Posted on 01/30/2009 11:50:18 AM PST by Mister Ghost
From season to season it happens, and you’re probably not surprised, but Calvin Klein ads are banned again!
The new TV commercial for its Jeans line, shot by the unpredictable and edgy Steven Meisel, turned out to be so provocative, that it was banned from even late-night cable TV.
The new grainy Jeans commercial features half naked models Anna Selezneva, Anna Jagodzinska and Natasha Poly kissing their counterpart male models Vladimir Ivanov and Danny Schwarz. (Image at original site NSFW).
(Excerpt) Read more at thefashiontime.com ...
A typical “Banned in Boston!” style promotion.
Took a quick look, and I mean quick, because it didn’t take long to figure why they were banned.
I would not want my kids to see anything like that, either.
Change the channel. Free speech is a good thing. The more power you give the Feds to regulate what’s on the airwaves, the power they will exercise. They don’t see a distinction between ‘decency’ and ‘viewpoint’ so it’s better to have less regulation all the way around if you ask me.
Topless waifs kissing gay men.
Tres European!
With homosexual men running almost all the the major fashion houses, I'm not surprised to see artistic images and aesthetics that emote "prepubescent boys" - The women look like teenage boys and the men look like teenage boys.
This isn’t the fed, this is the networks. They don’t have to show stuff they don’t want.
They get a thousand times more publicity when something is banned then when they actually have to pay TV stations to run the commercials. best of all it’s free to them. Frankly, I fail to see what the big deal is.
The networks aren’t airing it because they are afraid of violating ‘decency standards.’
when your clothes are over priced, poorly made and bland, you have to resort to this kind of stuff to seem current. Calvin Klein is so 1996.
Step #2 - Submit it to network
Step #3 - Wait for network to reject it
Step #4 - Complain the network rejected it
Step #5 - Enjoy the publicity
His buttocks are sublime. (Kramer on Seinfeld)
I’m all for self-imposed decency standards...
Which this is. Some of the refusers are self imposing due to fear of the government, but most aren’t, and even if fear is a motive it’s still self imposed.
it’s no wonder, they’re not selling clothes, they are selling sex
.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press";
The rule has been subsumed by the exceptions.
these were not going to be aired and they knew it, the controversy is the real ad.
Maybe so. Clever.
Remember the majority of the companies that rejected the ad have no fear of government retribution, they’re cable companies and 100% unregulated by the FCC. They can show whatever the hell they want, and they DON’T WANT to show this ad.
As for the ones that are regulated, they’re leasing public property (airwaves), that comes with certian obligations and rules.
You don’t realize what’s happening do you?
http://ezinearticles.com/?FCC-Threatens-Decency-Standards-for-Cable-TV&id=164980
I agree that the ads should be banned.
Does ANYBODY still wear Calvin Klein crap?
Rush is on radio. Governed by the FCC.
That’s from like 3 years ago. They don’t have a leg to stand on with it. The FCC gets its power because the airwaves are public property, and like so much public property (true public property, not open to the public stuff) it’s access is controlled by the government. Networks lease access to the airwaves from the government and have to follow the rules set. Cable channels don’t use the airwaves, there’s no lease, there’s no rules besides what they set. But they do all set rules, every network, even the smut channels, have a “standards and practices” group whose job is to decide where that network’s line in the sand is and draw it and enforce it. They decided this ad was on the wrong side of their line. That’s their prerogative, that’s self censorship, which you said you’re for.
The people who could afford Calvin Klein back during the boom in the 90’s are working at Starbucks now or scrubbing toilets in Motel 6.
The same farmers and ranchers who wore Carhartts in 1996 are still wearing them today. People gotta eat.
It sort of looks like some kind of massacre only no blood. Or they died of starvation.
It’s not faith in the government. It’s faith in the fact that if they tired to give the FCC control over cable the biggest media companies in the country (which are some of the biggest companies period) have the lawyers and the vested interest totie it up in the courts until the children of the children of the people that wrote the law died of old age. Disney, Viacom, Discovery, Time Warner, Comcast, History and Cox would all dedicate millions a year to blocking the move. Even if they were wrong (which they wouldn’t be) they’d probably win just on force of lawyers.
And note, most if not all of those companies are on the list of folks who voluntarily rejected this ad.
Listen, the government has infinite resources and a whole panoply of direct and indirect regulatory options. Even if they don’t appear to have power to regulate cable (though not satellite tv since the public spectrum is used to commuicate with satellites), there are endless other regulatory options. The government can set the fees the cable company charges you...you don’t think they can find a way to limit the content??
When was the last time The Mouse lost a lawsuit? If it comes to anybody (including a Dem run government) vs Disney I put my money on Disney. And Disney with help is even scarier. There’s a reason one of the biggest rules of the entertainment business is “don’t mess with The Mouse”. And lets not forget that these companies are filled with “fellow travelers” and big donators, even if they are dumb enough to mess with The Mouse they aren’t going to bite the hand that put them in office.
I see now. You’re young.
I’m 39. Been around long enough to see this play out over and over. Every time there’s a change in administration the other side is sure there’s going to be massive censorship. When Reagan took office the left “knew” Playboy was going to be illegal in 6 months (entertainingly enough the only major move for censorship during the Reagan administration came from Al Gore’s wife). When Clinton took office the right was sure Rush was toast. When Bush II took office once again the CW said Playboy was gone. Now we’ve got Obama and sure enough the right is worried about Rush.
I believe in trends. So far nobody’s fear of massive censorship has come to pass.
I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree then, you believe the cable industry is impervious to federal regulation...I believe it’s only a matter of time.
The real punchline is there’s no reason for it. The biggest reason neither party makes any serious censorship moves is very simple: it gives them something to complain about. Complaints are a powerful thing in politics, Lieberman gets a good chunk of cash every time he says Hollywood is a smut factory. And Obama got nice cash every time he complained about Rush. Money talks in politics, and demanding censorship is a great way to get money.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.