Adverts which use sex to sell or promote gender stereotypes could be banned by the EU

[The Straight Story]

EU wants to ban 'sexist' TV commercials
Adverts which use sex to sell or promote gender stereotypes could be banned by the EU.

MEPs want TV regulators in the EU to set guidelines which would see the end of anything deemed to portray women as sex objects or reinforce gender stereotypes.

This could potentially mean an end to attractive women advertising perfume, housewives in the kitchen or men doing DIY.

Such classic adverts as the Diet Coke commercial featuring the bare-chested builder, or Wonderbra's "Hello Boys" featuring model Eva Herzigova would have been banned.

The new rules come in a report by the EU's women's rights committee.

Swedish MEP Eva-Britt Svensson urged Britain and other members to use existing equality, sexism and discrimination laws to control advertising.

She wants regulatory bodies set up to monitor ads and introduce a "zero-tolerance" policy against "sexist insults or degrading images".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/2686538/EU-wants-to-ban-sexist-TV-commercials.html

[Rabrrrrrr]

1. Wow - that's pretty fuckin' dumb

[robcon]

2. Ridiculous.

PC thinking gone amuck.

[grannie4peace]

3. i thought most of their commercials used sex even more than our do

[mainegreen]

4. Holy fucking nanny state Batman!

It's one thing for the government to sponsor their own ads promoting gender equality and discourage sexism, it's another thing entirely to start controlling free speech 'for your own good'.

[The Straight Story]

5. That's how it started with smoking bans, and since a lot of folks bought into that

now the door is open to having the government save us from ourselves in everything....

[mainegreen]

7. This is one of those areas where often I find myself on the libertarians side,

as opposed to the democrats.

Honestly, people have a right to be the most fucked up, self destructive douchebags they can possibly be, as long as it only hurts themselves. And frankly people have to take a responsibility for their own actions. TV, videogames, commercials and everything else don't make people do things.

The whole smoking ban thing is difficult. I tend to agree with its implementation in public indoor places. Hospitals, the work environment, universities, no place for ciggies. People have no choice to be there. Bars and restaurants are another matter. Nobody is making you go there and frankly the whiny 'I should be able to go into any private commercial enterprise on MY terms' annoys the fuck out of me.

[The Straight Story]

11. I totally agree with you

:toast:

[tburnsten]

15. I am tracking

While I am not a smoker (pisses me off when someone lights up in my vehicle or home without asking to no end) I do strongly support people's right to lead their own lifestyles, and I agree that in at bars, clubs, other 18 or 21+ venues, they should have a process so they can allow smoking inside, provided adequate ventilation systems to avoid smothering and adequate signage so that no prospective customers don't know it is a smoking establishment.


Restaraunts I don't know about as much, mainly because people bring in their kids all the time, so they too should require signage so no one "accidentally" brings their asthmatic six year old twins to dinner there.

[robcon]

6. It's not a free speech issue. It's a common sense issue.

Commercial speech is not "free." Businesses can be prosecuted for lying, making false claims, mislabeling and other deceptive practices - at least in the U.S., and I believe, in the EU. So there has never been free commercial speech - only free political speech.

The problem with this idiotic idea is that it creates an arbiter of "taste" (not commercial speech "accuracy.") That is an abomination in a free society.

There is no, nor should there be, prohibition against poor taste, nor should some people be "protected" from being offended.

[mainegreen]

9. Businesses do have free speech.

It's not a strong a right as a persons, but even people in this country have limitations; aka the shouting fire in a crowded theater. For a business, lying and false claims are sort of in line with that: the speech causes unacceptable direct damage. I agree, though, you distill the issue nicely: the creation of an arbiter of taste is an abomination. That's what the conservative christians are always trying to do here and it really pisses me off.

[robcon]

10. I disagree with the idea that commercial speech is free.

Unlike political speech, commercial speech can be pre-censored... for example a drug company MUST use the language the FDA requires in drug ads, beer/wine/liquor ads cannot show anyone who "looks" less than 21 in their ads, car companies must show drivers wearing seatbelts in their ads, etc.

Restricting truthful commercial speech has a long history in the country, and has been upheld by the courts.

[Romulox]

12. There is no such thing as an absolute right--not as individuals, and not as to businesses

Commercial speech is indeed protected by the First Amendment, albeit at a slightly reduced level from non-commercial speech. The examples you mention likely are disposed of by appeal to the FTC's mandate to regulate "deceptive" advertising--e.g. to not include major side effects in a drug ad while highlighting the drug's benefit is deceptive.

