The gagged T-shirt image that has aroused so much furor. Looks to me like she could lose the gag just by not holding it in place with her mouth. This is not the ad in question. Link to it is further in.
A fashion ad put out by a company called Roger David has been banned in Australia. The ad showed a young model with a badly done Photoshop of a flag gagging her, and a bar code tattooed on her shoulder, spelling out the word “slave.” She holds up her hands to make a “heart” sign, and is wearing a strapless dress though the shape of the dress suggests the straps were just Photoshopped out. Plus, her hands appear to have been Photoshopped in – they appear to be way too long and at the wrong angle. Here's a link to a story about the banning along with the image in question so you can judge for yourself.
The censorship board cites the apparent youth of the model (while acknowledging that she is in fact 18 years old) the “slave” tattooed on her shoulder, her “disheveled appearance” and so forth and decided, “what the hell, might as well censor SOMETHING by these guys.”
My impression is that the clothing designer has been pushing for a public outcry over its products, playing the line fairly cagily, although it's line of T-shirts with the words “I Like Rape!” were none too subtle. They've also got a short with an image of a gagged woman that has inspired some manufactured outrage. The gagged woman in the shirt image is so sloppily gagged she is clearly holding the “gag” in place … if that's what it is. The word “Hollywood” is imprinted on the gag so there's some definite symbolism there, but in context with the other stuff they are doing, they seem to be working the bondage imagery hard but very carefully.
I don't think the censorship is justified. Sure the girl looks like she could be under 18, but she also looks like she could BE 18 … just another of those skinny-ass fashion models they use all the time. And the disheveled hair … yeah, um, that means slavery all right.
The real story seems to be that there's a major league prudo-feminist in Australia (no I won't mention her by name, but if you google some of the keywords in this story about half of the hits will be her website) getting traction with her “who'll think of the women and children?” approach. Let's hope her blight is limited to Australia, and that she eventually over-reaches (they always do) and loses traction in Australia as well.
The mistake Roger David made, in my opinion, was having such a young-looking model. If the prudo-feminists can link bondage themes/imagery with child porn or child trafficking concerns, they can nail you. That's why I'm linking to the image on Mumbrella and not putting it on my blog: why borrow the trouble that Roger David so desperately strove to obtain?