'The reason the Sun alone was singled out for such concern is largely that it is owned by Rupert Murdoch.' Photograph: Clive Gee\/PA<\/p>\n
So its farewell nipples. They are to vanish from the Suns Page 3. So they will remain online, except in the Daily Star, except in a hundred magazines and a thousand tasteful fashion shoots. So what next? <\/p>\n
Children are already pixelated. What about female (and male) bottoms, singers crotch shots, David Beckhams ill-concealed genitalia or naked female flesh in general? The BBC is awash with nipples after the watershed, so is the stage, the cinema and the art gallery. I am told that some Muslims are offended by scantily clad models that grace the side of buses. They are sexier than Page 3 of the Sun, which is about as arousing as an ankle at a Victorian dance. <\/p>\n
I hate censorship, even when government considers it vital in the interests of law and order. It is ironic that the Suns move should come just weeks after terrorists attempted the most brutal form of censorship in France. Of course no one was planning to murder the Sun and its hapless models, but some campaigners wanted it banned or confined to pornography shelves and starved of advertising. Like millions of Muslims, they claimed Page 3 caused them offence a claim which in English law nowadays is sufficient reason to invoke curbs on freedom of speech. <\/p>\n
The reason the Sun alone was singled out for such concern is largely that it is owned by Rupert Murdoch (whereas the similar Daily Star is not). But then taste in Britain has always been bound up with class or, as the protesters say, context. No one calls for a ban on bare-breasted Kate Moss or Madonna, but instead applauds them for being in control. Protesters have not barracked Covent Garden or the Coliseum for objectifying women by depicting orgies on stage. They do not picket Lars von Triers films or the Chapman brothers galleries. <\/p>\n
A YouGov survey last year revealed that a full 86% of Guardian readers wanted Page 3 stopped (by whom?), against two thirds of Sun readers who wanted it retained. Sun readers were not invited to suggest offending content for censorship in the Guardian. <\/p>\n
The truth appears to be that Page 3 has outlived its editorial purpose, which is how it should be. It is not that nudity in public places has become taboo, but that it has become the opposite, ubiquitous and banal. Mens bodies are now as objectified as womens, on editorial pages and advertisements alike. Sex still sells. For better or worse, most people seem to take the public depiction of sexuality in their stride, and others are having to put up with it. <\/p>\n
Sometimes we all have to take a deep breath and acknowledge that other people enjoy different things from us, and this may sometimes upset us. But since it gets ever harder indeed dangerous to say live and let live, we need to remember the alternative is far more appalling. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Read more: 'The reason the Sun alone was singled out for such concern is largely that it is owned by Rupert Murdoch.' Photograph: Clive Gee\/PA So its farewell nipples. Continue reading
\nPage 3s demise smacks of censorship | Simon Jenkins<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"