ver the years, media and show business have been trying to get our attention in different ways, deceiving, disrupting, alluring, disturbing, in the ever-renewed effort to create something new and exciting to sell their products. In this never-ending race to achieve an  eternally moving goal and get the reward of our amazement, the most successful strategies have always been, even trivially, those related to sex; the cliché according to which sex has always sold has a solid raison d’être, and advertising or marketing experts know that. Every day on newspapers, in the streets, on our screens, we see images that have the common feature of a more and more explicit and alluring sensuality; and since the boundaries of provocation are elastic and tend to move over a little every day, sensuality is often seasoned with other elements to make it even more attractive, such as violence, domination, voyeurism, promiscuity. It’s the case, for example, of some of the biggest names in international fashion systems, which have made sex and provocation the keys of their marketing strategies, so as to meet frequent complaints from consumer groups, control boards and self-regulation committees, and to be forced to discontinue or cancel some of their communication campaigns. Without expressing any opinion about the way such measures have been imposed from time to time (censorship is always a highly controversial practice, and the criteria according to which is applied often subjective), you can agree that such measures are usually reserved for cases where the concern is to protect a weaker party that is likely to be represented in a way detrimental to his dignity. For example, think about woman’s image, who is often portrayed in situations that make uncertain the distinction between the subject of seduction and the object of abuse; or about children, sometimes sexualized for the purposes of advertising, with all the risks that such a distortion may cause. Therefore, even if everyone can express his personal concerns about this or that particular case, based on his own opinion’s parameters, the general criterion that seems to emerge is that of caution, where a restricted communication and creativity freedom is the price, regarded as acceptable, to avoid a possible real damage in terms of image, dignity and consequent behaviours suffered by a group of people. A very different situation characterizes on the contrary a particular area of communication, the one addressed to a gay audience or to the representation of its problems. Censorship and public perception criteria in this case are characterized by a radical change of direction and what is stigmatized are not tones nor ways of communication, but its whole content. Actually, here the purpose of censorship is no longer the protection of the represented group, to prevent the wrong picture to emerge, to be misunderstood or manipulated, but the protection of those who may come into contact with this reality and its representation, and be struck. In fact what is questioned about homosexuality, with regard to sex, but even to love or mere existence, are not the ways of representation, but representation itself, as evidence of something that would be better to ignore. For example, the concern frequently appealed not to disturb the children with any reference to the existence of an homosexual reality clearly contrasts with the ease the same children are commonly exposed to far more explicit images related to heterosexual  sexuality, considered “normal” and therefore not dangerous; but, as expressed by the writer and poet Dorothy Parker, “Heterosexuality is not normal, it’s just common”, and the alleged normality actually is most of an established concept , induced by the same culture that appeals to. Examples of this approach are numerous. Without the claim to be exhaustive we produce here some: they reflect a reality still widely spread even in a Western culture that loves present itself to the world as the torch of freedom and the main spokesman of values of equality and respect for minorities .

This advert promoting Gay Ireland magazine drew a number of complaints (including death threats) when it appeared on billboards in 2001. The fact that the Gaelic football players shown kissing in the poster are wearing the colours of prominent Irish football and hurling teams was interpreted as an attack on the Gaelic Athletic Association (GAA), an organisation associated with traditional values. “The GAA is sacred in Irish life and this ploy to sell a few more magazines is cheap and distasteful,” said a source within the sports association. Responding to the criticism, Gay Ireland’s editor, Brain Finnegan, said, “We know the GAA might say different, but do we care? Not really. This country is currently a very good place to be gay. That’s why so many gay people are choosing to come here. It’s relaxed, friendly and very mixed.” 

In 2005 this poster for the clothing company RA-RE attracted complaints from the Italian parents’ association, MOIGE. A spokesman for MOIGE said that “these posters are vulgar and a bad example for our children”, adding that the sexual orientation of the characters in the advert was not what was objected to, and that the image would be “crass” even if it featured a man and a woman. Following protests by the citizens, the self-control advertising board (IAP) blocked the posting of new posters. Author of the images is Oliviero Toscani, actually used to cause similar reactions (think about his numerous and discussed campaigns for Benetton); as always, however, his provocation lies in its challenge to the taboos of our society, not in the form of his images.

