This year has been a great one for the U.K.’s Advertising Standards Authority. On a ban-happy high, they’ve forbidden ads left and right, from Dakota Fanning’s Marc Jacobs ad to an ad featuring a “too skinny” model in a bikini. Just when you thought the ban police were finito, the ASA finds yet another ad to be unhappy with.
This time, the ASA banned a plastic surgery advertisement because it “slyly targets young, impressionable girls.” The ad looks like a magazine cover with the word “COSMETIC” across the top in neon print, looking nearly identical to a top magazine — Cosmopolitan. In colorful pink and aqua, the ad promotes “BOOB JOBS” and “SAME DAY SURGERY” with the tagline, “get more, pay less!”
The posters have been scattered around at different bus stops throughout London. They were a part of a new campaign sparked by Spire Healthcare promoting a same-day plastic surgery service at one of its 37 private hospitals. Already, the ASA received 10 formal complaints about the ad, eventually ruling that it “conveyed the message that breast surgery was a straightforward, risk-free lifestyle decision” for young, impressionable girls. [via Huffington Post]
While the ASA definitely seems to have a banning addiction, I do agree with the decision. The posters look like a magazine that teens would pick up. The girl on the poster herself can’t be more than 18, early 20s at oldest. Young women might see this girl around their age featured on an ad that looks like the cover of a magazine, and think, “Maybe that’s what I need to do to be considered beautiful.” I don’t believe that the healthcare service shouldn’t be able to advertise their surgeries. They just have to consider a better way to do it, one that doesn’t look like a magazine for teens. That’s just my take.
Sidenote: I now seriously wonder how much money ASA workers get paid per pulled ad? Maybe they have to make a quota of banned ads by the end of each fiscal year or something, because they have really gone ban-crazy. This ad I can see getting pulled. A teen posing on a train track, not so much.
What do you think of the ASA’s decision? Are they a little too ban-happy these days, or do their decisions actually make sense?
guest
If it were America, I’d say it was going against our basic rights to freedom of speech but I don’t know if they have the same rights in other countries. I think censorship in any form is wrong, so I’m against it.
rose / 791 posts
@dream_guru5@xanga - England doesn’t have complete freedom of speech – for example, you can be arrested for hate speech and we’ve banned any members of the Wesboro’ Baptist Church from entering our country.
As for the advert, I don’t agree with most of the ASA’s decisions. They are a little over the top when it comes to banning things. It’s too “nanny state” for my liking. We should be capable of making decisions for ourselves, and if these adverts are a “bad influence on children”, then PARENTS should step in, not the government and advertising agencies.
guest
I think the bans are ridiculous. I agree with written_conversations that it is a bit too “nanny state”/”big brother” for my liking. It is not the government’s job to ensure that everyone feels beautiful and secure in themselves.
guest
@written_conversations@xanga - I am curious: what qualifies as “hate speech”? For instance, I have several friends who are very close to me, who are homosexual. I love them, and love spending time with them, and that’s why we’re friends. However, I am very open about the fact that I consider a homosexual lifestyle to be sinful. If I were to publicly say so, would that be considered “hate” speech, even though I do not hate them and actually love them (and they would say that I love them, too)?
And, to clarify..I do not assume that would be.
But I am curious where the line is drawn. Is it drawn at intention, or what is actually said..?
Maybe it would be helpful to compare it someone who is friends with someone who uses marajuana, even though they themselves would never use marajuana. Obviously, people have different takes on that issue–but it would not stop them from being friends, necessarily.
guest
@GreenTeaReverie@xanga - I don’t think there is a clear definition. You’re not arrested on the street for saying hateful things, but you can be sued and then it is up to the judge to decide wether or not you were being hateful. I lived in London for a while but I never heard of anyone getting arrested for anything of the kind. Where I live now, racism is illegal and people have been arrested for making racist statements in the media.
rose / 791 posts
@GreenTeaReverie@xanga - Well, a brief google search comes up with this “Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person’s colour, race, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, or sexual orientation is forbidden.”, and that punishments include fines and imprisonment.
However, I think actual CONVICTIONS depend on the judge involved and the circumstances involved as well, y’know? Like, some people will get off with a warning, others with community service and a small fine, whereas others will be jailed for it. I mean, picketing (like the WBC tend to do) would be completely illegal here, and it’s a major reason why their church members have been banned from entering the country completely.
guest
@written_conversations@xanga - So…I would not be able to publicly say that homosexuality is a sin? I am not trying to start anything at all, by the way. It is just interesting to know.
rose / 791 posts
@GreenTeaReverie@xanga - I honestly don’t know! I mean, I’ve never heard of anybody getting arrested for it, but then again I’m sure it’s happened. I think it depends how you say it – whether you’re saying it just to upset people, or whether you’re maybe explaining it or something? That’s just a guess though, haha.
guest
The whole concept of that is shameful. That should of never been a cover ever.