BF2S Forums UK bans pregnant nun ice cream ad

Uzique wrote:

this isn't a company that would have 'market consequences'.

it's a small company owned by one man in London, capitalizing on the visit of the Pope to sell fucking tubs of ice-cream off the back of Catholic discontent. that is not an applaudable act of market-freedom and the exercising of one's freedom of speech. it's opportunist capitalising on poor examples of social discrimination. the pure 'rational' fact of the matter is that a small independent company plastering offensive adverts all over the city of London is causing more harm to more people than it is selling ice-cream. when you advertise in public space (e.g. the city streets, bus shelters, small poster-spaces) then there HAS to be a standard for those adverts. you can't have small-time brothels putting an A4 poster in every single borough of the city of London. you can't have some small, shitty ice-cream parlour widely pissing off Catholics all over the city to try and shift an extra 250-units over the Pope's visiting weekend. IT'S BAD BUSINESS. it is not a limitation of our 'freedom of speech'. that's such a rhetorical propaganda victory for you americans... absolutely typical.

"KEEP CALM AND CARRY ON"

Keeping calm and carrying on would involve letting the market affect his business however it would.

Although if the mocking of Catholicism resulted in better sales...  well, why not do it?  It's an outdated religion anyway.

Turquoise wrote:

Although if the mocking of Catholicism resulted in better sales...  well, why not do it?  It's an outdated religion anyway.

Sarcasm?

Surgeons wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Although if the mocking of Catholicism resulted in better sales...  well, why not do it?  It's an outdated religion anyway.

Sarcasm?

No, seriously.  I would mock religion even more if it meant my business gained profit.

And why shouldn't I?  This is the same institution that aids and abets pedophiles.  They deserve mockery.

oh and great good job turqoise the political harlequin has now officially announced that catholicism has had its day

great

let the anti-catholic merchandise flood forth to fill the 'gap' in his 'absolutely free-market'



sometimes you guys are fucking ridiculous to consider yourselves adept D&ST 'debaters'...

what part of the matter do you not understand that this company is SO small (i.e. one property) that the action HAS to be taken? adverts all over a city's free public space to advertise for one small premises: it offends a great number of people and benefits absolutely nobody. i know your high-idealism of 'free market' politics is all great in america, and all... but in london, there is literally every single minority under the sun collected in one multicultural population, and you simply can't go around plastering discriminatory shit everywhere to profit one small business. if everybody used that precedent then the city would be a hodgepodge mix of racial slurs, sexist billboards and offensive wise-crack posters. it just doesn't work.

and i can guarantee that if anyone tried to use the same advertisement in america against, say, mormons... there would be a public outcry. the advertisements would be removed through some legislative or political process-- people writing to their local representative, people getting petitions etc. what's the difference between people going to their local law/political base and people complaining to the official advertising agency? it's the exact same thing: people rallying together to achieve 'justice'. in america just because you don't have an official place to go to for these form of complaints... the place then is a symbol of the NANNY STATE. that makes no fucking sense. our system is more efficient at dealing with complaints of that nature, so we're evil socialists and have no freedom? you guys are fucking straight-retarded.

Last edited by Uzique (2010-09-16 08:41:27)

JohnG@lt wrote:

Uzique wrote:

what part of the matter that this company is SO small (i.e. one property) that the action HAS to be taken? adverts all over a city's free public space to advertise for one small premises: it offends a great number of people and benefits absolutely nobody. i know your high-idealism of 'free market' politics is all great in america, and all... but in london, there is literally every single minority under the sun collected in one multicultural population, and you simply can't go around plastering discriminatory shit everywhere to profit one small business. if everybody used that precedent then the city would be a hodgepodge mix of racial slurs, sexist billboards and offensive wise-crack posters. it just doesn't work.

and i can guarantee that if anyone tried to use the same advertisement in america against, say, mormons... there would be a public outcry. the advertisements would be removed through some legislative or political process-- people writing to their local representative, people getting petitions etc. what's the difference between people going to their local law/political base and people complaining to the official advertising agency? it's the exact same thing: people rallying together to achieve 'justice'. in america just because you don't have an official place to go to for these form of complaints... the place then is a symbol of the NANNY STATE. that makes no fucking sense. our system is more efficient at dealing with complaints of that nature, so we're evil socialists and have no freedom? you guys are fucking straight-retarded.

Here's how it would be handled in America. The guy would put up the billboards and would instantly have picketers outside of his establishment driving him out of business or forcing him to capitulate and take them down. Easy peasy. No government involvement and no overhead paying for a nanny agency.

It would hit national 'news', and if it could be construed as racist in any way...then the downfall is that much faster.

