About time these guys got nailed...

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

02/04/2008 02:23:14 PM · #178

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

The A&F photos are commercial speech, which -- appropriately, imho -- doesn't get the same level of protection from the Constitution that is afforded to non-commercial speech. Banning or regulating this type of speech does not violate the First Amendment.

The voting populace is perfectly within their right to pass a law that bans the display of this type of advertising in public spaces.

Statement 1) misleading: This has more to do with misleading statements in the ad.

Statement 2) way too general: but the supreme court will have the final say. I'm glad that democratic ideology and the first amendment is not left to narrow minded individuals who want to ban all that they find offensive.....

Message edited by author 2008-02-04 14:44:15.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

02/04/2008 02:30:37 PM · #179

Originally posted by neophyte:

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

The A&F photos are commercial speech, which -- appropriately, imho -- doesn't get the same level of protection from the Constitution that is afforded to non-commercial speech. Banning or regulating this type of speech does not violate the First Amendment.

The voting populace is perfectly within their right to pass a law that bans the display of this type of advertising in public spaces.

Statement 1) misleading: This has more to do with misleading statements in the ad.

Statement 2) way too general: but the supreme court will have the final say. I glad that democratic ideology and the first amendment is not left to narrow minded individuals who want to ban all that they find offensive.....

What about banning smoking ads? Wouldn't one assume that was covered under the First Amendment as well?

Louis

Nikon D800

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

02/04/2008 02:30:58 PM · #180

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I would honestly love to see some stats on this. Do you have stats for divorce, STDs, teen pregancy and abortions for, say, the US and representative European countries?

In a previous post here I referenced rape and homicide in this discussion when comparing the US and Europe. Here are some statistics. Caveat: this is an old report, 1988.

Per 100,000 people, there were 36 rapes in the US compared with 5 in Europe. There were ten murders per 100,000, compared with 3.3 in Finland (highest) and 0.7 in Greece and Ireland (lowest).

Rape is a crime of dominance and violence, not sexuality. I wouldn't consider it part of this discussion.

As an expression of sexual dysfunction, I think it's relevant. The criminal landscape of the country in view of its moral culture and compared with Europe was what I was alluding to when I originally brought it up.

desertoddity

Nikon D300s

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

02/04/2008 02:34:44 PM · #181

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by neophyte:

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

The A&F photos are commercial speech, which -- appropriately, imho -- doesn't get the same level of protection from the Constitution that is afforded to non-commercial speech. Banning or regulating this type of speech does not violate the First Amendment.

The voting populace is perfectly within their right to pass a law that bans the display of this type of advertising in public spaces.

Statement 1) misleading: This has more to do with misleading statements in the ad.

Statement 2) way too general: but the supreme court will have the final say. I glad that democratic ideology and the first amendment is not left to narrow minded individuals who want to ban all that they find offensive.....

What about banning smoking ads? Wouldn't one assume that was covered under the First Amendment as well?

one would. but then again, showing buttcrack has not been proven to cause lung cancer.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

02/04/2008 02:41:19 PM · #182

I shop exclusively at Abercrombie & Fitch!

Canon FD 70-210mm f/4.0 MF

02/04/2008 02:46:22 PM · #183

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

What about banning smoking ads? Wouldn't one assume that was covered under the First Amendment as well?

Has more to do with the fact the ads were misleading. Alcohol ads faced the same bans in the past but are now allowed...

shutterpuppy

Sony Alpha a7

02/04/2008 02:46:35 PM · #184

Originally posted by neophyte:

You're right - the law in this area is more nuanced than my post would suggest, and I should have qualified my assertion. But - and without getting into the more convoluted details - it remains that purely commercial speech is generally only protected to the extent that consumers have a right to the information provided in the ad. Looking at your profile, it appears that you are coming from a film perspective, which is not strictly commercial speech as films, tv, magazines, etc. are considered to have artistic value and garner quite a lot of First Amendment protection as long as they aren't "obscene" - a whole 'nother can of worms from a legal perspective. (And if the police/city really are pursuing this action based upon designating the ads obscene, they are probably dead in the water come court day.)

The A&F legal team might disagree with me, but I don't see that a city ordinance or other regulation that prevents advertising with this type of content from being displayed in a public space necessarily runs afoul of the First Amendment. Preventing the company from displaying the photos inside the stores or in catalogs is a completely different story.

I too am glad that democratic ideology and the first amendment has not so far been left to narrow minded individuals who want to ban all that they find offensive. Unfortunately, I'm not at all sure that the current Supreme Court falls outside of that category.

Message edited by author 2008-02-04 15:56:40.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

02/04/2008 02:51:35 PM · #185

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I shop exclusively at Abercrombie & Fitch!

Ha... !!! :-P
or Ghetto R Us!

Quasimojo

Canon EOS-30D

02/04/2008 02:52:12 PM · #186

:O

N

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

02/04/2008 02:54:40 PM · #187

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Looking at your profile, it appears that you are coming from a film perspective, which is not strictly commercial speech as films, tv, magazines, etc. are considered to have artistic value and garner quite a lot of First Amendment protection as long as they aren't "obscene" - a whole 'nother can of worms from a legal perspective.

