Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Israel Passes Photoshop Law To Combat Anorexia

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the bigger-model dept.

Medicine 488

Hugh Pickens writes "The Atlantic reports that the Israeli parliament has passed legislation that prohibits fashion media and advertising with models who fall below the World Health Organization's standard for malnutrition banning underweight models as determined by Body Mass Index. The new law also stipulates that any ad which uses airbrushing, computer editing, or any other form of Photoshop editing to create a slimmer model must clearly state that fact. Advertising campaigns created outside of Israel must comply with the legislation's standards in order to appear in Israel. 'I realized that only legislation can change the situation,' says Rachel Adato, an Israeli parliament member with a background in medicine. 'There was no time to educate so many people, and the change had be forced on the industry. There was no time to waste, so many girls were dieting to death.' The measure has been controversial within Israel for raising the question of where free speech bumps up against the fashion industry's responsibility — and its possible harm — to its customers' psychological well-being. Donald Downs, a professor at the University of Wisconsin and an expert on the First Amendment, says that it would be very tough to pass something like Israel's law in the US Congress. 'In the US, it would be hard to justify this type of law on either legal or normative policy grounds,' says Downs. 'The Israeli law is paternalistic in that it prohibits something because of the effect it might have on others in the longer term.'"

cancel ×

488 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

All part of Israel's new humanitarian plan (-1, Flamebait)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#39946077)

1) Pass laws to combat fashion model anorexia
2) Enforce regulations on non-educational reality television ...
238) Stop forcing Palestinians into walled-off ghettos.

Too late. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39946107)

I was going to post something about the inevitability of some anti-Semitic fuck posting hate shit about Israel.

Too late, crazyjj was too fast.

Re:Too late. (2, Funny)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#39946169)

Semitic

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Re:Too late. (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39946457)

Arguing that someone didn't use a word correctly is like saying that they used the wrong naming convention for variables. A word is just a reference to a concept and is accurate as long as that reference is understood.

Or, in words more apt for your meme-fueled opinion:

YOUR MEME IS BAD AND YOU SHOULD FEEL BAD.

Re:Too late. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39946561)

Well, can we all just agree that jews really, really suck?

Re:Too late. (4, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#39946597)

Arguing that someone didn't use a word correctly is like saying

It's like saying that they don't know what they're talking about.

Saying that Palestinians should not be kept walled into ghettos is not antisemitic. Disagreeing with Israeli government policy is not antisemitic. Being in favor of a two-state solution is not antisemitic. Criticizing Israel is not antisemitic.

When you don't "use that word correctly", you are doing a lot more than using a wrong "naming convention". You are factually incorrect.

Re:Too late. (4, Informative)

Loosifur (954968) | more than 2 years ago | (#39946703)

...mmmm....no, I think he does. One can be an anti-Semite, or one can be anti-Semitic, and they mean the same thing, essentially. It's commonly misspelled "Semetic", though, so maybe you're thinking of that.

Or you're thinking of the Semites, a Biblical term referring to the descendants of one of Noah's sons. Or you're thinking of the ethnic umbrella group, which refers to anyone who speaks a Semitic language, which is pretty much the entire Arabian peninsula since Arabic and Hebrew are the two most common. Amharic is in there, too, as well as a bunch of others. So, yes, in that sense it is ironic to say that someone criticizing the Israelis for their treatment of Palestinians is an anti-Semite.

However, in English, the term has been overwhelmingly used to refer to discrimination against Jews, so if you have a gripe with that, take it up with the late 19th century. Whether the claim of antisemitism is valid or not is another issue, but his use of the word is correct.

Re:Too late. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39946353)

Where is the hate in crazyjj's post? Where is the anti-semitism in his post? Why do you consider speaking out for the Palestinians as hate towards Jews?

Re:Too late. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39946465)

It's in the unfounded accusation that Israel is somehow an evil entity, which is actually based in an anti-Jewish sentiment.

Re:Too late. (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39946863)

Riiiight, speaking out for the rights of the Palestinians is an "anti-Jewish" sentiment. I wonder, is speaking out for Jews during WWII an anti-"Arian" sentiment? Is speaking out for Tibetians an anti-Sino sentiment? Is speaking out for black South Africans during Apartheid an anti-Christian sentiment?

Re:Too late. (2, Insightful)

DeadCatX2 (950953) | more than 2 years ago | (#39946885)

I think you should go talk to a Palestinian, preferably one whose land has been taken away from them as a result of things like the settlements and that apartheid wall Israel is building.

And it's not Israel that's the evil entity. It's the Israeli government. I imagine the Israelis on an individual level are generally pretty cool people.

