Hey, there! Log in / Register
Residents, city councilor get skin-lightening billboard ad in Grove Hall removed
By adamg on Sun, 05/03/2015 - 1:50pm
UPDATE: Mayor Walsh also got involved. His Roxbury liaison, Kaira Fox e-mailed neighborhood groups and other elected officials on Friday: "I wanted to let you know, the Mayor has heard the complaints and reached out to Clear Channel personnally to ask that they change the billboard. The City does not have control over the content of Billboards, but agrees this is in very poor taste to have in our neighborhood."
On Friday, Clear Channel removed a Grove Hall billboard ad for a skin-lightening product for black women after residents and City Councilor Charles Yancey called the notion that blacks need to lighten their skin color offensive.
The billboard, above the intersection of Blue Hill Avenue and Warren Street, now has a public-service ad warning of the dangers of driving while under the influence of drugs.
A Change.org petition by LightSpeed Entertainment of Roxbury explained the reasons for seeking the removal of the Carotis Skincare ad:
As invested residents of Mattapan, Roxbury, and Dorchester we strive to make our communities places of safety, not only physically but mentally. To preserve good mental health; we find that it is critically important that our community members and children reside in environments that affirm self-acceptance. We feel that the “Carotis” skin lightening advertisement conflicts with our health preservation efforts as it markets skin lightening to communities where a large portion of members have dark skin complexions. Our darker skin and lighter skin community members stand in solidarity in regards to the removal of this billboard and are equally concerned about the negative impressions this ad could have on the minds of our adults, children and youth.
On Friday, City Councilor Charles Yancey's office reported it had gotten the company and Clear Channel to take down the ad.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
I disapprove of what you say,
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. Unless of course it offends me or offends members of the community or advertises to them a product which all right thinking people agree they do not want or need.
paid product advetising. paid speech.
of course, that's not the objection. the objection is that product is for people who, by virtue of the advertising, learn there's a product for black people who think they look too black and want to look more white. i can see why that is offensive to some people and why they'd argue the message is inconsistent with community standards.
Who determines community
Who determines community standards?
The almighty dollar holder,
The almighty dollar holder, that's who. The big money machine.
The almighty dollar
Is actually the consumer not the company placing the ad.
Do you not vote?
?
A lesson in free speech:
Advertising your skin-lightening product: this is permitted free speech
Petitioning the people in charge of the advertisement to remove it: also permitted free speech
Removing the advertisement because you agree that it's offensive: yet again, permitted free speech.
The problem is a government
The problem is a government official getting involved in this.
The story doesn't say the mayor tried to exert any formal coercion against ClearChannel (such as ordering it removed as mayor, or suing), but when the mayor in a city as corruptly run as Boston takes a position against your company, "personally asking" you to do something, you know it's either do it or there'll be retaliation.
Wonder how the people behind this petition would respond if the top government official supported removal of speech they agreed with. Bet they'd call it censorship.
lol...you think the power
lol...you think the power balance tips in favor of our mayor vs clear channel???
Whoa there...
There's a world of legal difference between, on the one hand, using the force of government to suppress speech (which nobody did, here), and, on the other, using the bully pulpit that comes with being an elected official to convince someone to take down a billboard.
Yea, I'm not sure what makes
Yea, I'm not sure what makes me feel worse: the fact this product exists, or the fact that its opponents were able to puke all over the First Amendment so easily.
We need a new product
We need a product that makes conservatives look less racist.
Aw, don't be so sad, and don't call the ACLU yet
The First Amendment worked just like it should here: Some people saw something they thought was wrong and they spoke up. Hooray for constitutionally protected rights!
This would have only become a First Amendment issue had the government intervened - like, say Yancey ordered the local police to tear down the ad. But he didn't, and they didn't and all you're left with is a free exchange of ideas of the sort the Founding Fathers envisioned. Unless, of course, you think money buys you more First Amendment rights.
Any time you have an elected
Any time you have an elected official telling an individual or private business to do something, there is an implied threat behind it.
You don't lose your constitutional rights ...
When you're elected to public office. Unless you can show that Yancey used his office to block that billboard beyond jawboning, you won't have a case.
It doesn't need to be a case.
It doesn't need to be a case. Like I said, the clear implication that an individual or business can take from an elected official telling them not to do something is that there is a threat of action there on the part of the elected official if they do not comply. Yancy can say what he wants and he could have also spoken innocently, it doesn't change the implication inherent.
So elected officials can never say anything about anything?
While that might be fun, please.
Does your update to the story change anything?
The mayor personally told a private business to change their billboard. That's chilling.
It's not like he demanded they take it down
Or vowed to use the powers of his office from opening up in Boston (remember WalMart and Chick-fil-a?).
Again, I'm not seeing why you or other people think elected officials lose their right to free speech the day they're sworn in. And it's not like Clear Channel is some piddly little company that trembles before the august majesty of His Honor, the Mayor of Boston. In any case, did you read the whole two sentences I added to the story? Like how the mayor's rep says he can't tell them to take the thing down?
As for what changes, the net effect remains the same, yes, but I felt it worth adding because it wasn't just Yancey at City Hall who was telling the company he or she found the thing offensive.
But, hey, as long as we're flinging hypotheticals around, what if somebody somehow managed to buy the billboard above a certain well known West Roxbury restaurant advertising the next meeting of the Flag Burners Association (or more realistically, one of John Rosenthal's handgun-control ads). Would you object to the mayor doing whatever he could to get that removed? If not, why not?
"Told a business to change their billboard."
I dont' think the mayor has the power to order anyone to change their billboard. He does, on the other hand, have the ability to call the company and say, "You know, that billboard is really pissing people off." Being mayor gets his phone call returned, but I don't see any abuse of authority going on here.
