Chief Censor backs ban on offensive Wicked Campers designs

Forums › Off topic › Chief Censor backs ban on offensive Wicked Campers designs

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

1484 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1543844 29-Apr-2016 09:20

JimmyH:

A bit of a storm in a tea cup IMO. They aren't particularly funny, they aren't particularly offensive, and some of them are a bit crude and tasteless. But I do wonder about the people who seem to have nothing better to do than run round publicly taking offence at what are, essentially, nothing more than tacky schoolboy jokes.

At any rate, the real winners here are Wicked Campers themselves.

A tiny little van rental coverage that probably has next to no advertising budget has had prominent national media coverage across radio, TV and print for months now. All for the cost of a few cans of spray paint. If it wasn't for this, probably virtually no one would have heard of them.

I hope their marketing manager is getting a nice bonus.

You are so right! All they have to do is tweak the ads a little bit to stay within the law & they win! How about Snow White helping a little old lady cross the road? Make the ads even quirkier & tell the van renters why they had to change the ads.

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1543848 29-Apr-2016 09:27

Well, Snow White doing anything is not going to happen.

Disney has been made aware of Wicked's use of their IP, and will no doubt be sending cease and desist letters. Think back to the Featherston toilet mural.

PhantomNVD

2619 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1543849 29-Apr-2016 09:29

Geektastic:
dickytim:

Apparently the ones banned are the Snow White drug related ones, which I do not agree with.

They are neither explicit or offensive and you can see worse on TV if the argument is about drug use.

I do have to laugh when NZ reports show vans from overseas like the Herald have been doing for the most part.

@Geektastic yes we do need a censor in some instances, but they should not be swayed by popular opinion as seems to be happening currently.

I agree we need the function. I do think the title 'Chief Censor' is well out of date though: it conjures up Orwellian images of people going through books and mail with a thick black pen and stamping them "Censored!"

It is for this reason, for example, that the British Board of Film Censors changed to the British Board of Film Classification in 1984. (I'm sure the year was not coincidental!)

It seems a tad odd that you can find film of people having sex with animals on the internet but you cannot have a bad taste slogan on a camper van.

Yes, YOU can see anything and everything on the Internet, but as a parent of 2 young boys, my job as their father is to ensure they DONT get that stuff in their heads before they are able to comprehend its relationship to the wider world and assess its value to them.

Even as an adult, I am not 'forced' to see that stuff in my daily walk through town, or drive to work. The whole idea of inclusion is giving choice to those whose views we might not agree with, but that naturally comes with a responsibility not to inflict that choice on others.

Not saying that you do(!), but what you choose [as an adult] to do with your animals is your own business, but nobody would accept that visual cruising down the town roads?

The idea of 'censorship' is predominantly protection of young minds, as we see movies rated by age, and several 18+ movies are now very 'pornographic' according to last centuries standards... So sensorship is not about adults anyway.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1543852 29-Apr-2016 09:34

One can turn off the internet connection or go to another site, change channel on a TV but if you are stuck behind one of these vehicles in a hold up there is not a lot one can do. If they offer good vehicles at competitive rates they do not need to do this

sort of rubbish promotion. Looking at their fleet though most are 10 years plus old and rubbish.

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1543853 29-Apr-2016 09:36

PhantomNVD:
Geektastic:

dickytim:

Apparently the ones banned are the Snow White drug related ones, which I do not agree with.

They are neither explicit or offensive and you can see worse on TV if the argument is about drug use.

I do have to laugh when NZ reports show vans from overseas like the Herald have been doing for the most part.

@Geektastic yes we do need a censor in some instances, but they should not be swayed by popular opinion as seems to be happening currently.

I agree we need the function. I do think the title 'Chief Censor' is well out of date though: it conjures up Orwellian images of people going through books and mail with a thick black pen and stamping them "Censored!"

It is for this reason, for example, that the British Board of Film Censors changed to the British Board of Film Classification in 1984. (I'm sure the year was not coincidental!)

It seems a tad odd that you can find film of people having sex with animals on the internet but you cannot have a bad taste slogan on a camper van.

