Dan Sabbagh: Lads mags <i>should not</i> be singled out for attention
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Linda Papadopoulos is no stranger to the "hyper-sexualisation" of British society of which she complains. She once appeared as an expert pundit on My Big Breasts and Me, and has her own beauty range, which you can buy via the home shopping channel QVC. So quite why all this makes her want to make "lads' mags" harder to buy is a mystery.
Nuts and Zoo, with their unashamed men-only content, are clearly not high-minded magazines. But racy though they are, nothing published in either title is illegal. Surely a fundamental premise of any democratic society ought to be that it tolerates a broad range of speech – and this must include non-pornographic pictures of scantily clad women.
It is not clear why lads' mags should be singled out. If the Home Office believes pictures of topless women should be restricted, then will it slap a 15 rating on the The Sun? That seems unlikely given its political power, but The Sun sells over three million copies a day, and page three is clearly more influential than anything produced in either Nuts or Zoo.
Ask too what a topshelf-only rule would achieve. It might stop a spotty 13-year-old from buying Zoo. But, presumably, our young man could look at far more explicit pictures on the internet.
When in doubt, people should be in favour of sex, and, more to the point, in favour of free speech. That may mean defending the lowbrow, offensive, or just plain stupid. But that is what a democracy is all about.
Dan Sabbagh blogs about the media industry at www.beehivecity.com
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments