Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
The Attic
UK to impose major photo restrictions, censorship
Page <<first <prev 4 of 8 next> last>>
Aug 4, 2017 14:31:57   #
Bigbeartom44
 
Could someone explain how this effects us if you are not a professional photographer? Why is this even on this forum? I read this completely and it makes sense to me. Also, could someone explain to me what PC, Politically Correct, really means other than a way to use derogatory language about a person or group of people. I can think of a lot of examples but would not use them as they would brand me as bias, or racist of worst.

Reply
Aug 4, 2017 14:41:02   #
n3eg Loc: West coast USA
 
At least now they won't be able to market the Olympus E-PL line of cameras as "girly accessories"...

Reply
Aug 4, 2017 14:55:20   #
DWU2 Loc: Phoenix Arizona area
 
Bit by bit, freedom of speech is going away.

Reply
 
 
Aug 4, 2017 15:16:37   #
rhadams824 Loc: Arkansas
 
Rongnongno wrote:
Blah.


Beside limiting freedom and driving up the cost and fear of doing business, I also look at the bureaucracy that will be put in place to monitor and enforce these regulations. The cost to society is much greater than the supposed "hurt or damage" that may or may not occur. These types of top down societal management schemes never takes into the effects on other segments of society.
As to the photography restriction I am thinking of the photos that goes along with these ads.

Reply
Aug 4, 2017 15:18:01   #
Kissel vonKeister Loc: Georgia
 
Los-Angeles-Shooter wrote:
U.K. to Ban Gender Stereotypes in Ads

By Jeffrey S. Edelstein, Partner, Advertising, Marketing and Media

Gender stereotypes in advertising will be banned as a result of new guidelines that will be promulgated by the main advertising regulators in the United Kingdom and go into effect in 2018.

In April 2016, the U.K.’s Advertising Standards Authority and Committee of Advertising Practice initiated a project to determine whether existing advertising codes and enforcement took proper account of the relevant evidence regarding gender stereotypes. After analyzing existing literature about gender stereotyping in advertisements, holding seminars with a range of stakeholders and conducting new research into public opinion, the ASA and CAP published a report.

“Depictions, Perceptions and Harm: A report on gender stereotypes in advertising” identified six categories of gender stereotypes: roles (occupations or positions usually associated with a specific gender), characteristics (attributes or behaviors associated with a specific gender), stereotype nonconformity (mocking people for not conforming to stereotype), sexualization (portraying individuals in a highly sexualized manner), objectification (depicting individuals in a way that focuses on their bodies or body parts) and body image (depicting an unhealthy body image).

“Gender stereotypes have the potential to cause harm by inviting assumptions about adults and children that might negatively restrict how they see themselves and how others see them,” the report found. “To this end, ads that feature gender stereotypes have the power to cause harm by contributing to unequal gender outcomes, although advertising is understood to be only one of many different factors that contribute, to a greater or lesser extent, to unequal gender outcomes.”

The report noted earlier guidelines that banned ads that objectify or inappropriately sexualize women and girls, and ads that suggest it is acceptable for young women to be unhealthily thin. Nonetheless, it found that more needed to be done.

“However, the evidence suggests that a tougher line needs to be taken on ads that feature stereotypical gender roles or characteristics which, through their content and context, may be potentially harmful to people,” the CAP and ASA said. While the report acknowledged it would be “inappropriate and unrealistic” to prevent ads from depicting a woman cleaning, for example, “new standards on gender stereotypes might elaborate on the types of treatments that might be problematic.”

The report provided three examples of types of depictions that are likely to be problematic: an ad that depicts family members creating a mess, while a woman has sole responsibility for cleaning it up; an ad that suggests a specific activity is inappropriate for boys because it is stereotypically associated with girls, or vice versa; and an ad that features a man trying and failing to undertake simple parental or household tasks.

For the next step, the CAP and ASA said new regulations will be forthcoming. “CAP and the ASA consider the report provides an evidence-based case to strengthen their regulation on the use of gender stereotypes in ads which, through their content and context, might be potentially harmful to people.”

