Britain Bans ‘Harmful’ Gender Stereotypes in Advertisements

[truthatallcost]

LONDON — Hapless husbands and housework-burdened moms are being banished from British advertising, as a crackdown on gender stereotypes comes into force.

From Friday, advertisements must not include “gender stereotypes which are likely to cause harm or serious or widespread offense.”

Examples include depictions of men struggling to complete simple domestic tasks or ads that suggest women are solely responsible for cooking and cleaning.

Complaints will be assessed by the Advertising Standards Authority. British broadcasters are bound by the terms of their licenses to comply with its rulings.

The authority says its aim is not to ban all gender stereotypes but to remove those that are harmful.

Authority chief executive Guy Parker said “put simply, we found that some portrayals in ads can, over time, play a part in limiting people’s potential.”

Britain bans ‘harmful’ gender stereotypes in advertisements

Oh oh, now they're banning 'depictions of gender stereotypes' in Britain. Certainly not a step towards valuing free speech imo. I do roll my eyes occasionally when 3 TV adverts in a row depict a bumbling, clueless husband who has to ask his wife's help in changing the batteries in the remote control, or starting the lawnmower. But is it the job of government to regulate such fluff? Those ads which show men as bumbling idiots are geared towards appealing to women, and getting them to open their pocketbooks. If that's what women want to see, and motivates them to buy things, should government step in to stop it? Same for ads that rely on gender stereotypes of women.

 

[Mycroft]

I hope Parker has a sense of humor.

 

[Daisy]

Oh oh, now they're banning 'depictions of gender stereotypes' in Britain. Certainly not a step towards valuing free speech imo. I do roll my eyes occasionally when 3 TV adverts in a row depict a bumbling, clueless husband who has to ask his wife's help in changing the batteries in the remote control, or starting the lawnmower. But is it the job of government to regulate such fluff? Those ads which show men as bumbling idiots are geared towards appealing to women, and getting them to open their pocketbooks. If that's what women want to see, and motivates them to buy things, should government step in to stop it? Same for ads that rely on gender stereotypes of women.

I'm sure there's a Twilight Zone episode in there somewhere...:roll:

 

[Bodi]

Oh oh, now they're banning 'depictions of gender stereotypes' in Britain. Certainly not a step towards valuing free speech imo. I do roll my eyes occasionally when 3 TV adverts in a row depict a bumbling, clueless husband who has to ask his wife's help in changing the batteries in the remote control, or starting the lawnmower. But is it the job of government to regulate such fluff? Those ads which show men as bumbling idiots are geared towards appealing to women, and getting them to open their pocketbooks. If that's what women want to see, and motivates them to buy things, should government step in to stop it? Same for ads that rely on gender stereotypes of women.

So men act like bumbling idiots to get women to spend money that they would not have... it works, they spend the money after being manipulated by the men... and you complain that men are the victims here?

 

[truthatallcost]

I'm sure there's a Twilight Zone episode in there somewhere...:roll:

That's an old show. There's probably too many gender stereotypes in the Twilight Zone to be aired in Britain. We'll have to edit it so the host of the show is Caitlyn Jenner!

 

[truthatallcost]

So men act like bumbling idiots to get women to spend money that they would not have... it works, they spend the money after being manipulated by the men... and you complain that men are the victims here?

Not necessarily.

 

[Daisy]

That's an old show. There's probably too many gender stereotypes in the Twilight Zone to be aired in Britain. We'll have to edit it so the host of the show is Caitlyn Jenner!

Yeah, but it was beyond its years...Serling was a genius imo...he was good at exposing the human psyche...

 

[Captain Adverse]

Oh oh, now they're banning 'depictions of gender stereotypes' in Britain. Certainly not a step towards valuing free speech imo. I do roll my eyes occasionally when 3 TV adverts in a row depict a bumbling, clueless husband who has to ask his wife's help in changing the batteries in the remote control, or starting the lawnmower. But is it the job of government to regulate such fluff? Those ads which show men as bumbling idiots are geared towards appealing to women, and getting them to open their pocketbooks. If that's what women want to see, and motivates them to buy things, should government step in to stop it? Same for ads that rely on gender stereotypes of women.

The English don't have a guarantee of "Free Speech." (They have some alternate interpretation of speech as a "negative right" allowing regulation of speech to prevent offense.)

The government can, and has, regulated speech time and again. Canada, a member of the English Commonwealth, has regulated speech as well (see Bill C-16).

