Paris Hilton's Carl Juniors's T.V. Commercial. Soft Porn Free Speech, or Something Else?
Surely by now, may of you have seen the new television commercial featuring Paris Hilton in what appears to be a black leather scantly clad, low cut barely there outfit, as she sprawls out on an expensive automobile, lathering herself with a wet, fomy sponge, as she spreads out on the top of a car taking a bit out of a Carl's Jr's hamburger. In the backrgound is a modern rendition of the torch song, "I love Paris." Here is an article on the commercial:
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-paris24may24,1,5181879.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
The visuals are quite graphic, leaving little to the imagination. Regardless of what this commercial has to say about women and what is necessary for them to appeal to men, particularly those between the ages of 18-34, is it your opinion that this kind of advertising is (1) permissible free speech and/or (2) behavior falling within the category of soft core pornography. As the illustrations Justice Potter Stewart said in defining pornography, "I know it when I see it."
Here is my take on the issue. As a woman, I find this commercial somewhat offensive as it defines women as desirable to men in a sexual way, and uses their bodies to to sell products. The conlcusion is that if you are a woman, and are blonde, slim, rich, and portrayed as a bimbo you are 'hot' and appealable to men. Nevertheless, I think this commercial is protected free speech and covered by the First Amendment with its own unique visuals.
Now, to relate this commentary to another one of my posts below about separation between church and state. To me, George Bush, the President of our country, the leader of the free world, who is supposed to be neutral on religion and its connotations, going to a Christian university as commencement speaker is much more offensive than this commercial with Paris Hilton, even as a woman. Like free speech, the separation of church from state are fundamental, inalienable rights guaranteed to everyone in this non-Christan country.
What do you think? Do you find the Paris Hilton commercial protected by free speech? Is it offensive to you? (two seperate questions.)
Thank you for your minds.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-paris24may24,1,5181879.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
The visuals are quite graphic, leaving little to the imagination. Regardless of what this commercial has to say about women and what is necessary for them to appeal to men, particularly those between the ages of 18-34, is it your opinion that this kind of advertising is (1) permissible free speech and/or (2) behavior falling within the category of soft core pornography. As the illustrations Justice Potter Stewart said in defining pornography, "I know it when I see it."
Here is my take on the issue. As a woman, I find this commercial somewhat offensive as it defines women as desirable to men in a sexual way, and uses their bodies to to sell products. The conlcusion is that if you are a woman, and are blonde, slim, rich, and portrayed as a bimbo you are 'hot' and appealable to men. Nevertheless, I think this commercial is protected free speech and covered by the First Amendment with its own unique visuals.
Now, to relate this commentary to another one of my posts below about separation between church and state. To me, George Bush, the President of our country, the leader of the free world, who is supposed to be neutral on religion and its connotations, going to a Christian university as commencement speaker is much more offensive than this commercial with Paris Hilton, even as a woman. Like free speech, the separation of church from state are fundamental, inalienable rights guaranteed to everyone in this non-Christan country.
What do you think? Do you find the Paris Hilton commercial protected by free speech? Is it offensive to you? (two seperate questions.)
Thank you for your minds.
15 Comments:
I am not offended to the point of anger, but Paris Hilton definitely gets a head shake and an eye roll out of me.
Do they put ratings on commercials the same way they do movies and TV programs? They should, that way, Paris can hump the car and eat the burger after 11 PM and I won't have to run and change the channel when the creepy ads for The Grudge and Amityville Horror come on at 4PM when my daughter is watching Americas Funniest Home Videos while I fix dinner.
I hate the "female as object" thing but I also know that it isn't going anywhere as long as it sells hamburgers. I do think that it is protected as free speech. I'm not saying it can't be on TV, I just don't want it out there during family hour.
Totally gross, but definitely protected by the First Amendment. Of course, TV stations have the right not to show it... there's just a First Amendment right for it to be created and so forth. But the TV networks wouldn't carry a United Church of Christ ad that seemed pro gay - even though the ad was certainly fine in terms of free speech. So one would think they'd consider NOT carrying the Hilton ad. Apparently it's okay with the networks to degrade women, but NOT to welcome gay people to a church. Nice.
Aral:
I could not agree with you more. I will never forget when there was an issue involving gay rights as an intiative and I have a pro-gay sign on my front lawn, people stopped sending their children to play here. Totally offensive. And I still believe that if Bush were the good Christan he says he is, that he would welcome and tolerate everyone regardless of sexual orientation!
Hi B,
While the Paris Hilton commercial along with those gross Girls Gone Wild commercials are both protected by the 1st amendment I am more skeeved out by them than angered by them. I sometimes think as women, we are our own enemies!
Carl's Jr. is targeting the male 18-30 audience with that commercial but so did their previous non-Paris ads.
When the Girls Gone Wild commercial comes on I have to mute it. The host of that video says to one girl "Show me where babies feed!" I just want to vomit every time I hear that one line!
