Nobody needs the Government to protect it from stereotypical advertisements.
Britain has recently banned two television commercials under new rules that prohibit "Gender stereotypes that can cause harm or serious crimes," and this is stupid and unnatural.
According to Government, in one of the announcements of the local Volkswagen branch, it was shown that the men were "involved in adventure activities" and two women were sleeping in a tent and sitting in a baby carriage. The second announcement was a Philadelphia cream cheese advertisement that featured two parents in a restaurant, who apparently "couldn't take care of effectively."
The Advertising Standards Authority Investigations Manager, Jessica T, told the New York Times that both ads could lead to "real-world losses" and even affect children's career choices.
According to the Times, the two companies were pushed back to "scruffy" rulers, and Volkswagen as well, arguing that the announcement portrayed women as "taking part in challenging situations," including "certainly the greatest in life." And the most valuable role is "- raise another human being. It is being done"
However, I am not really going to take a position on whether the ads reflect gender stereotypes. Why Well, because I don't care.
That's right: even if a Volkswagen ad was portrayed, for example, the woman asked the carriage to say "I am sitting next to this carriage, because I am a woman and I am everything. I am good, good and good for children." The UK government's measure would have been silly, because I don't think it is the government's function to protect anyone from "degrading" stereotypes.
On the one hand, I doubt that the representation of a woman and a child, for example, has the potential to cause real "harm." In fact, I think I could really emphasize any publicity that could increase that effect, because I really doubt that people make serious decisions based on ads, such as careers. Option.
Tye, of course, explains to the Times that it's less about creating a single ad and more about the cumulative effect that many stereotypical ads can have. Personally, I doubt this is the case, but even though it was correct, I would still argue that no government has any reason to intervene to reduce it, because, after all, it can be something that can be easily reduced without any government intervention.
This is true: the private sector already has a mechanism that discourages companies from creating "aggressive" advertising, this is called public opinion. If someone finds a conservative or derogatory ad, that person can speak against it. If an ad is really "abusive" or harmful, the company that does so can expect to face different consequences of the government, such as a generalized public reaction and even people who prefer to take their money elsewhere.
When I think of the ideal role of a government, I take an idea that minimizes participation and maximizes freedom. Yes, there are things that citizens require government protection, but anything that their people can protect with total ease should never be on that list. If I were a citizen of Great Britain, I would not be relieved to feel that my government was protecting me from looking at possible stereotypes, because I was so upset that the government could use its resources financed by taxpayers to make the way I could manage completely.
Comments
Post a Comment