And for the record, it is FUCKING DISGUSTING that people like you would try to suppress the debate about the Israeli government's treatment of the Palestinians by throwing the word "anti-Semitic" around. You have no fucking clue what real anti-Semitism looks like, asshole. Shitheads like you are diluting the meaning of that phrase, rendering it useless for describing ACTUAL anti-Semites.

Re:Too late. (5, Insightful)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#39946485)

The irony in Palestinian Israeli relations is that they're *both* descended from the same people who once made up the Hebrew tribe in ancient Israel. Not that either would ever admit it. It's kind of a bizarre situation. It would be actually be funny, if they weren't killing and oppressing each other with such deadly seriousness.

Re:All part of Israel's new humanitarian plan (-1, Flamebait)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 2 years ago | (#39946143)

1) Pass laws to combat fashion model anorexia
2) Enforce regulations on non-educational reality television ...
238) Stop forcing Palestinians into walled-off ghettos.

561400593) Ban genital mutilation

Re:All part of Israel's new humanitarian plan (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39946229)

Good one, the US should go first though.

Re:All part of Israel's new humanitarian plan (4, Informative)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 2 years ago | (#39946841)

You know...the BMI thing is not a good measurement to use...

Someone who is actually fit, with more muscle and lean body mass, can actually show up as unhealthy when using BMI with the way we measure it.....

Re:All part of Israel's new humanitarian plan (0)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 2 years ago | (#39946595)

Why would you ban something that's been scientifically proven to be beneficial?

No penis cancer for me, thank you. [wikipedia.org]

So I think that's more like
561400593) Ban something regardless of the science involved proclaiming it's benefits.

Re:All part of Israel's new humanitarian plan (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39946733)

I'll take the chance. Especially now that the HPV vaccine might work too.

It costs a lot of money to perform all of the unnecessary procedures. It should be banned since we aren't smart enough to choose not to do it to our kids.

Re:All part of Israel's new humanitarian plan (2)

jdgeorge (18767) | more than 2 years ago | (#39946845)

You don't understand. Put aside for a moment the implicit ridiculous comparison of circumcision to the mutilation committed against young women in Africa.

Think about communities where circumcision is most common:
Arabs
Americans (US)
Jews

By condemning circumcision as an evil practice, you get to condemn not only ALL of those troublesome Middle-Easterners, but also the United States in general! It's a pretty diversely targetted insult. But, it does seem a bit like pissing into the wind. ;-)

Re:All part of Israel's new humanitarian plan (2)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#39946687)

561400593) Ban genital mutilation

I think you're going to have some trouble getting Jews to stop their ritual circumcision. Hey, it's part of their culture, and if they believe their god demands that skin be cut from a boy's penis as part of a religious ceremony, I don't think they're going to give up just because you say so, Stormwatch.

Some cultures stretch necks, some scarify the skin, some pull the earlobes using bones and some cut skin off the penises of boys. Human beings are weird, what can you say? When your god tells you to do something, you don't ask questions, I guess.

Re:All part of Israel's new humanitarian plan (-1, Troll)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 2 years ago | (#39946167)

238) Stop forcing Palestinians into walled-off ghettos.

There are plenty of "Palestinians" living outside Gaza in Israel. Nobody is "forcing" them to live in the ghetto that Gaza is.

Re:All part of Israel's new humanitarian plan (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39946283)

Except the "Zionists", you cunt.

Re:All part of Israel's new humanitarian plan (1)

sirlatrom (1162081) | more than 2 years ago | (#39946433)

238) Stop forcing Palestinians into walled-off ghettos.

There are plenty of "Palestinians" living outside Gaza in Israel. Nobody is "forcing" them to live in the ghetto that Gaza is.

So if I build a nice tall fence around your city/town, you'd freely and with pleasure either tolerate it or move away without feeling even the slightest bit forced?

I do realize that you were trolling, but I'm too drunk to ignore it.

Re:All part of Israel's new humanitarian plan (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39946619)

So if I build a nice tall fence around your city/town, you'd freely and with pleasure either tolerate it or move away without feeling even the slightest bit forced

Gated communities are all the rage in the US now - people like them so much they even pay more for the privilege.

Re:All part of Israel's new humanitarian plan (1)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#39946707)

Generally speaking, communities in the U.S. usually build them by choice. It's actually pretty rare here to wake up one morning to find soldiers in your backyard building a 50-foot concrete wall around your house and city. And I'm not sure it would have a positive effect on your property value.

