My British perspective: I don’t want advertisers free to lie as much as they want.
I’ve had ads taken off the TV for being clearly misleading (anyone can raise a complaint to the ASA - the Advertising Standards Agency).
I’ve had ads taken off the TV for being clearly misleading (anyone can raise a complaint to the ASA - the Advertising Standards Agency).
There is also industry self-regulation through bodies like the German Advertising Standards Council, which reviews complaints and can issue public reprimands.
So the system is not "you must get permission before speaking," but rather "you are free to publish, but you are accountable if you violate clear legal standards."
I’m also skeptical of pre-approval mechanisms in principle. I think the German mechanism works really well.
In theory they could still broadcast it if they wanted to, but in general if it fails their checks, they won't.
It's not so much permission as risk evaluation.
You can’t say free Palestine or refer to murder on much social media, yet companies are free to lie in advertising or sue to prevent criticism.
When I compare both countries both are lacking but neither seems more free than the other. Americans seem not to understand how little access to free speech they have.
I'm sure the process allows for any citizen to review all of the rejected material in full, right? And you've done your part to do that, right? You take responsibility for the restrictions you want, right?
(there are perhaps valid questions about UK broadcasting restrictions, but since the internet this has become much, much less important. All the really absurd stuff like Gerry Adams lies in the 20th century)
- Ricky Gervais' "Welcome to London, I hope you bought your stab vest"
- An athletic girl advertising protein powder.
We're also rejected because someone determind that poking fun at London crime and conventionally attractive women were offensive.
In America there's definitely things you're not allowed to put on TV. Obviously you can't just put hardcore porn on, but you also aren't allowed to directly lie. Though I'm sure what the standards are for lying are different. There's laws against false advertising, libel, and so on.
But pre-approved is very different. And honestly, if you're making calls to get misleading ads taken off TV then is the pre-approved system even working? How do you know they're not just filtering out things they don't like? It's a pretty difficult type of restriction on speech.
As an example, are they preventing ads running talking about the UK's relationship to Epstein? Or calls to release their files? Every country has files, not just the US. Given the response to Mullvad I'd assume you couldn't place those types of ads on TV.
Isn’t the thing that actually stops you from doing this just an ad-hoc, informally specified and bug-ridden implementation of Clearcast?
Although given Brexit I’d question how useful the ASA actually is. It seems Russian funded politicians were free to spew endless lies at the average citizen with no repercussions.
You avoid having companies, who can swallow the bill, making whatever claims they like without having to much to worry about other than a slap on the wrist - Their claims are already out. J&J, P&G, Unilever et al - you may trust them to do the right thing, i don't.
Would the UK government actually stop any of these advertisers? It seems more likely they would stop people critcising the UK government.
Free speech isn't about saying whatever you want without consequence.
And this is a bloody ad on the TV.
What you can't do is shout it in a way that makes people believe there is legitimate danger AND your actions cause subsequent panic.
The crime isn't so much about the speech as it is about the damage that that speech causes.
It's a subtle distinction, but an important one.
Carlsbergs tag line is still "probably the best beer in the world" despite it probably being not.
So the comparison works.
> And can we agree that there are lies that companies tell on adverts that can cause damage?
> Carlsbergs tag line is still "probably the best beer in the world" despite it probably being not.
Even if they remove "probably" they could still get away with it because it isn't going to be believable and I doubt you could show damage. Just in the same way so many cafes have "Best coffee in X" and how frequently you see mugs like "Best Dad in the world." No one is getting sued over those because they aren't believable. I agree they're deceptive and in bad taste, but I think if you take some time to sit down and think about it you'll realize that to make statements like those illegal you're going to have a lot of unintended consequences.
You responded pointing out it has to be believable, ie real harm done.
I brought it back full circle showing that adverts can 'lie' if it isn't believable.
I am pointing out you are reinforcing my original point, not detracting from it.
The thread running through all these cases is that prior restraints on speech and publication are the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights. A criminal penalty or a judgment in a defamation case is subject to the whole panoply of protections afforded by deferring the impact of the judgment until all avenues of appellate review have been exhausted. Only after judgment has become final, correct or otherwise, does the law's sanction become fully operative.
A prior restraint, by contrast and by definition, has an immediate and irreversible sanction. If it can be said that a threat of criminal or civil sanctions after publication "chills" speech, prior restraint "freezes" it at least for the time.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_restraint#Judicial_view
Instead, fight misinformation with superior information.
I think we have a ministry for that.
Not exactly what happened here is it?
A private company which somehow gets to approve ads rejected an advert complaining about a dystopian lack of privacy under a government that is actively trying to kill off privacy.
You might as well argue that it's better for visa to regulate the financial sector "because you wouldnt want the banks doing it individually".
Or that you should be happy with a punch in the face because a kick in the teeth is worse.
You may be thinking of defamation or fraud, both of which require more than lying.