Balenciaga is known for being edgy, but this was a cut too far. Recently, the brand has come under fire for seeming to condone child sexual abuse through its advertising. If they meant to shock, they certainly have. Now, following the public uproar and multiple apologies, they have chosen to sue the group they hired to produce the images. At the center of the controversy is a zoom in of a newspaper featuring a court case, United States vs Williams.
As background to the 2008 U.S. Supreme Court case, Michael Williams was chatting online with an undercover federal agent. He told the agent he had images of his daughter. After the investigation, it was found that Williams did in fact possess images of minors. He was charged with possession of child pornography and pandering. Williams challenged the pandering charge, claiming First Amendment rights. The case went all the up to the highest court in the land. Writing his opinion, Justice Scalia spoke to the purpose of the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003, then used to convict Williams. As Hudson writes for the First Amendment:
Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia explained that “offers to engage in illegal transactions are categorically excluded from First Amendment protection.” He added that “offers to provide or requests to obtain child pornography are [also] categorically excluded from the First Amendment.”
While I think it is important to state that ultimately United States vs Williams is actually about increasing the government’s ability to protect children, I can’t help but note the irony here. The gist of the case claims to possess images that could be construed as child pornography or creating such images (even if no real children are harmed) are not constitutionally protected acts.
Balenciaga have sued that North Six (the production company) and Nicholas Des Jardins for the inclusion the documents in their campaign shoot with Adidas. They claim this was without the company’s knowledge. However, there is no explanation as to why they chose to produce the images they did involving children. The irony for me is that the very title of the case they intend to distance themselves from is the exact case that points the blame back at them. As much as they can distance themselves from props provided by a third party, it is hard to pretend they didn’t have any responsibility in the production of images. They can’t hide behind the lens of creative expression.
Hudson, D. L. (2009). United States v. Williams (2008). The First Amendment Encyclopedia. https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/167/united-states-v-williams
Olson, E. (November 28, 2022). Balenciaga is suing the producers of its own ad campaign after facing backlash. NPR.org. https://www.npr.org/2022/11/28/1139499381/balenciaga-north-six-lawsuit-ad-controversy-kim-kardashian
If you want to read more content like this, here are some more you might like:
And here are my most recent posts:
A Wren Says 