Recently the Advertising Standards Authority of the United Kingdom banned a television advertisement for a computer manufacturer because of eight complaints they received about it.
Not eight thousands. Or eight hundred. Eight complaints.
(Isn't it curious how a mere eight people can cause what I'm sure is tens of thousands of pounds of losses to a company just by filing some complaints?)
The ad was banned, according to the ASA, because it "presents gender stereotypes in a way that was likely to cause harm."
So what exactly appears in the ad, that may potentially "cause" harm by perpetuating gender stereotypes?
Did the ad, for example, depict women as incompetent when using computers, and needing the help of men to fix something? No.
Did the ad show or say something about men being good with computers and technically proficient, and/or the opposite for women? No.
Did the ad, in fact, show any women at all, or refer to women (or men) in any way, shape or form? No.
And that seems to actually be the problem: The ad doesn't say or imply via images anything at all about people or their genders, or anything, but the "problem" is that three people appear in the ad, and all three of them are men.
That's it. Nothing is implied, nothing is said or shown that would in any way, shape or form refer to the gender of these people. They are just very short clips of different people (three in total), that just happen to be male, and that's it. The voiceover talks about how these computers are for players, editors, music creators, etc.
But seemingly this "presents gender stereotypes in a way that was likely to cause harm", because none of those three people (who appear on screen for just a few seconds) were female. What "harm" does this cause? Who knows. But it surely does.
Because a whopping eight people complained about it.
The United Kingdom has no constitution, and therefore the government is free to restrict speech and ban whatever they want. The United Kingdom is a police state, not a free constitutional country.
Not eight thousands. Or eight hundred. Eight complaints.
(Isn't it curious how a mere eight people can cause what I'm sure is tens of thousands of pounds of losses to a company just by filing some complaints?)
The ad was banned, according to the ASA, because it "presents gender stereotypes in a way that was likely to cause harm."
So what exactly appears in the ad, that may potentially "cause" harm by perpetuating gender stereotypes?
Did the ad, for example, depict women as incompetent when using computers, and needing the help of men to fix something? No.
Did the ad show or say something about men being good with computers and technically proficient, and/or the opposite for women? No.
Did the ad, in fact, show any women at all, or refer to women (or men) in any way, shape or form? No.
And that seems to actually be the problem: The ad doesn't say or imply via images anything at all about people or their genders, or anything, but the "problem" is that three people appear in the ad, and all three of them are men.
That's it. Nothing is implied, nothing is said or shown that would in any way, shape or form refer to the gender of these people. They are just very short clips of different people (three in total), that just happen to be male, and that's it. The voiceover talks about how these computers are for players, editors, music creators, etc.
But seemingly this "presents gender stereotypes in a way that was likely to cause harm", because none of those three people (who appear on screen for just a few seconds) were female. What "harm" does this cause? Who knows. But it surely does.
Because a whopping eight people complained about it.
The United Kingdom has no constitution, and therefore the government is free to restrict speech and ban whatever they want. The United Kingdom is a police state, not a free constitutional country.
Comments
Post a Comment