Please Keep It In Your Paper

A friend of mine recently informed me via e-mail about an advertisement that ran in his local newspaper with copy reading: "She wants better sex." He didn't elaborate on what the ad was really about, but said it resulted in an angry letter to the editor denouncing the ad's copy and arguing it crossed the line between freedom of speech and public lewdness. My friend wonders, where do you cross the line?

Common sense should prevail among companies or organizations who make the advertisements in the first place. In most cases, controversial material is avoided as it's not a good idea to offend the public upon whom you rely to take an interest in the company's product or service. However, some advertisers think controversy is a great way to attract attention.

I remember the case involving an AIDS Action Committee advertisement that ran on Boston subways and busses throughout 1993. One ad showed a packaged condom next to copy that read, in large bold print: "Tell him you don't know how it will fit!" At the time, I wrote that this crossed the line as it subjected the general public to the sort of sensitivities you'd normally only find in an adult magazine. The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) orginally argued the ads could be defended on the grounds of free speech, but eventually withdrew the ads, forcing the AIDS Action Committee to be more select with the content of their advertisements.

It could be argued that the AIDS Action Committee advertisements were performing a vital public service. True enough. However, the controversy that particular ad courted should have been avoided. After all, you may not get sympathy from some quarters by throwing references to pornography and/or sexual promiscuity in their faces. (And isn't sexual promiscuity the sole reason why the AIDS epidemic exploded in the first place?) Indeed, don't some members of the general public have the right to not be bombarded by material of this sort? And how exactly are such explicit ads good for children?

Besides, the "me generation" of the 1970s never went away. Most people think they have the right to do whatever they want, that there should be no constraints on personal freedom whatsoever – regardless of just what that personal freedom entails. As far as some people are concerned, performing necrophilia on park benches should be allowed because who are they really harming? (Their partners certainly aren't complaining!) Talk to most people about public decency and they might very well reply, "Hey, I got your public decency right here, pal!" Whose sensitivities should we be conscious of and honor, and which ones should we reject on the basis of encouraging open-mindedness? It's a tricky subject.

Article Author: Mark Edward Manning

Mark Edward Manning grew up in Boston, MA and now lives in London, England. He wrote commentaries for The Boston Herald in the mid 1990s.

Visit Mark Edward Manning's author page — Mark Edward Manning's Blog