Katie McGheeCOMM 400-01Case Analysis

Morally Offensive Language and Dolce Gabbana: Should They Apologize?

On March 15th, 2015, an Italian magazine released an article featuring statements by

Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana. These statements addressed their opinion about In

Vitro Fertilization and gay marriage and adoption. The pair expressed their disagreement

with the practice of In Vitro Fertilization and gay marriage, which sparked a campaign to

boycott the design label and its products. There were many mixed responses to this event

and the boycott that followed.

The issue area that is being explored is “media and morally offensive content.”

Offensive speech and events that involve it often “pit the values of free speech against those

of tolerance and human dignity and respect” (Day, 2006, p. 325). This communication event

clearly illustrates these conflicting values. Day also suggests that people who oppose societal

regulation of speech may be accurate in their observation that censorship does not work for

our society, but that does not mean that offended parties cannot respond or object to

insensitive and offensive speech. By looking at this communication event through multiple

ethical perspectives, there will be a clear decision that the designers should be given a

consequence for participating in offensive speech.

Situation

This event is a communication issue and an ethical issue, because it is “testing the

limits of free speech in the social media age” (Grinberg, 2015). Both parties involved in this

communication event are exercising their right to free speech. However, the designers

1

created controversy by engaging in offensive speech. Therefore the moral agent involved in

this communication event is the Dolce & Gabbana executive board, and the ethical question

is whether or not the board should enforce a consequence against the designers.

As stated, the issue began when designers Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana

made a statement to Italian magazine, Panorama. Britain’s The Telegraph newspaper

translated the comments, which stated:

“We oppose gay adoptions. The only family is the traditional one.”

Dolce added, “You are born to a mother and a father — or at least that’s

how it should be. I call children of chemistry, synthetic children.

Rented uterus, semen chosen from a catalog.” Gabbana continued with, 

“The family is not a fad. In it there is a supernatural sense of belonging” (Wey, 2015).

Dolce and Gabbana were expressing their right to free speech when making these statements.

In the United States, free speech is protected under the First Amendment. It is also protected

under the Italian Constitution in Article 21, which states, “Anyone has the right to freely

express their thoughts in speech, writing, or any other form of communication.” However,

the statements made present an ethical dilemma because they are considered “offensive

speech."

The backlash following the statements made included several public figures stepping

forward, either in defense or opposition of Dolce and Gabbana. Singer, Sir Elton John, spoke

out in opposition of the designers, urging people to boycott the brand and its products. He

took to social media, using programs such as Instagram, to express his offense to the

statements made, saying, “How dare you refer to my beautiful children as ‘synthetic.’ And

2

shame on you for wagging your judgmental little fingers at IVF - a miracle that has allowed

legions of loving people, both straight and gay, to fulfill their dream of having children”

(Ward, 2015). Sir Elton John’s social media outreach triggered an international boycott, led

primarily by the LGBT community and those who have used IVF. It was recorded that by

“Monday morning had been used more than 35,000 times on Twitter since John invoked it on

Sunday” (Grinberg, 2015). However, people and public figures also rushed to defend Dolce

and Gabbana. For example, Italian politician Roberto Formigoni described the boycott as

“shameful and intolerable” (Glanfield, 2015). Many people also took to Instagram to show

support to the designers and their right to free speech.

It is hard to control the moral sensibilities in society, but as public figures it is

important for the designers to be aware of their social responsibility. The importance is

increased in this situation, because the issue has reached international awareness. Most

importantly, for their company, they hold a responsibility to their shareholders. The

executive board would need to examine if not delivering a consequence to Dolce and

Gabbana would affect their business and therefore inevitably affect their shareholders.

Supporting the designers’ argument for free speech may be a short-term solution for the

executive board, but in the long-term will the comments made affect the business? Both are

viable solutions, but the executive board can only choose one.

Toni Massaro believes that, “Protecting hate speech, especially in controlled

environments like the workplace or school, fosters an atmosphere of incivility and tension,

which can give rise to unrest and even physical disruptions” (Massaro, 1991). But on the

other hand, Massaro states that “suppressing hate speech” may risk “charges of censorship”

(Massaro, 1991). This represents the two conflicting values taking place in this

3

communication event. When the executive board addresses their ethical question (should

they enforce a consequence for the designers, Dolce and Gabbana), they will inevitably be

discussing these two values and deciding based on which value they most agree with, in

tandem with their ethical dilemma of short-term versus long-term.

Analysis

Pros and Cons

When examining this issue, the pros and cons of the designers making a statement of

apology must be weighed. The first pro of the designers issuing an apology is that it could

possibly stop the boycott of the product. Though some people and celebrities have ceased the

boycott, large portions of the former boycotters remain active. The second pro is that it could

possibly increase sales. Not only would the people who were boycotting go back to buying

products, but also it may help their image and increase sales from those who simply

appreciate their public apology. Along those lines, the third pro is that it may help their

international reputation. Much of the backlash seemed to stem from western European

countries and North America. Fashion industry expert, Caroline Herz, believes that, “I think

it is extremely damaging. I do think that it will, in the immediate, affect the brand but I’m not

sure it will affect the brand in the long-term.” By apologizing, their international reputation

may be repaired. All of the pros are affects of Dolce and Gabbana’s morally offensive

content. Issuing an apology can potentially redeem the designers in the eyes of those who

were offended.

