|
The suffocating mountain of red tape titled the Online Safety Acts kills its first British business
|
|
|
 | 24th December 2024
|
|
| See article from lfgss.com |
The owner of a popular cycling forum LFGSS has decided to close his business due to the enormous risks and expenses inherent in running a British business due to be suffocated by the misleadingly named Online Safety Act. He explains: Reading
Ofcom's tome of censorship rules and we're done... we fall firmly
into scope, and I have no way to dodge it. The act is too broad, and it doesn't matter that there's never been an instance of any of the proclaimed things that this act protects adults, children and vulnerable people from... the very broad language and
the fact that I'm based in the UK means we're covered. The act simply does not care that this site and platform is run by an individual, and that I do so philanthropically without any profit motive (typically losing money), nor that the site
exists to reduce social loneliness, reduce suicide rates, help build meaningful communities that enrich life. The act only cares that is it "linked to the UK" (by me being involved as a UK native and resident, by you being a UK based
user), and that users can talk to other users... that's it, that's the scope. I can't afford what is likely tens of thousand to go through all the legal hoops here over a prolonged period of time, the site itself barely gets a few hundred in
donations each month and costs a little more to run... this is not a venture that can afford compliance costs... and if we did, what remains is a disproportionately high personal liability for me, and one that could easily be weaponised by disgruntled
people who are banned for their egregious behaviour... I do not see an alternative to shuttering it. The conclusion I have to make is that we're done... Microcosm, LFGSS, the many other communities running on this platform... the risk to me
personally is too high, and so I will need to shutter them all. On Sunday 16th March 2025 (the last day prior to the Act taking effect) I will delete the virtual servers hosting LFGSS and other communities, and effectively immediately end the
approximately 300 small communities that I run, and the few large communities such as LFGSS. |
|
ASA bans New Rock shoe advert
|
|
|
 | 11th December 2024
|
|
| See article from asa.org.uk |
An Instagram post by Jaded London, a clothing retailer, seen on 29 September 2024, featured two images. The first image featured a nude woman wearing a motorbike helmet and boots. She was placed between two motorbike wheels and was holding the front
wheel, while her feet were on the back wheel. The second image featured a woman wearing a motorbike helmet, boots and a faux fur coat that was raised to expose her bottom. She was placed between two motorbike wheels and was holding the front wheel, while
her feet were on the back wheel. A caption on the post stated Introducing our newest collaboration with @newrock. 4 styles. Hand crafted in Spain. Launching 3rd October. Stay tuned. A complainant, who believed that the images
objectified and sexualised women, challenged whether the ad was offensive and promoted a harmful gender stereotype. Jaded London Ltd believed that the ad did not objectify or sexualise women. They said the purpose of the ad was to
celebrate the strength of the female form and had received positive feedback from their customers, who they believed were predominately female. They said they wanted to ensure their customers felt respected. ASA Assessment:
Complaint upheld The CAP Code stated that ads must be prepared with a sense of responsibility to consumers and to society, must not cause serious or widespread offence and must not include gender stereotypes that were likely
to cause harm. The women were seen holding the front wheels of a motorbike while their legs were on the back wheels, which meant that their bodies and arms were stretched out in a horizontal position. That gave the impression that
they formed the main component of a bike. The ASA considered this suggested they should be viewed as parts of machinery and as objects, rather than as people. Both women were wearing motorbike helmets, meaning their faces were not visible. We considered
obscuring the women's faces made their bodies the focus of the ad and further presented them as objects. The women's bodies were positioned so their buttocks were in the place of the motorbike seat and both women's legs were bent
at the knees. That had the effect of raising their buttocks in a manner which would have been understood as being sexually suggestive, as well as being a central focus of the ad. The woman's body in the first image was entirely naked, meaning her breasts
and buttocks were exposed, which added to that sexual impression. The woman in the second image was wearing a faux fur coat. However, the coat was raised, which exposed both her legs and her buttocks and made them the focus of the image. We acknowledged
that the raised coat could have been interpreted as a reference to a motorbike moving at speed as the wind blew the coat upwards. However, we considered exposing her buttocks in that manner gave the image a voyeuristic feel. We considered that by
presenting the women as motorbikes, in conjunction with the nudity and sexually suggestive position in which their bodies were posed, the images featured the harmful gender stereotype that women were sexual objects. Although the
ad promoted a shoe brand, we considered the women's bodies were the focus of the images, not the boots, and the nudity was not relevant to the products. For those reasons, we considered that the ad objectified the women depicted and gave the impression
that their bodies were sexual objects. We therefore concluded that the ad included a harmful gender stereotype and was likely to cause serious offence. The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Jaded London Ltd to
ensure that future ads were socially responsible and did not cause serious offence, including by featuring a harmful gender stereotype by objectifying or sexualising women.
|
|
ASA lactates over advert promoting comedian Fern Brady
|
|
|
 | 23rd November 2024
|
|
| See article from asa.org.uk |
A paid-for ad for comedian Fern Brady, seen on the Sky News website on 18 August. The ad contained an image with the text FERN BRADY at the top and I GAVE YOU MILK TO DRINK overlayed on a stained-glass window. The image contained a woman with Fern
Brady's face, holding a baby, and spraying milk directly from her partially obscured breast into the mouth of a kneeling holy figure. A complainant challenged whether the ad was offensive, because they believed it mocked the
Christian faith. Fern Brady explained that the image in the ad was a direct recreation of the religious painting titled The Lactation of St. Bernard. That artwork, created in the 17th century by Spanish painter Alonso Cano,
depicted the Virgin Mary nursing St. Bernard of Clairvaux by spraying milk from her breast into his mouth. The painting was well known within Christian art and had been widely accepted and respected within religious contexts for centuries.
