Könsdiskriminerande reklam - håller argumenten mot lagstiftning?
(2014) LAGF03 20141Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Idag är könsdiskriminerande reklam inte förbjudet i Sverige. Marknadsdomstolen har fastslagit att den typen av reklam inte faller under MFL:s tillämpningsområde. Istället sköts tillsynen av stiftelsen RO som fungerar som näringslivets självreglering.
Huruvida könsdiskriminerande reklam bör förbjudas i lag eller inte har varit uppe för diskussion vid ett flertal tillfällen. Flera utredningar har gjorts men lagförslagen har alltid landat i att det på ett eller annat sätt inte gått att lagstifta. De mest frekvent använda argumenten är att den grundlagsfästa tryck- och yttrandefriheten hindrar lagstiftning, att förbud mot könsdiskriminerande reklam inte kan inkorporeras i MFL då det strider mot lagens syfte samt att lagstiftning i vilket... (More) - Idag är könsdiskriminerande reklam inte förbjudet i Sverige. Marknadsdomstolen har fastslagit att den typen av reklam inte faller under MFL:s tillämpningsområde. Istället sköts tillsynen av stiftelsen RO som fungerar som näringslivets självreglering.
Huruvida könsdiskriminerande reklam bör förbjudas i lag eller inte har varit uppe för diskussion vid ett flertal tillfällen. Flera utredningar har gjorts men lagförslagen har alltid landat i att det på ett eller annat sätt inte gått att lagstifta. De mest frekvent använda argumenten är att den grundlagsfästa tryck- och yttrandefriheten hindrar lagstiftning, att förbud mot könsdiskriminerande reklam inte kan inkorporeras i MFL då det strider mot lagens syfte samt att lagstiftning i vilket fall inte skulle råda bot på problemet. Denna uppsats har till syfte att utreda om dessa argument är hållbara.
Efter genomgång av grundlagarnas yttrandefrihetsskydd kan konstateras att det faller utanför syftet med dessa att skydda näringsidkares ekonomiska intressen. Det problematiska uppstår när sådan kommersiell reklam innehåller något moment som anses skyddsvärt, s.k. blandade meddelanden. De som menar att grundlagen står i vägen för lagstiftning mot könsdiskriminerande reklam anser att den typen av reklam förmedlar en åsikt eller en värdering varför dessa moment får anses skyddsvärda. I uppsatsen diskuteras problematiken med detta resonemang och att det får anses vara ett vagt argument varför grundlagen förmodligen inte står i vägen för lagstiftning.
Att det strider mot MFL:s syfte att inkorporera ett förbud mot könsdiskriminerande reklam får också anses tveksamt. Av praxis framgår att MFL skyddar konsumenter i egenskap av just konsumenter och inte i egenskap av tillhörighet till visst kön. Det blir dock fråga om en viss dubbelmoral då det samtidigt hänvisas till internationella handelskammarens grundregler som tolkningsmedel till marknadsföringslagen. Dessa regler stadgar nämligen att könsdiskriminerande reklam inte är tillåtet.
I uppsatsen redogörs också för hur lagstiftning mot könsdiskriminerande reklam kunnat ske i Norge och Danmark. Den avgörande skillnaden mellan Sverige och våra två grannländer får anses vara skyddet för yttrandefrihet. I både Norge och Danmark används inte yttrandefrihetsskyddet i EKMR som en minimistandard som förstärks på nationell nivå, så som vi gjort i Sverige. Istället hänvisas ofta till yttrandefrihetsskyddet i EKMR i domar vilket i praktiken gör att skyddet är svagare i Danmark och Norge. Därtill ska tilläggas att det länge varit oklart huruvida deras yttrandefrihetsskydd täcker kommersiell reklam över huvud taget. Dessa är givetvis avgörande aspekter för att reglering mot könsdiskriminerande reklam kunnat komma till stånd. (Less) - Abstract
- Today, sexist advertisement is not illegal in Sweden. MD has decided that MFL is not applicable on that kind of advertising. Instead, the industry regulates itself through the RO foundations supervision. They use certain criteria established by the ICC and ERK to determine whether advertisement is sexist or not. Although, this system might be seen as ineffective since RO has no right to issue sanctions.