However, there would inevitably be cons to the designers issuing an apology. First of

all, the brand’s domestic reputation may decline. Many times, the pair expressed that their

values stemmed from their traditional Italian background. In particular, Dolce made a

4

statement saying, “I'm Sicilian and I grew up in a traditional family, made up of a mother, a

father and children” (Grinberg, 2015). Additionally, Roberto Formigoni was not the only

Italian politician to express support for the designers. If they were to issue an apology for

their statements, it could distort their reputation in their home country, and with other

traditional Italians. Along with that, the second con is that an apology may upset supporters.

People who stood behind Dolce and Gabbana’s right to freedom of expression may feel that

the designers are not upholding their own right if they submit to a public apology.

Stakeholders and External Factors

The key stakeholders are of extreme importance to deciding how to handle this

situation. To the Dolce and Gabbana executive board, one of the most important stakeholders

would be the shareholders of the company. Shareholders own a part of the company;

therefore their opinions would be valuable to the executive board. If they were to make

complaints to the executive board, those complaints would be very influential. If the no

apology is made and the boycott grows, the company could lose money and shareholders

would be directly impacted. Another stakeholder involved is the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and

Transgender community. Since the designers’ statements directly disputed the concept of gay

marriage and gay adoption, the LGBT community has led the way on the boycott. The LGBT

community also makes up a large client base for the designers. If an apology appeases the

community, they may begin to support the brand again. If there is an apology made and the

boycott still continues, the public may judge the LGBT community as grudge holders.

Similarly, external factors would play a role in this case. Economic external factors

would be whether the statements made have had an affect on the business. If the boycott has

5

made an impact on the business, then that could damage the brand and possibly cause people

to lose jobs. The LGBT community has become a social external factor, as well as a key

stakeholder. Losing this community’s support could damage the brand. The LGBT

community can gain even more media coverage on this issue and destroy Dolce and

Gabbana’s social status as a luxury brand.

An important historical external factor to examine is the upbringing of the designers.

Dolce has expressed that, “I'm Sicilian and I grew up in a traditional family, made up of a

mother, a father and children. I am very well aware of the fact that there are other types of

families and they are as legitimate as the one I've known. But in my personal experience,

family had a different configuration. That is the place where I learnt the values of love and

family. This is the reality in which I grew up, but it does not imply that I don't understand

different ones” (Sieczkowski, March 16, 2016). The Dolce and Gabbana website even

describes this brand’s universe as, “A world made up of sensations, traditions, culture and a

Mediterranean nature.” In a political context, the company’s code of ethics can be examined.

Their code of ethics can be found on the Dolce and Gabbana website, and states the

company’s values under Point 2 Section 1. The second value listed is “Respect for People”,

and says, “For Dolce&Gabbana, any form of discrimination and harassment must be

prohibited, paying constant attention to creating and maintaining a safe, healthy and adequate

working environment, in which all Employees and Co-workers are protected. These are the

essential conditions which ensure "Respect for the People" participating in the pursuit of the

corporate mission.” The comments made could violate the code as far as the value of respect

is concerned. Many would argue that by making their opinions public by talking to a

magazine, the designers were participating in discriminating actions.

6

Ethical Perspectives

In order to make a decision, looking at three ethical perspectives will be of aid. Duty-

based ethics refers to the kind of perspective that does not rely on emotions or possible

outcomes. A duty-based approach must rely on a person’s moral obligation, or duty. Kant,

who ushered in this particular ethical perspective, believed that a person’s intentions should

be considered when determining if their acts are ethical. However, a person should not

consider emotions or potential consequences when determining whether an act is moral or

ethical. His first maxim, “Act as if the principle from which you act were to become a

general law of moral decision making,” means people should act in ways that are absolutely

ethical, because it is their duty and others could follow their lead. His second maxim is

summed up as, “Act in a way that you always treat others and yourself as an end, rather

than a means,” meaning a person should never be used to reach an end goal. From these two

maxims, the executive board would look at an apology from the designers as their duty as

long as the motives driving the need for an apology were pure and ethical. If the executive

board asked the designers to apologize simply because it would their brand regain their

reputation, then the apology is unethical.

Utilitarianism, as an ethical perspective, looks at what the greatest outcome for all

would be. Unlike duty-based ethics, this perspective is largely concerned with consequences.

This theory requires the board to look at whether there has been demonstrable harm as a

result of the statements made. Because a large number of people responded to the statements

with a boycott, it can be found that there was harm. The Dolce & Gabbana brand lost

business and lost support, which is also a large harm for shareholders and people who work

for the brand. An apology would appease the community of people boycotting the brand and

7

potentially gain back their customer base. Therefore, based on this perspective, the executive

board may decide that issuing a public apology may be in the company’s best interest, as it

would promote the happiness of more people.