The ad creatively referenced that image, by using satire and humour as part of Fern Brady's comedic brand. The intention was not to mock or belittle the original religious significance, but to offer a contemporary interpretation that
aligned with her public persona as a comedian known for her irreverent style and her religious up-bringing. The text I GAVE YOU MILK TO DRINK overlayed a stained-glass window, which emphasised the artistic and cultural reference rather than aiming to
offend. Efforts had been made to avoid any unintentional offence, in particular by covering Fern's breast with a beam of light, which differed from the original painting. Fern Brady acknowledged that religious imagery was a
sensitive area, and had approached the ad with the knowledge that the original painting was a respected piece of Christian art. However, humour was also subjective, and she believed while some may have found the portrayal distasteful, that did not
necessarily mean it was likely to cause serious or widespread offence. Fern Brady believed that in the context of satire and artistic reenactment, the ad instead reflected a long tradition of artistic reinterpretation. ASA
Assessment: complaint upheld The CAP Code stated that ads must not contain anything that was likely to cause serious or widespread offence. Particular care must be taken to avoid causing offence on certain grounds, including
religion or belief. We acknowledged Fern Brady's comment that the ad was based on the religious painting titled The Lactation of St. Bernard, which we understood showed the miracle of Chatillon-sur-Seine, in which St. Bernard
received divine grace from the Virgin Mary. We understood that the painting on which the image was based had been selected for comic effect. Because of the subject matter of Fern Brady's material, the effect had been compounded by
deviations from the original painting, such as her knowing the text I GAVE YOU MILK TO DRINK, a ray of light shining through a stained glass window and across her breast, and the more exaggerated presentation of the milk. Regardless of consumers'
familiarity with the painting, or the content of Fern Brady's work, we considered the ad, which appeared on a general news website, was likely to be seen as depicting the Virgin Mary, a highly revered individual in the Christian tradition, breastfeeding
an adult holy figure in a church setting, for the purposes of humour. In that context, we considered that the ad was likely to be seen as mocking the religious figures shown. We therefore concluded that it was likely to cause serious offence to some
within the Christian faith who saw the ad on the site. The ad must not appear again in the form complained of, in media in which it was likely to cause serious offence. We told Fern Brady to take care to not cause offence on the
grounds of religion in future ads.
|
|
ASA bans advert for a mobile game: Whispers: Interactive Romance Stories
|
|
|
 | 24th January 2024
|
|
| See article from
asa.org.uk |
An in-app ad for the mobile game Whispers: Interactive Romance Stories , seen on 30 October 2023 in the mobile game app Virtual Families 3 . The ad featured an animated scene of a blindfolded woman kneeling on the floor while a man standing
in front of her held her face in his hand. A speech bubble appeared which was labelled Niece. She said to him, Uncle, please punish me. On-screen text then appeared which stated 20 years ago. The scene cut to the woman as a young child at a funfair. She
said, Uncle, this place is so fun! He held out his arms, lifted her into the air and nuzzled into her cheek. She said to him, Uncle, I will marry you when I grow up! The ad then returned to the opening scene with the woman blindfolded in a kneeling
position and her statement, Uncle, please punish me. Two buttons appeared: Accept and Reject. An animated finger reached out from the bottom of the screen as though it was going to press the Accept button and then did the same thing with the Reject
button. A complainant who challenged whether, by featuring a potentially incestuous relationship between an uncle and his niece, the ad was offensive and irresponsible. Gamehaus Network Technology Co Ltd
did not respond to the ASA's enquiries. ASA Assessment: Complaint Upheld The ASA was concerned by Gamehaus Network Technology Co Ltd's lack of response and apparent disregard for the Code, which was
a breach of CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 1.7 (Unreasonable delay). We reminded them of their responsibility to respond promptly to our enquiries and told them to do so in future. The ad appeared in the Virtual Families 3 mobile
game, which had a PEGI 3 rating meaning it was suitable for people of all ages, including children. It highlighted the relationship between an uncle and his niece. In the first and last scenes, she was portrayed as an adult and
was blindfolded in a kneeling position. She said, Uncle, please punish me. We considered that consumers would be likely to understand from her blindfolded, kneeling stance and her request to be punished that she appeared willing to engage in
sado-masochistic, sexual behaviour with her uncle. We further considered that the flashback to the funfair scene when she was a child and her statement that she would marry her uncle when she was grown up, added to the impression of them having an
incestuous relationship and had overtones of a child being viewed as a sexual object and groomed by an adult relative. We concluded that the ad had the effect of portraying a child in a sexual way. Because the ad featured scenes
depicting an incestuous relationship between an uncle and his niece, and suggested that a child had been sexualised and groomed by an adult, we concluded it was likely to cause serious and widespread offence in any medium in which it appeared, and
portrayed a child in a sexual way and was therefore irresponsible. The ad must not appear again in the form complained of.
|
|
|