Yes, YOU can see anything and everything on the Internet, but as a parent of 2 young boys, my job as their father is to ensure they DONT get that stuff in their heads before they are able to comprehend its relationship to the wider world and assess its value to them.

Even as an adult, I am not 'forced' to see that stuff in my daily walk through town, or drive to work. The whole idea of inclusion is giving choice to those whose views we might not agree with, but that naturally comes with a responsibility not to inflict that choice on others.

Not saying that you do(!), but what you choose [as an adult] to do with your animals is your own business, but nobody would accept that visual cruising down the town roads?

The idea of 'censorship' is predominantly protection of young minds, as we see movies rated by age, and several 18+ movies are now very 'pornographic' according to last centuries standards... So sensorship is not about adults anyway.

I have not seen anything on those vans that I would consider likely to be corrupting to minors.

I was aware of a famous line of graffiti - "Snow White though Seven Up was a soft drink until she discovered Smirnoff" when I was about 10. I did not think it more than an advert for Vodka for another 5 years or so...!

I'm forced to see and hear about all manner of things I would rather not - rugby and the Kardashians for two - life is like that.

I just think all this sanctimonious taking of 'offence' at everything and anything these days is not going to lead us into a more pleasant utopia.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1543855 29-Apr-2016 09:37

I have always found censorship to be a tough one. I am strongly opposed to all forms of censorship as a matter of principle. At the same time, there are things I would certainly rather not see and I resent having them shoved in my face. The argument about protecting the vulnerable also deserves an answer.

I think the first question that has to be dealt with is what should be censored, and why? Many people seem to have a real problem with sex and sexuality, and I wonder where that comes from. How can it be that people regard a naked body, which we all possess and which is completely natural, as something ‘obscene’ or vulgar? Why should healthy sex, as a natural expression of love, have to be kept out of sight? Why do children need to be protected from these things? Do the children of nudists grow up traumatised? I suspect that children often react to the reaction of the adults around them, rather than to the ‘offensive’ thing itself. If a child is exposed to something unpleasant that it may not yet be equipped to understand, should you put your hands in front of its eyes, or try to provide appropriate context by explaining what it has seen in terms that make sense to it? I do think violence, both graphic and of the more two-dimensional cardboard variety (think A Team) needs to be curbed.

So-called ‘humour’ that relies on bad taste and sexual innuendo and treating others with contempt, is in my opinion an expression of a society’s immaturity. People only find this kind of thing funny because they are products of a repressed society with unhealthy fixations and skewed priorities. A lot of what I see on television that children are freely exposed to, certainly much advertising and many films and even some children’s cartoons, I find deeply offensive, yet they are not censored, at least not for the things that truly offend. But something as normal and natural to a child as a woman’s breast usually is. What kind of message is that sending? So little boys, at least, grow up regarding breasts as objects of fetishistic fascination.

As far as skimpy clothing goes, where do girls get the idea that this is something appealing or ‘sexy’, or that people should want to dress this way? From their music videos, maybe? Again, our society censors the wrong things. However, I do not object to the way anyone dresses, other than on aesthetic grounds. Everyone should have a right to dress however they feel comfortable, and no-one should have a right to prevent that. Women should not be judged for the clothes they wear, and they should not have to go in fear because of that. This is indeed crossing a dangerous line.

I guess for me the least worst option is to censor some of the more disturbing things from public spaces, though not some of the things currently obsessed over, but to otherwise allow nearly everything with exceptions only for truly evil stuff that relies on hurting others.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1543858 29-Apr-2016 09:40

Rikkitic:

I have always found censorship to be a tough one. I am strongly opposed to all forms of censorship as a matter of principle. At the same time, there are things I would certainly rather not see and I resent having them shoved in my face. The argument about protecting the vulnerable also deserves an answer.

