Fanning a Moral Panic…ASA turned on by a glimpse of thigh and ban Oh Lola! perfume advert

Read more ASA Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from asa.org.uk

A magazine ad for Oh, Lola! perfume which appeared on 5 August 2011, showed the actress and model Dakota Fanning, sitting on the floor, alone, wearing a pale coloured thigh length dress. She used one arm to support herself as she leaned backwards and in the other hand she held an oversized bottle of the perfume, which rested in her lap. The bottle was shaped like a vase holding a flower in bloom. Issue Four readers challenged whether the ad was offensive and irresponsible as it portrayed the young model in a sexualised manner. Coty UK said that they had not received any complaints about the ad. They did not believe the styling in the ad suggested the model was underage or that the ad was inappropriately sexualised because it did not show any private body parts or sexual activity. They believed the giant perfume bottle was provoking but not indecent. Sunday Times Style magazine had not received any complaints. They did not believe that the ad was so sexually suggestive that it breached the Code. They said their publication was marketed to adults with an interest in cutting edge fashion and that any sexual connotations that may have been associated with the ad would be reduced because of that target audience. ASA Decision: Complaints upheld The ASA understood that the ad had appeared in publications with a target readership of those over 25 years of age. We noted that the model was wearing a thigh length soft pink, polka dot dress and that part of her right thigh was visible. We noted that the model was holding up the perfume bottle which rested in her lap between her legs and we considered that its position was sexually provocative. We understood the model was 17 years old but we considered she looked under the age of 16. We considered that the length of her dress, her leg and position of the perfume bottle drew attention to her sexuality. Because of that, along with her appearance, we considered the ad could be seen to sexualise a child. We therefore concluded that the ad was irresponsible and was likely to cause serious offence. The ad breached CAP Code rules 1.3 (Social responsibility) and 4.1 (Harm and offence).

Inciting Censorship…Private members bill introduced to give police censorship powers over YouTube videos

Read more UK Parliament Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from guardian.co.uk

MP Heidi Alexander has launched a private members bill allowing police to censor social media videos that incite violence. She has been in the forefront of attacks against social media since the riots in August. MPs have now backed a call for police to be given censorship powers to block or take down YouTube videos that could incite violence.  MPs voted in favour of allowing Alexander to bring forward her bill, which will receive a second reading in March. However, the proposals are unlikely to become law without government support. Alexander told MPs: I am introducing this bill because I am appalled by the proliferation of online videos which glorify gangs and serious youth violence. Police, via the courts and internet service providers, need to be given explicit power to get these videos taken down or access to them blocked. I recognise the policing of the internet is always going to be incredibly difficult but unless we start to grapple with the online manifestation of gangs, I question our ability to really tackle the problem We can talk about gang injunctions all we like, and yes, there may be a need to stop a certain individual or group coming into a certain area at a certain time, but don’t we too need to recognise that the same individual may be causing an equal amount of fear by his or her actions sat on a computer at home, or spreading these vile videos through social networking sites? Similar powers already exist to take down or block access to websites that could incite racial hatred or feature extremist material.

Mine’s a Stiffy…UK drinks censor bans Stiffy’s Jaffa Cake vodka drink

Read more UK News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

Based on article from portmangroup.org.uk

A complaint about Stiffy’s Jaffa Cake and Kola Kubez vodka liqueur products has been upheld by the Portman Group’s Independent Complaints Panel for inappropriately linking an alcohol product with sexual success. The complaint was made by a drinks manufacturer which considered that the brand name Stiffy’s was an overtly sexual reference which is banned under the Portman Group Code. In considering the complaint, the Panel noted that stiffy was a common slang term for an erection and considered that the brand name therefore had strong sexual connotations. The company, Stiffy’s Shots Ltd maintained that the brand name had been chosen because Stiffy was the nickname of a person involved in the development of the drink; it had not been chosen for its sexual connotations. The Panel acknowledged that while the company may not have deliberately set out to link the product with sexuality, the brand name alluded to sexual success and accordingly found the product in breach of the responsibility Code. Henry Ashworth, Chief Executive of the Portman Group, which provides the secretariat for the Independent Complaints Panel, said: It is totally inappropriate for alcohol marketing to allude to sexual success and following this ruling and our enforcement action, Stiffy’s products will be removed from sale in their current form. We would urge anyone who comes across examples of irresponsible alcohol marketing to complain immediately to the Portman Group. Alcohol companies must be extremely vigilant about marketing their products responsibly and we encourage companies and their agencies to contact our fast, free and confidential advisory service which last year alone handled over 500 requests for advice. The company, in consultation with the Portman Group’s Advisory Service, has now changed the brand name to Stivy’s.