3 ms·
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 rea
by 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 agoNo, 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.