What part of “Congress shall make no law” don’t they understand?

A bipartisan bill in Congress would prohibit “overzealous PhotoShopping” of models and celebrities:

A new bill introduced into the U.S. House of Representatives aims at curbing overzealous photoshopping of models and celebrities in advertisements.

Called the “Truth in Advertising Act,” the bill was co-sponsored by Republican Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen from Florida and Democratic Rep. Lois Capps of California.

Advocates for the bill want more regulation for photoshopped images that appear in advertisements and other media.

“An increasing amount of academic evidence links exposure to such altered images with emotional, mental, and physical health issues, including eating disorders, especially among children and teenagers,” reads an excerpt of the bill. “There is particular concern about the marketing of such images to children and teenagers.”

Members of the Eating Disorder Coalition (EDC) met with lawmakers last month to lobby for the bill.

Seth Matlins, a marketer and an originator of the bill, said seeing his children react to advertising images without understanding they were manipulated made him want to work on the bill.

“In simplest terms we’re trying to protect the consumer,” said Matlins a partner with the EDC. “People are saying enough is enough. We are and have been manipulated by these ads for so long.”

“We” have? I couldn’t care less whether a celebrity or model is real, cleverly photographed, partially or completely photoshopped, or entirely fake. I cannot recall the last time I felt “manipulated” by any ad, except perhaps by having to expend the energy to switch a channel with the remote, or click with the mouse to get rid of an annoying popup. I consider misuse of the “we” word to be far more manipulative than even the most outrageously overzealous act of photoshopping.

So why don’t they propose making it a federal crime to misuse the word “we” in a manipulative manner?

Sheesh.

And if photoshopped images are a “health issue,” then is there anything that isn’t?

I am not surprised, though. There is absolutely nothing that the enemies of freedom on the left and the right do not want to regulate in some manner.

I only hope they’re stupid enough to prohibit “photoshopping,” because that is a proprietary term and would allow advertisers to use software other than Adobe PhotoShop for their overzealous manipulations, and the ever-petulant Adobe could file a lawsuit to have the law thrown out.

What I can’t figure out is whether this proposed law is a product of despicable fools catering to pathetic dupes, or pathetic dupes catering to despicable fools.

 


Posted

in

by

Tags:

Comments

8 responses to “What part of “Congress shall make no law” don’t they understand?”

  1. captain*arizona Avatar
    captain*arizona

    a constitutional amendment for a right to privacy is needed ;but we would have to give post natal abortions to right to lifers unless they realize life is a privilege not a right as I have had to explain to conservatives who ask me is healthcare a right I tell them there is no right to health care just as there is no right to life even for conservatives both are privileges.

  2. Alan Kellogg Avatar

    So misrepresenting a product can’t be illegal because of freedom of speech?

    Self expression my ass, fraud is fraud. You want to mislead people for gain, that is fraud, and fraud has no protection.

  3. Eric Scheie Avatar

    Freedom of speech includes freedom to lie, and Congress has no right to restrain speech. Parties who are actually defrauded can sue for damages, if they can show them. But I don’t think it is fraud to show an actress who has been made skinny or more youthful, or whose zits have been airbrushed out. Caveat emptor!

  4. Frank Avatar
    Frank

    I don’t want realism. I want magic! Yes, yes, magic. I try to give that to people. I do misrepresent things. I don’t tell truths. I tell what ought to be truth.

    Eric channels Blanche DuBois.
    Love it!

  5. CapitalistRoader Avatar
    CapitalistRoader

    I wonder about the end game. Are the two House members setting up an auction, garnering campaign contributions where none would otherwise exist? Ditto for the members of the Eating Disorder Coalition: by bringing their ridiculous demands to federal legislators, does EDC garner more publicity and money from fat people eager to blame their metabolic woes on people other than themselves?

    I’m just trying to figure out “concentrated benefits/dispersed costs” calculation in this particular case.

  6. captain*arizona Avatar
    captain*arizona

    political speech is the only speech that should be protected unless you think you have constitutional right to yell FIRE in a crowed theater or incitement to riot is ok with you.

  7. WilL Avatar
    WilL

    I actually got to see part of a catlogue shoot for a frozen food company. The effort they put in to preparing the perfect visual presentation was amazing. They used a lot of tricks to get a perfect picture including using flash frozen lettuce and tomatoe slices; but they didn’t photoshop anything. The truth is, no restaurant or food company has much of a chance without repeat customers. So what does it really matter?

  8. jc Avatar
    jc

    “And if photoshopped images are a “health issue,” then is there anything that isn’t?”

    Precisely the point.