ASA Persecuting His Grace Now in the Public Gaze…Daily Mail reports on the ASA and republishes the supposedly offensive advert

Read more ASA Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from dailymail.co.uk

The well known and respected blog archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.co.uk is being put under pressure by the politically correct advertising police of the ASA. An innocuous ‘advert’ calling for reader to sign a petition opposing gay marriage resulted in 24 complainants, including the Jewish Gay & Lesbian Group. The call to sign the petition simply consists of 1. Photos of couples on their wedding day on the first frame. 2. The second frame stated I do. 3. The third frame stated 70% of people* say keep marriage as it is …(Source:ComRes poll for Catholic Voices). 4. The final frame stated Help us keep the true meaning of marriage. PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION Click here …Coalition for Marriage. The ASA demanded that Archbishop Cranmer justifies the advert and how he answers the ludicrous claim that it is somehow offensive and homophobic, The story has now being picked up by the Daily Mail who gave the ASA to explain their requests of Archbishop Cranmer. The Daily Mail wrote: The ASA today stressed it would not necessarily uphold the complaints, which would lead to the ad being banned. It said in a statement: The right of advertisers responsibly to express their views will undoubtedly be an important factor in our assessment of whether the ads are likely to cause serious or widespread offence. We are also looking at whether the ads are misleading. The authority also responded to Archbishop Cranmer’s outrage over the threatening way in which it approached him, explaining that: We have long found it useful to ask, in confidence, publishers of ads subject to ‘offence complaints for their views, because they can give us a valuable insight into whether or not their readers are likely to be offended’. Note the conciliatory tone used by ASA when being exposed in the press. Note the reasonable sounding: We have long found it useful to ask, in confidence, publishers of ads subject to ‘offence complaints for their views, because they can give us a valuable insight into whether or not their readers are likely to be offended’. Then compare it with the bullying tones used by the ASA in an adjudication published today re a Facebook advert for Manhattan Bar. The ASA then wrote about ‘asking’ for advertiser input: [Advertiser] Response Manhattan Bar did not respond to the ASA’s enquiries. Assessment Upheld The ASA was concerned by Manhattan Bar’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. Meanwhile the Jewish Gay & Lesbian Group have published a statement about complaints attributed to the group. The group shouted on their website somewhat unconvincingly that it wasn’t a call for censorship: JGLG HAS NOT CALLED FOR CENSORSHIP OF ANYTHING. ONE OF OUR MEMBERS ASKED THE ASA FOR AN INVESTIGATION INTO AN ADVERT SEEN IN A MAGAZINE BECAUSE HE BELIEVED IT TO BE UNLAWFUL. HE WAS NOT ACTING ON BEHALF OF JGLG. WE WOULD LIKE TO STATE THAT CALLING FOR AN INVESTIGATION ISN’T THE SAME THING AS CALLING FOR CENSORSHIP.

ASA Political Censors…ASA policing political donations on the grounds that they could be used for something harmful

Read more ASA Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from asa.org.uk

Claims on Redecorate a power station chimney page on http://www.greenpeacegiving.org.uk on 30 December 2011 stated Chimneys, they’re a bit dull aren’t they? We prefer them when they have statements written down them, like ‘no new coal’ or ‘stupid’, which say what we think about them. Actually we’d prefer them if they weren’t there at all, because coal is the most climate-wrecking fuel there is, but we’re working on that one. ฃ80 Send this Gift. How this gift works … Direct actions are about being there in person to stop an environmental crime from taking place. The proposed new power station at Kingsnorth in Kent would emit about the same amount of CO2 as the world’s 30 poorest countries, and when we shut down the existing power station in 2007 we brought the issue of whether it needs to be built firmly to the front line. Shutting down dirty power stations is just one of the ways Greenpeace is working to secure a clean energy future, but painting down the side of giant chimneys cranks up the political pressure and throws a vital spotlight on one of the greatest threats to our climate. A photograph on the page showed a person in a climbing harness painting on the side of a power station chimney. An internet user challenged whether the claims were harmful and irresponsible, because he believed they encouraged consumers to sponsor an illegal activity and encouraged and condoned anti-social behaviour. Greenpeace said they took non-violent direct action based on their intention to protect the planet from environmental harm and they did not aim to break the law. They believed, while the tone of the heading Redecorate a power station chimney was tongue-in-cheek, the example in the ad of the action taken at Kingsnorth power station was clear. They said those activists had not taken direct action with the intention of breaking the law and had subsequently been found not guilty of causing criminal damage. ASA Decision: Complaint Upheld The ASA noted Greenpeace took direct action without the intention of breaking the law, but understood that, although the Kingsnorth activists had been found not guilty of criminal damage, other similar activity might nonetheless lead to acts that were illegal or anti-social. We considered that defacing property would generally be viewed as anti-social, and would in some circumstances be illegal, and considered that the claims Redecorate a power station chimney and … We prefer them when they have statements written down them, like ‘no new coal’ or ‘stupid’ … and the photograph of a man painting slogans on the side of a chimney condoned such behaviour. Although we considered that the claims themselves were unlikely to influence the public to engage in such exploits themselves, we considered that the claim ?80 Send this Gift. How this gift works … sought donations in order to make it possible to finance similar direct action by others and thereby encouraged such behaviour. We therefore concluded that the ad was harmful and irresponsible because it encouraged and condoned anti-social behaviour. The claims breached CAP Code rules 1.3 (Social responsibility) and 4.4 (Harm and offence). Action