Re:All part of Israel's new humanitarian plan (1, Troll)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#39946823)

So if I build a nice tall fence around your city/town, you'd freely and with pleasure either tolerate it or move away without feeling even the slightest bit forced?

That depends, are you sending women, children and men to try and blow up other other people in cafe's, bus stops, and shopping malls?

The wall did it's job, when was the last time there was a suicide bombing by the palestinians. And in other cases where the palestinians were sniping at israeli civilians again it did it's job, and very well.

Re:All part of Israel's new humanitarian plan (3)

ebs16 (1069862) | more than 2 years ago | (#39946297)

Exactly! Since the major problem of Palestinian-Israeli relations cannot be immediately solved, Israel should abandon all efforts to solve its domestic issues.

Re:All part of Israel's new humanitarian plan (-1, Flamebait)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#39946393)

Yeah, but wouldn't you think that if you were living there you would want to prioritize?

Re:All part of Israel's new humanitarian plan (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39946483)

They do, moron. They can still do more than one thing at a time, which evidently you can't.

Defend the Palestinian People! (1)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | more than 2 years ago | (#39946137)

I think that fat is a thing that grows in coconuts and big fort og toe the pie sam!!!!!! It wasn't in hte the wheel chair the law, in that it the fisher is the scienceof switch, which you gojina too close balonoy!!!! In concoson the SLASH DORT is the website where I am the place to the internetwe say hello WORLD!!!!!

This happens every time... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39946177)

Cue all the unnecessary anti-semetic comments.

Re:This happens every time... (1)

realityimpaired (1668397) | more than 2 years ago | (#39946203)

As opposed to the necessary ones?

Re:This happens every time... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39946415)

As opposed to the necessary ones?

As opposed to nothing. They are all unnecessary.

Re:This happens every time... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39946605)

You know what they say - an anti-semite is someone who hates jews any more than is absolutely necessary.

What about OBESE models? (-1, Flamebait)

couchslug (175151) | more than 2 years ago | (#39946193)

Encouraging fat fucks is deadly too. The medical consequences are debilitating and often fatal.

What BMI range will be acceptable for models?

Re:What about OBESE models? (2)

bmacs27 (1314285) | more than 2 years ago | (#39946261)

Right... because that's a huge problem in the industry right now.

Re:What about OBESE models? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39946659)

Its not much of a problem with models or the modeling industry (surely no company is stupid enough to flout their brand with a person so obviously unhealthy and unattractive) but it sure as hell is a problem with the advertising industry; plenty of brands are all too happy to push products in any way necessary, products that have the sole long term effect of causing debilitating obesity, heart disease, and myriad other health problems. Products that are no more enticing than a skinny model in jeans or a bra.

This is the irony: a few people die here and there (and a few others are made sick or disabled) because they saw a skinny jeans model or a skinny makeup model, but at a far far FAR higher rate are people negatively impacted (disabled, killed) by the likes of fast food, junk food, and the many other poor health choices that we are tempted with via advertising on a daily (if not hourly or minute by minute) basis. Do something about those? Of course not! That's freedom! But skinny and/or airbrushed models... We HAVE to hate them...

Re:What about OBESE models? (5, Interesting)

realityimpaired (1668397) | more than 2 years ago | (#39946293)

What BMI range will be acceptable for models?

If you truly believe that BMI is an accurate measure of somebody's overall health, you have some learning to do. It's simply a ratio of a person's weight to their height. It does not take into account the fact that muscle mass is denser than fat mass, nor does it consider other factors like bone density (which can be an indicator of good health, even though it will increase your BMI).

This isn't about encouraging "fat fucks", this is about realizing that a size 0 is unhealthy, especially on a woman who's 5'11". Magazines have been promoting an impossible image of what the ideal woman actually looks like for decades, and any attempts at self-policing have largely failed. Photoshop just makes it worse, because they can take somebody who's actually really beautiful in real life, and make her "better"... It's airbrushing for the 21st century.

By the standards of the fashion industry, I'm morbidly obese... *gasp* she wears a size 12?!?! By any rational standard, however, my weight is exactly where it should be for a woman of my size. I'm fit and healthy, and that's all that matters. Women come in different shapes and sizes, and they need to promote that realism. It's a sad state of affairs that porn is the only place you can find realistically proportioned women in print, and that's because their buyers are usually interested in different... attributes....

Re:What about OBESE models? (1, Interesting)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39946383)

>>>If you truly believe that BMI is an accurate measure of somebody's overall health, you have some learning to do

Let's suppose he's a doctor.
How much more learning does he need?
You still think you know more than the doctors in the WHO and AMA who publish these BMI figures?

