17025: Leprechauns Unite!

 

This campaign advocating for The Leprechaun Law—hatched by White advertising agencies in Ireland, Dublin, and Milan—seeks to generate awareness for Ireland’s outdated hate speech laws. The concept is explained as follows:

 

Irish citizens are being encouraged to identify as leprechauns in order to enjoy better legal protection from online abuse. ‘The Leprechaun Law’ is a satirical campaign by LADbible Ireland with Folk VML Dublin and VML Milan that aims to expose Ireland’s outdated hate speech laws, which pre-date the internet and leave citizens vulnerable to trolling and online abuse.

 

While it sounds like a gimmick, the campaign is rooted in legal reality. Under the EU Habitats Directive (2009) leprechauns are classified as ‘protected species’ in Ireland’s Sliabh Foy Loop area, unlike normal Irish citizens.

 

Social publisher LADBible (with 5 million followers) is now calling on Irish citizens to adopt leprechaun status in protest. The public is being asked to symbolically convert to a leprechaun online or via a pop-up law booth in Dublin — and then share their new ‘leprechaun status’ through a fun TikTok campaign that creates a leprechaun version of the user.

 

The goal of the initiative is to push for legislation change on hate laws in Ireland, as well as requesting a public consultation as part of any new legislation updates.

 

If the true goal is pushing for legal revisions to hate laws, hate to say it, but this campaign will fail. It might have inspired greater awareness via a promotional tie-in with Lucky Charms.

 

Although expect for leprechauns to join other White segments—led by White women, White menopausal women, Old White Guys, White neurodivergent, White conservatives, et al.—claiming victimhood and seizing DEIBA+ status in Adland.

13807: High-Tech Hatemongers…?

This Lenovo video seems potentially insensitive given the increase of organized hate groups in places such as Charlottesville and beyond. Why, the Legion looks downright Klan-like with their high-tech hoods. And it doesn’t help that the creative co-conspirators include the ever-White advertising agency Ogilvy and Gentleman Scholar, a production company whose gentlemen-led staff appears to be typically exclusive.

5739: Is Garfield Nuttier Than A Snickers Bar?

Bob Garfield posted another comment on the thread for An Open Letter To Omnicom President-CEO John Wren. Here it is:

To Julia Cohen (and many others),

As the piece makes very clear (notwithstanding the slightly-too-narrow subheadline, which I did not write) it’s not about gay or not gay; it’s about the license to ridicule, demean and target a class of people by virtue of being not prototypically masculine enough.

You don’t wish to go into whether the ad is good or bad or offensive? Allow me: it IS bad. It IS offensive. It IS wrong. It IS insulting. It IS juvenile. It IS bullying. It IS hate speech. It IS bad conduct. It IS bad business. —Bob Garfield, Anytown

Garfield is really unraveling, which is unfortunate, as his original position had validity. In many respects, he’s demonstrating the difficulty of arguing about culture-based offenses with the culturally clueless. Now he has a tiny sense of how New York City’s Commission on Human Rights or Sanford Moore must feel at times.

One problem involves his overreaction on points. For example, is the Snickers spot hate speech? Here’s the Wikipedia entry:

Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, moral or political views, socioeconomic class, occupation or appearance (such as height, weight, and hair color), mental capacity and any other distinction-liability. The term covers written as well as oral communication and some forms of behaviors in a public setting. It is also sometimes called antilocution and is the first point on Allport’s scale which measures prejudice in a society.

Hate speech seems to require active bias and deliberately evil intent. Let’s hope the Omnicom shop responsible for the commercial isn’t so awful. Besides, most network censors would never allow hate speech to air in primetime. No, this is more likely a case of passive bias—culturally clueless types unwittingly showing insensitivity. Granted, it’s a pretty pathetic exhibit of passive bias. But to categorize it as hate speech would be a signal that the Apocalypse is indeed upon us.

Garfield is also being too politically correct in his positions. To say, “it’s not about gay or not gay; it’s about the license to ridicule, demean and target a class of people by virtue of being not prototypically masculine enough” is complicating the matter. Bob, just admit it is about anti-gay sentiments. You’re confusing the mob.

Finally, Garfield is being ultra aggressive. He’s coming off like Jesse Jackson. And we all know how Madison Avenue views Jackson. If Garfield wants to get back on course, he ought to watch this.