From The Local (a site with Swedish news translated into English):
…special government rapporteur Eva-Maria Svensson suggested the creation of a law “banning advertising containing sexist content.”
Sexist advertising is defined in the report as any message distributed “with a commercial aim” that can be “construed as offensive to women or men.”
“Sexist advertising affects the shaping of people’s identities and is counter-productive to society’s goal of achieving gender equality,” said the report, which calls for a new law to go into effect on January 1st, 2009.
The report was submitted to the government on Tuesday for consideration.
I’m not sure what to think about this. Although I believe in strict protection of free speech for political and artistic speech, I think advertising — with the exception of political ads — should receive a lower level of protection. But I wonder about how the law of unintended consequences would operate if this proposal becomes law.
I think offensive and hateful speech should be protected.
1. It helps identify the hateful.
2. Most governmental tools eventually end up helping people who already have access and power. If we ever get ‘hate speech’ outlawed in the US I’m pretty sure it will be used to Christians to make people say merry Christmas at the till.
The thing you should realize about Sweden is that part of the way the democracy works is that if someone has a political point they want to make, they often do so by proposing a new law. Most of these whacko laws are just intended to spark political debate, and never end up on the books. You also have to remember that the feminist party is notoriously lunatic fringe. Both these facts contribute to news stories like the one where Sweden was going to make men pay more tax to pay for the social costs of the greater violence committed by men.
Are racist commercials banned?
Since nearly all advertising contains some “sexist content” to a greater or lesser degree, I could see this being a seriously impractical law to enforce, quite apart from the rights and wrongs of doing so.
NB that when I say “sexist content” I’m including sexist stereotypes, which I suspect the proposers of this law probably didn’t intend.
–IP
Speaking as a Swedish citizen, here…This suggested law is the result of failing self-censoring. It used to be that explicitly sexist ads (often defined as involving images that clearly had nothing to do witht he product – you can have a naked woman in an ad for a shower cabin, but not in an ad for Christmas trees) were reported to the council against sexist advertisement, run by the trade and industry, and they would make a decision on whether the ad was sexist. They then publish their decision in the papers, and growl at the company running the ad.
The laws is phrased in a way very similar to the guidelines, and I suspect he goal is to make companies more attentive to the council’s decisions, by threatening to give them legal teeth.
Sexist advertising is defined in the report as any message distributed “with a commercial aim” that can be “construed as offensive to women or men.”
No governmental body, whether appointed or elected, has any business defining what constitutes an offensive message.
Pace RonF, I am curious what the reasonable standard for determining offensive content would be, and how it could be applied.
The map of Sweden is grossly offensive and should be banned immediately.
No one has a right to not be offended. No one has a right to be protected, though the efforts of the State, from being offended. The proper remedy to free speech that you don’t like is to exercise or support free speech that you do like.
Advertising (in the U.S.) has traditionally been subject to more regulation then other kinds of speech because its specific purpose is to sell things. (Other countries have different legal traditions regarding free speech, of course.)
So, I don’t think it would be a bad thing to ban sexist advertising. I’m going through interesting thought experiments right now on what would happen if a law like this were passed in the U.S. Would we see a lot fewer semi-porn clothing ads? Hopefully.
I’m not sure, tho, if the agencies enforcing it would have a sufficiently subtle understanding of sexism to correctly apply it.
I’m curious to see how this works out. It seems like it’ll be hard to define, but maybe there will be more detail or some helpful court rulings early on.
I’m not sure, tho, if the agencies enforcing it would have a sufficiently subtle understanding of sexism to correctly apply it.
“Sufficiently subtle”? You’ll be lucky if you get basic harmony of views on what sexism is.
The trouble with empowering a government to engage in viewpoint discrimination is, it is very difficult to then ensure that nobody with the “wrong” viewpoint takes over the government. There is a natural blindness towards this tendency of democratic government power to periodically be in the hands of the bad guys (whoever you define them to be) – a principle never made clearer than when listening to a self-described radical progressive demanding that Dick Cheney be put in charge of their health care.
