Language ( Section 2.5 , AANA Code of Ethics )
Section 2.5 of the Code states :
Advertising or Marketing Communications shall only use language which is appropriate in the circumstances ( including appropriate for the relevant audience and medium ). Strong or obscene language shall be avoided .
In 2016 Section 2.5 of the Code accounted for 11.45 per cent of all complaints , slightly below the 14.01 per cent in 2015 .
In all cases raised in relation to language in 2016 , the Board considered the medium of the advertisement and the most likely audience which may be exposed to the language . In advertisements where children may view advertisements , the Board is always more conservative in respect to language acceptability .
For a more in-depth overview of cases in 2016 see the language determination summary on the ASB website .
Obscene terms
There are certain words and terms that when expressed in full the Board will consider as a breach of Section 2.5 of the Code . The Board ’ s view is :
• The word ‘ fuck ’ expressed in full will almost always be a breach of Section 2.5 as a strong and obscene term .
--
A movie promotion which includes the phrases ‘ fucking arse ’ and ‘ it will fuck you up for life ’ ( Sony Pictures Releasing – 0376 / 16 ).
• The use of the ‘ c word ’ in full in an advertisement will always be found by the Board to breach Section 2.5 .
--
Use of the letters ‘ CU in the NT ’ written in a way that made the ‘ c word ’ obvious ( NT Official – 0515 / 16 ).
• The word ‘ shit ’ is sometimes considered a strong or obscene term by the Board , when used in an aggressive or repetitive manner , especially when in a medium where it would be likely children could see or hear the advertisement .
--
Where the letters ‘ S ’‘ H ’‘ I ’ and ‘ T ’ of the word ‘ Shnitzel ’ are in bold so the word ‘ shit ’ stands out ( Grill ’ d – 0158 / 16 ).
The Board acknowledges that some people would prefer certain terms were not used , but when a word is not used aggressively or in a medium where children are likely to be exposed to it , or it is used in a colloquial context which is consistent with Australian vernacular , it will not be considered as a breach of the Code . The Board view is :
• There is a greater acceptability of some obscene terms in advertising which is unlikely to be seen or heard by children , where the terms are appropriate to the context of the advertisement or medium .
--
A cinema advertisement which was played before an M-rated movie which included the word ‘ fuck ’ ( Roadshow Film Distributors – 0563 / 16 ).
Advertising which uses the term ‘ shit ’ is often considered not inappropriate , when consistent with common Australian colloquial usage of such a word .
--
A movie promotion which included scenes from the movie including one where a female character says ‘ shit ’ ( Twentieth Century Fox Film Distributers – 0308 / 16 ).
Obscured terms
When offensive terms are beeped or obscured , the Board considers the context of the advertisement and whether the term is sufficiently disguised .
In some cases the Board has determined that obscuring a term was not sufficient , and upheld
the complaints . The Board ’ s view is :
Where obscene terms have been insufficiently covered in mediums likely to be seen by children they will still be seen to contain strong and obscene language .
--
A poster advertisement with ‘ F * ck , that ’ s delicious ’ ( SBS Corporation – 0513 / 16 ).
• Where sound effects have been used to cover someone using an obscene term , if they do not sufficiently cover the word and the term is likely to be considered as inappropriate by most members of the community , it will still breach Section 2.5 of the Code .
--
Two women yelling at each other with insufficient beeping to cover words like ‘ fuck ’, ‘ shitty ’ and ‘ bitch ’ ( Curtain Villa – Kalgoorlie – 0400 / 16 ).
44 Advertising Standards Bureau