australian people complain about advertisments

CASE 0362/13

Reason: Discrimination or Vilification Disablity; Violence Bullying

As a vision specialist working with the Royal Institute for Deaf Blind Children I was thoroughly disgusted with the advert. Missing an eye is a serious condition called anophthalmia and wearing a patch to correct a turned eye or strabismus is totally different. Neither of which should ever be mocked in any way but especially not on TV. 

I was offended by the advertisement because it is at the expense of a young boy wearing an eye patch. I have two young children with eye patches and find it offensive to imply that children with eye patches are cyclops. It also encourages discrimination and bullying against children who wear eye patches. 

My grandson wears an eye-patch and hates it. He feels like a one eyed monster and does not need to see a woman on TV calling another child with a patch names. The whole ad revolves around the misunderstanding that the woman called the boy "cyclops". The boy in the ad responds as if she was talking about him. 

Patching is a very sensitive issue for all members of families involved in it and this is very bad taste. It doesn't relate to cheese but just seems to want to make children already stressed by having to wear eye-patches feel even more unhappy and freaky, and their parents who live through the trauma of having to patch their children upset. 

CASE 340/13

Reason: - Sex/sexuality/nudity S/S/N - sexualisation of children 

The girl appears to be about 8 years old and is wearing lipstick and eye make-up, not as parody or sensationalism, but as it is as much a part of her appearance as her shoes and clothes. 

It's inappropriate for a girl this age to wearing make-up and by allowing this, we further trow open the gates to adulthood way too early to little girls and boys. Obviously this is targeted at parents, who are influenced by advertisement as much as editorial who will also see making adults of children normal if this practice continues. 

Historically, lipstick was used by women to emulate the "ripeness of sex" or the vagina's readiness to engage in copulation. To allow this image to perpetuate is to condone not only the sexualisation of girls but inadvertently leads to the abuse of women in general. 

CASE 0089/13

Reason: Discrimination or Vilification Physical Characteristics ; Sex/sexuality/nudity S/S/N - general 

Not only is the word ranga offensive (i.e. describing a human to be an orang-utan) this ad has sexual connotations as well. Understand this may be considered an Australian colloquialism but feel the ad is inappropriate and inciting victimisation to individuals with this physical characteristic despite offering a positive to them in the form of a 'discount'. 

CASE 0157/13

Reason: Violence Causes alarm and distress to Children ; Health and Safety Within prevailing Community Standards

Dora the Explorer is a show for young children and infants less than five years of age. Our 3 year old daughter does not need to know about skeleton monster dolls, that via their very names, for e.g. scaris, let alone styling and colours are designed to be frightening. It was rather difficult to explain what these dolls were and that she didn't need to be scared by them. I object to our child being frightened via unsuitable advertising screened during a very popular young children’s' show. 

CASE 0238/13

Context: Bear Grylls eats a fish.

Reason: Violence Cruelty to animals; Violence Graphic Depictions

I found this ad very disturbing as the fish is eaten alive. It is not a prop as you can see the fish voiding when it is bitten. It is one thing to promote a vitamin tablet and another to eat a live fish to promote healthy living. It is also a cruel death for the fish.

This was shown during the block when young and I impressionable children are watching. I have also sent an email to nature’s own expressing my concerns. I was offended because bear grills eats the raw fish which you see him do and rip the fish inhis mouth and my young children looked horrified at it. It's an awful advert - should not be on pre watershed. 

Unnecessarily graphic and disrespectful to animal life. We have a choice to watch a TV show or documentary that might show animals being killed etc. But we should not have to watch it in an unsolicited manner like commercials - we have no choice what commercial comes onto our screens. Documentaries typically have warnings of disturbing images - this ad does not. 

CASE 0358/13

Reason: Violence Causes alarm and distress Violence Graphic Depictions Violence Violence 

I am very very concerned at the effect this awful picture would have on any young people in what is a family magazine. We should not be subjected to such images when opening our weekly TV guide. 

CASE 0342/13

Context: A man is washed ashore. In the next scene we learn he is not dead, but, in fact, very much alive.

Reason: Violence Causes alarm and distress

It looks like a dead body why do I deserve to see what looks like a dead body every time I connect to ninemsn. It is offensive. 

CASE 0292/13

Context: In reference to the quote "A little more sex."

Reason: Sex/sexuality/nudity S/S/N - general 

The time of the commercial was at approx 6:45pm on a Saturday evening - a family time of tv viewing. The campaign specifically asked for viewers to commit to the activity of engaging in "more sex". Considering the high volume of children watching tv during this early time of the evening, this would seem to be encouraging the 'sexualisation of young children' who were exposed to this message.

If the commercial had been shown at a later more 'adult' time of evening, I believe it would have been more appropriate - especially as it directly asked for the viewers (and this case's, children's) 'participation' in sexual acts.

CASE 0262/13

Reason: Violence Causes alarm and distress ; Violence Graphic Depictions 

This type of advertising is totally disturbing, not only the graphics of the zombies but to know killing is going on and its all to do with a mobile service-surely advertising agencies can think of better ways to advertise a service with the amount of money they receive....... 

I am totally offended to see horrific and bloodied zombies in everyday situations during prime time. The violence associated with trying to kill the zombies is completely unnecessary and has nothing with to do with the communication services it is aiming to provide. It associates violence and horror with a mobile phone recharge. It is worrying as it may affect children and others who are not used to horror on television in prime time tv. 

