When it comes to censorship, what are we really discussing? Though it would be tough to say we’re talking about anything but the right to free speech, it could be about much more. As sexist advertisements continue to blare across billboards and full page spreads in magazines, it is clear that we have a responsibility. Though we contend the right to free speech, and in this case displays of advertising, we must keep in mind that this comes with a price.

A couple of days ago, a “zero tolerance” remark was tweaked and tagged, by the British Parliament, to sexist advertising campaigns. Threatening censorship of advertisements, it was strongly advised that people tone down the sexist nature of the matted and glossed displays.

Sexist advertisements “straitjacket women, men, girls and boys by restricting individuals to predetermined and artificial roles that are often degrading, humiliating and dumbed down for both sexes.”

Though they do have a point, they neglect to tap into the rather harsh reverse of the situation. Censorship? do they really want to go there? It may be understandable re-evaluate intent and image, but to ban a freedom of expression; that can get into some pretty rough territory. To start, they would have to create ramifications and a true definition of a sexist display. They would have to draw the line between an advertisement with a strong sexual connotation versus one that is just outright degrading. It surely is a tougher task than it seems. Not to mention the fact that a world of intense censorship could seem pretty horrific to many of us. If you ask me, suggestions to or a boycott of the brands that display sexist ads would definitely be the better way to go.

Thanks to Jezebel for the tip!