UK bans pregnant nun ice cream ad

2010-09-16 08:58:49

#51

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6755

i think you totally misunderstand what 'censorship' is in the press, and in legal terms. complete total misunderstanding.

a democratic number of complaints being made to a body that is made-up of the advertising industry-- an industry that takes it upon itself to self-regulate for the greater interests of everyone involved-- and then that body threatening to take legal action (as any individual could, also, if they had the funding and initiative to litigate) is NOT CENSORSHIP. categorically this is NOT censorship. it's people taking people-action against something that offends them and their rights. if there is a reasonable, due legal process to follow through with, i.e. a case to be made against the adverts, then the ASA applies pressure to do so. they have more funding and more ability to do this than the tens of thousands of complaining individuals. it's as simple as that.

ive studied censorship in a big way in the publishing/print industry, in the journalism industry and in the spoken/written word. CENSORSHIP is a political and legal principle that pre-empts all of the above described process. there is nothing democratic or elected by the people in CENSORSHIP legislation. you are talking out of your ass. the ASA doesn't work like that at all. now are we going to have another wonderful semantics debate for 2-3 pages where you argue the meaning of the word 'censorship', despite its strict and specific legal definitions? please, lets do this one all over again. 2-3 years of legal education and a whole year spent exhaustively studying censorship. lets go. i look forward to your rebuttal on how im 'wrongly' using the term in legal definitions

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-09-16 08:59:39

#52

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5643|London, England

Turquoise wrote:
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.

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.

"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

2010-09-16 09:01:50

#53

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6755

JohnG@lt wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
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?
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.
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.

so anyway john considering the ASA's process is essentially the exact same as multiple individuals replying to the 'market' in america, i.e. by picketing the business and forcing it to 'capitulate' on its advertising interests... are they both 'censorship', then? if the above example of an advert widely exploiting mormon stereotypes was democratically reacted against by the people at large... would they be 'censoring' the business? or is it a fair, democratic process? im confused as to where you personally draw the lines, considering that one thing is applaudable democratic action to you and the other is terrible acts of censorship.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-09-16 09:02:38

#54

jord: Member; +2,382|6963|The North, beyond the wall.

Turquoise wrote:
Yes, you instead have an outdated figurehead monarchy that you make excuses for with arguments like "unity" and "tourism money." France moved on, as did many others.

France's monarchy can't be compared to ours. Tourism money isn't an excuse, it's a reason. I don't know what's hard to understand about it.

Money=Good. Yes?

2010-09-16 09:03:22

#55

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5643|London, England

Uzique wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:
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.
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.
so anyway john considering the ASA's process is essentially the exact same as multiple individuals replying to the 'market' in america, i.e. by picketing the business and forcing it to 'capitulate' on its advertising interests... are they both 'censorship', then? if the above example of an advert widely exploiting mormon stereotypes was democratically reacted against by the people at large... would they be 'censoring' the business? or is it a fair, democratic process? im confused as to where you personally draw the lines, considering that one thing is applaudable democratic action to you and the other is terrible acts of censorship.

Yes, of course they are both censorship. I don't agree with either form but I also have a thick skin and am rather difficult to offend The idea of self-policing businesses just strikes me as bad form. You're condensing power into the hands of a few who may have a much different opinion of what is acceptable than the public at large. That's my complaint with your system.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-09-16 09:04:25)

"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

2010-09-16 09:04:13

#56

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6690|North Carolina

I sure got you guys fired up didn't I?

2010-09-16 09:04:57

#57

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6755

well it's not very ayn rand of you to deny every other person to their own personal rights and interests of happiness

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-09-16 09:07:21

#58

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6755

JohnG@lt wrote:
Uzique wrote:
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.
so anyway john considering the ASA's process is essentially the exact same as multiple individuals replying to the 'market' in america, i.e. by picketing the business and forcing it to 'capitulate' on its advertising interests... are they both 'censorship', then? if the above example of an advert widely exploiting mormon stereotypes was democratically reacted against by the people at large... would they be 'censoring' the business? or is it a fair, democratic process? im confused as to where you personally draw the lines, considering that one thing is applaudable democratic action to you and the other is terrible acts of censorship.
Yes, of course they are both censorship. I don't agree with either form but I also have a thick skin and am rather difficult to offend The idea of self-policing businesses just strikes me as bad form. You're condensing power into the hands of a few who may have a much different opinion of what is acceptable than the public at large. That's my complaint with your system.