CASE 0098/11

Reason: Sex/sexuality/nudity - Treat with sensitivity to relevant audience; Violence - Domestic violence ; Violence - Other ; Discrimination or Vilification - Sex

The picture suggests the woman has died from foul play i.e. a rape and murder. It is about time advertisers stop this sickening depiction of women and especially in advertising clothes this way...Why didn't Rivers dress the dead woman in Rivers outfits - that's what their advertising isn't it??!!! 

As a woman and a mother of a five year old girl this advertisement offends me. So a woman is portrayed 'dead' under a couch wearing only fishnet stockings and high heels? It sexualizes women and at the same time depicts violence against women. 

I have a daughter. I don't want her thinking it's ok to be seen as a pair of legs and a corpse and hopefully as something that could be discarded after use which is what I believe this image insinuates!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Note: This specific complaint has been shortened. It is one of the longest complaints that the Commission has responded to, with at over three typed pages.

CASE 192/11;193/11

Context: The advertisement was placed on the side of a bus.

Reason: Discrimination or Vilification Religion 

Australia is a Christian country - how can we allow such advertising to take place in our most wonderful home by a minority of unassimilated, confrontational fundamentalists wanting to introduce Sharia law here and destroy our quality of life? 

I as a Christian find this an outrageous lie and well as an insult to Christianity.... Jesus was the Son of God, not a prophet of Islam, and to say it is, is blasphemy... We are a Christian nation and this disgusting ad only shows how Islam seems to be taking over. Because it's not the truth or fact. Full stop. 

Also Australia was built by Christian people whom sacrifice their bloods for our Christian community also Is the Government aware that Mohammed the founder of the Muslim religion was born 700 years after Jesus Christ so Jesus Christ could not be a prophet of Islam!!! Thank you for your consideration for the sake of our kids’ future and the peace of Australia and the whole world. 

-

These Muslims are using the name of Jesus due to his popularity around the world to spread their religion and laws. That is an abuse to his name as to us Christians; he is divine being the son of God. 

I mean try walking into an Asian temple and destroying of their Buddha statues on purpose and see what happens. I am simply disgusted. I would like to reiterate that these billboards should be banned and removed and there should be a ban on advertisements that are inaccurate about Christianity and offensive to Christians.

CASE 0176;177 

Reason: Sex/sexuality/nudity Treat with sensitivity to relevant audience ; Discrimination or Vilification Sexual preference 

Showing gay people hugging with a picture of a condom conjures up images in my head that I don't want to know about. Advertising and encouraging safe sex is one thing but the words "Rip & Roll" with the picture of the condom is offensive.

Homosexuality apart from being a sin it is just wrong and uncomfortable for most people and we don't need homosexuals advertising sex related products on large posters/billboards that just de-moralises relationships. 

It promotes homosexuality. Disturbing to children. I want to feel safe to go outside and drive down the road without being confronted with this sort of stuff. It also frightens me to think of my grandchildren being exposed to this.

-

This RATING LEVEL of this kind of material/advertising SHOULD NOT be appearing where younger children and teens can be influenced when every morning and afternoon they are seeing these images - and parents are being asked questions regarding "2 men hugging/what are condoms/what is sex"!!!!!

THIS IS HIGHLY INAPPROPRIATE - and our parenting is being attacked/compromised by having to address these types of questions at a far too young age - when it is easily fixed by having an R RATING! To promote this lifestyle to our youth is NOT in the interests of HEALTHY COMMUNITIES.

Note: This advertisement has received the most complaints of any campaign examined by the Australian Advertising Standards Bureau.

See: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/rip-and-roll-campaign-draws-most-complaints-20110711-1hafi.html

CASE 0288/11

Reason: Discrimination or Vilification Sex 

One of the lines toward the end of the ad is of a young female saying "I like all the young boys there" or words to that effect followed by the image a smiling shelf stacker. My issue with this is had the gender of the actors been reversed it would be pulled for objectifying females sexism and so forth. Can we please see some actual equal rights in play here?

CASE 0216/11

Reason: Health and Safety within prevailing Community Standards 

On a personal level I was put out by the ad because I have a phobia of sharps but that really has nothing to do with it. I think the ad is in bad taste when in come to kids. Little ones who can't understand may be frightened and older ones might think it's ok to play with sharp objects and poke their toys or friends with them (which of course it isn't). 

CASE 0276/11

Complaint: Violence Other 

The rabbits look very threatening. They have an angry expression on their faces. They tower over the young girl. They do not speak to her just stare at her. I have two small children. They didn't see the ad they were out of the room but I believe they would have found it frightening and scary. I found the tone of the ad to be intimidating and threatening. I don't think that the time in which I saw it was appropriate as my children could have seen it. 

CASE 0255/11

Context: The game art for 'Brink' was on the side of a bus.

Reason: Violence Other 

I do not think this sort of picture should be displayed publicly on buses (or anywhere else for that matter). Young children see these pictures and it could scare them. I was also offended by how large the advertisement was and found it quite affronting. I do not believe society should condone these sorts of images by advertising them in such an open way. 

The bus involved was a Brisbane City Council bus 338. The bus number was V809 and the registration was 809HQA. The sign was on the right hand side of the bus. I was travelling in my car with my 2 young sons (1 and 4 years old) when we pulled up alongside the tram carrying the poster of the offending advertisement - the boys alerted me to the advertisement saying how scary it was ... I looked over and was of the same opinion!! The mask that the man in the ad is wearing is particularly disturbing and his pose is also threatening. The fact that he is carrying a machine gun only adds to the impact.

I believe that an ad like this should not be shown where young children can be exposed to it. 

CASE 0238/11

Reason: Language Use appropriate language 

The poster displays the phrase - in large bold type - "FUCK GLUTEN"