[tburnsten]

14. Some of that is for consumer protection

especially in the FDA requirements, whether it is a good thing or not.


Like a Lieutenant, excellent initiative, poor judgement (or execution, depending on your version).

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. Complete distortion from the Telegraph - you can't trust them reporting EU matters

They are very anti-EU, and will lie about anything to do with it to put forward their case.

Here's a report from a marketing trade paper, who are therefore more likely to actually report it objectively to those who work in the area:

EU calls on governments to monitor gender stereotypes in advertising

The European Parliament voted today in favour of a report on how marketing affects equality between men and women and perpetuates gender stereotypes. The EU report, drafted by the Women's Rights Committee, was adopted with 504 votes in favour, 110 against and 22 abstentions.

The Committee is calling on member states to launch education initiatives with the aim of ending gender stereotypes, which 'significantly disparages the relationship between men and women'.
...
Although not legally binding, the EU will now send a set of recommendations to the government to enforce tighter monitoring of the use of nudity and gender stereotypes in marketing campaigns. Labour MEP Mary Honeyball said it is also possible that the European Commission will use the report to draft new legislation.

MEPs are calling on the EU institutions and member states to develop awareness actions against sexist insults or degrading images of women and men in marketing.

http://www.brandrepublic.com/Discipline/Advertising/News/843590/EU-calls-governments-monitor-gender-stereotypes-advertising/

See - 'ban' is a lie. And note that the parliament removed some paragraphs from the earlier report - including this one:

"9. draws attention in particular to the need to eliminate messages conveying gender
stereotypes from textbooks, toys, TV games and TV advertising;"

[lukasahero]

18. Thank you for presenting the FACTs

I just wouldn't expect anyone else to actually read them before commenting.

[tburnsten]

13. But it's so funny!

I think the whole "PC" culture wave has gone more than far enough, equal opportunity laws are fantastic provided they do not do things like mandate percentages of employee makeup.


The good news is that in twenty or thirty years all European advertising will be REQUIRED to feature sexy nurses and men mowing lawns and fixing storm drains!

[Cerridwen]

16. Would the people on this thread who have a problem with this

ban - that isn't a ban - have the same problem if it were addressing racial, ethnic, or religious stereotypes? Would you be screaming "PC Police" if it were about how Jewish people are portrayed in advertising? Or how non-white peoples are portrayed in advertising? What about how people of the working class are portrayed?

Based on muriel's post, it looks as though a bunch of people who understand the impact advertising can have on a society are having a grown up discussion about their responsibility to their society; and are addressing it.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

17. If it were a ban rather than guidelines then yes.

I think that racist and sexist adverts are generally a bad thing.

I think that advising and requesting people not to make racist or sexist adverts is a good idea.

I think that compelling people not to make racist or sexist adverts is generally a bad idea, except in the more extreme cases.

[Cerridwen]

19. As already noted, it's not a ban.

So, you'd be okay with Jews being portrayed as they were in 30s Germany; one man's advertising is another man's propaganda. (I use this particular example because it is widely known) Perhaps they could even use whatever the EU version of 'nigger' and 'faggot' is, in their advertising. You'd be okay with that?

You can't ban poor taste or any of the isms, but you can make an unwelcoming environment for people who want to wallow in it.


edit: forgot a word

[Donald Ian Rankin]

20. I think you're deliberately ignoring much of what I wrote.

To refresh your memory:

"I think that racist and sexist adverts are generally a bad thing.

I think that advising and requesting people not to make racist or sexist adverts is a good idea.

I think that compelling people not to make racist or sexist adverts is generally a bad idea, except in the more extreme cases."



So you should be able to answer your own question from that; the answer is "no, for two reasons"

1) That's clearly a "more extreme case".
2) As I said, "I think that racist and sexist adverts are generally a bad thing."

Don't confuse or conflate "no wanting to make something illegal" with "being OK with it".

[Cerridwen]

21. Apparently I was too subtle.

I thought the examples I gave in the post to which you replied made it pretty clear what I was referring to and that I was talking about the extremes. Since you didn't seem to see what I was saying, I spelled out what I had previously stated.

Too bad those "extremes" are rarely recognized when it's about "just women."

You're not "okay" with the extremes but you don't want to "make something illegal". Cool, it would appear that we're in agreement with how the EU is handling this. They appear to have chosen to advise and educate rather than legislate.

[dysfunctional press]

22. so...what would ads consisit of? it sounds like an extremely ignorant policy.

whadda buncha douchebags...:eyes: