How is a business CHOOSING to change its product to try to save its declining sales an attack on free speech? They've not been banned from doing it, their offices haven't been attacked with machine guns, and anyway, the internet has all the nipples you could ever care to look at and more, for free.
On the other hand, the "there's no place for porn in the news" argument gives the rag far too much credit. Page 3 was/is used purely and simply as a way to make the paper's views palatable. It's much easier to swallow their fascist bile when it's presented with a topless female. It gives it a friendly face to appeal to people with.
It's not something to celebrate over though, media objectification still exists, and if anything, now the paper won't use topless photos, their particular brand of objectification is more insidious and less obviously 'wrong'. They, like other papers and the 'lads mags' they've more in common with than actual newspapers still use the female body as simply a way to catch the eye and present opinions that otherwise would not be accepted. Page 3 may be dead but there's a lot of other pages. It'll be time to celebrate when Murdoch finally pulls the plug on the evil rag completely.
The "kids can buy it" argument is a bit weak considering the internet is a thing that exists, I suppose a good idea would be to do what they do with lads mags, only sell them to over 18s. You could say this would be keeping the young away from news, but let's remember what rag we're talking about. A rag so toxic that many in Merseyside still refuse to even type without censoring its name, lest it be seen as promoting it.
I've also got problems with people celebrating it as if they're freeing women. On one hand, it might make a small net benefit towards creating a society in which women are actually valued for more than their breasts, but on the other, it's a job for (mostly) working class women, and the models usually are happy with the job, saying it boosts their confidence, and who wouldn't want to be paid for just being attractive and standing in front of a camera? The problem isn't with the photographs themselves, it's how they're used, and who cares about them. Because personally I've always found men salivating over girls young enough to be their grandchildren to be creepy. The hijacking of the free the nipple campaign is embarrassing, but unsurprising (see last paragraph).
Interesting how the original post mentions the 'Frankfurt school establishment' (cultural Marxism klaxon (funnily enough The Guardian have a great piece about how stupid this on their website) and how no more page 3 means we'll soon all be conforming and obeying 'master'. Rupert Murdoch owns a frightening amount of our media, the idea that a school of left wing academics has more sway than him and the other huge conglomerates that own pretty much everything we buy is hilarious. But exactly what he wants people to think. "Come buy my paper, stick two fingers up to the establishment by making me richer and more powerful, and by swallowing my views". Sometimes things have to go in order for society to evolve, we're moving on from the 50s and realising women are people too. If it's time for page 3 to die, it's not because the 'do-gooders' (bloody do gooders, eh, trying to end objectification of half of society) and feminists have won. It's because society as a whole has realised it's stupid.
We live in a weird society that exploits women sexually, then when it's criticised for doing so defends it as free expression and as a celebration of women's beauty. Then shames women who express their body or sexuality publicly (and even in private) when they're not selling a product or doing a photoshoot, unless it's for porn, which these hypocrites are always against. It's built in to our society from the bottom to the top, ingrained at every level, it's a long way to go, but if losing page 3 helps in any sall way us get past this, good.
) morally backed the paper had they decided not to give into pressure, even if it was something as trashy as page three was.
