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".
Last edited by Cybargs (2010-09-16 10:00:33)
yallCybargs wrote:
cav up west westeleven bravo wrote:
lol. sounds like the shit I did everyday in iraqJohnG@lt wrote:
Gotta say the most fun I had during my deployment was during convoy training in Kuwait. It was essentially a giant drive by shooting. I pumped six hundred rounds into a car
That's pretty funnyCybargs wrote:
http://listverse.files.wordpress.com/20 … te_new.jpgUzique 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".
more like early 2000s m8.
why cant all races get along like people on bf2s
because People are ignorant and uneducated!Cybargs wrote:
why cant all races get along like people on bf2s
i can ship you a box. #1 selling toothpaste in Taiwan. It's literally called black man toothpaste in chinese lolz.JohnG@lt wrote:
That's pretty funnyCybargs wrote:
http://listverse.files.wordpress.com/20 … te_new.jpgUzique 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".
more like early 2000s m8.
why cant all races get along like people on bf2s
yeah i had that vaguely in mind when i made my post. hence the random exampleCybargs wrote:
i can ship you a box. #1 selling toothpaste in Taiwan. It's literally called black man toothpaste in chinese lolz.JohnG@lt wrote:
That's pretty funnyCybargs wrote:
http://listverse.files.wordpress.com/20 … te_new.jpg
more like early 2000s m8.
why cant all races get along like people on bf2s
Because people are always trying to kick people below them on the ladder in order to feel better about themselves and actually take shit like racism and stereotypes seriously. It's why poor white people are the most vocal anti-Mexicans and were the most overt racists and disciminators against black people. Shit rolls downhill and shitting on the people perceived to be below oneself is what gets some people through the day. It's their escape from the reality of being an inconsequential piece of shit themselves.burnzz wrote:
because People are ignorant and uneducated!Cybargs wrote:
why cant all races get along like people on bf2s
This has absolutely nothing to do with the government. It is being banned by the ASA. A public body funded entirely by media outlets which sell advertising space.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 isn't censorship, because it is done by private agencies, voluntarily.mikkel wrote:
This thread is hilarious. Six pages of Uzique trying to put a spin on essentially suggesting that it isn't censorship because you can do anything as long as people don't complain.
I particularly like the "I haven't seen a major company feature racially charged advertising, so it must not be legal" rationale.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2010-09-16 10:08:49)
it's hilarious because you do not understand what 'censorship' is, in legal terms, at all.mikkel wrote:
This thread is hilarious. Six pages of Uzique trying to put a spin on essentially suggesting that it isn't censorship because you can do anything as long as people don't complain.
I particularly like the "I haven't seen a major company feature racially charged advertising, so it must not be legal" rationale.
its success is a comment on the ability for anything clint eastwood touches turning into goldHunter/Jumper wrote:
Its success is more of a comment on movies that have been released lately - I think.eleven bravo wrote:
gran torino is not that good of a movie if you ask me. if anybody other than clint eastwood was starring in it it would have gone direct to dvd.JohnG@lt wrote:
Have you ever seen Gran Torino?
I have no interest in the legal definition of censorship in any jurisdiction, nor which rights the ASA are making use of. I just find your posts in this thread to be amusing.Uzique wrote:
it's hilarious because you do not understand what 'censorship' is, in legal terms, at all.mikkel wrote:
This thread is hilarious. Six pages of Uzique trying to put a spin on essentially suggesting that it isn't censorship because you can do anything as long as people don't complain.
I particularly like the "I haven't seen a major company feature racially charged advertising, so it must not be legal" rationale.
the ASA are not "censoring" adverts. they are exercising legal rights that every single person has.
because they're right?mikkel wrote:
I have no interest in the legal definition of censorship in any jurisdiction, nor which rights the ASA are making use of. I just find your posts in this thread to be amusing.Uzique wrote:
it's hilarious because you do not understand what 'censorship' is, in legal terms, at all.mikkel wrote:
This thread is hilarious. Six pages of Uzique trying to put a spin on essentially suggesting that it isn't censorship because you can do anything as long as people don't complain.
I particularly like the "I haven't seen a major company feature racially charged advertising, so it must not be legal" rationale.
the ASA are not "censoring" adverts. they are exercising legal rights that every single person has.
