Activists Lobbying for Federal Department of Photoshop Fails

Today on Capitol Hill,
Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Florida) and Lois Capps (D-Calif.) met
with advocates calling for greater federal oversight of Photoshop
use. Led by ad-man turned advocate Seth Matlins, the group
presented the Congresswomen with a 25,000-signature
Change.org petition to pass an act regulating digitally altered
images in advertising. 

The “Truth
in Advertising Act“—crafted by Matlins, the Eating Disorders
Coalition, and Brave Girls Alliance—was introduced by Reps.
Ros-Lehtinen and Capps in March. The legislation directs the
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to “develop a regulatory framework
for ads that materially change the faces and bodies of the people
in them, in order to reduce the damage this type of advertising
does to our children.”

According to a Change.org press release (emphasis mine),
“excessive Photoshop use…contributes to one of
the most significant public health
crisis in the US, adding to emotional, mental and
physical health consequences including eating disorders, which
affects children and teen girls disproportionately.” (For the
record, “Photoshop,” like Kleenex or Zerox before it, has become
something of a catch-all term for any digital image alteration.)
Matlins called Photoshopped ads “weapons of mass perfection.” He
insists that “we’re not talking about regulating that (sic) making
a blue sky bluer, or photoshopping away a fly-away hair. We’re
talking about ads that change the shape, size, proportion, color,
and enhance or remove the features of the people in them.”

That is the kind of thing people actually want our
federal government determining. How many fly-away hairs can be
disappeared before it’s “seriously changing” an image? How many
pixels can Miranda Kerr’s waist be taken in by? How many pores can
be smoothed off of Emma Stone’s face without breaking the
law?

It’s ludicrous. And possibly unconstitutional. Advertising is,
after all,
protected First Amendment speech. Under a landmark Supreme
Court case on advertising—Central Hudson Gas & Electric
Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York—the
government can only restrict non-deceptive commercial speech when
doing so “directly advances” a substantial state interest. I don’t
think the FTC has a substantial interest in becoming
self-esteem-booster-in-chief. 

Of course, the FTC can step in when advertising is
deceptive or misleading. Matlin and his ilk are argue that
Photoshopping does count as deception. It’s a stretch. And let’s
not forget that advertising—especially the kind of high-fashion
advertising frequently reliant on Photoshp—can also be considered
artistic expression. A form of artistic expression, in fact, to
which “seriously changing” images is central.

As an alum of women’s blogs, I’ve witnessed and covered my fair
share of “Photoshop fails”—waists smaller than a model’s neck,
crotches cropped to create extra
thigh gap. But here’s the thing: The blogosphere does a pretty
good job of policing this on its own. After a few years of a
familiar cycle—extreme digital hack job, blogger complaints,
segment on Good Morning America, action from admaker,
repeat—more

and
more companies have been backing off extreme Photoshopping. In
other words: The media and the market have got this one,
thanks.