my complaint with you americans is that you clearly don't have a fucking clue about how the system works.

the 'small few' is actually a large body of people, a very wide representation of the industry.

and, the KEY PART, is that they do not take action until the "PUBLIC AT LARGE" demand it.

it's not like the motion picture authorities or the movie classification boards in america... you know, those concentrated small groups of angry neo-puritan housewives classifying all sorts of perfectly acceptable films as 'R' rated and thus dooming them to commercial failure: that's an example of an industry group that exercises an undemocratic amount of power, much to the detriment of the industry. the ASA is britain's advertising industries completely self-funded, self-run and self-regulated body that responds to PUBLIC DEMAND. i don't see how its censoring, undemocratic or 'problematic', even.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-09-16 09:11:16

#59

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5643|London, England

Uzique wrote:
well it's not very ayn rand of you to deny every other person to their own personal rights and interests of happiness

Interests of happiness? Personal rights? Since when is it a personal right to be free from anything distasteful or offensive? What one views as art another views as tawdry. It's all subjective which is why making grand pronouncements on a given issue regarding taste is silly and restrictive. Catholics are offended, so what? Are they offended on Halloween when millions of people dress up as pregnant nuns? Should we ban those costumes or is it ok because it's personal speech with no profit seeking motive? The very idea that there is an acceptable level for any sort of decency is absurd and utterly Victorian. If you don't like the ad that a company produces don't buy the product. If enough people choose not to buy the product then the ad won't be repeated. Simple. Having a board decide in advance what is acceptable is ridiculous. You end up with stodgy men producing stodgy ads that interest no one.

"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

2010-09-16 09:13:05

#60

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6755

see, again you are contorting the process to suit your poor definition of censorship.

there is no "board that decides IN ADVANCE what is acceptable".

if people complain, the board uses its weight and finance to take legal action or to make a formal complaint against the advertiser.

people in america would do and do indeed do the exact same thing.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-09-16 09:15:06

#61

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5643|London, England

Uzique wrote:
see, again you are contorting the process to suit your poor definition of censorship.

there is no "board that decides IN ADVANCE what is acceptable".

if people complain, the board uses its weight and finance to take legal action or to make a formal complaint against the advertiser.

people in america would do and do indeed do the exact same thing.

Sure, doesn't mean it's right though.

"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

2010-09-16 09:15:20

#62

Hunter/Jumper: Member; +117|6639

JohnG@lt wrote:
What kind of name is Tipper?

How the 773H did she get here ? Sorry Bravo, I didn't do it ! Knock off the sentence spacing uziqe Ghetto can't read that, makes him upset too!

Last edited by Hunter/Jumper (2010-09-16 09:16:44)

2010-09-16 09:19:15

#63

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6755

JohnG@lt wrote:
Uzique wrote:
see, again you are contorting the process to suit your poor definition of censorship.

there is no "board that decides IN ADVANCE what is acceptable".

if people complain, the board uses its weight and finance to take legal action or to make a formal complaint against the advertiser.

people in america would do and do indeed do the exact same thing.
Sure, doesn't mean it's right though.

well just because someone has the freedom of speech to do so, doesn't mean adverts abusing catholics/blacks/women are 'right', either.

it's a very thin personal line drawn between over-sensitivity and offence; it normally depends on who you are.

utilitarian principles would suggest that its just best to keep all potentially offensive content out of advertising-- it doesn't NEED it.

if you can't market your product without having to insult somebody, well then your product is a worthless piece of shit.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-09-16 09:20:21

#64

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6755

Hunter/Jumper wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:
What kind of name is Tipper?
How the 773H did she get here ? Sorry Bravo, I didn't do it ! Knock off the sentence spacing uziqe Ghetto can't read that, makes him upset too!

seriously am i the only guy that reads his messages and feels like somebody mistranslating encrypted signals from the enigma machine?

