Draft: Advertising Standards Act

[Separatist Peoples]

How is this an 'international' issue?

Perhaps the proposal should focus more on ads that cross national borders, or ads pertaining to international companies?

"Are nations incapable of setting their own standards on such companies , or do you think that by being international in scope, a business magically gets to ignore all government control in a certain jurisdiction?"

[Mundiferrum]

Perhaps the proposal should focus more on ads that cross national borders, or ads pertaining to international companies?

"Are nations incapable of setting their own standards on such companies , or do you think that by being international in scope, a business magically gets to ignore all government control in a certain jurisdiction?"

Good point.

[Wrapper]

Advertising? What's....

Ari looks to his assistant. Wad Ahume, of course, recognizes that Ari already knows the meaning of it -- they've certainly spent enough time watching "television" on this planet. Ahume dutifully shrugs, and points to the definition.

Ah, thank you. Ummm... right here, Ambassador, you've defined "advertising" as the production of "advertisements". That seems a bit circular, is it not? And as others have pointed out, this does not seem to be an international issue. All in all, with what you're trying to legislate, it seems like overreach and overregulation. That said, should significant changes be made, there may be some merit in this, so, we'll keep an open mind for now, and see where this goes from here.

[Grays Harbor]

1. Any business or commercial entity that specifically caters to the target adult population via a media source does not advertise their commercial products or services in a market that specifically caters to a minor demographic,

Any advertiser who uses kiddie shows to target adults and adult products sucks at their job, and probably should be fired for that reason alone.

2. Any business or commercial entity that advertises via an online media source that requires the end use to supply a date of birth as part of the registration process, filter those who are not of age from adult targeted advertisements.

Wow. Because no teenage boy EVER has supplied a fake birthdate in order to see boobies.

3. All business or commercial entities make an attempt to shield targeted adult advertisements from a person who can be identified as a minor in a child friendly market

Right, because we should all become helicopter parents and wraps the kids up in bubblepaper because they are so young and impressionable and can't stand to be treated as anything other than precious porcelain dolls.

Overall, we believe this to be a national issue, and fairly unwarranted even then, and a pointless attempt to smother children in the name of "protecting" them.

[Bananaistan]

We do not see this as an international issue at all. Opposed.

[Tabcorp Park]

Any advertiser who uses kiddie shows to target adults and adult products sucks at their job, and probably should be fired for that reason alone.

It depends on how you look at it I guess. I'd argue that you could groom a child for later on in life to use that product/service or extreme cases, steal daddies credit card and use those adult services/products online.

Wow. Because no teenage boy EVER has supplied a fake birthdate in order to see boobies.

This statement is moot as the responsibility lies purely with the company that accepted the registration to which the platform that the ad is viewed on. Conversely, although some folk will lie about their age, some won't.

Right, because we should all become helicopter parents and wraps the kids up in bubblepaper because they are so young and impressionable and can't stand to be treated as anything other than precious porcelain dolls.

Right, should a movie that produces a graphic scene of sex or violence be allowed to promote that trailer anytime they want?

Overall, we believe this to be a national issue, and fairly unwarranted even then, and a pointless attempt to smother children in the name of "protecting" them.

I understand your NatSov argument but this is in no way an attempt to smother children. It's merely adding a common sense approach to something that you'd normally expect to happen.

[Grays Harbor]

Hmm ... No, we're not seeing much evidence of "common sense" here with this.

[Araraukar]

I'd argue that you could groom a child for later on in life to use that product/service

Unless it's literally the only product/service advertized, it'd have little chance of "grooming" a child. Actually, product placement in the shows themselves would much more likely achieve that goal.

or extreme cases, steal daddies credit card and use those adult services/products online.

To paraphrase your own response... "This statement is moot as the responsibility lies purely with the parents that leave their credit card lying around. Conversely, although some kids might do that, some won't." See how well it works/doesn't work?

Right, should a movie that produces a graphic scene of sex or violence be allowed to promote that trailer anytime they want?

Yes, and they do that all the time. Of course they don't show the most violent/sexy scene in the trailer - people wouldn't go to the movies if they did. [OOC example: Game of Thrones has pretty gruesome scenes, yet it still advertizes on the streets, during prime time, etc., where children can definitely see it. But they don't show the graphic violence in the ads, nor mention that there's technically an age limit to watch the show.]

I understand your NatSov argument but this is in no way an attempt to smother children.

Not smother, but wrap them in bubblewrap and close into a bubble and watch over everything they might see/hear/taste/smell until they reach adulthood. Boy will they be surprised when they learn of all the things they could've learned about when kids! I bet they'll never think of sueing their parents for deprivement either. /sarcasm

It's merely adding a common sense approach to something that you'd normally expect to happen.

...I wouldn't normally expect to happen, when advertizing is in question, that a child would be easily groomed to steal their daddy's ["daddies" is wrong for so many reasons] credit card. Common sense, anyone?

[Tabcorp Park]

So I've completely changed it up.

Any comments on it?

[Wrapper]

...you've defined "advertising" as the production of "advertisements". That seems a bit circular, is it not? And as others have pointed out, this does not seem to be an international issue. All in all, with what you're trying to legislate, it seems like overreach and overregulation.

[Fendon]

So I've completely changed it up.

Any comments on it?

Put your latest Draft in the OP and the First Draft in a spoiler, instead of having both in spoilers.

Our original argument still stands. This piece of legislation is still over-reaching as you have no adequately defined "adult material." Essentially you're killing off advertising for products aimed at adults which aren't harmful to children, such as funeral directors, insurance companies, automobile manufacturers.

[Tabcorp Park]

So I've completely changed it up.

Any comments on it?

Put your latest Draft in the OP and the First Draft in a spoiler, instead of having both in spoilers.

Our original argument still stands. This piece of legislation is still over-reaching as you have no adequately defined "adult material." Essentially you're killing off advertising for products aimed at adults which aren't harmful to children, such as funeral directors, insurance companies, automobile manufacturers.

My mistake, the current rewite is in the OP, the ild material is contained in spoliers

[Moronist Decisions]

I'm not convinced that this is something that needs to be legislated on an international level.