Re:What about OBESE models? (2)

digitalsolo (1175321) | more than 2 years ago | (#39946463)

I definitely know less than Doctor WHO.

Re:What about OBESE models? (1, Informative)

Carnildo (712617) | more than 2 years ago | (#39946919)

You still think you know more than the doctors in the WHO and AMA who publish these BMI figures?

Yes. I, at least, am aware that weight increases as the cube of height, not the square. Consequently, BMI tends to give numbers that are too high for tall people, and too low for short people. As an extreme example, many professional basketball players would be considered "obese" based on their BMI numbers, but "normal weight" based on body-fat percentage.

(Actually, because of changing body shape, it's around the 2.7th power for humans, but 3 is a better approximation to that than 2.)

Re:What about OBESE models? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39946409)

Porn is for men, fashion mags are for women. Am I right?

Re:What about OBESE models? (2)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 2 years ago | (#39946419)

But why only for women. There's also a problem with men in most magazines. Most of them look like they spend 16 hours a day in a gym and are probably on steroids. Should we start to legislate how much muscle men pictured in magazines can have. Because if we don't we might have too many young men experimenting with steroids.

Re:What about OBESE models? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#39946609)

But why only for women. There's also a problem with men in most magazines. Most of them look like they spend 16 hours a day in a gym and are probably on steroids. Should we start to legislate how much muscle men pictured in magazines can have. Because if we don't we might have too many young men experimenting with steroids.

Such proposals have been advanced, on roughly the same logic about body-image issues, sometimes explicitly mentioning steroids, sometimes not.

My impression is that they are a harder sell because they just don't have the same body count to work with. Unless you really go to town on the steroids, most of the things you would do in the pursuit of an impossible musculature are somewhere between 'actually healthy' and 'harmful, in the common-gym-injuries sense'. You won't actually get there, and you might still be filled with crippling self loathing; but nothing you could write a good human-interest story about. Overenthusiastic dieting, on the other hand, seems to provide a modest, but steady, stream of alarming and dramatic anecdotes.

Re:What about OBESE models? (1)

DrgnDancer (137700) | more than 2 years ago | (#39946879)

To be fair, the big problems with BMI (as you yourself point out) are on the high end. Especially with athletic people (muscle weighs more than fat), but also with people who have higher bone density, or other reasons that the weight more than they "should", but aren't really fat. On the low end, it's usually a pretty reasonable measure. If your BMI is too low it almost always indicates *some* kind of problem (anorexia, glandular issues, low bone density, whatever, something is making you weigh to little). It's also, even on the high end, a pretty good tool for averaging. Most people with "obese" BMIs are in fact obese. In any individual case, though it should be followed up with more info. Athletes are notoriously on the high end of the BMI scale, despite clearly not being obese.

  I agree with the overall tone of your post though.

Re:What about OBESE models? (2)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#39946801)

Oddly enough I expect the unrealistic portrait to being thin=beautiful causes obesity. For a lot of people when they realize they cannot reach the level of beuity, they give up and let themselves go. A lot people are polarized in their thinking, if I can be thin, I might as well get use to being fat. Showing people of healthy weight will keep expectations at a good level, and they don't feel bad about not trying to get too thin.

There's an obesity epidemic (1)

glrotate (300695) | more than 2 years ago | (#39946207)

So let's vilify thin models.

Re:There's an obesity epidemic (4, Interesting)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 2 years ago | (#39946507)

There's actually a rather direct connection between the obesity epidemic and the presentation of skeletally thin models as a standard of beauty. An awful lot of basically healthy teenage girls try to starve themselves into looking like models, inevitably fail (girls who become models are already naturally very thin, even before they start the starvation diets) and "rebound" and end up weighing more than they did before. (Starvation sets off all kinds of nasty reactions in the body, and one of the things it does is encourage the body to pack on as much fat as possible when food becomes plentiful again; this made sense for our ancestors, living in times of feast alternating with famine, but it's terrible in the modern world.) After a few cycles of this, they end up with deeply screwed up metabolisms and lifelong problems maintaining a healthy weight. I don't know how much of the modern obsesity problem is attributable to this phenomenon, but I'm guessing it's a non-trivial amount.

Re:There's an obesity epidemic (1)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 2 years ago | (#39946721)

I don't know how much of the modern obsesity problem is attributable to this phenomenon, but I'm guessing it's a non-trivial amount.

It's certainly more than the amount to which people make themselves overweight via 800 calorie coffee drinks and 1,600 calorie "meals" of saturated fat and soy protein. Oh, wait, fast food and frappucinos have been around forever, whereas skinny people are a new thing, right?