Robert, sexism can be construed as an action or a practice, and therefore not subject to “viewpoint discrimination” in the same sense as, say, anti-communist viewpoint discrimination.
Also, it is already very difficult to make sure that nobody with the wrong viewpoint takes over government. That would be nothing new, and certainly nothing inherent to advertising regulations.
(And yes, there are people who study sexism and know more about it than the average schmo. They may even be said to “understand” it.)
I agree that the idea of a government regulating speech is a bit uncomfortable and what can be considered sexist to one person could be considered empowering to others.
I’m not sure, tho, if the agencies enforcing it would have a sufficiently subtle understanding of sexism to correctly apply it.
As in, say, yours? Or mine?
sexism can be construed as an action or a practice,
Sexism can be construed as a lot of things. And there are times when the line between speech and action gets blurry, such as what’s called “hate speech” and the laws that have been passed (thankfully not very much in the U.S.) against it.
This is the kind of thing that makes me thankful we have the First Amendment to the Constitution, to keep government out of this. The government has no more business defining “sexism” than it does defining “God”.
“The thing you should realize about Sweden is that part of the way the democracy works is that if someone has a political point they want to make, they often do so by proposing a new law. Most of these whacko laws are just intended to spark political debate, and never end up on the books.”
I certainly hope so, and I doubt that anything will come of this law. The idea that government should decide what’s offensive is itself offensive on so many levels.
Should it be legal for Playboy to advertise on a billboard (visible from a public road) with a nude photograph?
As a Swede, it’s interesting for me to see American coverage of this law draft; we in Sweden are quite used to analyzing US politics and events, so it’s interesting to see the “other end” of that and how the question becomes framed, mostly in terms of civil liberties and freedom of (commercial) expression. I’d like to provide some more Swedish context to the discussion, as a couple commenters have already done.
Someone already noted that this is just a draft, a motion put forward to the parliament, which most likely will not survive to become law. It’s interesting that the motion has been proposed by members of the Christian Democrat party, the most traditional and conservative wing of the government coalition (they are explicitly opposed to gay marriage, for instance, a position that is not shared by any other mainstream party in Sweden). That it comes from a “family values” oriented party indicates that the intended law, while framing the object of regulation (sexist advertising) in feminist terms, also is associated with issues of modesty, and the traditional Christian view on the visibility of the female body, in the public square. That it is framed in a feminist language rather than conservative indicates the strength of the feminist narrative in Sweden (even though the facts of feminism are taking much longer to sink in and become established). Even the Christian conservatives are courting feminist voters.
Another point which has been raised by comment 5, is that Sweden has a self-appointed body of representatives of industry and trade that review claims of sexist, offensive and inappropriate advertising. Lately, bringing an advertising campaign up for review by that panel has resulted in intense debates in the media with (usually) subsequent withdrawal of the campaign, but not before newspaper articles and news programs successfully manage to disseminate the campaign’s images and message to a large segment of the population, possibly making it more successful at reaching its target audience. Some companies may even deliberately be playing at the inevitable controversy triggered by their ads (such as H&M and its now “traditional” Chrismas lingerie ad campaign and the debates around it) in order to boost exposure and sales. I wouldn’t say that the panel is failing in its functions, simply that the media attention brought about by the review process brings about unwanted consequences.
Thirdly, it’s interesting that the debate on this blog has so far been focused on the freedom of expression. Advertising, in its nature, can be said to be the least free form of expression since it is rigidly constrained by the necessity to communicate a very specific message to a target group that will be stimulated to buy a product. The advertising industry regulates itself to a very high degree, and in that sense government regulations could be said to be superfluous. However, the value of this particular law, in the unlikely event that it will pass, is in its prescriptive nature. It establishes what is OK and what is not OK to sell a product with. In a society that wants to minimize sexism and objectification of women, it makes sense, like Sweden has done, to promote an egalitarian world view, to educate young people about the equal rights and equal value of men and women through the school system and other state-sponsored channels. However, when the messages you are trying to promote are countered or drowned out by an objectifying culture promoted (as the proponents of this law claim) by advertising, it makes sense to attempt to set boundaries for images and messages that can be used to sell a product. In essence, I agree that the definition of “sexist” should not be left in the hands of the government; but neither would I leave that definition in the hands of companies, public or private. It’s not, to my mind, simply a matter of freedom of expression, nor is it a matter of people’s freedom from being offended; rather, this law sets out to regulate the level of double standard within Sweden’s public sphere.
