Regulation

Reason.tv: Look out Kate Upton, AZ pol pushing anti-Photoshopping bill! (Nanny of the Month, Feb 2012)

|

This month's slate of busybodies includes a familiar name as well as some nannying newcomers.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), ever watchful for the new "club drug," is waging yet another crusade against yet another new product, and guess who he's doing it for? The kids!

And then there's Utah state Rep. Tim Cosgrove (D-Murray). Faced with the fact that law enforcement was wasting resources on anti-prostitution sting operations at salons that offer new age healing techniques Cosgrove didn't suggest legalizing prostitution, nor did he advise cops to ditch the stings and focus on catching bad guys (you know, those who hurt people and steal things).

Instead he introduced a bill that would jail Reiki practitioners and other business owners unless they spend hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars to obtain massage licenses. (He's probably doing it for the kids.)

But this month, the top slot goes to someone else.

In the midst of the Kate Upton Sports Illustrated airbrushing controversy comes word that a Grand Canyon state pol decides it's time to crack down on post production techniques that make models smoother and sexier. (But hey, she's doing it for the kids!)

Presenting Reason.tv's Nanny of the Month for February 2012: Arizona state Rep. Katie Hobbs (D-Phoenix)!

Approximately 90 seconds. 

"Nanny of the Month" is written and produced by Ted Balaker. Opening animation by Meredith Bragg. Special thanks to Kevin R. Breen.

Go here to watch previous "Nanny of the Month" episodes.

Visit Reason.tv for downloadable versions of this and all our videos, and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube Channel to receive automatic notification when new content is posted. 

NEXT: Gregory Conley on the Pentagon Playing Drug Regulator

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

    1. That must be some hamburger.

    2. Man, I wish we had Carl’s Jr. out here.

      1. It’s also a Hardee’s commercial.

        1. Same thing.

        2. Hardee’s seems to have completely evacuated the DC area. I’m not driving to NC for a burger.

    3. That hamburger is far too busy. But, more importantly, she’s really really good at writhing.

  1. Why would anyone need to photoshop Kate Upton? It’s like putting steak sauce on a prime, medium rare bone-in ribeye.

    1. “…bone-in …”

      You just couldn’t resist, could you?

      1. Who could possibly resist the juxtaposition of “Kate Upton” and “bone-in”?

  2. There’s false advertising, and there’s misleadingly putting Kate Upton in your post to draw more views.

  3. For the children. Don’t go outside the Nanny-city-State walls, dearie, the wild is to be feared.

  4. a Grand Canyon state pol decides it’s time to crack down on post production techniques that make models smoother and sexier. (But hey, she’s doing it for the kids!)

    Yeah, I’m pretty sure she’s doing it out of petty jealousy, but hey, why let that stop you?

    1. Agreed. Few things in this country are more dangerous than a jealous hag.

    2. Shouldn’t it also then be illegal for women to wear makeup?

      1. No, not illegal. But they should wear disclaimers that say, “caution, this bitch is more hideous than she appears.”

        1. Will beer goggles become mandatory? To be honest, I could kind of live with that.

          1. I foresee all kinds of problems with that, like a generation of uglies born to otherwise unmarriagable women.

        2. disclaimers don’t generate revenue.

          Require Permits to possess, and Licenses to apply, any and all cosmetic products in any, personal/professional/govt, setting.

    3. Katie is from Phoenix, Arizona, and graduated from Seton Catholic in 1988. She went on to get her Bachelor of Social Work from Northern Arizona University in 1992 and her Master of Social Work from Arizona State University in 1995.

      She has been a professional social worker since 1992[…]

      I’d go with a little of column A, little of column B on this one. She’s a professional “FOR TEH CHILDRENZ” sort of person.

      1. “Someone prettier than me was photoshopped to make her even prettier! This cannot stand!”

    1. Girls need to know that they don’t have to look perfect.

      Give her credit for being a living example of this theory, at least.

      1. There’s some testosterone in that jaw line.

  5. How is that not a First Amendment violation? Yes, commercial speech is held to a lesser standard than other speech, but they aren’t selling anything about Kate Upton. They aren’t saying she looks like she does thanks to, say, eating Carl’s Jr. burgers. They’re just using her to sell some magazines because of how she looks when edited for more attractiveness.

    If the objection isn’t based on fraud/misrepresentation/unsubstantiated claim grounds, then it’s very likely illegal. The photo makes kids or adults strive for the unachievable is not a legal basis for restricting speech. Period.

    What the hell is wrong with people?

    1. How is that not a First Amendment violation?

      Are you serious? Are you serious?

    2. You’ve got it easy, mate.

  6. Apropos of nothing, I thought the cover photo was actually one of the least appealing of her that I’ve seen.

    1. I think her 2.5 seconds in the Three Stooges trailer are much hotter than the SI cover.

      (You can skip to 58 seconds to see Kate, but then you’ll miss Larry David as the nun.)