CAP intends to develop new standards, on which it will make public a progress report before the end of 2017. Training and advice on the new standards will be delivered “in good time” before the standards come into force, CAP added.

To read the report, click here.

Why it matters: The U.K. is not the first country to ban gender stereotypes in ads. The new standards will add the country to a list including Canada, Finland, France, Germany, India, Ireland, Italy, Norway, South Africa and Spain, among others, that prohibits such stereotyping. The United States has a limited restriction in place, with the Children’s Advertising Review Unit enforcing more general guidelines that “advertisers should avoid social stereotyping and appeals to prejudice.”
U.K. to Ban Gender Stereotypes in Ads br br By Je... (show quote)

Looks like some people just don't have enough useful work to do.

Reply
Aug 4, 2017 15:21:09   #
Kissel vonKeister Loc: Georgia
 
n3eg wrote:
At least now they won't be able to market the Olympus E-PL line of cameras as "girly accessories"...

Darn! And one of the guys on here was just about to buy a pink camera. I don't dare say who it is.

Reply
Aug 4, 2017 15:31:03   #
Kissel vonKeister Loc: Georgia
 
CatMarley wrote:
Do not underestimate the dangerous direction this is taking. The same State that is imposing this just killed a child rather than allow his parents to seek care in another country. Statism is the enemy of Liberty!

Let me remind you that the US doctor traveled to Britain and declared the child's condition beyond hope. The state didn't kill him.

Reply
 
 
Aug 4, 2017 15:37:48   #
whitewolfowner
 
The New World Order at it's finest. Still OK to lie through your teeth to sell something though!

Reply
Aug 4, 2017 15:47:02   #
Aeneas Loc: Somers, NY
 
Much too much government control.

Reply
Aug 4, 2017 15:55:11   #
cambriaman Loc: Central CA Coast
 
The Irish would call the whole business "blather"'.

Reply
Aug 4, 2017 16:42:02   #
Tomcat5133 Loc: Gladwyne PA
 
Well guys the Brits have had cameras on most streets in London for years. They have survelience 24 7.
I have always seen regulations as trying to changes minds to the thinking one one group.
All I can say I spent time in London for a number of summers when my son had an apartment
their for his job. I felt safer then in Philadelphia and New York where I lived most of my life
and found the people to be extremely nice. I don't really understand photo restrictions.
I see people taking photos everywhere with their smart phones. Do they plan to try
and regulate the?

Reply
 
 
Aug 4, 2017 16:51:04   #
CatMarley Loc: North Carolina
 
Kissel vonKeister wrote:
Let me remind you that the US doctor traveled to Britain and declared the child's condition beyond hope. The state didn't kill him.


That doctor was finally allowed to examine the child after 7 months of litigation. Had he been treated at the beginning, before his brain had been allowed to deteriorate, stem cell therapy may have saved him. The State DID kill him!
C. Marley, M.D.

Reply
Aug 4, 2017 17:00:14   #
rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona
 
Cannons might be bad. It just depends on which end of one, one is positioned.
--Bob
AlfredU wrote:
Hey, Bill, I know you don't like Canons, but you may want to at least spell the name correctly when you bash them. Gives you more credibility.

Reply
Aug 4, 2017 17:01:56   #
Kissel vonKeister Loc: Georgia
 
CatMarley wrote:
That doctor was finally allowed to examine the child after 7 months of litigation. Had he been treated at the beginning, before his brain had been allowed to deteriorate, stem cell therapy may have saved him. The State DID kill him!
C. Marley, M.D.

Thank you for your highly emotional clarity, Dr Ignore List. People sure like to argue on here, don't they?

Reply
Aug 4, 2017 17:17:32   #
Architect1776 Loc: In my mind
 
FRENCHY wrote:
I hope not to ketch up with the rest of these losers

Can you imagine a SINGLE PAYOR ?



Reply
Page <<first <prev 4 of 8 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
The Attic
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.