• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Britain Bans ‘Harmful’ Gender Stereotypes in Advertisements

Carjosse said:
Advocation of genocide is incitement of violence which is why it is illegal. Just because Canada has a more formal concept of reasonable limits upon rights than the US does not mean we lack real freedom of expression.
Click to expand...

What you lack are coherent, robust, and principled legal protections of real freedom of speech and expression. As I have discovered, some of the "nicest people" are the worst school marm rule disciplinarians, and 'be nice' and don't say bad things or get a whack from the nanny state mentality is embraced north of the border.

So it's no surprise you had the infamous "Section 13" persecutions under your "Human Rights" commission. And it's no surprise that Canada's legal structure rests on velvet authoritarianism wherein the person really has no rights at all because it ultimately rests on sand; the state determines if your exercise of a right is "reasonable" or not, which is to say it is no different than the Soviet Union's same so-called right of free speech. "Reasonable" is a subjective mush term, utterly arbitrary to the whims of the state and its enforcement agents.

Canada does not have a more "formal" concept of 'reasonable limits' because that phrase is utterly dependent on what the ruler says is reasonable. Take genocide (your example). In the US it is unlawful to actually direct people who will (or likely will) follow your orders to specifically kill anyone, regardless of genocidal intent. However because we have (in theory) an absolute right to freely express our opinions, hopes, dreams, or speculations to anyone willing to listen the litmus test is if the speech was intended, likely, and imminently cause harm or death to another. THIS is a recognition that their is a difference between offensive rhetoric and orders to a willing mob to kill all the white people at a rally.

In Canada, however, simply expressing a desire for a policy to end a particular (not all) "groups" of people, can be prosecuted as advocating genocide. I may, for example, write "Israel should sterilize all the Muslims in its jurisdictions and occupied territories" and that can land me in prison. I'm advocating genocide, but there I am not inciting Israel, nor is it likely to cause Israel to do so.

In short, Canadian laws against hate speech and genocide are nothing more than "I don't like to hear that stuff" laws.
 
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) is the self-regulatory organisation of the advertising industry in the United Kingdom. The ASA is a non-statutory organisation and so cannot interpret or enforce legislation. However, its code of advertising practice[1] broadly reflects legislation in many instances. The ASA is not funded by the British government, but by a levy on the advertising industry.

Advertising Standards Authority (United Kingdom) - Wikipedia
 
Infinite Chaos said:
So the newspaper headline is a lie and you just fall for it, repeat it here and fool lots of other posters into thinking this is a government ban on free speech.



Here is where you lied to the American posters who've fallen for your fake news thread.
Click to expand...

This move follows London's ban on advertisements which contain slim models, and a ban on food advertising the Mayor doesn't like. It also follows this year's move by U.K. regulators to play nanny over what people are allowed to see and do online.

The regulation imposes a duty of care on affected sites, holding them liable for restricting “behaviours which are harmful but not necessarily illegal”. Jim Killock, the executive director of the Open Rights Group, said: “The government’s proposals would create state regulation of the speech of millions of British citizens. We have to expect that the duty of care will end up widely drawn, with serious implications for legal content that is deemed potentially risky, whether it really is nor not.”

Internet crackdown raises fears for free speech in Britain | Technology | The Guardian
Click to expand...

So those in your country who embody the overreaching, overreacting nanny complex have simply forced the advertising industry into regulating speech. Oh wow, Britons have NOTHING to worry about then IC.
 
truthatallcost said:
This move follows London's ban on advertisements which contain slim models, and a ban on food advertising the Mayor doesn't like. It also follows this year's move by U.K. regulators to play nanny over what people are allowed to see and do online.



So those in your country who embody the overreaching, overreacting nanny complex have simply forced the advertising industry into regulating speech. Oh wow, Britons have NOTHING to worry about then IC.
Click to expand...
So when you can't refute the fact that you've been caught lying once again, you try to weasel out of your precarious position with a gish gallop that's just as dishonest.

Well, we already know that so you need not constantly demonstrate it.
 
Chagos said:
So when you can't refute the fact that you've been caught lying once again, you try to weasel out of your precarious position with a gish gallop that's just as dishonest.

Well, we already know that so you need not constantly demonstrate it.
Click to expand...

a·nal-re·ten·tive
PSYCHOANALYSIS
adjective
1.
(of a person) excessively orderly and fussy (supposedly owing to conflict over toilet-training in infancy).
noun
1.
a person who is excessively orderly and fussy.
 
truthatallcost said:
This move follows London's ban on advertisements which contain slim models, and a ban on food advertising the Mayor doesn't like. It also follows this year's move by U.K. regulators to play nanny over what people are allowed to see and do online.
Click to expand...