Congress shall make no law
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
@adamg, thanks for the
@adamg, thanks for the response. You gave me a lot to think over. I still have two concerns: (1) I am skeptical whenever one group of people employs their elected officials to remove another group's speech (regardless of the dubious value of that speech). Here, an elected official DID intervene -- he put in a call, and the sign disappeared. I don't see how that's not government intervention, and;
(2) I don't see the removal of a sign as a free exchange of ideas, I see it as the suppression of an unpopular idea. I don't think "majority rules" is any better than "money rules." I have faith that this skin product company will be marginalized on its own because it is an ugly product, but I'm not prepared to suppress their ad by majority rule.
Granted, advertisements are not the core free speech that deserves the most-robust 1st Amendment protections, but I still wince when majority rule and government influence combine to limit .
Anyway, thanks as always for the opportunity to debate the subject.
It's not government intervention
If the Mayor says, "Hey, everyone, the Sox are having an awesome season; everyone ought to get out to Fenway and enjoy a game," and then I go to Fenway and enjoy a game, is that government intervention?
I not, then why is it government intervention for the mayor to say, "hey, you're being a dick if you leave that billboard up?"
I agree the idea is offensive
But on the other hand, if there is demand for this product in this neighborhood, then of course the product will be advertised there.
Look at all of the college campuses in Boston that are littered with tanning salons every three feet. Tanning beds full-stop cause cancer, but in spite of everything, there is still demand for it in those areas, so it's there, and tanning coupons are scattered through student-oriented advertising channels.
I bet you anything you want
that there would be less or nil demand if there were no advertising.
Which do you think comes first?
skin whitening has been used
skin whitening has been used in many cultures for a very long time...so you are wrong
And why has it been used for so long?
Any guesses?
Because sneeches have always craved change?
Adam, of course there's an element of racial perception involved here, and I get why some (many?) people in that neighborhood were put off by the ad. Like many here, I think that if enough folks complained, it's perfectly legitimate for elected officials to say to CC "Hey, a lot people in this neighborhood are unhappy with this ad - How about you put something else up?" Acting as a community voice is a pretty basic part of their job.
But on the other hand - at some point, don't people descended from African ancestors get to adjust their appearance as unapologetically as everyone else? Many caucasians tan themselves, naturally or with tech assistance. Getting perms is at least as popular as hair straightening. People of all skin types have been bleaching out freckles for centuries at least. Folks color their hair, nails, eyes. They wear lifts and high heels to look taller, stripes (or spanks) to look slimmer, bras to look perkier or bosomy. Get surgery or implants to enhance their muscles, busts, butts, face. Etc ad infinitum.
At some point, does thinking of this particular service as fundamentally different become racially patronizing?
oh I'm aware
In fact, I suspect I know a whole lot more about this topic than you probably think.
Yes, skin whitening has a very long history, in very different cultural contexts, but aspirational products like this one don't just appear out of nowhere due to a spontaneous groundswell of natural demand, you know.
Al Jolson's Skin Darkener
Yet when I rub burnt cork on my face and walk down Blue Hill Ave everyone gets all upset. I wish they would make up their minds.
Privilege check
Check your privilege.
What is wrong with you (and
What is wrong with you (and the people upvoting you)? This isn't even funny.
Ay, thee
Ful ofte in game a sooth I have herd saye!
Click Bait
C'mon, Adam. You're better than this.
No, no bicycles are involved
Seriously? I thought this was an interesting issue - I even drove to Grove Hall to make sure the billboard was down. And I figured most people wouldn't know about it. That's news in my book.
No. Clickbait is something else entirely.
A Boston City Councillor Flipped When He Saw THIS Billboard.
One Weird Trick For Getting Rid of Inappropriate Advertising
This Community Didn't Want A Billboard in Their Neighborhood. What Happened Next Left Me in Tears.
... and so on and so forth until you become upworthy.
...after residents and City
Need? Who said anything about need? These people are pathetic. The product that "offends" them is apparently something that others want or will want. Does that desire on the part of others "offend" Yancey and that crowd, too? If so, do the Yanceys of the world have plans to teach these people a lesson, and make the start thinking correctly?
Never mind. I understand fully that in this land of statists, there are some very dirty words going around like free enterprise, individual choice, etc.
What religion or ethnic group are you?
I'm sure I could come up with something you would find offensive.
Does advertising create artificial needs?
smallbusiness.chron.com:
I don't understand why people
I don't understand why people here seem to be upset at this kind of community action and outcome.
Advertising is a weird world
There is irony in Clear Channel being pressured to not allow an advertisement that is offensive (was it proposed by the Budweiser marketers?) and Clear Channel being pressured to renege on its commitment to put up billboards for Stop Handgun Violence. Personally I agree with the former but wish they had not allowed themselves to be bullied in the latter.
There is also an amazing lack of awareness in marketing lately. First there was the person who recommended movies concerning the Olympics that anyone with two cents of awareness would realize were grossly inappropriate for selling the idea of an Olympiad. Then there was the recent blindingly stupid slogan from Budweiser. Now in a majority African-American neighborhood an advertisement that basically says, "Tired of being Black? Do you want to be white? Here's how...." I think even Don Draper would have realized how gross that it is.
Well, I mean, are they going
Well, I mean, are they going to advertise skin whitening cream in a white neighborhood? Advertising can create demand, sure, but there are limits.
Whitening Creams Can Be Dangerous
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/16/health/16skin.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0
Exactly! This stuff is
Exactly! This stuff is dangerous and barely (if at all) regulated.
Kudos to Adam for covering this.