An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code - Wikipedia

The Brit's know this, and have had to endure restrictions willing or unwilling since...whenever.

OUR Founding Father's opted not to let that happen in our new nation.

We have a Federal Constitution which does guarantee free expression, and the SCOTUS has incorporated this guarantee as applying to the States in a series of rulings over the years.

 

[nekrodev]

Honestly, advertising should just be banned entirely. This is stupid, but it's not like it's really a bad thing, just unnecessary.

 

[Carjosse]

The English don't have a guarantee of "Free Speech." (They have some alternate interpretation of speech as a "negative right" allowing regulation of speech to prevent offense.)

The government can, and has, regulated speech time and again. Canada, a member of the English Commonwealth, has regulated speech as well (see Bill C-16).

An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code - Wikipedia

The Brit's know this, and have had to endure restrictions willing or unwilling since...whenever.

OUR Founding Father's opted not to let that happen in our new nation.

We have a Federal Constitution which does guarantee free expression, and the SCOTUS has incorporated this guarantee as applying to the States in a series of rulings over the years.

And you show ignorance of Canadian law and our constituion. It also guarantees free expression but things like hate speech (eg. advocating the death of protected groups) is seen as a reasonable limit upon that right in the same way yelling fire in a crowded theatre is.

 

[Captain Adverse]

And you show ignorance of Canadian law and our constituion. It also guarantees free expression but things like hate speech (eg. advocating the death of protected groups) is seen as a reasonable limit upon that right in the same way yelling fire in a crowded theatre is.

Actually, that is speech regulation since "hate speech" is often a matter of personal interpretation and personal offense.

So it is NOT the "same thing as yelling fire." Yelling "Fire!" creates a panic caused by a good faith belief one is in imminent danger of death or injury in a fire; which can and often does cause physical harm and damage to property simply due to normal panic reactions.

Someone refusing to refer to someone as "Ze" only causes the person who is demanding this speech personal offense. See the difference?

Meanwhile, I appear to know a little more than you think I do about Bill C-16 because it not only regulates what you can't say, but seems to indicate how you must speak or face penalties for offending the "protected class." Ex. Must use preferred "pronouns."

 

[ttwtt78640]

The English don't have a guarantee of "Free Speech." (They have some alternate interpretation of speech as a "negative right" allowing regulation of speech to prevent offense.)

The government can, and has, regulated speech time and again. Canada, a member of the English Commonwealth, has regulated speech as well (see Bill C-16).

An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code - Wikipedia

The Brit's know this, and have had to endure restrictions willing or unwilling since...whenever.

OUR Founding Father's opted not to let that happen in our new nation.

We have a Federal Constitution which does guarantee free expression, and the SCOTUS has incorporated this guarantee as applying to the States in a series of rulings over the years.

Unless, of course, you wish to show folks actually drinking a beer in our US ads. That kind of free expression must be banned lest folks figure out that beer was made to drink.

 

[Crovax]

And you show ignorance of Canadian law and our constituion. It also guarantees free expression but things like hate speech (eg. advocating the death of protected groups) is seen as a reasonable limit upon that right in the same way yelling fire in a crowded theatre is.

You can yell fire in a crowded theater

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Unless, of course, you wish to show folks actually drinking a beer in our US ads. That kind of free expression must be banned lest folks figure out that beer was made to drink.

Can't blame the libbies for the drinking on TV thing... :lamo
Those were the temperance folks.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Unless, of course, you wish to show folks actually drinking a beer in our US ads. That kind of free expression must be banned lest folks figure out that beer was made to drink.

Did SCOTUS rule on that? Or was that simply a willing acquiescence by the liquor industry so they won't have to deal with a costly legal battle?

 

[Evilroddy]

The English don't have a guarantee of "Free Speech." (They have some alternate interpretation of speech as a "negative right" allowing regulation of speech to prevent offense.)

The government can, and has, regulated speech time and again. Canada, a member of the English Commonwealth, has regulated speech as well (see Bill C-16).

An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code - Wikipedia

The Brit's know this, and have had to endure restrictions willing or unwilling since...whenever.

OUR Founding Father's opted not to let that happen in our new nation.

We have a Federal Constitution which does guarantee free expression, and the SCOTUS has incorporated this guarantee as applying to the States in a series of rulings over the years.

