"Adjudication of the Jury d'Ethique Publicitaire:

Complaint:
The ad is regarded as degrading and shocking, of bad taste, vulgar, disrespectful of human dignity and morals, scandalous with respect to children. The advertiser made the point that the spot was in the form of a satire. It did not harm human dignity but reversed the roles of the traditional sexist stereotypes. The difference with other spots that show naked people is the age and the weight of the actor; the message does not conform to the theories which presume that any human body that does not fit the standards of perfection must be regarded as shocking and thus socially dangerous.

Position of the Jury:
After examination and taking into account many negative reactions received, the Jury decided that the images undermine human dignity, in particular by showing inappropriate sexual behaviour in a workplace, which is against article 2 of the code of the CCI. It also concluded that the commercial was not in conformity with the recommendations of the code of ethics in advertising concerning the representation of the human person in publicity. The Jury consequently recommended the cessation of the commercial. "

http://www.bestrejectedadvertising.com/html/?page=tv&type=banned&id=27

Basically, this site is a wonderful window into the worries broadcasters and governments have about advertising. Some of the worries are about accuracy, some are prudish, some are mysterious even to one as inaccurate and prudish as me. The accompanying reasons and their explication is a textbook on, to misconstrue Bloom, the anxiety of influence. These ads are being rejected because they will inappropriately influence people or expose them to something they shoould be safe from.

This whole site had me asking the same question over and over: how powerful do these people think advertising is? Or will these ads, unchained, actually do what it is claimed?

Labels: advertising, censorship, eu