ASA Get in a Pickle as an Arbitrator of Political Correctness…ASA asked to think again about Channel 4′s Big Fat Gypsy Wedding posters

Read more ASA Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

When the ASA base their decisions on the supposed offence taken by a few easily offended complainants, then it is hardly surprising that they they have got themselves into such a tangle. I wonder if it ever occurs to the ASA that some complainants may not be actually ‘offended’, and that they are just using the ASA to cause a bit of political hassle to opponents. See article from belfasttelegraph.co.uk

The advert censor has been asked to review its decision not to formally investigate a controversial Channel 4 billboard campaign for the Big Fat Gypsy Weddings documentary. The campaign – which featured the words Bigger. Fatter. Gypsier printed over images of gypsy children – led to 372 complaints that claimed it was offensive and racist. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) decided against investigating the campaign earlier this year because it judged that although the ads might not be to everyone’s taste, the images and text reflected the tone and content of the programme, and were therefore unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence. The ASA’s independent reviewer, Sir Hayden Phillips, has recommended that the ASA council review its decision following a request by the Irish Traveller Movement in Britain (ITMB). David Enright, a solicitor representing the ITMB, said: The advertising campaign caused outrage. Hundreds of travellers and gypsies complained to the ASA about these adverts, which they saw as being racially demeaning and damaging to them, their communities and their children. Travellers and gypsies now wait to see if the ASA council considers that they are entitled to equal protection by the regulator.

MelonFarmers gets mentioned in report

A new report from Open Rights Group and LSE Media Policy Project reveals widespread over-blocking on mobile networks, helping to demonstrate why we shouldn’t accept default-on adult Internet filtering

From Mobile internet censorship: what’s happening and what we can do about it [pdf] from openrightsgroup.org

The ORG report contains mystery shopper examples to see how various phone companies handle complaints about false blocking:

Re 3 Mobile Phone Company

We reported to 3 that the site melonfarmers.wordpress.com – a conspiracy theory discussion site – was blocked. The customer services representative asked what message we received when trying to access the site. We told them we were shown a blocking screen telling us over-18 blocking was enabled. We were advised that ‘adult sites’ were automatically blocked on all pay-as-you- go 3 mobile phones.

However, we were not asked what site we were attempting to access, despite our insistence that it contained no adult material. We were then asked if we were having issues accessing other sites like Google or the BBC, and replied no. Again, the representative concluded that the content filter was working correctly and that the site we were trying to access must have some sort of adult material on it, hence its blocking. When we asked 3 how the company classifies blocked websites, the representative told us that 3 does not make the rules, and that the government’ does. We were also informed that no record is made of sites which are reported as incorrectly blocked and our phone would be unblocked once we provided age verification.

This experience seems somewhat at odds with the official propaganda about overblocking.  In an article from bbc.com, Hamish MacLeod, chairman of the Mobile Broadband Group, claimed:

Even allowing for the ORG missing a few, 60 misclassified websites does not amount to anything that could reasonably be described as ‘censorship’, particularly when mobile operators are happy to remove the filters when customers show they are over 18 and will re-classify websites when misclassifications are pointed out to them.

This is how the small handful of websites that get referred to mobile operators each year are already dealt with.

Perhaps a small handful of websites because operators are told to willfully ignore such requests