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

Gordon Campbell:
On Tomorrow’s Speeches By John Key And
Andrew Little

The Key government has already kicked off the political year on a stridently ideological note, with Environment Minister Nick Smith choosing to lay all manner of sins at the door of the Resource Management Act.

Tomorrow, the government will wheeling out its best salesman – Prime Minister John Key – to sell its plans for state housing, which happens to be another of the government’s most contentious, most ideologically-driven policy packages. Presumably, Key will be trying not to double down on the rhetoric, and thereby leave room for Labour leader Andrew Little to sound like the centrist voice of reason.

Key will have his work cut out, though. More>>

 
 

Transport: Auckland Looks To Light Rail

The Board of Auckland Transport has called for an investigation into a light rail network, which could relieve traffic congestion on some of the region’s busiest roads. This stems from work in 2012 (the City Centre Future Access study) which responded to a government request to develop a robust and achievable solution for access to the CBD. More>>

ALSO:

RMA: Smith's Claims Don't Match Evidence - Greens

The Motu group’s research into the impacts of planning rules looked at the costs related to housing development but not the benefits of environmental protections and does not recommend significant changes to the RMA to reduce the cost of new house builds. More>>

ALSO:

Gordon Campbell: On The Similarities Between John Key And David Cameron

For years now, David Cameron has been the closest available thing to a mentor/analogue to our Prime Minister, such that Key watchers could be interested in an analysis of Cameron that appeared in the British press over the Christmas break. More>>

Gordon Campbell: On Ian Fletcher Resignation & GCSB’s New Role

It may well be that after being shoulder-tapped in Queensland for the GCSB job, three years of living in Wellington has been enough for Fletcher and his family, given that the pending review of the GCSB would have required an even longer commitment from him. Three years of Wellington’s weather is enough for anyone... More>>

ALSO:

Ian Apperley: $10m Or $100m For New Wellington Council IT System?

I feel a Tui Billboard coming on. I commented the other day that it looked like the Council’s Ninth big project was a potential $100 million plus... The Mayor has responded: “I am reassured by the Chief Executive and by Anthony Wilson that the proposed budget is in the region of $10 million.” More>>

ALSO:

Southern Ocean:
Navy Intercepts Illegal Fishing Vessels

Foreign Minister Murray McCully today put illegal fishing vessels operating in the Southern Ocean on notice and vowed to take action against their owners. “As part of a multi-agency operation, the HMNZS WELLINGTON has intercepted two vessels claiming to be flagged to Equatorial Guinea, fishing illegally in the Southern Ocean.” Mr McCully says. More>>

ALSO:

Get More From Scoop

 

LATEST HEADLINES

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Politics
Search Scoop  
 
 
Powered by Vodafone
NZ independent news