Anecdote 1, meet anecdote 2.

Curtail 'free speech' by lying corporations? (2, Funny)

jenningsthecat (1525947) | more than 2 years ago | (#39946217)

Why not? The government sees fit to utterly destroy Joe Public's privacy in the name of 'combatting terrorism', but they won't put a kink in the advertising industry's portrayal of an unobtainable ideal as a factual status quo? Who's running the US anyway? Oh, wait, silly me...

Re:Curtail 'free speech' by lying corporations? (1)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 2 years ago | (#39946265)

The assholes you elected. The ones who promised you all-day kindergarten, cheap co-pays on your cancer medicine, and a worry-free retirement. You sold your soul along time ago.

Re:Curtail 'free speech' by lying corporations? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39946357)

Ya know, it would be easier to accept the photoshop problem if we actually got the kindergarten/co-pay/retirement.

Re:Curtail 'free speech' by lying corporations? (1, Interesting)

Monchanger (637670) | more than 2 years ago | (#39946575)

Considering this story is about Israel, you sound even sillier than you crazy conservatives usually do. Those aren't just promises. Education is free, healthcare co-pays aren't just cheap but are merely symbolic, and pensions still exist. Oh, and they still maintain a massive military budget, and don't owe China their firstborn.

Your move.

Re:Curtail 'free speech' by lying corporations? (4, Insightful)

dpilot (134227) | more than 2 years ago | (#39946289)

It's not just *mostly* unattainable, it's unwise to even try, much less to achieve.

Minor pet peeve of mine... Between anorectic fashion models and overweight "accept me as I am" reactions to the fashion models, the "sensible middle" has been lost.

Re:Curtail 'free speech' by lying corporations? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39946397)

the "sensible middle" has been lost
 
I blame the two party system.

Re:Curtail 'free speech' by lying corporations? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39946751)

the "sensible middle" has been lost

I blame the two party system.

And you thought the skinny donkey and fat elephant were just metaphorical mascots...

Re:Curtail 'free speech' by lying corporations? (1)

19thNervousBreakdown (768619) | more than 2 years ago | (#39946611)

No, we're here, we just sensibly realize that trying to convince either side of anything is futile.

Re:Curtail 'free speech' by lying corporations? (1)

DrMaurer (64120) | more than 2 years ago | (#39946331)

Uhh, well, even the summary says that the law is in Israel. Our collective opinions about the political system in the US are...not relevant. We don't have that (kind of) jurisdiction.

I think this is an interesting idea, but I wonder how it will be enforced. Will it be government agents culling the Israeli version of Maxim saying, "Shopped! I can tell by the pixels."?

Re:Curtail 'free speech' by lying corporations? (1)

Tridus (79566) | more than 2 years ago | (#39946471)

These types of systems are usually enforced on a complaint basis. Someone lodges a complaint, then some agency gets involved and the advertiser has to prove they didn't break the law or face a fine.

Those shiksa! (3, Funny)

swb (14022) | more than 2 years ago | (#39946233)

Those blonde shiksa with the skinny waists and the big boobs, Rachel, I can't keep my Baruch's eyes from wandering!

Re:Those shiksa! (1)

NonUniqueNickname (1459477) | more than 2 years ago | (#39946679)

Baruch can't take his eyes off Bar Rafaeli's new underwear ad.
Bar Rafaeli, btw, is a good 5 lbs. above the 18.5 BMI cutoff adopted by the law.
Also, the law was passed two months ago.

Hard in the US (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 2 years ago | (#39946243)

It would be hard to get passed in the US because we care more about a corporation's health than a citizen's. No other explanation is needed. In Israel, there is more respect for their citizens, probably due to the fact that every border they share is with a country that currently, or recently, has wanted them wiped off the face of the Earth.

Re:Hard in the US (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39946313)

Heh. Quoting that 'wiped off the face of the Earth' mistranslation again. Stupid.

Re:Hard in the US (1)

Tridus (79566) | more than 2 years ago | (#39946513)

They also don't have a country that came into existence on a founding principal of mistrust of government.

It's not Israel that's odd here, if you look at the world. It's the US that is.

Re:Hard in the US (5, Insightful)

shadowrat (1069614) | more than 2 years ago | (#39946631)

Ever notice how cereal boxes say stuff like "enlarged to show texture." or how all car commercials present the text "trained driver on closed course" or cigartte cartons proclaim, "we're pretty sure this is going to kill you."

ok. i paraphrased the last one, but these are all because we do pass laws requiring that companies don't misrepresent their products. The cereal flakes are actually quite small. You won't be doing donuts in that car. The action figures do not walk and talk. If we have decided that people are going to feel so ripped off by the actual size of their cereal flakes that we need laws governing how you can depict your cereal, it stands to reason that we might need to inform people that those models have been digitally altered to conform to unattainable levels of beauty.