I think the first question that has to be dealt with is what should be censored, and why? Many people seem to have a real problem with sex and sexuality, and I wonder where that comes from. How can it be that people regard a naked body, which we all possess and which is completely natural, as something ‘obscene’ or vulgar? Why should healthy sex, as a natural expression of love, have to be kept out of sight? Why do children need to be protected from these things? Do the children of nudists grow up traumatised? I suspect that children often react to the reaction of the adults around them, rather than to the ‘offensive’ thing itself. If a child is exposed to something unpleasant that it may not yet be equipped to understand, should you put your hands in front of its eyes, or try to provide appropriate context by explaining what it has seen in terms that make sense to it? I do think violence, both graphic and of the more two-dimensional cardboard variety (think A Team) needs to be curbed.

So-called ‘humour’ that relies on bad taste and sexual innuendo and treating others with contempt, is in my opinion an expression of a society’s immaturity. People only find this kind of thing funny because they are products of a repressed society with unhealthy fixations and skewed priorities. A lot of what I see on television that children are freely exposed to, certainly much advertising and many films and even some children’s cartoons, I find deeply offensive, yet they are not censored, at least not for the things that truly offend. But something as normal and natural to a child as a woman’s breast usually is. What kind of message is that sending? So little boys, at least, grow up regarding breasts as objects of fetishistic fascination.

As far as skimpy clothing goes, where do girls get the idea that this is something appealing or ‘sexy’, or that people should want to dress this way? From their music videos, maybe? Again, our society censors the wrong things. However, I do not object to the way anyone dresses, other than on aesthetic grounds. Everyone should have a right to dress however they feel comfortable, and no-one should have a right to prevent that. Women should not be judged for the clothes they wear, and they should not have to go in fear because of that. This is indeed crossing a dangerous line.

I guess for me the least worst option is to censor some of the more disturbing things from public spaces, though not some of the things currently obsessed over, but to otherwise allow nearly everything with exceptions only for truly evil stuff that relies on hurting others.

We wouldn't need a Censor if people exercised responsibility. That old saying sticks and stones may break bones but names will never hurt is bollocks, I can personally attest to that.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

Elpie

1304 posts

Uber Geek

#1543872 29-Apr-2016 10:17

Picture this: group of guys, sitting at a beach, getting drunk. Imagine them saying these slogans to women sitting nearby (your wives, girlfriends, mothers, daughters perhaps). Is it any funnier? Is it still funny when the misogynistic slogans are printed on vehicles parked at a beach, perhaps with guys getting drunk inside? Are you able to accept that people can take offence when slogans make them feel threatened? Do you want your seven-year-old son repeating them to his mother? Or, worse, believing them?

That's why we need a censor - to make those decisions for our society because we, as a society, live different experiences and will never agree on what makes something offensive.

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1543955 29-Apr-2016 11:39

Elpie:

Picture this: group of guys, sitting at a beach, getting drunk. Imagine them saying these slogans to women sitting nearby (your wives, girlfriends, mothers, daughters perhaps). Is it any funnier? Is it still funny when the misogynistic slogans are printed on vehicles parked at a beach, perhaps with guys getting drunk inside? Are you able to accept that people can take offence when slogans make them feel threatened? Do you want your seven-year-old son repeating them to his mother? Or, worse, believing them?

That's why we need a censor - to make those decisions for our society because we, as a society, live different experiences and will never agree on what makes something offensive.

I do not think that preventing them from being written on the odd camper van is likely to change that. Those guys have metaphorically been sitting on that beach for millennia saying versions of those things. They will continue to do so.

Since some of the slogans are true (for example, although I cannot verify from personal experience I hypothesise that kidnapping large people is indeed harder than kidnapping small ones) it's a bit hard to see the truth censored.

I checked with my wife to see whether a non-Aspergers, female pov came up with a different answer. Her view? Some of them are funny, some are silly, some are in bad taste but none of them are offensive to her. She sensibly suggests that the appropriate response if people do not like them is to hit the company in the wallet by not renting the vans.

Clearly this is not an issue for the target market as I saw a van this morning with typical slogans parked in Martinborough, occupied by two 20 something year old women.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1543970 29-Apr-2016 11:55

Elpie:

That's why we need a censor - to make those decisions for our society because we, as a society, live different experiences and will never agree on what makes something offensive.

