We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Advertising Rules
Details
Submitted by[?]: Commercial Freedom
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: March 2109
Description[?]:
| We simply want to make sure that advertising and showing any of the following are not allowed: -Advertising that has explicit material eg. sexual activities. -Advertising that encourages people to commit crimes. -Using Propaganda to encourage young people to join services. (Clans, cults, private armies) |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy on advertising
Old value:: All advertising is permitted.
Current: Only advertising that meets certain set standards is permitted.
Proposed: Only advertising that meets certain set standards is permitted.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 11:57:12, September 06, 2005 CET | From | Commercial Freedom | To | Debating the Advertising Rules |
| Message | This sounds a bit familair so if it is already being debated then I will cancel it. However I didn't see any about advertising so for the mean time any suggestions? |
| Date | 12:03:44, September 06, 2005 CET | From | freedom party | To | Debating the Advertising Rules |
| Message | we oppose. This is left to the consumer to decide. Ad campaigns are the first line in getting people to buy products. Billions of dollars goes into these studies. They will not rock the boat with socially unacceptable messages. If they do, that is their gamble to make. |
| Date | 13:48:09, September 06, 2005 CET | From | Commercial Freedom | To | Debating the Advertising Rules |
| Message | What about sexual images being showen on your screen before an appropriate time? Do you think that should be allowed? |
| Date | 18:03:52, September 06, 2005 CET | From | New Frontier Party | To | Debating the Advertising Rules |
| Message | We feel that issues of sexual imagry can be handled properly by our families |
| Date | 20:09:27, September 06, 2005 CET | From | freedom party | To | Debating the Advertising Rules |
| Message | we do not seek to define appropriate. We are not social engineers. We are here to protect the people from violation of person and property. |
| Date | 23:49:16, September 06, 2005 CET | From | Enlightened Socialist Party | To | Debating the Advertising Rules |
| Message | We strongly disagree with this bill. It is not the state's right to curtail free speech or expression. If you don't like an advertisement, don't look, listen, or watch it. Simple. |
| Date | 00:18:39, September 07, 2005 CET | From | Commercial Freedom | To | Debating the Advertising Rules |
| Message | But what about having an very graphical ad about prostitution (which is legal) during a family movie? Doesn't that bother you? That you have to ban your kids from watching so many shows because there are sexually explicit ads on. And what about ads encouraging people to commit crimes? Like: "By this new gun if your neighbour is bothering you". At the moment we have no restrictions at all, we still encourage freedom of speech, all we want to do is protect people. |
| Date | 00:28:05, September 07, 2005 CET | From | freedom party | To | Debating the Advertising Rules |
| Message | We had considered proposing a compromise bill, which would allow for commercials to only have the content equal to what is on the show. Then we realized, as is the case 99.9% of the time, the market handles this. A family channel gets revenue from advertisers. Advertisers pay for these spots to reach specific audiences. A advertiser will not be reaching his target group advertising prostitiution on a family movie. (Not to mention that this would be a PR nightmare) it would be a waste of money. Stations can only charge top dollar to advertisers if people are watching. A family will not sit down to watch films that have objectionable commercials. Thus this isnt necessary. As to the gun comment, thats akin to yelling fire in a crowded theatre. They could put themself at liable for such a thing. Thus greedy capitalists wont make the business risk. |
| Date | 10:24:53, September 07, 2005 CET | From | Commercial Freedom | To | Debating the Advertising Rules |
| Message | But the gun incident would also be a costly court case, wouldn't it be easier on everyone if we had not allowed it in the first place. You see, we aren't proposing that only government ads are allowed, we aren't saying that child rated ads should be the only ads around, we just don't want ads encouraging children to go down to the local brothel (that being another example). Why not extend it's range from dirty old men to young horny teenagers? We would also like to point out that there is now guide to what ads are on, so there is no option of not watching an ad if you don't like it. |
| Date | 10:42:24, September 07, 2005 CET | From | Commercial Freedom | To | Debating the Advertising Rules |
| Message | Would everyone be happier if we took the propaganda off the bill (to prevent confusion)? That way it's only a censorship bill, just like censoring movies. To make sure innapropriate (mainly sexual) content is not being shown during a time slot where children are going to be exposed to this material. Please remember, all other kinds of ads are still allowed (such as those ads that show the girl being hit to discourage speeding, or that ad that shows the cancer being surgically removed to encourage people to use sunscreen). Just say so and we would make an amendment, it's only for censorship. |
| Date | 22:08:57, September 07, 2005 CET | From | freedom party | To | Debating the Advertising Rules |
| Message | the fact that its for censorship is exactly why we oppose. Why is it ok to show a girl being killed with a car? that kind of shock is ok? yet an ad encouraging sexuality is wrong. Its this kind of grey area and moral relativism that proves why government should never involve itself in such issues. |
| Date | 12:15:31, September 08, 2005 CET | From | Commercial Freedom | To | Debating the Advertising Rules |
| Message | An ad encouraging minors to go to a brothel is bad. An ad using shock to prevent people from doing dangerous things is good (eg. don't speed). See the difference? |
| Date | 21:14:59, September 08, 2005 CET | From | freedom party | To | Debating the Advertising Rules |
| Message | dont condecend to me. I fully understand your point, I just dont agree with you. this is what, and I say this with all due respect, you and the ESP dont understand. You picture business owners and guys with money as caring about no one. THey just want to make a buck. and while I dont agree with you, im sure there are a lot of guys like that. What you fail to realize is that in order to make money, they have to cater to others. They cant offend their sensibilities. If a brothel advertised to minors, people would be outraged. The business would be protested and would recieve a huge loss in that grubby money they love to roll around in. Thus the market prevents the atrocites you guys always bring up. Its because people want a product and the want it a certain way. so they will go to who provides that. Thus the seller must conform to what the buyer wants. You wouldnt see those brothel commercials you keep talking about. You keep legislating for what you think will happen, not what is happening. Its just like your energy bill. "prices havent gone up.....ever.....but theyre gonna!!!" you create boogeymen to put in the laws that you want. |
| Date | 23:58:08, September 09, 2005 CET | From | Enlightened Socialist Party | To | Debating the Advertising Rules |
| Message | Surely anyone who visits a brothel is not going to be bothered by it advertising to minors anyway? Still, we do still disagree with the bill. |
| Date | 01:31:10, September 10, 2005 CET | From | Commercial Freedom | To | Debating the Advertising Rules |
| Message | Before we put this bill up for a vote, we would like to remind everyone that there is no TV guide explaining what ads are on at what times. And we can't safely predict what the corporations would use as their advertising techniques. Generaly most ads will pass, but a few won't if they can phychologically harm people watching them. |
| Date | 18:25:07, September 10, 2005 CET | From | Self Righteous Libertarian Democrats | To | Debating the Advertising Rules |
| Message | Who is to decide what is acceptable material? Is the decision maker to be part of government, or part of the industry? This sounds disturbingly like the start of the road towards government censorship. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 103 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 269 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 63 |
| Random fact: Real-life organisations should not be referenced in Particracy, unless they are simple and generic (eg. "National Organisation for Women" is allowed). |
| Random quote: "Proud Darnussians? Darnussian is an insult, nothing more! You should all try to be more like we are, the Narikatonites!" - Nikolai Shukanov, former Narikatonite politician |