BF2S Forums UK bans pregnant nun ice cream ad

rdx-fx wrote:

Uzique wrote:

it's not censorship. people complain to official bodies. the government exacts a ban/removal.

mikkel wrote:

You're swimming around from argument to argument, and I have no intention of following you. It's just amusing to pick out these absurd arguments you present."It's not censorship," followed by the dictionary definition of censorship.

There's a subtle distinction between censorship, and pulling an advertisement that too many people find offensive or in poor taste.
Though, to be honest, I'm sure most of the people pulling the advertisements are not clear on the distinction.

It is akin to telling the neighbors they can't have kids, versus "Please stop fucking on my front lawn"

exactly.   the concept of free speech is the market place of ideas.  since society cant handle that just yet, we have to settle for self government tied with the evolving standards of social decency

Last edited by eleven bravo (2010-09-16 10:23:57)

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

The more multicultural you are, the more you end up having to pander to minority groups.

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.

It's got nothing to do with multiculturalism and everything to do with hubris.

I can agree with that to a degree, but the hubris partially comes from agitators among the minority groups that push for more controls on media and such.

Look at CAIR, for example.

Nearly every race or religion has some activist group that freaks out over the slightest offense, and when enough of that happens, white liberals start to think the solution is censorship.

This wouldn't even be a problem to start with, with more cultural homogeneity (or with fewer PC liberals).

Still managing more homogeneity is easier than managing less PC leaning liberals, so this is where immigration policy plays a part.

Assimilation is easiest for a society to adapt to when you have less variance in cultures to deal with as far as immigration trends go.

Why is your solution always mass conformity? You bitch about censorship in one breath and in the next you are saying that everyone needs to be the same. Which is it?

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-09-16 10:26:06)

Would anyone here have a problem with a newspaper saying "We don't want that advert in our publication, because it could offend some of our readers and would not be good for our image"?

No?

Because that's EXACTLY what is happening here. It just happens that all the newspapers (and TV stations) use a single agency to check whether adverts are appropriate. It is a case of private agencies determining what they would like to have printed in their publications. Stopping them from having that right, now that is censorship.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2010-09-16 10:27:10)

Turquoise wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

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.

No, more like the more crybabies you get with every group.  It's annoying to have to walk on eggshells about every little thing.

People need to offend each other more to evolve past this pettiness.

crying about crybabies?

eleven bravo wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

No, more like the more crybabies you get with every group.  It's annoying to have to walk on eggshells about every little thing.

People need to offend each other more to evolve past this pettiness.

crying about crybabies?

True...  you could always shoot them, but that's not legal.

Bertster7 wrote:

mikkel wrote:

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 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.

The ASA don't have any power to censor. They don't have any power full stop.

Welcome to the world of British regulation. All gentlemans agreements, with no actual enforcement.

To clarify, the ASA is a private body funded by those who sell advertising space. They are independent and determine what is or is not appropriate to be in an advert. If they decide for some reason that something is inappropriate, they can request that those selling the advertising space don't run the advert.

There is no enforcement. Therefore there is no censorship.

It is obvious that there should be some sort of centralised body to judge what is and isn't appropriate to be in adverts. The two best such systems are in the UK and France. In the US it is more of a mish mash with separate bodies for different media groups selling advertising space having their own regulators.

I'm sorry if I was being ambiguous, Bertster, but I am somewhat aware of what the ASA is, what it does, and from where it derives its mandate, and that the issue discussed essentially deals with self-censorship.

My posts were solely directed at Uzique's absurd suggestion that the act of a government removing material based on complaints from the public doesn't constitute censorship, and the preposterous idea that an absence of racially charged advertising by large American corporations serves to prove that they are legally prohibited from publishing such material.

Bertster7 wrote:

mikkel wrote:

rdx-fx wrote:

There's a subtle distinction between censorship, and pulling an advertisement that too many people find offensive or in poor taste.
Though, to be honest, I'm sure most of the people pulling the advertisements are not clear on the distinction.

It is akin to telling the neighbors they can't have kids, versus "Please stop fucking on my front lawn"

There's no distinction at all beyond the justification, which does nothing to change the end result. It doesn't matter if material is being removed as a matter of course or policy, or if it's being removed due to public pressure. It's still censorship.

Not really.

Preventing private agencies from removing material that they wish to remove from their publications is censorship.

However the post that rdx-fx replied to talked of government censorship, rather than private agencies enacting self-censorship.

Last edited by mikkel (2010-09-16 10:37:04)

mikkel wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

mikkel wrote:

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 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.

The ASA don't have any power to censor. They don't have any power full stop.

Welcome to the world of British regulation. All gentlemans agreements, with no actual enforcement.

To clarify, the ASA is a private body funded by those who sell advertising space. They are independent and determine what is or is not appropriate to be in an advert. If they decide for some reason that something is inappropriate, they can request that those selling the advertising space don't run the advert.

There is no enforcement. Therefore there is no censorship.

It is obvious that there should be some sort of centralised body to judge what is and isn't appropriate to be in adverts. The two best such systems are in the UK and France. In the US it is more of a mish mash with separate bodies for different media groups selling advertising space having their own regulators.

I'm sorry if I was being ambiguous, Bertster, but I am somewhat aware of what the ASA is, what it does, and from where it derives its mandate, and that the issue discussed essentially deals with self-censorship.

My posts were solely directed at Uzique's absurd suggestion that the act of a government removing material based on complaints from the public doesn't constitute censorship, and the preposterous idea that an absence of racially charged advertising by large American corporations serves to prove that they are legally prohibited from publishing such material.

Bertster7 wrote:

mikkel wrote:

There's no distinction at all beyond the justification, which does nothing to change the end result. It doesn't matter if material is being removed as a matter of course or policy, or if it's being removed due to public pressure. It's still censorship.

Not really.

Preventing private agencies from removing material that they wish to remove from their publications is censorship.

However the post that rdx-fx replied to talked of government censorship, rather than private agencies enacting self-censorship.

Ah - that makes sense. I assumed it referred to the situation in the OP.

I must admit I haven't read a lot of this thread.

If this were being enforced by the government, then I would be very against it. There is some degree of government censorship of advertising, but only in areas where there is overwhelming public support for that to be the case (like the example I gave previously of the ban on advertising tobacco products).

This instance of the advert being pulled does not strike me as being censorship as it is all being done voluntarily.

DrunkFace wrote:

Who banned this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rn0lwGk4u9o

What's offensive about that? Aboriginees dancing?

DrunkFace wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

Who banned this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rn0lwGk4u9o

What's offensive about that? Aboriginees dancing?

IDK, ask the English, they banned it.

And we're the uptight Puritans

land of the free

Uzique wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

IDK, ask the English, they banned it.

And we're the uptight Puritans

excuse me, who isn't allowed titties on their television?

Bloody hell.

Saying you flat-out cannot advertise Product X is censorship. Saying that a particular advertisement for Product X is 'needlessly offending people, please post a different advertisement' - is just following public wishes.

What is fine for 4chan, isn't going to sit well with Grandma. Match your message to your audience, when you're in advertising and entertainment. Just tell the facts as they appear, in a concise and illuminating narrative, if you're in News.
(And therein lies the distinction between News and Infotainment.  Someone should tell CNN, MSNBC, and Fox...)

A news article showing the aftermath of an Iraqi chemical warfare strike on a Kurdish village, though offensive and upsetting, is appropriate to public discourse.
Using those same images to sell.. dunno..  homeowners insurance or Dr. Scholl's anti-itch powder.. that would be tasteless, and should probably be pulled from public viewing.

Last edited by rdx-fx (2010-09-16 11:01:15)