Yes it should.
Should it be legal for Playboy to advertise on a billboard (visible from a public road) with a nude photograph?
I’d say not. It’s a public safety issue; some fool gawking at the billboard while they’re driving might run into someone. On that basis, this is to me analogous to “you can’t yell ‘Fire’ in a crowded theater”.
Henrich:
Thirdly, it’s interesting that the debate on this blog has so far been focused on the freedom of expression.
When the U.S. Constitution was written, it was designed to define and constrain the powers of the Federal (i.e., national) government. After it was presented to the states, one major objection that was raised to it was that it did not spell out what rights the people themselves had that the government was forbidden to constrain. Numerous people and states threatened to oppose the adoption of the Constitution on that basis. In response, a group of 10 amendments were passed to correct this. The very first one addressed freedom of speech. That’s how important freedom of expression is in the U.S.
Advertising, in its nature, can be said to be the least free form of expression since it is rigidly constrained by the necessity to communicate a very specific message to a target group that will be stimulated to buy a product.
Yes, but that’s inherent in the function of the message. Any message has functional constraints that will bind it.
However, the value of this particular law, in the unlikely event that it will pass, is in its prescriptive nature.
In Sweden this may be seen as a value. In the U.S., it is seen as a fatal flaw. The idea that the government would be given the power to prescribe what a message may or may not say is anathema here in the U.S. – it is seen as a step on the road to governmental tyranny.
In a society that wants to minimize sexism and objectification of women, it makes sense, like Sweden has done, to promote an egalitarian world view, to educate young people about the equal rights and equal value of men and women through the school system and other state-sponsored channels.
The concept that equal rights should be taught in schools is not at issue here.
However, when the messages you are trying to promote are countered or drowned out by an objectifying culture promoted (as the proponents of this law claim) by advertising, it makes sense to attempt to set boundaries for images and messages that can be used to sell a product.
No, it does not make sense. Not to me. The fact that private concerns or individuals promote messages counter to those taught by the government in the schools does not justify the government taking action to suppress them.
The solution to free speech you don’t like is to promote free speech you do like. The solution in a free country to free speech you don’t like is explicitly not to give the government or any other entity the ability to suppress that speech. In so far as the government can do that, you don’t live in a free country.
By the way, I’m curious – regarding the self-appointed industry advertising regulatory body; what power do they have over advertising that they don’t like? What can they do besides publicize their disapproval?
The more discretion that government has, the more opportunities that it has to misuse said discretion. Often this misuse happens in ways that the original “let’s let the government have more power to fix things!” proponents don’t imagine.
“Pornography” is/was already a difficult standard to enforce. But realistically, pornography is probably easier to define than sexism–and easier to deal with, as it’s far less pervasive.
But it still has problems. Heck, didn’t Amp recently post on a gay magazine taht was having pornography problems some decades back? Does anyone here really think that you’d have an equally easy time with standards boards if you were showing black man/white woman pornography than the reverse? Does anyone want to debate that a nude picture of a woman is more likely to be termed “art”, while a nude man is more likely to be termed offensive? Did we all fail to read about “this film is not yet rated”?
Etc.
Sexism is even harder to define well. Some things are sexist. Abercrombie’s ads are sexist, like this one: http://www.menstuff.org/logos/abercrombie1.jpg
which is just one of the first ones that Google delivered on a search for their ads. I wouldn’t personally be upset to have that type of advertising banned, I suppose.
