You can make offensive comments regarding what I may or may not believe but I don’t have to be offended. If my being offended is a result of your comments then how can I be responsible for my actions. Its your fault.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.