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-09-16 09:21:37

#65

Morpheus: This shit still going?; +508|6284|The Mitten

Uzique wrote:
Hunter/Jumper wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:
What kind of name is Tipper?
How the 773H did she get here ? Sorry Bravo, I didn't do it ! Knock off the sentence spacing uziqe Ghetto can't read that, makes him upset too!
seriously am i the only guy that reads his messages and feels like somebody mistranslating encrypted signals from the enigma machine?

Maybe. All I see when he posts is "mmf mmf mmf".

EE (hats

2010-09-16 09:23:47

#66

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6755

i swear i keep seeing longitudinal/latitudinal directions for baltic u-boats in there.

and his grammar is most definitely some form of encrypted morse code

h ello . . . -- . . .

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-09-16 09:24:23

#67

13/f/taiwan: Member; +940|5983

hunter, what do you do for a living?

2010-09-16 09:25:08

#68

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5643|London, England

Uzique wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:
Uzique wrote:
see, again you are contorting the process to suit your poor definition of censorship.

there is no "board that decides IN ADVANCE what is acceptable".

if people complain, the board uses its weight and finance to take legal action or to make a formal complaint against the advertiser.

people in america would do and do indeed do the exact same thing.
Sure, doesn't mean it's right though.
well just because someone has the freedom of speech to do so, doesn't mean adverts abusing catholics/blacks/women are 'right', either.

it's a very thin personal line drawn between over-sensitivity and offence; it normally depends on who you are.

utilitarian principles would suggest that its just best to keep all potentially offensive content out of advertising-- it doesn't NEED it.

if you can't market your product without having to insult somebody, well then your product is a worthless piece of shit.

Umm, that's really got nothing to do with utilitarian principles...

"If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
John Stuart Mill

"Whatever crushes individuality is despotism, by whatever name it may be called and whether it professes to be enforcing the will of God or the injunctions of men."
John Stuart Mill

"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

2010-09-16 09:25:44

#69

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6755

right so you can quote one utilitarian thinker and still completely not get the principle, hahahaha.

typical galt

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-09-16 09:26:02

#70

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5643|London, England

Uzique wrote:
Hunter/Jumper wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:
What kind of name is Tipper?
How the 773H did she get here ? Sorry Bravo, I didn't do it ! Knock off the sentence spacing uziqe Ghetto can't read that, makes him upset too!
seriously am i the only guy that reads his messages and feels like somebody mistranslating encrypted signals from the enigma machine?

Tipper was mentioned in another thread. eleven bravo bitched about her being brought up. That's all.

"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

2010-09-16 09:26:25

#71

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5643|London, England

Uzique wrote:
right so you can quote one utilitarian thinker and still completely not get the principle, hahahaha.

typical galt

The failure is on your part zique.

"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

2010-09-16 09:26:31

#72

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6755

who the fuck is tipper and what does it have to do with anything

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-09-16 09:27:43

#73

jord: Member; +2,382|6963|The North, beyond the wall.

13/f/taiwan wrote:
hunter, what do you do for a living?

Social commentator/Political analyst/Professional blogger

2010-09-16 09:28:02

#74

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5643|London, England

Uzique wrote:
who the fuck is tipper and what does it have to do with anything

Tipper Gore is why CD's were slapped with Parental Advisory labels. She is Al Gore's wife and went on a crusade against explicit lyrics in rap music during Bill Clinton's presidency.

"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

2010-09-16 09:28:11

#75

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6755

JohnG@lt wrote:
Uzique wrote:
right so you can quote one utilitarian thinker and still completely not get the principle, hahahaha.

typical galt
The failure is on your part zique.

seeing as we're discussing legal concepts of censorship here and legal action against advertisers...

i am relying upon the key utilitarian thinker for legal concepts: jeremy bentham, NOT MILL.

"the greatest good for the greatest number" etc.

thus an advert that appeals to a tiny minority of people offending an entire city/nation's catholics... just no.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

BF2S Forums UK bans pregnant nun ice cream ad

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Uzique wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Uzique wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Uzique wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Uzique wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Uzique wrote:

13/f/taiwan wrote:

Uzique wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Board footer