3 ms·

There was one particular example, intended to encourage pregnant women to allow their Downs-syndrome babies to be born, that was disallowed by the group that de

There was one particular example, intended to encourage pregnant women to allow their Downs-syndrome babies to be born, that was disallowed by the group that determines what may be shown on French television. So not illegal, but the effect was similar, at least in that case.

ceejayoz 7y ago
Unsurprisingly, it's a bit more nuanced in that case. Google Translate isn't great for legalistic documents, but that decision (https://www.conseil-etat.fr/fr/arianeweb/CE/decision/2016-11-10/384691 https://www.conseil-etat.fr/fr/arianeweb/CE/decision/2016-11...) seems to rest quite a bit on whether or not it's an issue advocacy ad, which apparently require disclosures in France similar to how US campaign ads have to have "I approved this message" sort of things. "France requires political ad to include disclosures" is, of course, slightly less punchy as a news item.
- JasonFruit 7y ago
  That's a really interesting read, insofar as I am able. Thank you for digging it up. I'm not sure your characterization is quite correct, however. If I'm reading point 10 correctly — and that's not certain, as neither my French nor Google Translate is quite up to the task — it sounds as though the determination that it was an issue-advocacy ad and therefore inappropriate to broadcast was made largely on the basis of its psychological effect on women who had already chosen not to give birth to babies with Down Syndrome. In effect, then — again, assuming I read it correctly — the assertion made above is essentially correct: the ad was not allowed because it would upset women who had aborted Down Syndrome babies.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    No, even if that's the basis for determining it is an issue advocacy ad, it was not permitted because it lacked the required notifications for such an ad, not because the content was prohibited. The alternative you present is equivalent to arguing that campaign-sponsored ads are prohibited in the US, since they will be found illegal if presented without required notices.

ceejayoz 7y ago

Unsurprisingly, it's a bit more nuanced in that case. Google Translate isn't great for legalistic documents, but that decision (https://www.conseil-etat.fr/fr/arianeweb/CE/decision/2016-11-10/384691 https://www.conseil-etat.fr/fr/arianeweb/CE/decision/2016-11...) seems to rest quite a bit on whether or not it's an issue advocacy ad, which apparently require disclosures in France similar to how US campaign ads have to have "I approved this message" sort of things. "France requires political ad to include disclosures" is, of course, slightly less punchy as a news item.

JasonFruit 7y ago
That's a really interesting read, insofar as I am able. Thank you for digging it up. I'm not sure your characterization is quite correct, however. If I'm reading point 10 correctly — and that's not certain, as neither my French nor Google Translate is quite up to the task — it sounds as though the determination that it was an issue-advocacy ad and therefore inappropriate to broadcast was made largely on the basis of its psychological effect on women who had already chosen not to give birth to babies with Down Syndrome. In effect, then — again, assuming I read it correctly — the assertion made above is essentially correct: the ad was not allowed because it would upset women who had aborted Down Syndrome babies.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  No, even if that's the basis for determining it is an issue advocacy ad, it was not permitted because it lacked the required notifications for such an ad, not because the content was prohibited. The alternative you present is equivalent to arguing that campaign-sponsored ads are prohibited in the US, since they will be found illegal if presented without required notices.