The ads weren’t far from each other on Wilshire Boulevard in Koreatown [in Los Angeles].
One, on a billboard, was critical of an automobile and home insurance company. The other, draped across the sprawling face of a tall building, was a vodka promotion that appeared to include an essential part of the female anatomy.
Any guess which one was torn down because of a complaint?
“Truth is more controversial than pornography,” said Harvey Rosenfield, founder of Consumer Watchdog, whose ad was dismantled last week. All the ad said was, “You Can’t Trust Mercury Insurance,” with a referral to Consumer Watchdog’s website, which lays out 10 concerns the organization has with Mercury.
And the other billboard?
“If you drive three to four blocks east of where ours was,” said Rosenfield’s colleague, Jamie Court, “there’s a huge Absolut Mango ad, and it’s really not a mango.”
A large part of the rest of the article discusses the power insurance companies like Mercury have to manipulate the political process. Like in the health care debate.
Yea, except it is also fair to say the truth ad wasn’t about the truth and the porn ad wasn’t about porn.
So, other than the real issues being other than what is posted, there are still some “real” issues:
Billboard companies should be immune from any lawsuits for slander thats the REAL issue here.
I don’t think the second billboard is pornography, and I know a duck when I see it.
that 2nd ad is certainly not porn… whoever thought that isn’t very familiar with whatever part they think it looks like…
When an image of something becomes so stylized and
abstract as this , it’s in no way pornographic.
It’s like the people who see phallic shapes all
over the poster of “The little mermaid”
@3 LOL! Really? Didn’t recognize that at all? Hmm. Curious. What did you think the advertisers were showing? What exactly did that look like to you?
#5
I concur with #3. it would be something to interpret that billboard as having a mango at its center without being able to read the word “mango” somewhere in the product endorsement, but it would take a pretty filthy mind to see that as something pornographic. I guess that’s a reflection on the quoted observer.
The very idea of flavored vodka is pornographic. Vodka is supposed to be tasteless. If you want flavor, drink gin.
Mulva?
And if they’d taken down the porn ad, you’d have a blog post up complaining about that too.
If they had taken down pictures of Mohammed, maybe you’d complain about that, but wouldn’t show the ad.
Where’s the fire?
You can make an argument on both sides of the “truth” ad – but that’s a strong enough worded statement that you have to expect it’s going to get challenged.
As for the other ad, the lower part of the image makes me suspect the artist absolutely knew what people were going to see in the ad. The proportions of the top half when viewed that way are pretty exaggerated. All in all, though, I can’t say I’d call it pornographic.
hhmmmm i’m hungry for some mango now….
“Truth is more controversial than pornography”
And less appealing.