Captain Adverse:

The US Constitution does not guarantee free speech. It's First Amendment prevents the Federal Government from suppressing it and through jurisprudence and the 14th Amendment IIRC that limitation was extended to state governments as well. However there is nothing stopping, a corporation, an organisation, your employer, your patron, other people, etc from stifling your free speech or undertaking reprisals for your exercising of your free speech rights.

Free speech is regularly infringed by governments in America despite the First Amendment through court orders, injunctions, gag orders, copyright and trademark regulation and laws like The Sedition Act. Government organisations like the military, or law enforcement agencies can and do limit the free speech of their members. There are plenty of laws and regulations which limit free speech like the presently much talked about Hatch Act.

So I would not be so smug about feeling superior to either the British or Canadian constitutional systems, despite the hiccups which occasionally come up before they are ironed out. We are some of the happiest, most free and most respected people in the world today and we live in a safe and far more sane society than our American cousins with their empty Cult of the Constitution which is collapsing before statism and authoritarianism and with their love of sociopathic individualism, gun culture, forever-war and their pathological security and surveillance state which is also arming up at an unprecedented rate. Fix your own house before coming to ours to criticise, please.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[Carjosse]

Actually, that is speech regulation since "hate speech" is often a matter of personal interpretation and personal offense.

So it is NOT the "same thing as yelling fire." Yelling "Fire!" creates a panic caused by a good faith belief one is in imminent danger of death or injury in a fire; which can and often does cause physical harm and damage to property simply due to normal panic reactions.

Someone refusing to refer to someone as "Ze" only causes the person who is demanding this speech personal offense. See the difference?

Meanwhile, I appear to know a little more than you think I do about Bill C-16 because it not only regulates what you can't say, but seems to indicate how you must speak or face penalties for offending the "protected class." Ex. Must use preferred "pronouns."

Can't even read your own sources apparently:

According to legal experts, not using preferred pronouns would not meet legal standards for hate speech.

It does make illegal the advocation for genocide of trans people. Canada sees hate speech as a reasonable restriction on freedom of expression as it is incitement of violence.

 

[Casper]

So no Benny Hill reruns?

 

[Evilroddy]

I'm not sure how successful compelled gender sensitivity in ads will be if the Brits are watching re-runs of Beyond the Fringe, the Benny Hill Show, the Frankie Howard Show, Allo! Allo!, Monty Python's FC, Footballers' Wives, The Avengers, or The Young Ones. But hey, knock yourselves out.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Can't blame the libbies for the drinking on TV thing... :lamo
Those were the temperance folks.

There is just no pleasing those temperance folks.

 

[Crovax]

Unless, of course, you wish to show folks actually drinking a beer in our US ads. That kind of free expression must be banned lest folks figure out that beer was made to drink.

Actually I’m surprised the smoking ad ban has never been challenged, it’s clearly a violation of the 1st amendment

 

[Acadia]

Actually, that is speech regulation since "hate speech" is often a matter of personal interpretation and personal offense.

So it is NOT the "same thing as yelling fire." Yelling "Fire!" creates a panic caused by a good faith belief one is in imminent danger of death or injury in a fire; which can and often does cause physical harm and damage to property simply due to normal panic reactions.

Someone refusing to refer to someone as "Ze" only causes the person who is demanding this speech personal offense. See the difference?

Meanwhile, I appear to know a little more than you think I do about Bill C-16 because it not only regulates what you can't say, but seems to indicate how you must speak or face penalties for offending the "protected class." Ex. Must use preferred "pronouns."

It's compelled speech and very frightening. It's like Canadians don't want to wrap their heads around the enormity of the affront to personal freedom.
Well, except Jordan Peterson and his ilk.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Did SCOTUS rule on that? Or was that simply a willing acquiescence by the liquor industry so they won't have to deal with a costly legal battle?

I have no idea if the SCOTUS got involved, but would hope they would not allow such nonsense. With so many ads for "dietary supplements" it is amazing that beer can't be advertised as one - with the proper fine print disclaimer, of course.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Actually I’m surprised the smoking ad ban has never been challenged, it’s clearly a violation of the 1st amendment

The freedom loving feds would likely just crank up the excise (sin?) tax.

 

[Crovax]

I have no idea if the SCOTUS got involved, but would hope they would not allow such nonsense. With so many ads for "dietary supplements" it is amazing that beer can't be advertised as one - with the proper fine print disclaimer, of course.

There is no law or FCC regulation about drinking in advertisements

Neil Patrick Harris Heineken ad: We can't drink on TV | PunditFact