Whether sexist advertisement should be forbidden by law or not, have been frequently discussed. Even though there have been many investigations, none of them have led to legislation. There have been many arguments against legislation. The most frequently referred to is that the freedom of speech in the constitution prevents legislation,... (More) - Today, sexist advertisement is not illegal in Sweden. MD has decided that MFL is not applicable on that kind of advertising. Instead, the industry regulates itself through the RO foundations supervision. They use certain criteria established by the ICC and ERK to determine whether advertisement is sexist or not. Although, this system might be seen as ineffective since RO has no right to issue sanctions.
Whether sexist advertisement should be forbidden by law or not, have been frequently discussed. Even though there have been many investigations, none of them have led to legislation. There have been many arguments against legislation. The most frequently referred to is that the freedom of speech in the constitution prevents legislation, that a prohibition against sexist advertisement can´t be incorporated in the MFL and that legislation wouldn’t solve the problem anyway. This essay will investigate if the arguments are durable or not.
The purpose with the freedom of speech in the constitution is not to protect business owners’ economic interests. It becomes more problematic when commercial advertisement contains elements, which are considered worthy of protection. These are called mixed messages. Some people mean that this kind of advertising mediate an opinion or valuation, which is worth protecting. It may be considered as a vague argument, which means that the constitution probably doesn’t prevent legislation. This will also be discussed in the essay.
MFL aims to protect consumers in their role as consumers and not because of their gender. At the same time, the ICC Code of Advertising and Marketing Communication Practise are used to interpret the MFL, and these rules state that sexist advertisement is not allowed. Therefore, the argument that a prohibition against sexist advertisement can’t be incorporated in the MFL, because it’s against the purpose of the law, may be considered as doubtful.
This essay will explain how it has been able to ban sexist advertising by law in Denmark and Norway. The crucial difference between Sweden and our neighbours might be the freedom of speech. Norway and Denmark refer to the freedom of speech in EKMR as current law, rather than their own national legislation. Meanwhile, Sweden refers to the freedom of speech in the national constitution, which ensures a stronger protection than EKMR. In addition to this, it has been uncertain if the freedom of speech in Norway and Denmark includes commercial advertisement. These are naturally vital aspects of why it has been able to implement legislation against sexist advertisement in these countries. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/4449583
- author
- Johansson, Charlotte LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20141
- year
- 2014
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- Komparativ rätt, marknadsrätt, könsdiskriminerande reklam
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 4449583
- date added to LUP
- 2014-06-17 13:57:28
- date last changed
- 2014-06-17 13:57:28
@misc{4449583,
abstract = {{Today, sexist advertisement is not illegal in Sweden. MD has decided that MFL is not applicable on that kind of advertising. Instead, the industry regulates itself through the RO foundations supervision. They use certain criteria established by the ICC and ERK to determine whether advertisement is sexist or not. Although, this system might be seen as ineffective since RO has no right to issue sanctions.
Whether sexist advertisement should be forbidden by law or not, have been frequently discussed. Even though there have been many investigations, none of them have led to legislation. There have been many arguments against legislation. The most frequently referred to is that the freedom of speech in the constitution prevents legislation, that a prohibition against sexist advertisement can´t be incorporated in the MFL and that legislation wouldn’t solve the problem anyway. This essay will investigate if the arguments are durable or not.
The purpose with the freedom of speech in the constitution is not to protect business owners’ economic interests. It becomes more problematic when commercial advertisement contains elements, which are considered worthy of protection. These are called mixed messages. Some people mean that this kind of advertising mediate an opinion or valuation, which is worth protecting. It may be considered as a vague argument, which means that the constitution probably doesn’t prevent legislation. This will also be discussed in the essay.
MFL aims to protect consumers in their role as consumers and not because of their gender. At the same time, the ICC Code of Advertising and Marketing Communication Practise are used to interpret the MFL, and these rules state that sexist advertisement is not allowed. Therefore, the argument that a prohibition against sexist advertisement can’t be incorporated in the MFL, because it’s against the purpose of the law, may be considered as doubtful.
This essay will explain how it has been able to ban sexist advertising by law in Denmark and Norway. The crucial difference between Sweden and our neighbours might be the freedom of speech. Norway and Denmark refer to the freedom of speech in EKMR as current law, rather than their own national legislation. Meanwhile, Sweden refers to the freedom of speech in the national constitution, which ensures a stronger protection than EKMR. In addition to this, it has been uncertain if the freedom of speech in Norway and Denmark includes commercial advertisement. These are naturally vital aspects of why it has been able to implement legislation against sexist advertisement in these countries.}},
author = {{Johansson, Charlotte}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Könsdiskriminerande reklam - håller argumenten mot lagstiftning?}},
year = {{2014}},
}