Aristotle’s Golden Mean perspective looks for a balance between two extremes in

order to make a decision. One extreme in this situation would be for the company and the

designers to do nothing in the hopes that it will blow over. This could make the boycotters

even angrier and the company could lose more money. At the other end, the extreme would

be to make the designers to go against their first statements and express that they are okay

with In Vitro Fertilization and gay marriage and adoption. This would most likely cause

people to feel as though Dolce and Gabbana are untruthful or untrustworthy in what they say.

A good balance between these two extremes would be for Dolce and Gabbana to apologize

for offending people, ensuring that was never their intent. This way, boycotters may feel that

their voices were heard.

Decision

The executive board’s decision has been made based on the three ethical perspectives

—duty-based ethics, utilitarianism, and Aristotle’s Golden Mean. The decision made by the

Dolce and Gabbana executive board was that the designers should issue a public apology.

This decision is the one that would have the greatest outcome for the greatest amount of

people, because it is the one that offers a balance between two extremes while also following

Kant’s maxims. An apology will end the boycott on the brand’s products, and will appease

the people who are angry at the designer’s statements. The LGBT community and those who

have used In Vitro Fertilization feel that Dolce and Gabbana’s statements are targeting the

two communities, even though the designer’s are part of the LGBT community.

8

This decision is the best possible balance between the two extremes of doing nothing

and forcing the designers to go against their statements and say they do not believe what they

said. Because the designers’ statements are protected as free speech under the Italian

Constitution, they are allowed to express their opinions. However, that does not mean that

there will not be backlash from those communities that their statements refer to. By doing

nothing, the company would be ignoring that backlash and basically saying that the

comments made are the opinions of the entire company. On the other hand, forcing the

designers to go against their original statements would be unethical, because they would be

lying.

Cavan Sieczkowski reported that Gabbana stated, “We talked about our way of seeing

reality, but it was never our intention to judge other people's choices. We do believe in

freedom and love” (Sieczkowski, March 16, 2016). Since Dolce and Gabbana have already

stated that they did not intend to offend anyone, therefore issuing a public apology for

upsetting people across the world would only reinforce their regret for offending people. It

would not be a punishment for them stating their opinion, nor would it mean that they take

back their opinions. An apology would promote the happiness of the LGBT community,

those who have In Vitro Fertilization, the company’s shareholders, and other key

stakeholders.

Therefore, since the designers have vocalized that they did not intend to offend and

because this decision follows the principles of all three ethical perspectives, it seems only

logical that issuing a public apology is the best option for the executive board. Dolce and

Gabbana should listen to their executive board and issue a public apology in order to turn this

negative event into a positive one.

9

Word count: 2,695

Works Cited

CODICE OF ETHICS. (n.d.). Retrieved April 21, 2015, from

http://www.dolcegabbana.com/corporate/en/group/code-of-ethics.html

Constitution of the Italian Republic. (n.d.). Retrieved April 10, 2015, from

https://www.senato.it/documenti/repository/istituzione/costituzione_inglese.

pdf

Day, L. (2006). Ethics and Moral Reasoning. In Ethics in media communications: Cases

and controversies (5th ed.). Southbank, Victoria, Australia, MA: Wadsworth

Cengage Learning

Glanfield, E. (2015, March 16). Italian politician slams Sir Elton John as 'a Taliban' and

says singer's call to boycott Dolce & Gabbana over 'synthetic children' comment

is same attitude that led to Charlie Hebdo massacre . Retrieved April 10, 2015,

from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2996829/Victoria-Beckham-

takes-swipe-Dolce-Gabbana-synthetic-chemical-families-comment-tweets-

support-Sir-Elton-John-beautiful-IVF-babies.html

Grinberg, E. (2015, March 15). Elton John's Dolce & Gabbana boycott spreads -

CNN.com. Retrieved March 16, 2015, from

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/15/living/feat-elton-john-dolce-gabbana/

index.html

Henry, C. (2014, April 7). Italy. Retrieved April 10, 2015, from

https://freespeechfreepress.wordpress.com/europe/italy/

10

Massaro, T. (1991). Equality and Freedom of Expression: The Hate Speech

Dilemma. William & Mary Law Review, 32(2). Retrieved from

http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?

article=1923&context=wmlr

Sieczkowski, C. (2015, March 16). Dolce & Gabbana Respond To Backlash Over Their

Remarks About Gay Families. Retrieved April 20, 2015, from

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/16/dolce-gabbana-respond-gay-

families_n_6877476.html

Ward, V. (2015, March 15). Sir Elton John boycotts Dolce & Gabbana after row over

same-sex families. Retrieved April 10, 2015, from

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/11473198/Sir-Elton-John-

calls-for-Dolce-and-Gabbana-boycott-after-row-over-same-sex-families.html

Wey, B. (2015, March 18). BENJAMIN WEY SAYS, Dolce and Gabbana Be Fired.

Retrieved March 25, 2015, from http://www.theblot.com/id-want-dolce-

gabbanas-resignations-wall-street-financier-benjamin-wey-says-7738561

11