Re:Hard in the US (1)

Monchanger (637670) | more than 2 years ago | (#39946847)

Models aren't the product, so I wonder if false advertising laws would even apply.

Why 1st ammendment? (4, Interesting)

elsurexiste (1758620) | more than 2 years ago | (#39946279)

I've seen a paper about it: the most significant contributor to anorexia is social context, specially advertising. The fashion industry is, therefore, responsible for what they put on ads. I fail to see what's the issue here: it's common knowledge that "free speech" doesn't mean "free to say whatever you want". If they put an ad with underweight, photoshopped models, then they are harming everyone who's watching, in a medical sense, and must refrain from doing so.

Re:Why 1st ammendment? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39946429)

they are not harming me, don't make generalizations.

Re:Why 1st ammendment? roxy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39946467)

FAIL. If seeing images of thin people makes people want to become thin, then seeing obese people would also make people want to become fat. Therefore, seeing up-close and being around actual obese people on a daily basis would have a far greater effect than the occasional view of a rail-thin model in an advertisement. You can't even hear or observe closely the thin image for it to seem to be a real person, it is more like a mannequin or drawing. Therefore, we need to ban obese people from public view. The number of obesity related health problems is well documented and "growing".

captcha: ice cream !

Re:Why 1st ammendment? roxy (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 2 years ago | (#39946627)

What if someone put out an advertisement about ice cream, and some insane person decided to kill themselves because of it!? Therefore, all advertisements should be banned because a minuscule portion of the population might decide to do something harmful because of them!

Re:Why 1st ammendment? roxy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39946669)

You're being intentionally dense. The problem is that all of the people presented in media as "beautiful" actually have bodies that would be unhealthy for the vast majority of the population (likely including most if not all of the models, especially after you count photoshopped images). The people you encounter in everyday life are generally not explicitly held up as examples of beauty.

Re:Why 1st ammendment? (2, Insightful)

Prune (557140) | more than 2 years ago | (#39946633)

Huh? It's a matter of personal responsibility. You shouldn't be relying on the government to tell you what's good or bad for you; that's trying to absolve oneself of responsibility for their own life. That some people lack self control in resisting external influences, real or perceived, is unfortunate but it does not justify infringing others' freedoms. The government being your nanny is not a right, whereas freedom is.

Re:Why 1st ammendment? (4, Insightful)

excelsior_gr (969383) | more than 2 years ago | (#39946809)

"free speech" doesn't mean "free to say whatever you want"

You bet your bottom it does. And quite sly of you to say that your above opinion is "common knowledge". Having said that, I will acknowledge that there are rules that limit such freedoms, but only to protect other freedoms. Every time a new rule is put in place, careful thought is necessary in order to prevent abuse. I, for one, don't see a good enough reason for a rule in this case, so I guess I am against it, although I believe that our artificial world is seriously lacking in realism sometimes. But this is the tragedy of trying to keep such freedoms: most of the time you end up defending scum.

The real question is who finds this attractive? (4, Insightful)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 2 years ago | (#39946281)

Back in the glory days of super models a la Cindy Crawford and Tyra Banks, from what CC said the typical size for a model was 6. Now, they're 0s and 2s. Some of them are downright repulsive. There's a pretty nasty pic of Gisele Bunchken post-pregnancy and it looks like she was trying to starve off the weight. Might as well drape the clothes over a wire hanger if that's what they're aiming for.

Re:The real question is who finds this attractive? (1)

Fned (43219) | more than 2 years ago | (#39946439)

Might as well drape the clothes over a wire hanger if that's what they're aiming for.

That is pretty much what they're aiming for, yeah. But they need something to show off the makeup and shoes, too.

No WIRE hangers!!! (1)

Lashat (1041424) | more than 2 years ago | (#39946907)

yes.. mommie dearest.

Re:The real question is who finds this attractive? (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 2 years ago | (#39946657)

Seems to me there are different kids of models - fashion runway models are living hangers who design their bodies to show off clothing and not the body itself, vs. curvy pinup types (such as Crawford) whose bodies are the main attraction and the clothes just preserve a little bit of mystery.

Re:The real question is who finds this attractive? (2)

swb (14022) | more than 2 years ago | (#39946719)

Women's fashion is designed to appeal to women, not to men, so whether you or I find any of the current crop of concentration camp victims posing as models attractive or not is rather pointless to the fashion industry.