Limiting content is censorship. It doesn't require government involvement to be considered censorship.Uzique wrote:
because they're right?mikkel wrote:
I have no interest in the legal definition of censorship in any jurisdiction, nor which rights the ASA are making use of. I just find your posts in this thread to be amusing.Uzique wrote:
it's hilarious because you do not understand what 'censorship' is, in legal terms, at all.
the ASA are not "censoring" adverts. they are exercising legal rights that every single person has.
i defended claims that this was the UK government removing 'freedom of speech' and being undemocratic.
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE UK GOVERNMENT
i defended claims that the ASA's actions are censorship
IT IS NOT CENSORSHIP IN ANY DEFINITION
that's that. laughable? fuck off.
Turquoise wrote:
Limiting content is censorship. It doesn't require government involvement to be considered censorship.Uzique wrote:
because they're right?mikkel wrote:
I have no interest in the legal definition of censorship in any jurisdiction, nor which rights the ASA are making use of. I just find your posts in this thread to be amusing.
i defended claims that this was the UK government removing 'freedom of speech' and being undemocratic.
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE UK GOVERNMENT
i defended claims that the ASA's actions are censorship
IT IS NOT CENSORSHIP IN ANY DEFINITION
that's that. laughable? fuck off.
Yes that's true. Even some of his really poor* movies in the 70s did well, although the Cinema was more popular back then - No VCRs or DVDseleven bravo wrote:
its success is a comment on the ability for anything clint eastwood touches turning into goldHunter/Jumper wrote:
Its success is more of a comment on movies that have been released lately - I think.eleven bravo wrote:
gran torino is not that good of a movie if you ask me. if anybody other than clint eastwood was starring in it it would have gone direct to dvd.
"It's not censorship," followed by the dictionary definition of censorship.Uzique wrote:
it's not censorship. people complain to official bodies. the government exacts a ban/removal.
The more multicultural you are, the more you end up having to pander to minority groups.JohnG@lt wrote:
It's got nothing to do with being a multicultural city and everything to do with having an uberliberal neurotic Jew as mayor for three terms.Turquoise wrote:
Well then, Uzique, I will concede that it is unfortunate how "multicultural" cities become pathetically politically correct.JohnG@lt wrote:
I live in the nanny state capital of the United States. I have a mayor that wants to ban salt and has doubled the price of cigarettes since he took office. What do you think?
Then again, that may be part of why multiculturalism isn't necessarily a good thing to begin with.
No, it's got more to do with champagne socialists thinking they know what's best for everyone else and trying to turn their ideas into law regardless of the consequences. Then they sit around patting each other on the back, telling each other that they made a difference in the world, and go on about their lives with a boosted self esteem. Nevermind that their meddling has caused vast and highly concentrated ghettos to spring up, the cost of living to skyrocket beyond all necessity and the tax levels to rise to the highest in the nation to support their misguided stupidity.Turquoise wrote:
The more multicultural you are, the more you end up having to pander to minority groups.JohnG@lt wrote:
It's got nothing to do with being a multicultural city and everything to do with having an uberliberal neurotic Jew as mayor for three terms.Turquoise wrote:
Well then, Uzique, I will concede that it is unfortunate how "multicultural" cities become pathetically politically correct.
Then again, that may be part of why multiculturalism isn't necessarily a good thing to begin with.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-09-16 10:20:24)
Turquoise wrote:
The more multicultural you are, the more you end up having to pander to minority groups less racist you can be and get away with.JohnG@lt wrote:
It's got nothing to do with being a multicultural city and everything to do with having an uberliberal neurotic Jew as mayor for three terms.Turquoise wrote:
Well then, Uzique, I will concede that it is unfortunate how "multicultural" cities become pathetically politically correct.
Then again, that may be part of why multiculturalism isn't necessarily a good thing to begin with.
The ASA don't have any power to censor. They don't have any power full stop.mikkel wrote:
I have no interest in the legal definition of censorship in any jurisdiction, nor which rights the ASA are making use of. I just find your posts in this thread to be amusing.Uzique wrote:
it's hilarious because you do not understand what 'censorship' is, in legal terms, at all.mikkel wrote:
This thread is hilarious. Six pages of Uzique trying to put a spin on essentially suggesting that it isn't censorship because you can do anything as long as people don't complain.
I particularly like the "I haven't seen a major company feature racially charged advertising, so it must not be legal" rationale.
the ASA are not "censoring" adverts. they are exercising legal rights that every single person has.