But of course, there are things like this Target ad:
http://www.adrants.com/images/target_target.jpg
which are a hell of a lot harder to define. Is it sexist? Not to me, though i have no problem with those who differ. I can certainly understand the view that it is sexist, even if I disagree with it.
But should it be banned? i can’t say that I’d be comfortable with that, not at all.
I have to wonder about that Target ad. On the one hand, if you are arranging the human body so that the arms and legs are spread out (“action”, “acceptance”, whatever), then the crotch is naturally going to end up in the center. OTOH, you’d have to be tone deaf not to look at that picture and not consider the implications of a target with the bulls’ eye on her crotch.
It’s not at all impossible for corporate types to be that stupid (trust me, I’ve worked in corporations all my life). And it’s pretty common for people in corporations to be a lot more worried about how things look to the higher-ups than whether or not they themselves think it’s a good idea. But you’d think someone higher-up would have noticed and said to themselves, “Wha …?”
RonF, imagine that “public safety” wasn’t an issue; for instance, imagine a wall advertisement in the ticket-buying area of a public train station, located far from the tracks. Should that be legal?
* * *
Incidentally, for those who are approaching this question from a “1st amendment” point of view (which seems like an odd thing to do when discussing Sweden), I don’t believe the founders would have agreed that the first amendment forbids restrictions on images in advertising. That doesn’t end the debate, of course; but I think that people here are mixing up what the Constitution says and how it’s come to be interpreted in the last 60 years or so. This link contains some basic background of how the first amendment was written.
I’d say then that it should be legal. I’d also say that I’d protest against it and I would support others who did, and call for a boycott of the company employing such advertising.
Just because I don’t like something and think that it would be bad for society doesn’t mean that it should be illegal.
I also agree that it’s at least a valid question as to whether restrictions on corporate speech are more acceptable than restrictions on individual speech. But then again, it’s something to be quite careful about, and to err on the side of free speech when in doubt. Corporations are, after all, voluntary associations of individuals.
I think the fact that this is being proposed by an (apparently) right wing religious party is a pretty good examply of why this sort of thing is bad. Whatever power you give government to ‘make things better’ will be misused in a way that you hate.
Is that ad sexist because it features two men, but only one woman? Or because the woman’s hair has clearly been strategically placed to cover her nipples, while the men’s have not? I can see how you might argue that the ad is offensive (for many possible reasons–the nudity, the fact that it perpetuates the myth that only certain body types are attractive, etc.)–but I thought sexism required some form of discriminatory treatment. What about the ad do you find sexist?
Straw man, Phil… sexism doesn’t require discriminatory treatment, otherwise, how could any photograph, book, or piece of art possibly be described as sexist, without explicit evidence that women were intentionally excluded from its creation? Some people are sexist. Does that mean they all express this by discriminating against women? No. Say a woman thinks that high estrogen levels result in an emotional volatility that precludes women in general from being and becoming effective leaders. This woman would be sexist. While her thoughts, feelings, and ideas could possibly manifest themselves in discriminatory behavior, they don’t necessarily have to for her to be a sexist. When someone says that an ad is sexist towards women, they’re usually saying that it perpetuates negative sentiments/hostility towards women and/or gender stereotypes that are denigrating/demeaning, or even patronzingly positive (” no one can run the house correctly but a mom, so it’s only natural that moms do most of the chores”).
This is from Merriam-Webster, in case you don’t believe me…
“Date: 1968
1: prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women
2: behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex”
Claims that an ad/book/movie/painting/TV show is sexist would usually involve the latter definition, even though sexual harrassment/discrimination can also happen in those industries.
And something just struck me about the Abercrombie ad… why are bucknekkid (for all intents and purposes) people selling CLOTHING? Are they trying to overcompensate for having some of the unsexiest (IMO) clothing around?