 

The Swedish company IKEA has always shown great concern for the homosexual community, represented normally in their advertisements alongside other more or less traditional couples (attention, moreover, also present in the recruitment policies of the company), and in 2006 a spot aired on U.S. territory represented a pair of fathers with their daughter, accompanied by the message: “Why shouldn’t sofas come in flavours, like families?”. As a result, the American Family Association (AFA) has accused the Swedish furniture retailer of trying to force a liberal, “homosexuality-affirming” world view on US consumers, and to force Swedish values on America. Probably, the presence of a child, suggesting that homosexuals may constitute a family, represented in this case the further element of scandal that caused the reaction of AFA.

In France, the Professional Association for responsible advertising has banned in 2007 a corporate campaign against the spread of AIDS in the gay community, considered too explicit; thinking about what you can normally see in advertising campaigns, this statement appears at least questionable. Some organizations, such as Act Up Paris, dedicated to the fight against AIDS, have criticized the different parameters that apply to proceedings in advertising according to whether it will ask for a public heterosexual or gay: “These measures are not taken when people are heterosexual. It ‘an affront to the gay community, “said an association spokesman.

In 2005 Ang Lee’s movie “Brokeback Mountain” won three Oscars, telling, maybe for the first time to a large international audience, a compelling story of love between two men. But when in 2008 the Italian public television (RAI) aired for the first time the movie (in the late evening, given it’s considered unsuitable for audiences under the age of 14 years), it was shown a release without the more explicit scenes. Critics noted that while the gay love scenes were removed, censors left a heterosexual sex scene. “If the complaint does not apply to the contents of the hard scenes but for the homosexual nature of the report, considered pornographic in itself, you move from grotesque to discriminating over-zealous” said a government official. Italian newspaper La Repubblica noted that the cuts – involving a kiss between actors Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal and a love scene in a tent – came days after the Vatican attacked a European Union proposal that the United Nations formally condemn discrimination against gays.

In 2010, these posters were part of a campaign against homophobia in Italy. The slogan says: “Civilization, typical product from Friuli” (Friuli is a region in north-eastern Italy). But during the night following their posting, already preceded by controversy as to their appropriateness, the posters were removed or defaced by vandals, and later the action was claimed by a member of the local conservative party, afraid that homosexuality, and not civilization, could be considered a typical product of the region.

Tom Bouden’s adaptation of Oscar Wilde’s play “The Importance of Being Earnest” was rejected in 2010 as an iPad app for the App Store, due to “materials that may be considered obscene, pornographic, or defamatory.” A handful of sexually suggestive images depicting men, some extremely mild, were specifically flagged as problematic in the 80-page graphic novel. The app was rated 17+ from the beginning but that didn’t seem to make a difference,” said Peter Bonte, the publisher. Bonte resubmitted the app, this time with large black boxes almost completely covering the “offending” panels, but the app was rejected again; perhaps to avoid calling attention to its restrictions, Apple did not allow black censor bars to appear in content. Apple eventually changed their policy and allowed the censored version of the book to appear in the App Store, and the publisher posted the censored pages on a website so that users can see them and judge for themselves whether the content should be blocked. Only after the strong controversies caused by its censorial attitude, Apple developer relations has contacted Peter Bonte and apologized for the rejection of the comic. An uncensored version of the book was submitted and accepted to the App Store.  

In 2011 this cover featuring Elton John, his husband David Furnish and their new baby Zachary has caused protests from “several customers” of a Harps chain supermarket in Arkansas, so that the direction of the supermarket opted to put a “Family Shield” in front of the Mag’s cover deeming it inappropriate for “young Harps shoppers.” A shopper snapped a photo of the shield-obscured issues, and tweeted a message urging people to complain. Harps corporate headquarters was swiftly inundated with calls, prompting executives to remove the shields.