I like your writings Barbara. Keep the good work up. It always encourages the reader to think. Thanks for visiting my website. Yes Barbara, I like to monitor hedge-funds and just like normal stock, bonds long only investments need careful considerations before taking the plunge.
I live in Canada and also don't watch that much TV, so I actually haven't seen the commercial (and honestly, am quite thankful!). But I would have to agree that it's sad that seeing a half naked person or hearing a sexual connotation will sell a product. On another note, (This is going to be stepping out on a limb here for me, especially since I seem to be the odd number out on the issue...) I am just wondering a bit about the comments made regarding Bush (honestly, don't know him or his campaign, really don't pay that much detailed attention to American politics). Not Bush necessarily, but the fact that he went to a Christian school for a commencement. Again there are differences btw Canada and America in regards to religion, but I am wondering: would he have gotten the same reaction had he gone to a Hindu, Buddist (etc) school? Please don't take that to be rude, honestly I am just curious to know how the American public would react to that. I ask that because I know a lot (a lot) of people with whom the latter would not be an issue but the former is.
Also I am wondering why it is "ok" for a person who practices a homosexual lifestyle to proclaim that their rights should be protected while it is not "ok" for a person of religious standing to ask that theirs be protected the same. (I am speaking here of the whole "your lifestyle infringes upon mine" debate).
Again, I am speaking, obviously, from a different cultural standpoint, as I do not know the specifics of these issues in America. And please (please!) don't take these questions to be one of a rude nature or one meaning to offend. I am honestly just trying to understand the different angles that people view these issues from. Thanks!
You know, Barbara, I think your blog inspires the most thoughful comments I've seen in the Blogosphere!
B,
So far it looks like most of us are in agreement about this ad - it's nauseating and offensive, but definitely protected :P
The reason ads like this stay on, while gay-friendly ads don't run is that a highly vocal minority makes a monster fuss about them and garners publicity for said fuss, which is apparently enough to make the networks cower. If the same sort of fit were to be pitched about the Paris commercial, it would be pulled as well.
The main difference (in my opinion) is that many of us who are skeeved out by the Paris commercial are also cognizant and respectful enough to the free speech aspect that we don't holler, because we know they're within their rights to make and air those commercials. We can abhor them without needing to rid the world of their presence at all costs.
The people who so vehemently oppose gay-friendly or even gay-tolerant commercials are usually less concerned about equality of rights, and more concerned with protecting their personal moral values. Since they don't see homosexuals as individuals with the same rights as everyone else, then in their minds there's nothing wrong with quashing anything that doesn't fall in line with their personal beliefs.
Thanks for another thought-provoking post!
p.s. you do know me from MUA (katymae16)
It's Hot.
All fantastic comments and fodder for more provcative thinking, and a new post today.
To Ash Kash. I think you raise some very good questions, and I agree with you in this sense: A gay person should have his/her rights protected in the same way that a Chirstan person should in America today. But this is not the reality that exists in our country as we have a President who is making every effort to make gays second class citizens is each and every way possible. He wants amend the US Constitution to define marraige between a man and a woman, further chiseling away the rights of homosexual individuals.
Most of his policies additionally seek to further the needs and rights of a certain group while deminishing those of others. In my opinion, under the 14th Amendment, equal protection should be accorded to everyone, and sadly it is not.
Aral,
Thank you for your most kind and generous words.
I am humbled and happy that you find this blog.
I haven't seen the commercial either, so I can't yet be offended by it. Her antics generally should embarass her parents -- she does have parents somewhere, doesn't she ? But in show business and politics, there is almost no such thing as bad publicity.
But bad taste is protected by the First Amendment from GOVERNMENT interference. That is not to be confused with consumer/customer reaction.
The Dixie Chicks' saying things unpopular with the Bush Administration didn't lead to an FBI raid on their agent's office or an IRS levy on their bank account or an FCC order banning the broadcast of their music. Rather, some of their fans became ex-fans, and voted with their dollars for other purchases.
While sex sells, overly provocative stuff also drives a portion of the market away.
I would expect nothing less from Paris Hilton. I am not angered, but more or less bored with her and the lengths she will go to be "famous". She is an attention whore, and as I said, she bores me to death. Luckily we do not have Carl's Jr in my area because if Carl Sr. is as big of a perv at Carl Jr...then I do not want them in my area.
As far as Bush--I would expect nothing less of him either. I personally went to hear his father speak at a Catholic University a long time ago. Bush does not surprise me anymore. He not just blurs the line between church and state, but crosses it with abandon. He is much like many folks in Texas---not to generalize Texans, but if you are not familiar with Texas, let me just tell you, it is it's own world. So to heck with Paris and George....I could care less what they do. I can only be the best person I can be, and that is what I intend to do.
there is a yiddish word for this kind of cutlural waste
DRECK
As my daughter says, 'who would eat a hamburger while washing a car?"
From the mouth of babes!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home