The United Kingdom’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has ordered Urban Outfitters to remove a picture of a model as showing an impermissible “inner thigh gap” that encourages what is viewed as an “unhealthy” diet for girls. It is the latest example, in my opinion, of a wholesale regulation of speech — both political and commercial — in England.
The company insists that the model shown in black polka-dot bikini briefs is not underweight. You can be your own judge. However, it should not matter. I have long opposed these regulations of speech and images by the government despite my sympathy with those who object to ultra skinny models.
The agency forces companies to show images that it deems healthy and positive. The ASA released a statement: “We understood that Urban Outfitters’ target market was young people and considered that using a noticeably underweight model was likely to impress upon that audience that the image was representative of the people who might wear Urban Outfitters’ clothing, and as being something to aspire to. We therefore concluded that the ad was irresponsible.”
I understand the view of clinical psychologists and others who oppose the ubiquitous images of skinny models as creating social pressure on young girls to remain underweight and adding to depression over weight as well as eating disorders. However, the proper response is through market pressures and education, not government regulation of speech.
I have repeatedly written on the alarming erosion of free speech in the United Kingdom, particularly as a result of hate speech and anti-discriminatory regulations (here and here and here). This includes a move to criminalize “unsavory” speech as well as anonymous speech by the government. England appears on a slippery slope of speech regulation where more and more speech is deemed problematic or unhealthy. Free speech requires a bright line rule of protection that has been lost in the United Kingdom.
Source: Fox
Britain will begin to get some respect when they take the crowns off the queens and princes.
Bigfatmike
Well, as a matter of fact, I know enough about anatomy and physiology to state for certain, this is not a guess, that the body showing is that of a healthy young female who simply is a little wanting in the derrierre area. There are lots of women who don’t develop the ‘big two’ or the elements that attract the opposite sex until they become pregnant. Lots of women are shy in the b**b area as well as the b*tt area. This girl, and my background in science in the field tells me it is a girl, is perfectly alright. I can tell yo definitively that this girl is in no danger whatsoever. To be any more certain, I would have to see more, of course.
@issac: “Well, as a matter of fact, I know enough about anatomy and physiology to state for certain, this is not a guess, that the body showing is that of a healthy young female who simply is a little wanting in the derrierre area. ”
Thanks for your response. So it is reasonable to suppose that this is not just an issue of free speech but also an example of subjective opinion working it way into regulation.
I am comfortable with a lot of regulation, particularly when it comes to safety. But until we see additional data it seems this is an example of well intentioned regulators forcing others to comply with thier subjective opinion.
It looks like this is a bad show all the way around.
Does anyone know enough about anatomy and physiology to make a guess if this model is actually under weight.
I am pretty sure there is no scientific measure of appropriate body weight based on inner thigh pudginess.
I think in the old days some used ‘fat’ calipers to estimate percent body fat but I am pretty sure they applied those around the ribs.
Can anyone tells us definitively that this person does not fall within a range typical for young women or that her body fat is dangerously low?
http://youtu.be/LS37SNYjg8w
I don’t get it. I don’t see anything different from the model in this England ad from our anorexic or bulimic models in the US as well as many of our actresses. Obviously, this is a very young, not fully matured girl–probably a teenager.
How is this different than our government telling us how we should eat and exercise?
Bailers
Google Harry Enfield ‘Women know your limits’
“I do so love little puppies.”
“We understood that Urban Outfitters’ target market was young people and considered that using a noticeably underweight model was likely to impress upon that audience that the image was representative of the people who might wear Urban Outfitters’ clothing, and as being something to aspire to. We therefore concluded that the ad was irresponsible.”
Doesn’t this line of thinking mean that all ads depicting noticeably overweight models are irresponsible and should be banned?
I think the key is the good professor’s last point: there needs to be a clear, bright line rule protecting free speech. Once you start slipping from a clear rule, then everything becomes a matter of judgment. And, if there’s one thing we should know from history, it is that those given great power will abuse that power. Start giving the government discretion to suppress “bad” speech and it will suppress speech that is disfavored by the government for whatever reason.
If consumers want to vote with their money, I have no problem but when the government steps in its nuts!
If they want to deal with things dangerous to children they can start with Cameron’s attack on the NHS.
Young girls are overly concerned about weight. My oldest granddaughter hardly eats anything for fear of getting fat. The rest of the pictures are fine, even though the panties and their cost are outrageous. Who protects these children, and they still are, if not their parents? But how can parents protect a daughter from thinking her thighs must not touch? They don’t have to purchase a product for the visual to stay in a child’s head.
There was an incredible outrage in America when a department store chain had pictures of 7-8 year olds in incredibly sexy poses. Clothed, but the pose of Victoria’s Secret. Women cancelled their accounts and the chain is gone. Not instantly, but gone.
Abercrombie & Fitch had some pretty sexual ads a few years back. The store windows were changed overnight. Whomever approved that picture should have a firm talking to. Parents may stay away from that store for a long time. It could end up decreasing sales (I hope).
England is assuming German tendencies: “What is not permitted is forbidden.”.
Now wait a minute. Why the rush to judgement? Shouldn’t we review some more pictures of the model just to be sure we are reaching in informed conclusion? The flat lighting in these photos might be perfect to reveal the pattern in fabric. But they don’t help much with the model – they might as well have stuck the clothes on a cardboard cutout. I think different lighting and camera angles would help immensely.
This is very Fahrenheit 451.
Isn’t this discriminatory against thin people? The government shouldn’t decide what kind of models can be used. It’s intrusive Nanny State at its best.
There are other ways to combat eating disorders than social engineering.
Land sakes, sure a bony-looking critter. But who cares?? Just an example of how the UK is headed to the dustpin of history. Imagine, there are people there most likely paid a lot of money to look for stuff like that. ?????????
Isn’t “The Gap”, a whole clothing line store?
Are they going to outlaw that too?
Paul,
You never know these days.
Bailers – thanks for telling me. I couldn’t tell. 😉
Women are so weak and fragile. It’s a good thing there are men and other women around to help these poor creatures.
(it’s sarcasm if you can’t tell)
I think the Europeans are nuts, but we are following their example. Why are we not discussing the attack on Harvard Law by the Dept of Education?
Another reason to “mind the gap”.