      1. Shablagoo!

  7. They told the mountains and the rocks, “Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb, for the great day of his wrath has come; and who is able to stand?

    -Revelations 6:16-17

    1. Oh gross. What the hell kind of guy would hit that?

      1. A publicity whoring guido? Just spitballing here.

    2. Megan Fox says she’s found her soul mate. And no, it’s not you.

      Ummm, ok.

  8. Based on the description in the article, isn’t this simply an anti-fraud measure? If Pro Activ Photoshopped their models so that they looked better than could be achieved by using the product, and didn’t tell anyone it did so, is that just good business?

    It certainly doesn’t look like it would apply to an SI cover.

    1. It says they would have to put a notice on the ad saying it was altered. I think Pro Activ already states the the results are not typical. What a tard.

      1. Non-typical — better than average — results are not necessarily the same as altered results. You do grasp that, don’t you?

        1. Yep, I grasp it completely. That is why I made the comment. If Pro Activ photoshopped their models so that they looked better than could be achieved by using the product that would be fraud.

          What the law says that if you touch up someone to make them look better (remove imperfections, reflections, whatever) you have to state that in the ad. To me that is not that same thing as fraud.

          1. Can you explain how you draw the distinction between “Pro Activ photoshopp[ing] their models so that they looked better than could be achieved by using the product” and “touch[ing] up someone to make them look better [by] remov[ing] imperfections”?

            Now, I think it’s clearly the case that not all post-production changes have anything relevant to do with the subject of the ad (removing red eye, or the reflection of the set in something shiny in the photo, etc.). To the extent the law would apply to changes of that sort, it’s pretty asinine. And, to the extent it rehashes the same ground as existing fraud laws, it’s superfluous.

            However, I don’t think it’s anything approaching nanny-statish unless, as implied by the Reason column but not the article about the bill, it would apply to any and all published (commercial?) photos.

            1. I think the important words here are “better than could be achieved” thereby making it fraud. If I am selling you a product that I claim removes skin blemishes and doesn’t, but I photoshop the models to show it does, that is fraud.

              If on the other hand, I say this person is hot and I photoshop ten pounds off in strategic locations because she went on a Carl’s binge, is that fraud?

              From what I read in the article, it is the last that she is after. Basically passing a law saying what everyone already knows or suspects: that models are sometimes “helped.” I don’t know if the law is asinine or superfluous or both, but it is not something that state legislatures need to protect against.

    2. I think people should be required to be reasonable when evaluating the claims at advertisers. Everyone should realize models aren’t like typical women in the first place and their photos are altered.

      1. I agree that people should be wary of what they see in advertising.

        How does one evaluate whether the advertisers’s claim regarding a product’s results are atypical, but still within the realm of the possible, as opposed to created in a computer program?

        At what point — if any — does advertising become false? To me, “results not typical” is true advertising, but the unacknowledged Photoshopping of post-use photos isn’t true.

        1. Well, I think if you just look at a cosmetics ad you can tell exactly what they’re going for. They’re trying to match a pretty, well-known face with their product, not advertise any superior benefits. It’s not a scientific comparison of someone before and after a typical application of makeup; it’s a scantily clad 20-something from the latest Michael Bay masterpiece smiling next to some beauty-affirming tagline.

          I mean, a woman’s clearly not going to look like the person in the photo. I’m pretty sure people understand that and are buying more into image because there are really so few differences.

          1. Well, some ads do and some don’t. A lot of self-help products (cosmetics, exercise machines, etc.) are hawked by a well-known face but use supposed girl-next-door types to show the “results.”

            1. “are hawked by a well-known face but use supposed girl-next-door types to show the “results.””

              Perhaps, but unless they make explicit and fraudulent claims, so what?

              Since the don’t, and they make the necessary disclaimers, your objection is moot.

        2. How “true” is, say, that hamburger in the Hardee’s ad somebody linked above? I guaran-fucking-tee you will never get an actual hamburger like that at Hardee’s or Carl’s Jr. Do we need disclaimers on everything?

  9. What if its all airbrush? Like Kate Upton, Cartoon Ranger?

    I foresee a guy with photo-realistic talent on canvas like Norman Rockwell needing to watch himself in Amerika soon.

  10. based on Nelf&Nihilo;’s conversation…

    I would completely exempt anything cosmetic from claims of fraud, on the basis that cosmetics are themselves entirely based on fraud.

    Live by the fraud, die by the fraud.

  11. It’s nice to see that AZ has actually solved all the other pressing issues (you know, like balancing their state budget, providing basic services etc.) and can finally get around to regulating the scourge of air-brushed magazine photos of hot chicks.

    /sarcasm

  12. is it really that difficult to not have music drown out the voice? is REASON not a serious enterprise?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.