Gordon Campbell | Parliament TV | Parliament Today | News Video | Crime | Employers | Housing | Immigration | Legal | Local Govt. | Maori | Welfare | Unions | Youth | Search

 


Web Filter Billboard Complaint Upheld

COMPLAINT NUMBER 13/480
COMPLAINANT M. Gilbert and V.Wood
ADVERTISER A Billboard
ADVERTISEMENT A Billboard
DATE OF MEETING 11 December 2013
OUTCOME Upheld


SUMMARY

The billboard advertisement said “the UK government has the moral courage to pass law restricting children’s access to porn websites. Innocence is important. Does the National Party?”

The Complainant said that the advertisement was clearly a political advocacy advertisement, and it was completely anonymous.

A duplicate Complainant shared similar views that there was no attribution to the advertisement.

The Complaints Board said that the advertisement was in breach of Rule 11 because the Advertiser had failed to identify themselves in the advertisement which was an essential element to advocacy advertising. As such, the Complaints Board ruled to Uphold the complaint.

[Advertisement to be removed]

Please note this headnote does not form part of the Decision.

COMPLAINTS BOARD DECISION

The Chairman directed the Complaints Board to consider the advertisement with reference to Rules 1, 5 and 11 and Basic Principle 4 of the Code of Ethics. This required the Complaints Board to consider whether the advertisement was clearly distinguishable as an advertisement and whether it contained anything, which in the light of generally prevailing community standards, was likely to cause serious or widespread offence.
Further, the Complaints Board was required to consider whether the advertisement was prepared with the due sense of social responsibility to consumers and to society. In considering the advertisement, the Complaints Board were also required to consider the provisions of Rule 11 of the Code of Ethics which provided that in advocacy advertisements, expression of opinion may be robust.
A preliminary procedural matter was raised by the Chairman who directed the Complaints Board to consider whether the advertisement should be considered under Rule 1 and Rule 5 of the Code of Ethics. The Complaints Board said that issues of offence and identification in relation to an advertisement, not the advertiser, were not raised by the Complainants. The Complaints Board therefore moved to consider the complaint under Rule 11 and Basic Principle 4 on the Code of Ethics.
Also applicable were the Advocacy Principles, developed by the Complaints Board in previous Decisions for the application of Rule 11. These said:

1 That Section 14 of the Bill of Rights Act 1990, in granting the right of freedom of expression, allows advertisers to impart information and opinions but that in exercising that right what was factual information and what was opinion, should be clearly distinguishable.

2. That the right of freedom of expression as stated in Section 14 is not absolute as there could be an infringement of other people’s rights. Care should be taken to ensure that this does not occur.

3. That the Codes fetter the right granted by Section 14 to ensure there is fair play between all parties on controversial issues. Therefore in advocacy advertising and particularly on political matters the spirit of the Code is more important than technical breaches. People have the right to express their views and this right should not be unduly or unreasonably restricted by Rules.

4. That robust debate in a democratic society is to be encouraged by the media and advertisers and that the Codes should be interpreted liberally to ensure fair play by the contestants.

5. That it is essential in all advocacy advertisements that the identity of the advertiser is clear.


The Complaints Board turned to the concerns of the Complainants that the advertisement was a political advocacy billboard which did not identify the Advertiser.

The Complaints Board confirmed that the identity of the Advertiser was not clear, in fact, it said there was no information about the Advertiser on the billboard whatsoever in contravention of the requirement of Rule 11 of the Code of Ethics.

The Complaints Board noted that the Complainant was “appalled” by the advertisement, however, the Complaints Board said that advocacy advertising allowed for the expression of robust opinion, as long as fact and opinion were clearly distinguishable. However, the Complaints Board said that the advertisement was in breach of Rule 11 because the Advertiser had failed to identify themselves in the advertisement, which was an essential element to advocacy advertising.

The Complaints Board expressed concern that the Advertiser and the Media chose not to respond to the complaints.

The Complaints Board said that the advertisement was in breach of Rule 11 and the advertisement was not prepared with a due sense of social responsibility required under basic Principle 4 of the Code of Ethics.

Accordingly, the Complaints Board ruled to Uphold the complaint.