Ironically, women as a group are as much a victim of the current obesity epidemic as men are. I find it curious that the rise of waifish, anorexically thin models parallels the so-called obesity epidemic. It almost seems like the heavier women get, the more the fashion industry taunts them with thinner and thinner models, preying on a growing sense of inadequacy as women get heavier and heavier.

The so-called fashion industry I think also has also gone kind of off the deep end with an aesthetic that, frankly, seems to turn women into prepubescent girls, with so much emphasis being put on small size and slimness to point of lacking any secondary sex characteristics.

Re:The real question is who finds this attractive? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39946891)

Clearly Skeletor, I mean the dude's been leering at them forever, in fact that's the only expression he seems to have.

Not to mention his constant boner.

Corporations don't have a Right to free speech (4, Insightful)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39946295)

They are no more "human" and entitled to human rights, then this building I'm sitting in. The people inside the building have a right to free speech, but not the building itself.

Re:Corporations don't have a Right to free speech (2)

kayditty (641006) | more than 2 years ago | (#39946559)

lol.

Re:Corporations don't have a Right to free speech (2)

Prune (557140) | more than 2 years ago | (#39946681)

>The people inside the building have a right to free speech, but not the building itself.
Philosophically, this argument is not on solid ground, as continuing in the same line of regress to individual constituents, your argument goes to:
The neurons inside the brain have a right to free thought, but not the brain itself. The choice of the level at which you end the regress is arbitrary.

Re:Corporations don't have a Right to free speech (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39946853)

Except there is no more regression smaller than the body nature has given you. The whole of that body is yours and yours alone, and you have the right to use it in aggregate to think a thought, to speak it, or write it.

Long term health damage... like smoking? (4, Informative)

InvisibleClergy (1430277) | more than 2 years ago | (#39946339)

'The Israeli law is paternalistic in that it prohibits something because of the effect it might have on others in the longer term.'

Isn't this the reason we have warnings on boxes of cigarettes?

Re:Long term health damage... like smoking? (1)

toutankh (1544253) | more than 2 years ago | (#39946825)

Yeah I was wondering, what makes it different from alcohol or tobacco? Because warning against these doesn't seem to be such a problem. Not living in the US so correct me if I'm wrong about alcohol; it still holds for tobacco in any case.

US Law (4, Insightful)

jklovanc (1603149) | more than 2 years ago | (#39946367)

'In the US, it would be hard to justify this type of law on either legal or normative policy grounds,' says Downs. 'The Israeli law is paternalistic in that it prohibits something because of the effect it might have on others in the longer term.'"

The US already has a law that "paternalistic in that it prohibits something because of the effect it might have on others in the longer term". It is the FDA law that prohibits unsubstantiated medical claims because it might cause people to ignore treatments that actually work. The issue of under weight and Photoshoped images is that they cause people to attempt to attain that standard and cause health issues. This has been proven to happen.

Re:US Law (1)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 2 years ago | (#39946647)

Much of it could be covered under "truth in advertising" laws already on the books. The part prohibiting models below the WHO minimum BMI might be tougher.

Incidentally... (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#39946387)

These 'photoshop' regulations and proposals generally require some sort of written disclaimer if a model has been photoshopped. However, that seems like a very questionable assumption about how this stuff works...

Does anybody seriously suspect that advertisements prove compelling because we are deceived by them in some trivial 'I believe that this advertisement is a representative depiction of reality." sense that could be refuted simply by a textual disclaimer?

The idea that this is an information problem, caused by people just not knowing certain facts, seems about as naive(or deliberately toothless) as believing that you can make somebody stop gambling or buying lottery tickets with a dose of stats 101... It's nonsense. Do people advance these proposals because they actually do believe that? Or do they submit them because the alternative of banning photoshopping is just too dire; but Something Must Be Done?

Re:Incidentally... (1)

lambent (234167) | more than 2 years ago | (#39946479)

So, are you advocating that we do nothing? We tried that, and it doesn't work.

Perhaps the point here is that it is recognized that this action will not cure the problem, but might help reduce it. Frequently, these type of complex issues can't be fixed by just one thing. But we can't do nothing. We have to at least try.

Hmmm (4, Informative)

b0bby (201198) | more than 2 years ago | (#39946421)

I can't readily find any data just for Israel, but I find the law's author's assertion that "We also know that the first cause of death in the age group of 15-24 is anorexia" to be highly suspect. In the US, 46% of deaths ages 15-24 are accidents (33% motor vehicles), then there's homicide, suicide, cancer & other illnesses. Anorexia is nowhere near the top as a cause of death. Israelis have cars and murders and cancer just like Americans (ok, probably less cars & murders, but still); I find it hard to believe that their stats are terribly different.
The article itself says that mortality rates are 4% for anorexia, which is bad, but surely all the 10% with eating disorders she cites don't have anorexia?

