Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
Discuss.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|4720|North Carolina
Britain's advertising watchdog has censured an Italian ice cream manufacturer over an advertisement depicting a heavily pregnant nun that appeared ahead of a papal visit to the UK.

The ad featuring the strapline "immaculately conceived" over an image of the expectant sister spooning from a tub of Antonio Federici ice cream was "likely to cause widespread offense," the Advertising Standards Authority ruled.


Hello censorship.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/09 … tml?hpt=C2

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-09-16 10:10:05)

jord
Member
+2,382|4993|The North, beyond the wall.
Doesn't your government censor swearing?

Last edited by jord (2010-09-16 07:48:25)

Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|4720|North Carolina

jord wrote:

Doesn't your government censor swearing?
Well, we have the FCC, but we don't have any censorship specifically based around religion.  The problem with this particular instance of censorship is that it essentially endorses a religion.
jord
Member
+2,382|4993|The North, beyond the wall.

Turquoise wrote:

jord wrote:

Doesn't your government censor swearing?
Well, we have the FCC, but we don't have any censorship specifically based around religion.  The problem with this particular instance of censorship is that it essentially endorses a religion.
And yet UK comedy rips the shit out of religion on a weekly basis.

It's touch and go. Some pro athiest ads on buses were censored a year or so back, the ads said "There probably is no God". Those I thought should have been allowed...
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|4720|North Carolina

jord wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

jord wrote:

Doesn't your government censor swearing?
Well, we have the FCC, but we don't have any censorship specifically based around religion.  The problem with this particular instance of censorship is that it essentially endorses a religion.
And yet UK comedy rips the shit out of religion on a weekly basis.

It's touch and go. Some pro athiest ads on buses were censored a year or so back, the ads said "There probably is no God". Those I thought should have been allowed...
True, there seems to be a very inconsistent policy implemented with regard to religion and censorship in the U.K.  In America, we generally censor ourselves if there's a problem (like with South Park).  While the results might be the same, it's important to allow media outlets to make their own decisions IMHO.

It is true that we censor violence and profanity, but we've actually been moving away from that with time.  There is a shorter list of swear words that are banned from TV now, and basic cable channels are allowed to use words like "shit" past a certain hour.

We're definitely more uptight about nudity though...  I'll give you that.

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-09-16 07:59:50)

jord
Member
+2,382|4993|The North, beyond the wall.

Turquoise wrote:

jord wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


Well, we have the FCC, but we don't have any censorship specifically based around religion.  The problem with this particular instance of censorship is that it essentially endorses a religion.
And yet UK comedy rips the shit out of religion on a weekly basis.

It's touch and go. Some pro athiest ads on buses were censored a year or so back, the ads said "There probably is no God". Those I thought should have been allowed...
True, there seems to be a very inconsistent policy implemented with regard to religion and censorship in the U.K.  In America, we generally censor ourselves if there's a problem (like with South Park).  While the results might be the same, it's important to allow media outlets to make their own decisions IMHO.

It is true that we censor violence and nudity, but we've actually been moving away from that with time.  There is a shorter list of swear words that are banned from TV now, and basic cable channels are allowed to use words like "shit" past a certain hour.

We're definitely more uptight about nudity though...  I'll give you that.
It is inconsistent and other than the sheeple general population complaining I can't think why.

There's no Black and White, only darker shades of Grey.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,965|3673|London, England
What kind of name is Tipper?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|4720|North Carolina

[email protected] wrote:

What kind of name is Tipper?
Yeah, thankfully, that idiot has mostly disappeared.  Although, we still have Christine O'Donnell types out there...
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|4445|North Tonawanda, NY

Turquoise wrote:

jord wrote:

Doesn't your government censor swearing?
Well, we have the FCC, but we don't have any censorship specifically based around religion.  The problem with this particular instance of censorship is that it essentially endorses a religion.
From here:

What are the statutes and rules regarding the broadcast of obscene, indecent, and profane programming? Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 1464, prohibits the utterance of “any obscene, indecent or profane language by means of radio communication.” Consistent with a subsequent statute and court case, the Commission's rules prohibit the broadcast of indecent material during the period of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. FCC decisions also prohibit the broadcast of profane material between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. Civil enforcement of these requirements rests with the FCC, and is an important part of the FCC's overall responsibilities. At the same time, the FCC must be mindful of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 326 of the Communications Act, which prohibit the FCC from censoring program material, or interfering with broadcasters' free speech rights.

