Comments on: Free Speech for All, Or Just for NOM?

By: customartist

customartist — Fri, 17 Sep 2010 15:37:29 +0000

Let’s put it to the test…

Run the ads in the USA! Let’s all contact the company and send in our requests for them to offer the product for American consumption?

By: Rob Tisinai

Rob Tisinai — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 22:19:22 +0000

Timothy, thanks for the correction. I’ve updated the post to reflect this information.

By: Timothy (TRiG)

Timothy (TRiG) — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 21:41:35 +0000

To be clear: The ad is being published by UK media. You can find it on the BBC website. No one’s freedom of speech has been in any way curtailed. The ASA is an industry regulatory body: advertising is self-regulated. The company can no longer run their ad as an ad, but that doesn’t mean newspapers can’t print it. And newspapers do print it, because it’s a news story. Voilà: free advertising!

(I picked most of this up from the discussion on Pharyngula.)

TRiG.

By: Other Fred in the UK

Other Fred in the UK — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 19:39:48 +0000

Just as a point of information, a right of freedom of speech is a acknowledged and respected in the U.K., although obviously not to the degree that it is in the U.S. The difference is that in the U.K. that right is possessed by individuals (and to a lesser extend political and religious groups) but not companies.

Mocking Catholicism may be acceptable in political and religious discourse but not to help sell ice-cream.

By: Emily K

Emily K — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 18:46:17 +0000

LOL Adrian-T, you “got it right” with your comment.

Gee Chris, thank you for setting me right! If you hadn’t told me anybody can interpret something to mean “art” I wouldn’t have known it myself! Not after 8 years of spending time almost exclusively around other artists and sitting through hours upon end of critiques and art history classes! :C

Of course, I did not give a reason as to why I didn’t consider these ads “art” (or at least “high art” as some call it). You assumed it was because it’s unappealing to me. Ok. Assume that.

As I said before, “It’s just my opinion.” As in, I formed an opinion that I do not consider something to be “art.” Isn’t that what you yourself did? Why it brought up a need to preach to me about post-modernism is lost on me. But really I don’t care that much what the reason is. I don’t have the energy to care.

By: Adrian-T

Adrian-T — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 18:30:13 +0000

Oh emily, honestly, these wonderful ads should be on the ceiling of the sistene chapel.

By: Pender

Pender — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 18:02:23 +0000

I hate NOM as much as the next halfway decent guy, but I don’t think it’s particularly hypocritical. The Sierra Club, for example, has an interest in defending pro-environmental speech, but it’s hard to see it bending over backwards to protect, say, speech critical of U.S. tax policy, simply because the latter is outside of its purview.

By: Chris McCoy

Chris McCoy — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 17:45:06 +0000

Emily K wrote:

catholic clergy have been sexualized by various media for decades at least. There’s the idea of the catholic clergy and religious being so repressed that they can’t help but let their sexuality loose.

Sexy Nuns have been a Trope for more than a few decades. Same with the Catholic School Girl stereotype. This is not a new phenomenon.

But I would never confuse this stuff for “art,” either. (This is an artist talking.)

"Art" is subjective. What one person considers Art, another may consider garbage. This does not make it any less Art. That this Art does not appeal to you, does not make it not-Art.

By: David

David — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 16:50:35 +0000

Yeah, I don’t know if these are worth fighting over. Well, I suppose for just the principle of free speech. But these really are a little not-good.

By: Lindoro Almaviva

Lindoro Almaviva — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 16:38:24 +0000

Their excuse: This ad campaign is for a specific country and this has nothing to do with us.

Taking bets…