DESCRIPTION OF ADVERTISEMENT

The billboard advertisement said:

“The UK government has the moral courage to pass law restricting children’s access to porn websites. Innocence is important. Does the National Party?”


COMPLAINT M. GILBERT

Hi, there's a massive billboard on the corner of Bowen & Stout Sts, Wellington, that is clearly a political advocacy advertisement, and it's completely anonymous.

It reads: "The UK government has the moral courage to pass law restricting children's access to porn websites. Innocence is important. Does the National Party?"

I'm pretty appalled by this and believe this billboard to be in breach of the Advertising Code of Ethics. Can I register a complaint and can you give me guidance as to next steps?

Code of Ethics

Basic Principle 4: All advertisements should be prepared with a due sense of social responsibility to consumers and to society.

Rule 1: Identification – Advertisements should be clearly distinguishable as such, whatever their form and whatever the medium used; when an advertisement appears in a medium which contains news or editorial matter, it must be presented so that it is readily recognised as an advertisement.

Rule 5: Offensiveness - Advertisements should not contain anything which in the light of generally prevailing community standards is likely to cause serious or widespread offence taking into account the context, medium, audience and product (including services).

Rule 11: Advocacy Advertising - Expression of opinion in advocacy advertising is an essential and desirable part of the functioning of a democratic society. Therefore such opinions may be robust. However, opinion should be clearly distinguishable from factual information. The identity of an advertiser in matters of public interest or political issue should be clear.

BOTH THE ADVERTISER AND MEDIA HAVE ADVISED THAT THEY WISH NOT TO RESPOND

© Scoop Media

 
 
 
 
 
Parliament Headlines | Politics Headlines | Regional Headlines

 

New Research: Most Homeless People Working Or Studying

“The cost of housing has been rising without corresponding increases in income, whilst the number of state houses per capita has been in decline. Many low-income people are missing out on housing, whether we recognise them as ‘homeless’ or not. More>>

ALSO:

Post-Traynor: New Offender Info Sharing Plan

“This Bill delivers on that step-change by moving away from name-based records held by individual agencies to a shared, anchor identity based on unalterable information, such as fingerprints and facial recognition. It also gives agencies access to the drivers’ licence photo database and birth, death and marriages information." More>>

  • NZ Law Foundation - New $2M fund for research on information challenges
  • Littoral: New Ship To Deliver Enhanced Naval Capability

    Defence Minister Gerry Brownlee says the Government has approved a Ministry of Defence and New Zealand Defence Force recommendation to request tenders for a new naval ship to support littoral operations. More>>

    July:

    After King's Labour Snub: Māori Party And Kiingitanga To Work Together

    Māori Party Co-leaders Te Ururoa Flavell and Marama Fox met with Kiingitanga representatives in Wellington yesterday to discuss working together on key issues for the betterment of Māori. More>>

    ALSO:

    Waitangi Claim On Rehabilitation: The 'Justus' System For Māori Not Good Enough

    Closing statements at the Waitangi Tribunal case against Corrections called for immediate steps and a comprehensive review to address the high rate of Māori reoffending. More>>

    ALSO:

    Advice: PM Sets Rules For Ministers' Treatment Of Public Servants

    Prime Minister John Key has laid down the law about the way ministers and public servants should interact, saying ministers may not always like the advice they receive, but they must listen to it carefully, respectfully and professionally. More>>

    Gordon Campbell: On The Funding Changes In Special Needs Education, And Uber

    The plan to strip out the educational support for older “special needs” children in order to meet the existing shortfall in funding for special needs in early childhood education is so miserly and relentlessly stupid as to defy belief… More>>

    SPECIAL EDUCATION (& More):

    Online Learning Plans:

    Post Cab Presser: Inquiries And Consciences

    This afternoon the Prime Minister John Key announced that his cabinet had drafted terms of reference for the Havelock North water contamination inquiry... In response to questions on the Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill, the Prime Minister said he didn't think allowing National MPs a conscience vote was warranted. More>>

    ALSO:

    Get More From Scoop

     

    LATEST HEADLINES

     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Politics
    Search Scoop  
     
     
    Powered by Vodafone
    NZ independent news