What makes material “obscene?” Obscene speech is not protected by the First Amendment and broadcasters are prohibited, by statute and regulation, from airing obscene programming at any time. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, to be obscene, material must meet a three-prong test: (1) an average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest (i.e., material having a tendency to excite lustful thoughts); (2) the material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and (3) the material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. The Supreme Court has indicated that this test is designed to cover hard-core pornography.

What makes material “indecent?” Indecent material contains sexual or excretory material that does not rise to the level of obscenity. For this reason, the courts have held that indecent material is protected by the First Amendment and cannot be banned entirely. It may, however, be restricted to avoid its broadcast during times of the day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience. The FCC has determined, with the approval of the courts, that there is a reasonable risk that children will be in the audience from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., local time. Therefore, the FCC prohibits station licensees from broadcasting indecent material during that period.

Material is indecent if, in context, it depicts or describes sexual or excretory organs or activities in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium. In each case, the FCC must determine whether the material describes or depicts sexual or excretory organs or activities and, if so, whether the material is “patently offensive.”

In our assessment of whether material is “patently offensive,” context is critical. The FCC looks at three primary factors when analyzing broadcast material: (1) whether the description or depiction is explicit or graphic; (2) whether the material dwells on or repeats at length descriptions or depictions of sexual or excretory organs; and (3) whether the material appears to pander or is used to titillate or shock. No single factor is determinative. The FCC weighs and balances these factors because each case presents its own mix of these, and possibly other, factors.

What makes material “profane?” “Profane language” includes those words that are so highly offensive that their mere utterance in the context presented may, in legal terms, amount to a “nuisance.” In its Golden Globe Awards Order the FCC warned broadcasters that, depending on the context, it would consider the “F-Word” and those words (or variants thereof) that are as highly offensive as the “F-Word” to be “profane language” that cannot be broadcast between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.

What is the “safe harbor”? The “safe harbor” refers to the time period between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m., local time. During this time period, a station may air indecent and/or profane material. In contrast, there is no “safe harbor” for the broadcast of obscene material. Obscene material is entitled to no First Amendment protection, and may not be broadcast at any time.

Are there certain words that are always unlawful? No. Offensive words may be profane and/or indecent depending on the context. In the Golden Globe Awards Order, the FCC stated that it would address the legality of broadcast language on a case-by-case basis. Depending on the context presented, use of the “F-Word” or other words as highly offensive as the “F-Word” may be both indecent and profane, if aired between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.
Edit: Almost anything goes (if it's protected speech), basically, between 10pm and 6am local time...but most stations keep it clean most of the time anyway.

Last edited by SenorToenails (2010-09-16 08:05:04)

Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,965|3673|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

What kind of name is Tipper?
Yeah, thankfully, that idiot has mostly disappeared.  Although, we still have Christine O'Donnell types out there...
I can't believe we came so close to putting that pair of idiots in the White House. Granted, the opposition turned out to be almost as bad...
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|4720|North Carolina

[email protected] wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

What kind of name is Tipper?
Yeah, thankfully, that idiot has mostly disappeared.  Although, we still have Christine O'Donnell types out there...
I can't believe we came so close to putting that pair of idiots in the White House. Granted, the opposition turned out to be almost as bad...
Heh...  I voted for Nader.  Tipper and Lieberman were on par with Bush and Cheney in my opinion.
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|4785

Turquoise wrote:

Britain's advertising watchdog has censured an Italian ice cream manufacturer over an advertisement depicting a heavily pregnant nun that appeared ahead of a papal visit to the UK.

The ad featuring the strapline "immaculately conceived" over an image of the expectant sister spooning from a tub of Antonio Federici ice cream was "likely to cause widespread offense," the Advertising Standards Authority ruled.


