web analytics

DEAR ADVERTISING STANDARDS AUTHORITY:

By Pete Moore On May 11th, 2012

I agree with Tim Worstall. Really, do take his advice to heart. I’m particularly smitten with his idea of strangling the last quangocrat with the intestines of the last bureaucrat. Best plan I’ve heard in ages.

I’m at that point in life where I can’t give a stuff about gays and gaydom. At the risk of upsetting a few, they’re about the dullest subject under the sun. But whoever will tell me (or His Grace) that it is ‘homophobic and offensive’ to feature married men and women on a blog, or to suggest that most people want to keep “marriage” between men and women, well they can sincerely kiss my arse.

28 Responses to “DEAR ADVERTISING STANDARDS AUTHORITY:”

  1. Be careful about signing petitions on this thing.

    You’ll be harassed endlessly if you do. Its what they do.

  2. Phantom,

    So you have signed it, and are speaking from experience?

  3. No sir

    I remember when the wars were raging for Proposition 8 in California. The identities of those who made donations to the initiative were public information. There were reported incidents of ” activists ” tracking them out, harassing them, organizing a boycott of a restaurant owner who had sent money, etc.

    It’s what they do.

    Much of this is organized intimidation, and you need to decide if you need to have yourself and your family put through that. Fight in other ways, esp at the ballot box.

  4. //The identities of those who made donations to the initiative were public information//

    Is this not mandatory under US law? I’ve seen Websites listing every single donor to political election campaign, showing the amount donated, the name, address and occupation of the donor etc. Once you’ve given, you’re in there and there’s apparently little you can do to get out.

  5. I suppose that by asking people at ATW (mostly male readership) to bestow with their lips a sign of affection upon his ass Pete is signaling that he is at least ambivalent about the heterosexual/homosexual divide.

  6. It is required by law.

    And this is the downside of such transparency. It leaves you open to intimidation, retaliation by employers, ” activists “, creeps of any kind.

  7. There’s a great line in there:

    Turn the other cheek in this situation and you’ll be buggered.

  8. The Fruits are unrepentent attention-seekers (aka: raging Queens) who get their rocks off by shoving their vile, sodomy life-style into everone’s face who thinks traditional marriage is the way to go.

    I told one real flammer who was prancing around the Main street recently : “Shove your homo-devience up your arse”.

    Big mistake.

    Response- In a shrill voice he replied: “Whee, that would be fun. Is that devience motorized and does it have those nice bumps all over it?”

  9. Pete

    If you really couldn’t “give a stuff about gays and gaydom” why bother uploading a post about them ?

  10. Colm, the blogger is apparently now the subject of official investigation for suspected homophobia, etc. in the ad.

  11. That is genuinely frightening, if true.

    And the bad thing is – I am sure that there will be a few here to don’t have any problem with such investigation, and, prosecution if it comes to that.

    For an opinion.

  12. Jesus, Mary and Joseph, there are almost as many articles on gays on ATW as there are in on this website .

    One would almost think…

    No, better not go there. There’s probably a perfectly logical explanation :)

  13. This is nonsense. I have seen anti same sex marraige adverts many times and they have clearly been approved by the ASA as was the recent planned “ex-gay” campaign on the buses which Boris Johnson stopped. The ASA has to respond to official complaints but I would bet anything that nothing will come of it. The only dodgy ground might be if the quoted opin ion statistice in the advert could not be verified. It is not illegal to express an opinion in favour of keeping the current marraige gender rules.

  14. Right, Colm

    //The only dodgy ground might be if the quoted opinion statistice in the advert could not be verified//

    I doubt if it is illegal to misrepresent statistics in what is after all only a published political opinion; there is no product being sold against competition, etc.

    It’s interesting that all recent surveys in the US suggest that there’s a slim majority there in favour of same-sex marriage being made legal.

    The survey behind this ad was probably conducted outside church doors on Sunday.

  15. Why does a political ad have to be ” approved ” by this organization or by anyone else?

    Are you effectively able to advertise commercially without dealing with this outfit?

  16. Phantom

    The ASA rarely if ever interferes with political Ads, it mainly exists to ensure commercial advertising of products or services does not contain falsehoods or cons people with unfeasible promises. It does have a fair amount of power but not pre-emptively. No-one needs it’s permission to advertise, they can only adjudicate after the event following complaints.

  17. My antennae go up when I hear of a ” regulator ” of speech, even a ” voluntary ” one.

    There should be robust, even rude, debate on all topics. I’d be sure that you agree with this, but there are others who’d love the idea of shutting the other guy down.

    And even the hint of investigation can lead people to ” tone it down “. Voluntary regulation leading to voluntary lessening of debate on all contentious issues.

  18. Phantom –

    Nominally, the ASA is an independent standards authority, funded by a small levy on all advertisements, for the advertising industry, “to ensure advertisements are legal, decent, honest and truthful.”

    In reality, it’s another example of how the Establishment keeps a check on what the people are seeing and doing. Many industries have these apparently independent watchdogs, and they’re all stuffed with well-vetted, trustworthy drones.

  19. Apart from any PC pressure being applied to the website, if this proposal goes through, where does it stop, and why shouldn’t any form of “marriage” be officially sanctioned – however bizarre?

    Welcome back Joseph Smith! All is forgiven..

  20. Agit8ed, if we allow them prohibit same-sex marriage soon it’ll be too late to stop them prohibiting different-sex marriage. As you say, where does it stop.

    “why shouldn’t any form of “marriage” be officially sanctioned”

    Tell me, why should any form of “marriage” be officially sanctioned?

  21. Because we have an organized society.

  22. [...] Graas, Ben, Prodicus, Tangled Web, Tim Worstall, Boiling Frog, Vic, Roger, The Bones, [...]

  23. But Phantom, that’s if anything a further argument for same-sex marriage.

    Why is the state involved in marriage at all? If it is because it considers it good that couples get an official sanction on their relationship and that such sanction both reinforces their commitment and somehow helps society organise, as you suggest, then surely it must be extended to all couples – firstly because all pay equally to funding these state services, and second because society would be even more harmonius and “organised” if as many couples as possible were recognised by the state.

  24. For better or worse, marriage is intertwined with property rights, pension rights, children’s issues, etc.

    If you want to disentangle the state from all that, good luck.

  25. Out of curiosity I visited the “Cranmer” blog.

    The blogger consistently speaks of himself in the third person. Oh dear. Isn’t that indicative of a personality disorder?

    The last illeist I came across was … Gollum. And that saga didn’t end well :)

  26. It’s amusing how Rightworld has got its knickers in a twist about this issue. And of course they know that they are fighting a losing battle. It’s a matter of when, not if.

    Personally I couldn’t care less either way, but unfortunately the debate gives an excuse for the homophobes to have a nice little rant. And no Pete, I do not include you in that category, unless you wish to be.

  27. Don’t have strong feelings about what “marriage” should mean to sign the petition – stronger feelings about what it does mean!

  28. “Tell me, why should any form of “marriage” be officially sanctioned?”
    As Phantom says, “Because we have an organized society.”

    You cannot build a society or a civilisation on chaos.
    No one has, no one will.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.