Hm. I'm all for some restrictions on this, but I'm not sure if this law is the best way to do it. "Publicly incite extreme thinness" - that seems both very broad and very vague. I thought it was a good idea when those fashion shows decided to have a lower BMI limit: no models that are ranked by the UN as underweight. (Yes, I know there are controversies regarding using BMI.) I don't have some splendid idea regarding what the French lawmakers should have done, I think there is something not quite right about the wording of that law - but I'm all for doing something. The fashion industry is not going to change by itself. But in my opinion, it should definitely change.
So if you happen to be thin you can't model?
But as it is now, in practice, you can't be a model if you're not
Sorry if I stray off topic now, but Estel's mention of a "nanny state" made me lift an eyebrow. This whole thread somehow reminded me of the Norwegian advertising laws:
Â· Advertising for tobacco products is illegal.
Â· Advertising for alcohol is also illegal.
Â· TV commercials directed towards children, i.e. toy commercials, are illegal.
Â· TV commercials for political parties are not allowed.
Â· TV stations from within Norway can NOT interrupt shows to show commercial breaks, but interrupting movies to show another program, such as the news, is allowed (and it is legal to show commercials before and after the interrupting program).
My point here is mostly about the first two things, tobacco and alcohol, which also can be partly compared to this French law. Do I feel that I'm living in a nanny state? No. I feel I'm living in a state that is taking responsibility for its citizens. (And, if one prefers to think in terms of money, for the state economy in a very well-developed welfare state...)
(And believe me
, the American presidential campaign makes me want to kiss whoever made that political party TV commercial law.