Hello censorship.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/09 … tml?hpt=C2

So, in America, public outcry causes self-censorship, but in the U.K., it looks like the government gets involved.  Good job guys...
it's not censorship. people complain to official bodies. the government exacts a ban/removal.

im also pretty sure that there is existing legislation targeted at corporate advertising and human rights...

Last edited by Uzique (2010-09-16 08:04:46)

libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|4720|North Carolina

Uzique wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Britain's advertising watchdog has censured an Italian ice cream manufacturer over an advertisement depicting a heavily pregnant nun that appeared ahead of a papal visit to the UK.

The ad featuring the strapline "immaculately conceived" over an image of the expectant sister spooning from a tub of Antonio Federici ice cream was "likely to cause widespread offense," the Advertising Standards Authority ruled.


Hello censorship.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/09 … tml?hpt=C2

So, in America, public outcry causes self-censorship, but in the U.K., it looks like the government gets involved.  Good job guys...
it's not censorship. people complain to official bodies. the government exacts a ban/removal.

im also pretty sure that there is existing legislation targeted at corporate advertising and human rights...
I understand that it involves public input, but this seems like a major breach of the freedom of the press.  I realize your doctrine of government is less protective of free speech, but seriously...  that really leaves a lot of room for abuse of power.
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|4785
freedom of the press? erm, what?

it's a BUSINESS trying to sell ICE-CREAM by making a side-crack at PERSONAL RELIGIOUS BELIEF

it evokes images of toothpaste in the 1920's with black people/white people because of racial connotations

YOU CAN'T ADVERTISE A PRODUCT IN A 'FREE COUNTRY' THAT OFFENDS A MINORITY/MAJORITY GROUP OF THAT COUNTRY

it's that simple. it has nothing to do with free speech or 'freedom of the press'. you americans are too eager to jump on any other country and are so ridiculously eager to portray everywhere else as 'Big Brother' socialist states that take the choice away from the individual and his/her freedom. it has nothing to do with that rhetorical, high-minded bullshit; it's a simple case of "get a new fucking advertising agency because this idea sucked and we're removing it".

Last edited by Uzique (2010-09-16 08:09:08)

libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,965|3673|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


Yeah, thankfully, that idiot has mostly disappeared.  Although, we still have Christine O'Donnell types out there...
I can't believe we came so close to putting that pair of idiots in the White House. Granted, the opposition turned out to be almost as bad...
Heh...  I voted for Nader.  Tipper and Lieberman were on par with Bush and Cheney in my opinion.
I voted for Gore but I was 19 at the time and vaguely liberal like my parents.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|4720|North Carolina

Uzique wrote:

freedom of the press? erm, what?

it's a BUSINESS trying to sell ICE-CREAM by making a side-crack at PERSONAL RELIGIOUS BELIEF
Which is perfectly acceptable.  You have the freedom to express your religion, and you have the freedom to offend religion.
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|4785
picture this: KFC in America putting up billboards with "NEW! to our menu: WATERMELONS w/ FRIED CHICKEN = ONLY $5!!!"

would that be allowed to stay up because of 'freedom of the press' or 'freedom of speech'? no.

there would be public outcry by the offended minority (african americans) and the adverts would be removed.

the difference is that in america the advertiser would ALSO get sued to shit. yeah freedom \o/.

that's essentially what is happening here in the UK, except the group are catholics, not blacks.

stop trying so fucking hard to construe it as some great victory for the american spirit. retards.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|4720|North Carolina

Uzique wrote:

freedom of the press? erm, what?

it's a BUSINESS trying to sell ICE-CREAM by making a side-crack at PERSONAL RELIGIOUS BELIEF

it evokes images of toothpaste in the 1920's with black people/white people because of racial connotations

YOU CAN'T ADVERTISE A PRODUCT IN A 'FREE COUNTRY' THAT OFFENDS A MINORITY/MAJORITY GROUP OF THAT COUNTRY

it's that simple. it has nothing to do with free speech or 'freedom of the press'. you americans are too eager to jump on any other country and are so ridiculously eager to portray everywhere else as 'Big Brother' socialist states that take the choice away from the individual and his/her freedom. it has nothing to do with that rhetorical, high-minded bullshit; it's a simple case of "get a new fucking advertising agency because this idea sucked and we're removing it".
Yes, you can.  Our government would not be allowed to censor something that is racist, for example.  Public outcry would be the consequences, and the company would suffer from a consumption aspect.