BananaDanna,
You’re right, and I should have been more nuanced in defining sexism. If a tree falls in a forest and it has “Men (or women) suck!” written on it, there’s still sexism. An attitude can be sexist. (Still the “attitude” must discriminate. If you believe that no woman can be an effective leader, and you also believe that no man or transgender person can be an effective leader, either, then you’re not a sexist. You’re a pessimist. If you believe the same thing about all possible sexes, then your attitude isn’t really sexist.)
But that doesn’t explain what’s sexist about the A&F ad in question. The lack of the product being advertised? There are plenty of soda ads where people aren’t drinking soda, and in most prescription drug ads, people aren’t seen taking the drug.
Is the ad sexist because it portrays both men and women as potential sex objects? (That is, is it sexist to both sexes because the models are there to be “enjoyed” by the viewer?) I’m not really advancing an argument that the ad is not sexist, I honestly am curious why Sailorman said it was sexist as if it were at truism. I find the equation “nudity=sexism” flawed, but I don’t want to leap to the conclusion that Sailorman’s reasoning is strictly prudishness.
Were an ad for, say, a chocolate bar to feature only a naked woman, I’d call it sexism. But if it featured naked men and women enjoying each other’s company, I’d say that’s a step in the right direction. (In certain contexts, showing just members of one sex having fun together might be a positive thing, but in practice I imagine that most ads featuring two women would play into sexist stereotypical fantasies about “lesbians” turning straight men on.)
And something just struck me about the Abercrombie ad… why are bucknekkid (for all intents and purposes) people selling CLOTHING?
I’m no expert on clothing, but I think that the purpose of creating an ad in this fashion is branding; the ad is trying to promote the Abercrombie brand name, so that people associate a particular image (not the literal image of the ad, but the concept of being “cool” or “desirable”) with the company name.
Let’s face it; what’s the difference between a ratty-looking grey sweatshirt with your old high school’s name on it and a ratty-looking grey sweatshirt with Abercrombie’s brand name on it? Especially since the Abercrombie name is often intentionally distressed to make it appear old? The latter goes for serious money in their stores; the former goes for $0.25 at a garage sale. You’re buying the brand name, and this is how they’ve chosen to market it.
I think that it is important to appreciate the effects our society has on our development and on our attitudes towards other people and life in general. We can be fearful of governments taking too much control in our lives, especially considering what too much power can do to someone… BUT, to do some productive censoring on things like advertising is in no way insane or harmful. We can not underestimate the effects of seeing women obectified for products like lotion, or what have you. Women ought to have all the same rights and opportunities as men do so they can also achieve their full potential as individuals. As long as men and women are thinking less of women as individuals because of seeing them as the ‘sex’ role, women will continue to be held back.
Other cultures try to solve this problem by not allowing women to show any skin whatsoever. That’s not doing any good and I don’t think that’s what a majority of us want. However, showing women’s skin every chance ‘society’ gets, is not a positive thing either.
I remember seeing a Superbowl Pepsi ad where a guy gets pulled by an unknown force and he rams into everything with his crotch, and it’s apparently meant to be funny. That would be sexist imo, since no such ad with women exist that I’ve seen (I might be wrong).
What’s ironic is seeing an ad where a guy gets hit or beaten up in some way sandwiched between two of the same ad about how wrong violence against women is.
While sexist ads might hurt a particular sex more than the other, I think all sexist ads hurt both men and women. Perpetuating stereotypes will always make it harder to be an acceptable man, and an acceptable woman.
For example, cleaning product ads that show women doing it nearly all the time. Well it demeans women by basically saying it’s women’s role to do this. But then it also demeans any man who wants to (or has to) do some cleaning. I’m not sure if my brother’s attitude towards doing dishes is sexist or pure lazyness, but he’s not done it since over 10 years, and without a dishwasher, it would accumulate on the counter for weeks (I’ve been witness to it).
Men are expected to be both too dumb to do cleaning stuff, and too manly to ever want to. If a man wants to, he loses ‘manliness’ points in the view of some. A stay-at-home husband is usually considered worst than a deadbeat dad by society. Similarly, a mother not having time for children (because of work), will be criticized for it.