In 1987, Labour MP Clare Short tried to introduce a Commons bill opposing Page Three - our daily dose of boobs benevolently provided by the Sun, Britain's top-selling newspaper. The reaction was immediate - but starkly divided. From members of the public she received a stream of letters in support of her actions. From the press, and from her fellow Members of Parliament, she received reactions ranging from faint ridicule, to outright aggression. And the big bullyboy ringleaders of this unpleasant gang were, without doubt, the Sun.
It is of course to be expected that the Sun would be vocal in its defence of Page Three; it is, after all, one of their major selling points. However, their behaviour went far beyond defence, placing itself squarely in the realms of bullying attack.
Implications were made against Short's mental health ('Crazy Clare'); she was presented as trying to spoil what was 'just a bit of harmless fun' ('Killjoy Clare'). She was accused of being 'jealous' that she didn't have what it took to model for Page Three - in itself a worrying indicator of what the Sun considers to be the apogee of female achievement, better even than being an MP.
Luckily for the Sun, Short's bill was defeated, thanks in no small part to the brave Tory backbenchers who, along with giggling and remarking on Short's body, took it in turns to shout 'object' (oh the irony), before diving out of sight, meaning Short ran out of time. The Sun celebrated this victory with a bonanza of busty babes on the next day's Page Three, accompanied by some choice comments about what Short could do with herself.
So far, so disturbingly aggressive - perhaps the Sun recognised Short had a point? But in any case, that was the Eighties, they wouldn't do that in the 21st Century, would they?
Oh yes they would.
2004, a Westminster lunch. A journalist asks Short if she would still like to ban Page Three. She replies that she would. And the Sun let its pretties fly again.
Headlines screamed about '"Fat Jealous" Clare'. Articles rounded up a barrage of choice quotations that again branded Clare 'barmy', 'ugly', 'jealous', 'mad', 'frumpy', suggesting that she'd 'lost it' - although, to be fair to the Sun's balanced reporting, they did include a single Short supporter, who 'moaned' her comment. Not ones to leave a job half done, they also ran a competition to determine if their readers would prefer to see the 'MP's [sic] face or the back end of a bus'. Oh, and they sent a busload of 'busty beauties' to sit outside her house, accosting her whenever she needed to leave it.
But it's okay, because current editor Dominic Mohan assured Leveson that the attack articles were "not probably something I would run now". Well I feel reassured. That's some tough talk right there.
But, perhaps there is a kernel of truth to Mohan's assertion. Perhaps he really wouldn't. Not because he really finds this behaviour problematic, but because, in the wake of internet feminism, it's much harder for the traditional media to silence its critics in such crude ways, simply because, well, there are so many of us.

Step forward the No More Page 3 campaign, which has recently exploded onto a laptop near you. The campaign was dreamt up by a single woman, the author Lucy-Anne Holmes - and you can read about the day she found she had had enough here - but the campaign is not about her. It is about the growing number of people who have already written about it. It is about the thousands of tweets the campaign has already received. It is about the daily increasing number of people who have already signed her online campaign - and perhaps most important, have told us why.
Clare Short received 'hundreds' of letters from women who told her that they had always hated Page 3, but had been afraid of speaking up, for fear of being ridiculed as 'jealous'; Short's speaking out had given them the confidence to assert themselves - though you have to wonder what The Sun's vilification of Short did to their new-found confidence.
In an updated, 21st-century version of Short's letters, the No More Page 3 Campaign has received thousands of comments from its signatories explaining why they have signed. They range from simple statements, such as ''Because boobs aren't news", to more disturbing ones like, "no male friends who look at these pictures say 'I respect her'" and "Every bare breast you show tells young men that mine are theirs too. They're not. They're mine". These comments are on the petition. They are posted on Facebook. They are retweeted on Twitter. They are inescapable and undeniable.
No more can the Sun claim that is 'absurd' to claim that Page Three is loathed by most women; they can't even claim that it's supported by most men. The evidence is out there and it's mounting. And of course, as has been disappointingly revealed by the responses that people have got when posting the link on their Facebook and Twitter, there are still people out there who reach for the old silencing tactic of undermining those who object by calling them 'fat', 'ugly' and 'jealous'. But these attacks on individuals can do little to stop this campaign when the individual is part of a great and growing movement.
There has been a lot of coverage over the growing trend of aggressive misogyny directed at women online. This is of course disturbing; I myself quickly progressed from a feeling of pleasure at the 'ping' of a new comment on my blog, to a feeling of dread, at what abuse has now been sent my way. Nevertheless, the internet is also an incredibly powerful tool for demonstrating solidarity, as exemplified by the EverydaySexism project, which has received thousands of stories from women telling the world their stories. And as Laura Bates, founder of the project says, while these individual incidents may seem minor, they add up to a "numbing, oppressive, overwhelming" major whole. And this major whole is getting major attention - including from a growing number of men who tweet their astonishment that this is what women face on a daily basis - they just hadn't realised it was so bad, so relentless.
