex’ ads for the baseless reasons the ASB gave, than they must be prepared to have those same reasons thrown at them when other calls to censor arise.
The problem with “I believe that line needs to be drawn where people who may be offended by something can reasonably avoid it in their everyday lives” is, like I said above, everyone finds something offensive. We all have different levels of acceptance.
I agree that when it comes to to public space, there needs to be a line set. The ASB has set one and AMI complied. It’s the reason for the removal that I object to.
I don’t think drawing the line at ’sex’ is where we want to be. Some of us, yes, but all, no.
By Mike on Nov 17, 2008
Nothing wrong with bonking longer…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonking
“Bonking is a card game for 4 players that is played with one deck of cards. Everyone plays for themselves. In total 11 rounds are played, in which every round has its own goal. The goal of the game is to score as many points as possible. The player who scores the most points is declared the winner.”
By Bob Bain on Nov 17, 2008