That is a good point and I'm not sure it is incorrect, but the idea still bothers me. As long as we have officials telling us what we are allowed to see, there is always the risk of those officials becoming a law unto themselves. Also, there is the difficulty of determining what really should be censored. Not long ago Lady Chatterley's Lover was deemed to be pornographic. Now it is considered great literature. Who makes these kinds of decisions? How do they make them? I would rather see a society in which individuals are taught to take responsibility for themselves. Once drunken men (and some women!) stop objectifying other people as sexual playthings and start seeing them as sisters and mothers and fathers and brothers, there won't be a need for censors of any kind.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

andrewNZ

2487 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1543999 29-Apr-2016 12:52

Rikkitic:
Elpie:

That's why we need a censor - to make those decisions for our society because we, as a society, live different experiences and will never agree on what makes something offensive.

That is a good point and I'm not sure it is incorrect, but the idea still bothers me. As long as we have officials telling us what we are allowed to see, there is always the risk of those officials becoming a law unto themselves. Also, there is the difficulty of determining what really should be censored. Not long ago Lady Chatterley's Lover was deemed to be pornographic. Now it is considered great literature. Who makes these kinds of decisions? How do they make them? I would rather see a society in which individuals are taught to take responsibility for themselves. Once drunken men (and some women!) stop objectifying other people as sexual playthings and start seeing them as sisters and mothers and fathers and brothers, there won't be a need for censors of any kind.

I think that to some extent you have it backwards.
You, as an adult aren't really being told what you are allowed to see.
Someone is being told who they can show it to. Those are two very different things.

You are sharing the same spaces a someone who shouldn't see it.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1544014 29-Apr-2016 13:37

Not true. The censor has just banned some Wicked slogans and others are in the works. If I understand correctly he is saying no-one in New Zealand is allowed to see these. In any case some pornography, such as sex with animals, falls into the same category. It is illegal in New Zealand, not just age restricted. That means I as an adult am being told what I am allowed to see.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Lizard1977

2060 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#1544024 29-Apr-2016 14:10

Rikkitic:

Not true. The censor has just banned some Wicked slogans and others are in the works. If I understand correctly he is saying no-one in New Zealand is allowed to see these. In any case some pornography, such as sex with animals, falls into the same category. It is illegal in New Zealand, not just age restricted. That means I as an adult am being told what I am allowed to see.

The article said that an R16 classification was considered, but that given it involved a vehicle in a public place, the practicality of enforcing such a restriction was too difficult. Unless someone gets creative and creates a flap on each vehicle with the slogans underneath, and someone checking for ID before anyone can lift the flap, then they can't effectively restrict who views it. The same would apply to other signs or publications that would attract an R16 classification but for which no practical means of restriction applied. In the absence of such controls, the only practical option for them was to prohibit them outright.

mattwnz

20141 posts

Uber Geek

#1544097 29-Apr-2016 16:42

Rikkitic:

Not true. The censor has just banned some Wicked slogans and others are in the works. If I understand correctly he is saying no-one in New Zealand is allowed to see these. In any case some pornography, such as sex with animals, falls into the same category. It is illegal in New Zealand, not just age restricted. That means I as an adult am being told what I am allowed to see.

That has always been the case though. But people need to remember that thee things are on the ROADS, and roads are supposed to be a safe place to be WITHOUT DISTRACTIONS. I would be for banning all advertising an vehicles, and if vehicles need advertising, that they need a license to do it, similar to shops that need a license for pavement advertising, and that advertising meets advertising standards. At the moment it is unregulated, and this is the result, which I imagine is costing tax payers a lot of money to get the chief censor involved.

DaveB

1139 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1544200 29-Apr-2016 19:28

Geektastic:

........... I'm forced to see and hear about all manner of things I would rather not - rugby and the Kardashians for two - life is like that.

Hmmmm ..... There's a thought. Kim Kardashians huge backside on the end of a camper van? I think I will take the cheap aussie humour!

1 | 2 | 3 | 4