Recent London advertisement ban attacks freedom of expression
Last week, the city of London declared that advertisements that “could reasonably be seen as likely to cause pressure to conform to an unrealistic or unhealthy body shape” would be banned from appearing in public transportation vehicles or stations. At issue was an advertisement for Protein World, a manufacturer of weight-loss and muscle-gain dietary supplements, featuring an athletically-built young woman in a bikini. The advertisement read “Are you beach body ready?” Evidently, London was not.
London’s successful ban of images that merely could cause an individual discomfort is disturbing for those concerned with freedom of expression. Its new municipal government felt that such an ad was inappropriate for an audience to be exposed to at all. Had the advertisement been deliberately demeaning or explicitly derogatory in its language, the apparent outrage would have been more justified. This, however, was not the case. The advertisement’s model and presentation could best be described as typical, similar to innumerable ads run for various products all over the world. Calling for change in the modeling industry to reflect the composition of society at large is one thing, but manipulating the law to force companies to conform to one’s belief about how one should look is quite another.
Judging from the online petition calling for the advertisement’s removal, which garnered over 70,000 signatures, a number of people were quite upset at the mere existence of the ad. Perhaps rightly so — achieving a more-or-less idealized figure is an immensely difficult task for many, this writer included. However, it was very irresponsible for the city of London to ban the advertisement and all those like it on the basis of its use of an assumedly unhealthy model. The model, Renee Somerfield, is a self-proclaimed vegan, has a healthy BMI and has worked hard to achieve her appearance in the ad. Clearly the issue is not that the model was unhealthy or attempting to promote unhealthy lifestyles. It is more likely that some riders on London’s public transit system felt like they were not represented by the advertisement, and felt indignation as a result. If consumers believe that they are not represented by an ad and want more people who look like them to be featured, there is a simpler, more respectful and more effective way to effect that change instead of demanding that the government ban the promotion of other body types.
Like countless advertised products, weight loss supplements attract consumer interest by presenting their audience with something it may not have. In this case, that is an athletically toned body. It is then up to the consumer to decide if they want to purchase the product. There is no coercion involved because the choice to purchase is entirely voluntary. If people are offended by an advertisement, they are most likely not purchasing what it is selling. If Protein World missed the mark and advertised to the wrong demographic, it would not see a return on its advertisement campaign investment. That would send a message to Protein World — wrong place, wrong time. Protein World would then move the ads from London’s public transit system to more profitable pastures, freeing the riders from what some may feel are offensive ads.
The success of this market-based approach to body image and modeling can be seen especially in the American consumer base — models like Ruby Rose, Madeline Stuart and Tess Holliday have garnered significant positive attention in the United States and from consumers and companies alike. Rose, an Australian queer model and actress, has enjoyed considerable success and acclaim on Netflix’s Orange Is the New Black. Stuart, an Australian model with Down syndrome, has been featured in People Magazine in recognition of her breakthrough modeling and designing career. Holliday is an American plus-size model who has been featured in People Magazine and Vogue Italia and was the first woman of her body type to sign a contract with a well-known modeling agency. These individuals did not become famous because of beauty standards — they became famous in spite of them. It was not government censorship, but the desire to express themselves that helped drive their continuing success.
No one, skinny and tall or chubby and short, should be told their body type and appearance are damaging to others, and especially not as a matter of law. Blatant proscription of any body type in media is discriminatory and harmful in and of itself. The act of supporting or being in favor of London’s recent advertisement ban, despite it claiming to be promoting unhealthy body image, would be antithetical to freedom of expression and the respect for all body types. A model is a model, and they should be free to present themself to whomever they wish through through whatever platform they see fit. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and the regulation of beauty has no place in a society that values freedom of expression.
Yes, London’s ban, as described, is silly and unjustified. It represents another over-correction to a debatable problem in the first place. It ascribes way too much consideration for the “feelings” of individuals, based on a questionable premise, and presents an unjustified constraint on corporate advertising.
There is increasing conversation on this and related topics here in the United States, and quite frankly it is largely ridiculous and certainly contradictory. On one hand you have medical professionals, scientists and even the First Lady telling us that obesity is a major problem in the U.S. Indeed they are correct. Yet at the same time, we have other people, often politically motivated, attacking companies like Mattel suggesting that the Barbie doll presents an unrealistic image, or that it will cause young people to be depressed or otherwise negatively affected. Really?? Clearly this is not true because if things like Barbie dolls and fashion models were having such a huge negative impact on people in our society, then there wouldn’t be such an obesity problem. Yes, some people suffer eating disorders and other issues because of society’s pressure to be thin… but the vast majority of people respond to this pressure in a sensible and healthy way.
The point is that this sort of pressure is a good thing. We clearly need to be encouraging people to stay fit, healthy and active… and for those who are carrying extra weight beyond what science and medicine tell us is healthy, to work at losing that weight. This is good pressure. We can’t have it both ways. If people feel an element of shame for being overweight, this is good. These are natural, healthy responses… They are an expression of conscience.
Also, let’s please correct some more nonsense about the modeling industry. These same people who take issue with the Barbie Doll have also been attacking the modeling and fashion industries for not “reflecting society”. Total rubbish. The modeling industry was NEVER about reflecting society. Models by definition reflect “ideals”. Models generally represent what people would like to be or achieve. Models are not meant to be average. They are above-average. They present a form of escape for the rest of us average people. If we start pressuring the modeling industry into adding fat people or Downs Syndrome people or people in wheelchairs… then we would cease to have modeling. Instead we would simply have normal, everyday people. There’s absolutely no shame in being a normal, everyday person… but then you are not a model. That’s not what fashion and modeling is about. This is another screwball effort by so-called “Progressives” to push for inclusion or equality. STOP. Not everybody gets to be included in everything. That’s not how anything works, and you are teaching young people the wrong message to suggest the everyone gets included… or that everyone is beautiful.
Time for a reality check.
This stance regarding public marketing was announced by the newly installed mayor of London who happens to be Muslim. Not saying there is any linkage, just reporting, you decide.