The reality of everyday sexism is undeniable, and it comes from a culture where women's bodies are presented as existing nearly entirely for male appreciation. More and more people are realising this; more and more people are adding their voice to No More Page Three's campaign.
Isn't it time you added yours?
Follow Caroline Criado-Perez on Twitter: www.twitter.com/WeekWoman
Richard Caseby: Why the Guardian's Verbal Sexual Assault on Page Three Girls Is Baffling
Page Three - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Sun celebrates 40 years of Page 3 girls | The Sun |Features
Page 3 Girls choose their favourite Team GB athlete they will be ...
Last laugh ... Page 3 beauty Rhian Sugden
Page 3 beauty and Celebrity Big Brother contestant Rhian Sugden on how she ...
To people who are living deeply in denial of a male-dominated system, it probably does look like mere "prudery" when a member of the sex class asserts that her body is hers, and not communal property available at all times for the dominant gender to rest its eyeballs upon.
I wonder if such commenters would be so blithe about the subject if they themselves were pressured, socially and economically, from birth onwards, to present their naked bodies for the use and judgment of society - and punished with denial of access to economic resources if they didn't comply. I bet they'd be shouting a lot of words stronger than "prude".
This is about a true feminist cause. Should we really remove women from the papers, simply because they are amply endowed, and wish to make their philosophical, scientific, economic and political commentary whilst defying societies normal dress code. No! No! we say.
We firmly believe in the right of women to be heard! So, rise up, and say No! MORE Page 3 and join the anti-anti campaign.
"My odds of being hired for a job, when competing against female applicants, are probably skewed in my favour. The more prestigious the job, the larger the odds are skewed."
"I can be confident that my co-workers won’t think I got my job because of my sex – even though that might be true."
" I am far less likely to face sexual harassment at work than my female co-workers are."
" If I choose not to have children, my masculinity will not be called into question."
"If I have children but do not provide primary care for them, my masculinity will not be called into question."
"My elected representatives are mostly people of my own sex. The more prestigious and powerful the elected position, the more this is true."
"When I ask to see “the person in charge,” odds are I will face a person of my own sex. The higher-up in the organization the person is, the surer I can be."
"I do not have to worry about the message my wardrobe sends about my sexual availability."
"Sexual harassment on the street virtually never happens to me. I do not need to plot my movements through public space in order to avoid being sexually harassed, or to mitigate sexual harassment."
"I have the privilege of being unaware of my male privilege."
The Real News
Rupert Murdoch’s MEDIA EMPIRE has shaped and CORRUPTED British Prime Ministers, Members of Parliament, the Police and the judiciary for FIFTY-YEARS now in the UK. The ZIONISTS have hijacked PARLIAMENTS’ and the BANKING and JUSTICE systems of the WORLD: -
http://wakeuporkney.wordpress.com/2011/07/18/murdoch-shaped-british-politics-for-40-years/
Could she not earn a living modelling clothes rather than flashing her boobs?
I hate it when young women of today choose to be a stay at home Mother and homemaker and other women laugh at her in the name of feminisim.. if a woman is happy being a traditional woman, wife and Mother who is anyone to condone her !!! Feminists want to force their opinion on all other women, that is wrong !!!
Even if totally nude, the law does not see the female nude as being illegal in a public place, the police often make the mistake of interpreting the law along the line that, by being fully exposed, a woman is breaking some law or other. Only if she is deliberately making moves to shock or frighten can a woman be charged with causing a public nuisance, simply walking down the road unclothed does not contravene such a criteria.
On the other hand, a man, fully naked will be charged with causing a misdemeanour by allowing his genitals to be exposed. Women's genitals must be deliberately exposed, a difficult thing for any woman to do, whilst simply walking along.
If she does act in a manner that reveals her genitals she can be arrested and charged with a breach of the peace.
That guy who has attempted to walk from one end of the country to the other, naked, has effectively deliberately exposed himself, and he gets charged with that offence, as well as causing a breach of the peace.
I buy it to read the news primarily
I do think the Sun's page three topless tradition is now dated
But it's innocuous in my view
I don't think women who are campaiging to get it stopped are
Anything other than sincere in their beliefs
I respect their views
But I am completely unfazed about whether or not
Other women should be free to exercise their choice
Of displaying their breast for money
There are SO many other more important things to worry about
Than women who are showing
What can be seen on almost any sunny beach these days
It's not even tittilating
Just a young women with a pleasant body shape
When all the other true evils of the world are sorted
I would certainly back this campaign
But there again...................................!
I don't suppose that anyone who objects to Page 3 buys the Sun so that still leaves a lot of people who buy it. I can't imagine that anyone would buy the Sun just because of Page 3, but then I can't imagine why anyone would buy the Sun at all.
There's no shortage of minor celebrities, and major celebrities, vying for media attention by trying (and sometimes succeeding) to burst out of of whatever they are wearing and such nuggets can be found in abundance on the HP site. I find this more insidious than Page 3 because the girls on Page 3 are complete unknowns whereas people take much more attention of how people known to them are behaving.