SenorToenails wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Uzique wrote:

what part of the matter that this company is SO small (i.e. one property) that the action HAS to be taken? adverts all over a city's free public space to advertise for one small premises: it offends a great number of people and benefits absolutely nobody. i know your high-idealism of 'free market' politics is all great in america, and all... but in london, there is literally every single minority under the sun collected in one multicultural population, and you simply can't go around plastering discriminatory shit everywhere to profit one small business. if everybody used that precedent then the city would be a hodgepodge mix of racial slurs, sexist billboards and offensive wise-crack posters. it just doesn't work.

and i can guarantee that if anyone tried to use the same advertisement in america against, say, mormons... there would be a public outcry. the advertisements would be removed through some legislative or political process-- people writing to their local representative, people getting petitions etc. what's the difference between people going to their local law/political base and people complaining to the official advertising agency? it's the exact same thing: people rallying together to achieve 'justice'. in america just because you don't have an official place to go to for these form of complaints... the place then is a symbol of the NANNY STATE. that makes no fucking sense. our system is more efficient at dealing with complaints of that nature, so we're evil socialists and have no freedom? you guys are fucking straight-retarded.

Here's how it would be handled in America. The guy would put up the billboards and would instantly have picketers outside of his establishment driving him out of business or forcing him to capitulate and take them down. Easy peasy. No government involvement and no overhead paying for a nanny agency.

It would hit national 'news', and if it could be construed as racist in any way...then the downfall is that much faster.

Indeed.

Jesus man, a six year old cheerleader getting kicked off her cheerleading squad because one of her cheers contained the word 'booty' is national news.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-09-16 08:44:48)

Uzique wrote:

what part of the matter do you not understand that this company is SO small (i.e. one property) that the action HAS to be taken? adverts all over a city's free public space to advertise for one small premises: it offends a great number of people and benefits absolutely nobody. i know your high-idealism of 'free market' politics is all great in america, and all... but in london, there is literally every single minority under the sun collected in one multicultural population, and you simply can't go around plastering discriminatory shit everywhere to profit one small business. if everybody used that precedent then the city would be a hodgepodge mix of racial slurs, sexist billboards and offensive wise-crack posters. it just doesn't work.

Hey John, does the freedom of speech in ads work in NYC?  Are they pretty hands-off or hands-on?

Uzique wrote:

and i can guarantee that if anyone tried to use the same advertisement in america against, say, mormons... there would be a public outcry. the advertisements would be removed through some legislative or political process-- people writing to their local representative, people getting petitions etc. what's the difference between people going to their local law/political base and people complaining to the official advertising agency? it's the exact same thing: people rallying together to achieve 'justice'. in america just because you don't have an official place to go to for these form of complaints... the place then is a symbol of the NANNY STATE. that makes no fucking sense. our system is more efficient at dealing with complaints of that nature, so we're evil socialists and have no freedom? you guys are fucking straight-retarded.

Uzique, you really need to cut back on the insults and spend more time elaborating with reason.

That being said, yes, people attempt to get the government involved here, but thankfully, the market does most of the work.

Turquoise wrote:

Hey John, does the freedom of speech in ads work in NYC?  Are they pretty hands-off or hands-on?

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?

Uzique wrote:

this has NOTHING to do with the fucking UK government.

the "market" does the work in america? what do you think funds the body that screens adverts here in the UK?

MARKET LEVIES

retards. im pissed off and insulting you because you're trying to make some 'point' about freedom of speech without a fucking clue what you're actually talking about. you're taking some small story that has already been blown-up beyond all proportion as a publicity stunt, and then trying to make some broad generalisation about the UK's political system: "oh, they have a lesser freedom of speech there"; "oh, in the UK they're all socialists". it's ridiculous bullshit. the advertising standards body over here are completely independent of any political interest and are paid for and maintained by the market.

for all effective purposes, it IS THE MARKET TAKING CARE OF ITSELF. the difference is that here it is MORE EFFICIENT; it's BETTER. you can't deal with that because you think the most effective method of combatting inappropriate advertisement is to sit outside an head office for a month with pickets and old housewives chanting. well, that's great for you guys. we simply make a complaint to an independent body and if enough complaints/letters are received, action is taken. no senators ignoring your emails. no pointless encampments outside HQ's. get off our dick.

Yes. Market levies. Taxation. Same thing as if it came out of your governments general fund.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Hey John, does the freedom of speech in ads work in NYC?  Are they pretty hands-off or hands-on?

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?

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.

Uzique wrote:

what? every business voluntarily pays towards maintaining an independent organisation that ensures a GOOD STANDARD of adverts-- they're motivated by their own business interests. it has no government hand-in, at all. it's no more 'government funded' than your own versions. the advertising industry looks after itself-- it promotes a minimum quality of radio/television advertisement, ensures that no foul-play is committed (in regards to competition and persona/business rights) and generally benefits everyone involved. businesses pay a levy into a fund that provides for the ASA. where's the government tax fund here? where's the annual ASA budget being specified by the conservatives? oh wait...

Ok, I withdraw everything I said then if it's voluntary Still censorship.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-09-16 08:53:31)