Freedom of choice is paramount to being a free society.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|4720|North Carolina

Uzique wrote:

picture this: KFC in America putting up billboards with "NEW! to our menu: WATERMELONS w/ FRIED CHICKEN = ONLY $5!!!"

would that be allowed to stay up because of 'freedom of the press' or 'freedom of speech'? no.

there would be public outcry by the offended minority (african americans) and the adverts would be removed.

the difference is that in america the advertiser would ALSO get sued to shit. yeah freedom \o/.

that's essentially what is happening here in the UK, except the group are catholics, not blacks.

stop trying so fucking hard to construe it as some great victory for the american spirit. retards.
You clearly don't understand our system.  The government would not be allowed to censor an ad like that.  Public outcry would accomplish it all by itself.

Sue cases are certainly an issue here, but censorship is much more restricted.

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-09-16 08:13:31)

Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|4785
it's not CENSORSHIP. there are laws to protect people from ABUSE and forms of RACISM or DISCRIMINATION.

that's a PROTECTION of our RIGHTS. not a REMOVAL of them.

and i'm calling "bullshit" on your advertising rhetorical. i have yet to see billboards for Ben & Jerry's Triple-KKKool Vanilla ice-cream.

"you clearly dont understand our system". you're doing my fucking head in. THE PUBLIC COMPLAINED. an ADVERTISING BODY that exists independent of government agenda and political/executive control REMOVED it. it's a stand-alone body that regulates corporate and media entities. SUCK IT UP and stop buying into this fucking american exceptionalist freedom-loving bullshit. you're too wise for this thread.

Last edited by Uzique (2010-09-16 08:13:43)

libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,965|3673|London, England

Uzique wrote:

it's not CENSORSHIP. there are laws to protect people from ABUSE and forms of RACISM or DISCRIMINATION.

that's a PROTECTION of our RIGHTS. not a REMOVAL of them.

and i'm calling "bullshit" on your advertising rhetorical. i have yet to see billboards for Ben & Jerry's Triple-KKKool Vanilla ice-cream.
Of course not. The public outcry would be fierce. They would however not be stopped from putting those billboards up.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|4785
right so our advertising standards body that regulates all advertising for inappropriate content is an evil-socialist instrument



moving on...
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|4720|North Carolina

Uzique wrote:

it's not CENSORSHIP. there are laws to protect people from ABUSE and forms of RACISM or DISCRIMINATION.

that's a PROTECTION of our RIGHTS. not a REMOVAL of them.

and i'm calling "bullshit" on your advertising rhetorical. i have yet to see billboards for Ben & Jerry's Triple-KKKool Vanilla ice-cream.

"you clearly dont understand our system". you're doing my fucking head in. THE PUBLIC COMPLAINED. an ADVERTISING BODY that exists independent of government agenda and political/executive control REMOVED it. it's a stand-alone body that regulates corporate and media entities. SUCK IT UP and stop buying into this fucking american exceptionalist freedom-loving bullshit. you're too wise for this thread.
Cool the anger buddy...  It's not exceptionalism...  it's rationalism.  The U.K. or any country for that matter is perfectly capable of letting companies make mistakes and let the market do the damage.

Ben and Jerry's wouldn't advertize like that specifically because of the market consequences.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|4720|North Carolina

Uzique wrote:

right so our advertising standards body that regulates all advertising for inappropriate content is an evil-socialist instrument



moving on...
No, but it's nanny statism at its most blatant.

The U.K. would seem to be appallingly politically correct.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,965|3673|London, England

Uzique wrote:

right so our advertising standards body that regulates all advertising for inappropriate content is an evil-socialist instrument



moving on...
Nah, the only difference is we don't have a government agency doing the regulating. Our advertisers are self regulating because offending people means a loss in advertising revenue. The bottom line is paramount and forces discretion.

The end result is the same. We just have less overhead.

Last edited by [email protected] (2010-09-16 08:19:22)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2019 Jeff Minard