Opponents of an institutionalized censorship advertising are convinced that only on moral grounds could lead to the censoring advertising, which is not possible in a democratic conception of law. Free enterprise and the dissemination of information are rights whose protection benefits all, while the moral blameworthiness to an advertisement depends on a normative judgments in reference to an ideal of life which is not necessarily shared. The rule of right on the well justify a refusal of constraints on advertising as no harm is caused purpose. But if the opposition of advertising professionals to the intrusion of external constraints is not surprising, is it valid to the extent in terms of equal rights? It should be remembered that no right is absolute and recognition of it relates to the degree of compatibility with other rights. The framing of advertising is not necessarily a moral [11], it can be justified in terms of representation of the body and identity as a problem of justice. Creative freedom and expression is necessarily limited by the principle of harm to others. The right of an individual not to be discriminated in its identity, including sexual, interacts with the right to free enterprise and freedom of expression.
It is true that advertising production does not result, in most cases, the violence of the models and actresses. It is therefore very difficult to establish an objective link between advertising and violent behavior against women. This is the point of view of representation for the offensive identity that advertising can be accused of impeding the equality between men and women. If there is [12] representations of the body and advertising of feminine identity, they often use women’s bodies, often bare no relation to the product boasted. This does not mean that all advertisements showing naked women are offensive or hurtful that all advertisements for feminine identity show of nude women. More than the nudity, it is the objectification of the female body or its morcellisation, hypertrophy of its sexualization, ProShape Rx the denial of its unity and integrity who pose the question of the dignity of women. Women are portrayed as sex objects rather than subjects of their own bodies [13].
Discriminating effects of advertising on women is not limited to the direct exploitation of their bodies as a grabber and desire. The advertising world is a discriminating use of the representation of female identity by enclosing female individuals in some archetypal roles: mother, wife, housekeeper and seductive. The woman is necessarily dependent on the human figure as well as being a manipulative, corrupting and seductive. From this point of view, advertising is a discourse that tends to deshistoriser intersex relationships and social roles of the sexes. She repeated sexual stereotypes inherited from ancient historical process that the democratic dynamic tends to delete or not allowed to continue as a minor. Unlike his supposed avant-garde dimension, the advertising world has a high degree of repetition of stereotypes, including when they no longer reflect any objective reality [14]. The advertising world is involved in the development of shared meanings, values, common majority or even when it is unjust and contrary to democratic ideals. [15] Advertising is characterized by its repetitive nature but also a little cognitive discourse developed that maps the excessive perception of the other and distills arbitrary hierarchies.
The advertising world confirms the values and representations of the majority culture or the culture that has historically dominated and whose domination continues in the representations. [16] is in this sense that advertising plays a role in the injustices which women are victims even if it is difficult to argue that the injustice against women in advertising representations is the cause of other social injustices they suffer.