WOOT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39946451)

this kinda laws is gonna save the world ROFL.....ya know all those abuses going on and corruption and this is what the media pushes around a bunch a spoiled rich broads that have eating issues.

parts of that seem ok to me (2)

digitalsushi (137809) | more than 2 years ago | (#39946573)

I am very pro first amendment, but the idea of disclaimers on impossibly obtainable body proportions sounds as good as those white rectangles on the cigarette boxes. Women, and to a lesser, but increasing amount, men, are getting severely programmed by all the fake crap we do to our mass media people of fiction. I don't know if this is an American thing, or not even a thing at all, maybe I'm just out in left field here, maybe it's generational, I have no pattern - point I am making is that lots of women seem really put off by their body image, and they dont care that members of the appropriate gender think they look fine, or great, or even perfect. They just want to drop 30% of their body weight, to anorexic levels, stab their fellow with a rib, I dunno what the end goal is man, I'm just sick of cute girls crabbing about a little belly or having real thighs. So sick of it. This is probably my most ranty, less focused slashdot post in a long while, so I'm sorry about that. It's super frustrating to tell someone they look really beautiful and have them gaze off into the distance, miserable they aren't a jpeg and unwilling to ever embrace themselves or enjoy life until that day. We should all be extremely grateful that there's no great way to apply these photoshop techniques to moving images, yet. We'll be even worse off when that happens.

Yeah. (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 2 years ago | (#39946587)

Of course. Ban something because someone might get offended by it/take it seriously. I honestly don't want to ban/censor something just because it might make a minuscule portion of the population want to do something harmful.

Priorities? (1)

TorrentFox (1046862) | more than 2 years ago | (#39946645)

The same country which sexually mutilates nearly all of its male children has a law pushed through to kinda-maybe prevent underweight people from suffering from being underweight. What?

Idiots Surround US (0)

glorybe (946151) | more than 2 years ago | (#39946785)

Sure, a skinny model clearly pushes other people to starve until they rot. That is about as true as ads with over weight people advocate over eating and lack of exercise. Sure they do. But with anorexia it is a special circumstance. The poor don't get anorexia. Anorexia loves suburban females, often Jewish, and almost no one else. Seen any men with anorexia lately? How many black girls have anorexia? Now I know people just have to believe nonsense. Remember when the Center For Disease Control believed that HIV had gaydar and could spot a queer a mile away and climb right into their blood stream? Now my advice to Israel is that if you have young women so whacked out and blind dumb that they starve themselves to death that is one heck of a lot better than providing health care and therapy for a long life. Talk about a non starter. Let's all rush to keep spoiled teen girls from torturing their families until they drop dead.

Israel is Pro Obesity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39946789)

'nuff said

asmiov (1)

scharkalvin (72228) | more than 2 years ago | (#39946843)

This kind of thinking, laws that favor society as a whole over the individual reminds me of the zeroth law of robotics.

Workaround? (1)

Wattos (2268108) | more than 2 years ago | (#39946873)

Woodstock "gimp!ing" the image be legal?

Re:Workaround? (1)

Wattos (2268108) | more than 2 years ago | (#39946887)

Stupid autocorrect. I obviously meant "would" instead of "Woodstock"

Whereas in the US (3, Insightful)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | more than 2 years ago | (#39946915)

'In the US, it would be hard to justify this type of law on either legal or normative policy grounds,' says Downs. 'The Israeli law is paternalistic in that it prohibits something because of the effect it might have on others in the longer term.'"

Whereas in the US laws are passed on the effect they may have on contributors to those who are passing them.

Truth in advertising (4, Insightful)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 2 years ago | (#39946917)

The new law also stipulates that any ad which uses airbrushing, computer editing, or any other form of Photoshop editing to create a slimmer model must clearly state that fact.

I'm pretty libertarian, but I'm 100% OK with that requirement by itself. Labeling laws help consumers make informed decisions about their purchases, which is a basic requirement of a free market. For example, I fully support a store's right to sell ground beef containing "pink slime" as long as it's clearly labeled as such. Along those lines, let Israel require companies to state that their images do not depict genuine humans. I'd like to be able to show my daughter that I'm not just making this stuff up, that models in magazines really don't look like that in real life and aren't a reasonable standard to judge yourself by.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>