The Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre has ruled that a fifties advertisement for egg cannot be shown in reruns. Apparently an old ad can be a threat to the balance of your diet:
Reruns of a TV commercial from the 1950s which urged viewers to “go to work on an egg” have been banned…
The Egg Information Service had wanted to screen the advert, which featured comedian Tony Hancock, to celebrate its 50th birthday…
The Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre (BACC) defended its decision, insisting that the adverts did not suggest a varied diet.
BACC spokesman Kristoffer Hammer said: “Dietary considerations have been at the centre of the new rules for advertising and in consideration of this we felt that these adverts did not suggest a varied diet.
“The concept of eating eggs every day for breakfast goes against what is now the generally accepted advice of a varied diet and we therefore could not approve the ads for broadcast.”
Wow, that makes perfect sense. An ADVERTISEMENT for EGGS is not telling us to eat a “varied diet,” rather opting to promote the product it was made to sell, eggs. Apparently people in the UK are too stupid to realize that they should not take their dietary advice from fifties advertisements… or whatever bullshit authority did this is so stupid that it does not realize that it is fighting against completely imaginary evils. Smart money’s on the latter.
So what the hell is the “Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre”? It is a non-governmental organization that “ensures that advertising submitted to it complies with the Ofcom code.” The Ofcom code is… yet another censorship law.
Freedom of expression is at the heart of any democratic state. It is an essential right to hold opinions and receive and impart information and ideas. Broadcasting and freedom of expression are intrinsically linked. However, with such rights come duties and responsibilities. The setting out of clear principles and rules will allow broadcasters more freedom for creativity and audiences greater freedom to exercise their choices, while securing those objectives set by Parliament. The focus is on adult audiences making informed choices within a regulatory framework which gives them a reasonable expectation of what they will receive, while at the same time robustly protecting those too young to exercise fully informed choices for themselves.
On my message board, I have a game sometimes that I call “Find the Error,” where I ask people to find the error in reasoning in a piece of text, generally opinion pieces. This will not be a Find the Error, because there would simply be too many of them. But most importantly, it appears that all principles of logic have been suspended: censoring reruns of old egg ads, or anything else that does not present a whole “context,” “allows more freedom for creativity” and gives customers “greater freedom to exercise their choices.”
How can any law give more freedom? The law is arbitrary force. Laws are guns pointed at you. Unless the individual is free to accept or reject laws, they can only take away freedom, not give you more of it.
If being forced, under threat of force, to show the big picture in every ad or program gives me freedom for creativity, then I am derelict right now for not telling you about the wonderful benefits of government censorship. However, to give proper context, should I also not explain why I am giving the proper context, i.e. because the government censors the media and threatens us if we disobey?
How do you think that would go with the bigwigs?
The government’s force, threats of force, or threat of withdrawing subsidies, is a big part of the context in any television show, and only a statist would be stupid enough as to believe that censorship is freedom or that force is peace. State legislation is fantasy land, from the first word to the last. It is a castle of sand built on the same principles than schoolyard bullies demanding your lunch money, but with grownups controlling people’s lives and billions of our stolen dollars.