'Gay cure' bus ad banned

[Dawk]

A bus ad promoting the idea that homosexuality can be 'cured' has been banned in London. I personally find the ad offensive, but as a believer in true freedom of speech, I must agree with the group that the ban in censorship.

An advertising campaign backed by a Christian group which has been described as anti-gay has been pulled from London buses.

The ads were paid for by the Core Issues Trust, which has been accused of promoting the idea of therapy to change sexual orientation.

Transport for London (TfL) confirmed the adverts had been been scrapped after complaints.

Core Issues Trust described the move as censorship.

TfL said the adverts did not reflect a "tolerant and inclusive" London.

A spokeswoman said: "The adverts are not currently running on any London buses and they will not do so."

'Clearly offensive'
From 1 April, 1,000 London buses have been carrying adverts from Stonewall promoting equal marriage with the slogan "Some people are gay. Get over it!"

Its spokeman Andy Wasley said: "It is fantastic that no adverts will be promoting 'voodoo, gay-cure therapy' in London."

The banned posters, backed by Anglican Mainstream, read: "Not gay! Post-gay, ex-gay and proud. Get over it!"

The adverts were reportedly booked for two weeks by Core Issues to display on vehicles running on five routes in central London, including top tourist destinations such as St Paul's Cathedral, Oxford Street, Trafalgar Square and Piccadilly Circus.

Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London and the Conservative candidate for mayor in next month's elections, said the suggestion that being gay was an illness was "clearly offensive" and added that he was "not prepared to have that suggestion driven around London on our buses".

The Labour candidate for mayor Ken Livingstone said: "London is going backwards under a Tory leadership that should have made these advertisements impossible.

"The adverts are insulting to LGBT Londoners and damaging for everyone who believes London is the greatest city in the world because of its tolerance."

On its website, Core Issue describes itself as a "non-profit Christian initiative seeking to support men and women with homosexual issues who voluntarily seek change in sexual preference and expression. It respects the rights of individuals who identify as gay who do not seek change."

Core Issues co-director Mike Davidson said: "We went through the correct channels and we were encouraged by the bus company to go through their procedures.

"Our concern is that the debate has been shut down."

He added: "I think it is very important to raise the fact there are people in this country who want to live beyond gay, they have experienced gayness, and have set themselves other goals."

[4lan]

Yeah, similar article can be found in the 'Marriage Equality' thread here.

Personally though I'm still mulling over the implications; similar to the empty headed atheist campaign.. Just need to find the appropriate thread for context.. This is when I would like to perfect my eidetic recall...

4lan

[Sieveboy]

Possible arguement that would work in supporting this ban is that it is false advertising?

[DezinerAU]

but as a believer in true freedom of speech

What exactly is that? People can say whatever they want regardless of the ramifications? They can lie? Even if it results in higher rates of mental health issues in the community they’re specifically attacking? I’d like a clarification of what people think “true” free speech is and why it’s preferable to limiting some forms of speech (without resorting to slippery-slope fallacies).

Also, does free speech trump freedom of association?

[Dawk]

Originally Posted by DezinerAU

What exactly is that? People can say whatever they want regardless of the ramifications? They can lie? Even if it results in higher rates of mental health issues in the community they’re specifically attacking? I’d like a clarification of what people think “true” free speech is and why it’s preferable to limiting some forms of speech (without resorting to slippery-slope fallacies).

Also, does free speech trump freedom of association?

Although I'm not particularly fond of the guy, I must agree with Noam Chomsky when he says "If you're in favor of freedom of speech, that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise." That is basically my position here: I am disgusted by this group, but I do not want to keep them out of the public square.

There are of course two exceptions to be made: libel and incitement to violence. We can argue that the ad is untrue or defaming, but as TIMB pointed out, examples can be given of supposed conversions from gay to straight. Indeed, we can find public figures who claim such transformations, such as Richard Cohen, who claims psychotherapy can 'cure' homosexuality. (I fully acknowledge the powers of psychotherapy in manipulating human behaviour, but that also means I see no reason why similar procedures could not also convert people from straight to gay).

Although the ad may contribute to homophobia, there is no clear incitement to violence. This does of course tie in with your concerns about mental health issues, and it is a concern I also hold. A 2009 study found that homophobia and laws discriminating against homosexuals contributed to psychiatric disorders. But this is precisely why we should debate and challenge such homophobic sentiment.

Considering the government has allowed the pro-gay ad to be displayed on London's buses but not the anti-gay ad, they are favouring one position over another. It may be a silly debate, but we must acknowledge that the other side is not being allowed to challenge and is therefore shut out. We as secularists, I believe, should welcome their silliness in the public square, as it allows us to assert out own values by challenging them and pointing out the absurdities of their views.

These are the types of groups who pressure and lobby governments to deny homosexuals basic rights. By shutting them out of public debate, the public becomes unaware of them and their activities - not to mention their bronze age views. Perhaps in the short term they can cause a small splash and whip up some anti-gay sentiment, but by displaying their own ignorance people become more aware that it is these fringe minorities who actually hold us back with their bigotry. In the end the secular arguments always win, so such debate should not be feared.

[rayne]

Is it still free speech if it incites hatred and spews crap like "being gay is a sin" to impressionable young people? The Christian fundies picketed the GAC because we have a different viewpoint then them but we disagree on their viewpoint against gays and they cry "Freedom of religion"!! Free speech shouldn't include hate speech. Is bullying and harassing anyone on religious grounds still considered free speech? There has to be a line or else you'll have an organisations with a great big pulpit who can preach hate to a wider audience or else you're going to have a ton of fucked up gay youth who turn into fucked up anti-gay senators getting caught in public restrooms and going to reparative therapy survivor support groups.

http://www.opendoors.net.au/?page_id=438 - Links to research on homophobia, mental health and suicide