Who ruled the London ban on those adverts? The govt or the independent self regulation organisation? You mention U.K. regulators - do you know what the word "regulation" means?

truthatallcost said:
So those in your country who embody the overreaching, overreacting nanny complex have simply forced the advertising industry into regulating speech. Oh wow, Britons have NOTHING to worry about then IC.
Click to expand...

How does that link demonstrate that the Govt imposed the ban your O.P. suggests?
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Who ruled the London ban on those adverts? The govt or the independent self regulation organisation? You mention U.K. regulators - do you know what the word "regulation" means?
Click to expand...

More of your usual nitpick IC, reminiscent of my thread in which you argued a thief & charlatan who practiced as a doctor in your country was certainly properly 'educated', because she'd received a degree from a third world country in biology. Ah yes, in some parallel universe where common sense isn't valued or attainable, I suppose you have a point.


How does that link demonstrate that the Govt imposed the ban your O.P. suggests?
Click to expand...

'is it the job of government to regulate such fluff?' isn't the same as saying the government will regulate it. I can play your game if you like.
 
truthatallcost said:
More of your usual nitpick IC, reminiscent of my thread in which you argued a thief & charlatan who practiced as a doctor in your country was certainly properly 'educated', because she'd received a degree from a third world country in biology. Ah yes, in some parallel universe where common sense isn't valued or attainable, I suppose you have a point.




'is it the job of government to regulate such fluff?' isn't the same as saying the government will regulate it. I can play your game if you like.
Click to expand...
None of this leads away from the fact that you lied in your OP, no matter how much you now try to weasel out of that demonstrated fact by your usual dishonest antics, such as here.
 
Chagos said:
None of this leads away from the fact that you lied in your OP, no matter how much you now try to weasel out of that demonstrated fact by your usual dishonest antics, such as here.
Click to expand...

I don't take offense when liars accuse me of lying, in fact I find it amusing!
 
Re: Britain Bans ‘Harmful’ Gender Stereotypes in Advertisements

CAP's new rule banning harmful gender stereotypes in ads has come into force.

Ban on harmful gender stereotypes in ads comes into force

Zomg! Now ASA is lying too! What's this world coming to, I tells ya...


Ban on harmful gender stereotypes in ads comes into force - ASA | CAP
 
Re: Britain Bans ‘Harmful’ Gender Stereotypes in Advertisements

None of which takes anything from the fact that the presented OP (stating that BRITAIN bans) was a lie.
 
Re: Britain Bans ‘Harmful’ Gender Stereotypes in Advertisements

Quoting sloppy journalism is as little a surprise as sloppy journalism is of itself. With neither having any excuse.
 
truthatallcost said:
~ I suppose you have a point.
Click to expand...

You fooled several Americans with an anti-UK story. That's all you achieved and now you're failing at weaselling out of it.


truthatallcost said:
'is it the job of government to regulate such fluff?' isn't the same as saying the government will regulate it. I can play your game if you like.
Click to expand...

Stop prevaricating. You made up a false premise and used a rubbish newspaper headline for a fake thread. You fooled several Americans and nobody else.
 
nekrodev said:
Honestly, advertising should just be banned entirely. This is stupid, but it's not like it's really a bad thing, just unnecessary.
Click to expand...

It can be hilariously funny too. But I agree, commercials are often irritating as hell. That is why I record almost all shows on TV that have commercials so that I can fast forward them.
 
Peter King said:
It can be hilariously funny too. But I agree, commercials are often irritating as hell. That is why I record almost all shows on TV that have commercials so that I can fast forward them.
Click to expand...

The Catch 22 here is that without those irritatingly annoying commercials, most shows on TV would most likely cease to exist.

Advertising greases the wheels, so to speak - a necessary evil.
 
Snazzy said:
The Catch 22 here is that without those irritatingly annoying commercials, most shows on TV would most likely cease to exist.

Advertising greases the wheels, so to speak - a necessary evil.
Click to expand...

That is why I also have netflix LOL.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
You fooled several Americans with an anti-UK story. That's all you achieved and now you're failing at weaselling out of it.




Stop prevaricating. You made up a false premise and used a rubbish newspaper headline for a fake thread. You fooled several Americans and nobody else.
Click to expand...

Yes, it was all part of the grand conspiracy I cooked up with Forbes, Time magazine, and the New York Post. We spent several months and millions of dollars in order to fool a handful of people on Debate Politics. Victory is ours!

giphy.gif
 
truthatallcost said:
Yes, it was all part of the grand conspiracy I cooked up with Forbes, Time magazine, and the New York Post. We spent several months and millions of dollars in order to fool a handful of people on Debate Politics. Victory is ours!

giphy.gif
Click to expand...

Or it proves you fell for a fake news story and then you went on to fool several American posters with this thread. Whichever version - the lie remains and your interpretation that I quoted remain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom