Current Events > Britain is attacking free speech again

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/07/18/world/europe/britain-ads-gender-stereotypes.html

I like how this says nothing about sexual objectification of men, which is very much a thing.

Does Britain have free speech to begin with? I mean, don't they have some super weird rules about viewing pornography and stuff like that?
---

Monday posted...

Does Britain have free speech to begin with? I mean, don't they have some super weird rules about viewing pornography and stuff like that?

In a sense, we do.

We just don't classify hate speech as free speech. Which I can understand makes it seem like we don't have full free speech, and I wouldn't really disagree with you too much.

And yes, the tories introduced stupid laws on what pornography can be made in the UK. And want to introduce more idiocy into IDs for who can see it online.
---

Is it even possible to sexually objectify men? :u I thought they liked it.
---

A third ad, for the video game “Game of War,” showed the American actress Kate Upton scantily dressed on a horse

Oh just take my money!
---

OpheliaAdenade posted...

Is it even possible to sexually objectify men? :u I thought they liked it.

Ok, now I see the gimmick. Noted.
---

Funkydog posted...

We just don't classify hate speech as free speech

Hahabahah
---

OpheliaAdenade posted...

I thought they liked it.

Not all of us are show-offs.

what a joke

CrimsonRage posted...

Mandasnake posted...

Funkydog posted...

We just don't classify hate speech as free speech

Hahabahah

What's so funny?

Hate speech is one of the most important parts of free speech.
---

Mandasnake posted...

Hate speech is one of the most important parts of free speech.

I dont particularly disagree. But our government believes otherwise.
---

What a joke. This is truly oppressive and anti freedom at its core
---

Also. I keep getting told feminism isn't a problem. This is pretty clearly a problem. Wtf man.
---

The fuck?
---

CrimsonRage posted...

It really depends what's being classified as "hate speech."

The type of hate speech Europe is afraid is the kind that led to World War II and the Holocaust. Don't underestimate how much that war traumatised the continent.

Idgaf.

Hate speech should be legal.
---

Mandasnake posted...

CrimsonRage posted...

It really depends what's being classified as "hate speech."

The type of hate speech Europe is afraid is the kind that led to World War II and the Holocaust. Don't underestimate how much that war traumatised the continent.

Idgaf.

Clearly a reasonable person.
---

You don't need free speech rights for speech you don't find offensive. People already agree with it, so it is less likely to require protection. You need free speech rights for the speech that you are unsure and uncomfortable about, and even moreso if you hate it. Speech that differs from your own helps prevent groupthink that can lead to everyone going along with religious persecutions, political and social censorship and other types of oppression.
---

Lorenzo_2003 posted...

You don't need free speech rights for speech you don't find offensive. People already agree with it, so it is less likely to require protection. You need free speech rights for the speech that you are unsure and uncomfortable about, and even moreso if you hate it. Speech that differs from your own helps prevent groupthink that can lead to everyone going along with religious persecutions, political and social censorship and other types of oppression.

I believe the issue is that Europe has seen many times (in living memory) of people rallying around hate speech and committing genocide on several occasions. Like it or not, it is likely an underlying fear in the minds of some rather than them wanting to control us like some tyrant.
---

Capn Circus posted...

This is truly oppressive and anti freedom at its core

I don't see how.

I don't get it.

The article refers almost entirely on changing standards for marketing ads.
It doesn't mention hate speech...so why bring it up?
---

Jesus fuck let's attack britain and make dunkirk look like a funny joke four nukes were not enough
---

ClockworkHare posted...

I don't get it.

The article refers almost entirely on changing standards for marketing ads.
It doesn't mention hate speech...so why bring it up?

It was asked if we have free speech here, and we do in the sense that we just don't include hate speech in it. So was answering that. I don't think by itself, it is relevant to the issue though and wouldn't be surprised to see similar standards implemented in America either.
---

we don't really have freedom of speech

iirc inciting religious or ethnic hatred, along with extreme hate speech is illegal
---

Parappa09 posted...

we don't really have freedom of speech

iirc inciting religious or ethnic hatred, along with extreme hate speech is illegal

Well, inciting hatred or harm in general I think?

GOATTHlEF posted...

How do Tories ever get into power?

Older people vote more than younger people? Many also think Labour incompetent and not actually able to lead effective etc. etc. Both are main parties are similar on issues of basic rights etc, typically. It is just the way in governing they differ - and both are full of old people who don't understand the modern world.
---

This is yet another example of why hate speech is a critical component of free speech. It's stunning just how quickly "hate speech" broadens to include offensive speech, then "harmful speech." Pretty soon it's a crime to even depict traditional gender characteristics. Pretty soon your right to free speech has regressed a few hundred years. May as well toss out the British Bill of Rights and go back to the Magna Carta.

I don't particularly like stereotypes in advertising but outlawing it absurd. I hope you Brits are fighting this.
---

Polycosm posted...

I hope you Brits are fighting this.

i mean have you seen the state of the country post-brexit vote?

this is the least of our worries. but also it's not a bad thing either, i know sweden have similar rules in place with gender and advertising
---

Why do people keep using American values and shit to justify telling Europeans how they should run their countries?

It makes absolutely zero sense
---

Samurontai posted...

Why do people keep using American values and shit to justify telling Europeans how they should run their countries?

It makes absolutely zero sense

For everyone's sake, I'd very much like to see a world where freedom of speech isn't a uniquely American value.
---

Unattractive women who sees good looking woman with less clothing or sexualized is why this kind of shit articles even happen.

Things you don't fuck with is artistic freedom. If we do, then lets get rid of all other art forms as well. All paintings, statues etc. All should go.
---

So done with this world and genders and everything
---

"You can say whatever you want as long as it isn't that."
---

Polycosm posted...

Samurontai posted...

Why do people keep using American values and shit to justify telling Europeans how they should run their countries?

It makes absolutely zero sense

For everyone's sake, I'd very much like to see a world where freedom of speech isn't a uniquely American value.

Well said. By calling free speech an "American" value, that is in a way complementing the US while simultaneously insulting the rest of the world.
---

CrimsonRage posted...

Samurontai posted...

Why do people keep using American values and shit to justify telling Europeans how they should run their countries?

It makes absolutely zero sense

Americans don't like seeing Europeans doing their own thing in running their countries and seeing it working.

Are you saying that European, Canadian, Australian and other citizens of other countries do not throw frequent criticisms and comparisons at the US and do not often suggest dismantling various Constitutional rights such as the right to bear arms?
---

Polycosm posted...

I don't particularly like stereotypes in advertising but outlawing it absurd.

LMAO at "outlawing".

Literally turning into a thought police country.
---

l Dudeboy l posted...

Literally turning into a thought police country.

How dramatic can you be?

I prefer the term realistic.
---

I bet this makes ballerinas just feel great.
---

l Dudeboy l posted...

I prefer the term realistic.

You can prefer to say the moon is made of cheese, it's still false.

JE19426 posted...

Polycosm posted...

I don't particularly like stereotypes in advertising but outlawing it absurd.

LMAO at "outlawing".

From the article:
"Britain’s advertising regulator, reacting to these ads and similar ones, announced Tuesday that new rules would be developed to ban advertising that promotes gender stereotypes or denigrates people who do not conform to them; sexually objectifies women; or promotes unhealthy body images."

Direct from the ASA report (page 63):
"CAP will develop new standards on ads that feature stereotypical gender roles or characteristics which, through their content and context, might be potentially harmful to people."
(link: https://www.asa.org.uk/asset/2DF6E028-9C47-4944-850D00DAC5ECB45B.C3A4D948-B739-4AE4-9F17CA2110264347)

The intention to ban stereotypes could not be made any more clear. If Britain's Committee of Advertising Practice follows this recommendation then the Advertising Standards Authority will start enforcing the rule later this year.

So yes, it very well could be outlawed, i.e. banned or made illegal through administrative law.
---

JE19426 posted...

l Dudeboy l posted...

I prefer the term realistic.

You can prefer to say the moon is made of cheese, it's still false.

Uh huh.
---

Polycosm posted...

From the article:
"Britain’s advertising regulator, reacting to these ads and similar ones, announced Tuesday that new rules would be developed to ban advertising that promotes gender stereotypes or denigrates people who do not conform to them; sexually objectifies women; or promotes unhealthy body images."

Direct from the ASA report (page 63):
"CAP will develop new standards on ads that feature stereotypical gender roles or characteristics which, through their content and context, might be potentially harmful to people."
(link: https://www.asa.org.uk/asset/2DF6E028-9C47-4944-850D00DAC5ECB45B.C3A4D948-B739-4AE4-9F17CA2110264347)

The intention to ban stereotypes could not be made any more clear. If Britain's Committee of Advertising Practice follows this recommendation then the Advertising Standards Authority will start enforcing the rule later this year.

So yes, it very well could be outlawed, i.e. banned or made illegal through administrative law.

Except for the fact that neither the Committee of Advertising Practice, nor the Advertising Standards Authority, have the ability to make or enforce laws.

JE19426 posted...

Polycosm posted...

From the article:
"Britain’s advertising regulator, reacting to these ads and similar ones, announced Tuesday that new rules would be developed to ban advertising that promotes gender stereotypes or denigrates people who do not conform to them; sexually objectifies women; or promotes unhealthy body images."

Direct from the ASA report (page 63):
"CAP will develop new standards on ads that feature stereotypical gender roles or characteristics which, through their content and context, might be potentially harmful to people."
(link: https://www.asa.org.uk/asset/2DF6E028-9C47-4944-850D00DAC5ECB45B.C3A4D948-B739-4AE4-9F17CA2110264347)

The intention to ban stereotypes could not be made any more clear. If Britain's Committee of Advertising Practice follows this recommendation then the Advertising Standards Authority will start enforcing the rule later this year.

So yes, it very well could be outlawed, i.e. banned or made illegal through administrative law.

Except for the fact that neither the Committee of Advertising Practice, nor the Advertising Standards Authority, have the ability to make or enforce laws.

The CAP has the ability to make regulations. The ASA has the ability to enforce them. Regulations carry with them the force of the law; that's why they're enforceable. If an advertiser fails to follow the rules set by CAP then they do so outside of the protection of the law, as Britain's free speech law does not protect them.
---

Polycosm posted...

The CAP has the ability to make regulations.

They make meaningless ones sure.

The ASA has the ability to enforce them.

Wrong.

Regulations carry with them the force of the law;

Not when they are made by CAP.

Okay, wait a second... my understanding of the agencies was incorrect. JE19426, thank you for the persistent pushback, because you inspired me to dig past the nytimes article.

Here's what tripped me up, from the NY Times:
"The Advertising Standards Authority, an independent body, will then enforce those rules."

I assumed, from this statement, that the ASA had a legitimate enforcement mechanism (e.g. administrative law) behind them. But in fact, it looks like all they do is publish your name on their website and try to shame you if you break CAP's rules.

So, you're absolutely right that this isn't outlawing anything. It would appear that the CAP and ASA have no legal teeth after all.
---