I'm a Legal Marketing Specialist on staff for one of the largest law firms in the Northeast US. We deal with more regulations and restriction than the tobacco, alcohol or banking industries. I understand very well the restrictions on free speech that exists for the marketing world. I believe that advertisers are blamed for many problems that would still be there without a world of commercials.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

02/04/2008 02:57:03 PM · #188

Originally posted by neophyte:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
What about banning smoking ads? Wouldn't one assume that was covered under the First Amendment as well?

Has more to do with the fact the ads were misleading. Alcohol ads faced the same bans in the past but are now allowed...

Joe Camel was misleading? I thought the argument was he marketed to kids.

shutterpuppy

Sony Alpha a7

Canon FD 70-210mm f/4.0 MF

02/04/2008 02:57:10 PM · #189

Originally posted by neophyte:

I believe that advertisers are blamed for many problems that would still be there without a world of commercials.

I think that it's pretty clear from my posts, that I agree with you on this.

02/04/2008 02:58:16 PM · #190

Originally posted by Quasimojo:

:O

N

LOL, love it!

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G

02/04/2008 03:00:38 PM · #191

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Joe Camel was misleading? I thought the argument was he marketed to kids.

I think that a smoking camel is misleading. (I don't think he was ever on TV. What about spuds McKenzie and Bud...

Tim

Nikon D300

02/04/2008 03:05:18 PM · #192

sounds like a pretty good publicity stunt to me - congrats to the A&F marketing department

Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux M Aspherical MF - Black

02/04/2008 03:08:30 PM · #193

Originally posted by neophyte:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Joe Camel was misleading? I thought the argument was he marketed to kids.

I think that a smoking camel is misleading. (I don't think he was ever on TV. What about spuds McKenzie and Bud...

Ya know, I loved Spuds McKenzie, but I don't think he gave me my first beer. I don't think Joe Camel talked me into try my first cigarette and I don't believe I've ever had sex with a Victoria's Secret model.

scarbrd

Leica M10

02/04/2008 03:13:58 PM · #194

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I shop exclusively at Abercrombie & Fitch!

Just when you thought it was safe to look in the forum threads again. ;-)

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

02/04/2008 03:15:30 PM · #195

Here are some stats from the WHO - European Regional Office (link to stats from the CDC for the USA below):


7019 - Gonorrhoea - Incidence rate (per 100,000 population)	

	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	

Denmark	3.59	3.99	6.3	6.3	5.7	4.3	3.48	7.73	8.28	7.6		

France	0.22	0.38	0.57	0.67	0.54	0.52	0.7	0.88		1.11		

Germany	3.53	2.91	2.69	3.08								

Italy	0.15	0.1	0.09	0.1	0.12	0.11	0.08	0.58	0.39	0.43				

Norway	4.38	3.75	4.27	5.64	7.31	5.33	5.33	5.84	6.11	5.08		

Sweden	2.75	3.87	4.82	6.67	5.99	5.72	6.76	6.47	7.87	7.46		

United	22.01	22.28	27.43	36.23	39.54	42.51	41.73	37.25

 Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland



=========================================



7037 - Syphilis, Early - Incidence rate (per 100,000 population)	

	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	

Denmark												

France						0.67	0.71	0.66	0.52	0.64		

Germany										2.45		

Italy													

Norway	0.27	0.25	1.19	0.94	0.74	1.42	1.11	0.95	0.53	1.44		

Sweden	0.01		0.01		0.01							

United 	0.04	0.04	0.03	0.04

 Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland



===========================================



9009 - Hepatitis B - Incidence (cases per 100 000 population)	

	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	

Denmark	1.92	1.78	1.11	1.17	0.83	1.18	0.62	0.84	0.48			

France	10.26	8.72										

Germany	7.42	6.32	5.57	5.54	2.96	1.75	1.59	1.54	1.51			

Italy	3.47	3.12	2.74	2.66	1.54	2.38	1.43	1.4	0.8					

Norway	4.22	10.59	10.61	5.86	4.5	4.02	4.42	4.12	3.19			

Sweden	1.74	1.54	2.42	2.54	2.43	3.28	4.28	2.88	2.47			

United 	1.51	1.96	1.93	1.79	1.58	1.49	1.08	0.68

 Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland



=============================================



7016 - Chlamydia - Incidence rate (per 100,000 population)	

	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	

Denmark	258.09	242.68	262.59			303.27	343.99	403.66	443.94	456.11		

France												

Germany												

Italy						0.01							

Norway			297.26	327.39	332.03			386.98	412.9	454.77		

Sweden	156.96	171.6	188.79	218.09	252.07	279.62	304.02	364.18	375.82	358.5		

United 	72.19	82.3	95.3	114.36	126.7	142.68	154.57	166.41

 Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland



======================================

Table 1. Cases of sexually transmitted diseases reported by state health departments
and rates per 100,000 population: United States, 1941â��2006

Message edited by author 2008-02-04 15:17:19.

Quasimojo

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

02/04/2008 03:32:06 PM · #196

Comparing like for like where possible for US and UK:

GONORRHEA 2004

UK 37.25
US 112.4

SYPHILIS 2000

UK 0.04
US 11.2

CHLAMYDIA 2004

UK 166.41
US 316.5

Your women might be way hotter but ours aren't as skanky ;)

N