The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) is extending its remit to cover the online realm.

It means that online marketing and ads will, from 1 March 2011, be subject to the same strict advertising rules as traditional media.

The ASA will also have the power to ban marketing statements on social networks such as Facebook and Twitter

This is a massive step. Consumers don't differentiate between adverts on TV or online and this ensures that claims online will be subject to the same strict scrutiny of those in traditional media, said an ASA spokesman.

The new rules will apply to adverts and any statement on a website that is intended to sell products or services. Websites will be given until 1 March 2011 to comply with the new rules.

In an effort to protect online freedom of speech, the ASA's new remit will not extend to journalistic and editorial content related to causes and ideas. But direct requests for donations for fund-raising will be under its jurisdiction.

The ASA will also be given new sanctions against online ads found to be in breach of its regulations, including the removal of paid-for search advertising and the right to place its own advertisements highlighting an advertiser's non-compliance.

Two ice cream adverts, one showing a pregnant nun and the other two male priests about to kiss, are facing a ban by the advertising watchdog after offending Roman Catholics.

Complaints have previously been reported about the slogan immaculately conceived appearing on the image of the nun eating from a pot of Antonio Federici Gelato Italiano.

But now the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has indicated the image of the nun is likely to be banned.

Meanwhile, the picture of two men in cassocks and clerical collars, embracing with their lips inches apart, bears the words we believe in salivation. The ASA is now investigating this advert too.

British firm Antonio Federici said the adverts celebrated the implied forbidden Italian temptations of the ice cream. Creative director Matt O'Connor said: Only a tiny proportion of those who have seen the ads have made complaints. They seem to be upholding the views of a bigoted minority over the majority.

But retired Catholic bishop John Jukes decried such adverts, saying: They tend to add to the general downgrading and attack on religious opinions and religiously committed people, which is a danger to the welfare of our culture.'

A giant billboard showing Julianne Moore, the American actress, unclothed but with her modesty maintained by a Bulgari handbag and a pair of lion cubs has been ruled inappropriate by the guardians of decorum in Venice.

The Bulgari advertisement, which would have been erected in St Mark's Square, had been expected to adorn the magnificent Doge's Palace, which overlooks St Mark's Square and Venice's lagoon.

But it was deemed too risqué by the city's recently elected mayor, Giorgio Orsoni, and will be replaced instead by other images of Miss Moore fully dressed and modelling Bulgari jewellery.

An advertisement showing a nude woman on a divan is not appropriate for St Mark's Square, Orsoni told Italian newspapers.

The city council of Venice has been fiercely criticised for allowing advertisers to put up hoardings over the façade of centuries-old palazzi, but has justified such commercial deals by saying that they bring in desperately needed revenue for restoration and conservation at a time when funds from the Italian government have been cut to the bone.

Two Telugu movies in Andhra Pradesh are facing the wrath of police in the Vijayanagaram district. The police in that region have filed cases against the exhibitors of Jhummandhi Nadham and Badmash for displaying obscenities in the posters of these movies.

The images in question are those of a kissing scene in Jhummandhi Nadham poster and a young boy urinating in the poster of Badmash.

The producers of the movie have supposedly designed and printed the posters of the movie. The posters were required to get certification from the censor authorities before getting displayed.

If the censor authorities have passed the posters then how come the police is targeting only the exhibitors, keeping the producers and censor board safe from the charges of disseminating obscenity?

A magazine ad, for The Circle of Raphael (COR), was headed THE TALISMAN OF THE SEVEN ANGELS CREATED TO BRING IT'S OWNER ANGELIC BLESSINGS, GUIDANCE & PEACE. Text stated ... [The Angels] promised they would view its wearing as an invitation to befriend its owner and bless them with the gift of Angelic good fortune, friendship, guidance and divine protection from all real danger, both physical and spiritual ... This incredible Angelic item has proved it can create fantastic results for its owners instantly ... From the moment you receive it, you will have seven Angelic friends watching over and protecting your life. Numerous doors to opportunities and good fortune that you may have once thought were out of your reach will be flung open - like magic ... Each angel will bless its owner with the following ... The gift of inner peace and happiness ... Divine protection and safety in all travel ... Luck in love and relationships ... Financial security and good health ... Protection from all acts of violence ... Good fortune in games of chance ... Angelic help in career and work matters ... [wearers] will also see their whole life significantly changed for the better in the flash of an eye ....

A reader challenged whether the claims that the talisman would protect the wearer from physical danger, bring luck in love and relationships, financial security, good health and happiness, good fortune in games of chance and help in career and work matters were misleading and could be substantiated.

ASA Assessment: Upheld

The ASA noted CoR did not send evidence that showed the efficacy of the talisman. We reminded them that the CAP Code required them to hold documentary evidence to support the claims made in their advertising. Because we had not seen evidence that demonstrated that the talisman would protect wearers from physical danger, bring luck in love and relationships, financial security, good health and happiness, good fortune in games of chance and help in career and work, we concluded that the claims had not been substantiated and the ad was therefore misleading.

A leaflet, for a security company, showed a photo of a woman with a man's leather-gloved hand covering her mouth and a frightened expression on her face. Text stated MANY PEOPLE DON'T CONSIDER THE FULL IMPLICATIONS OF A BREAK IN UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE! and One Solution FIRE & SECURITY and promoted the installation or upgrade of a CCTV, alarm, fire or access system.

One complainant, who had picked the leaflet up in a local cafe, objected that the image was offensive and distressing, and that the ad made an undue appeal to peoples fears about home security.

ASA Assessment: Upheld

The ASA noted that the CAP Code allowed marketers to use an appeal to fear to encourage prudent behaviour but that the fear aroused should not be disproportionate to the risk. Although we acknowledged that the ad was for a security system and it was not inappropriate for the advertisers to make reference to the issue of home security, we noted that the ad featured a woman in distress, who appeared to be being threatened with violence in her own home and considered that that image, in conjunction with the text PEOPLE DONT CONSIDER THE FULL IMPLICATIONS OF A BREAK IN UNTIL ITS TOO LATE was likely to cause undue fear or distress, especially to the elderly or those living alone.

Because we considered that the ad relied on a shocking and distressing image and text to attract attention, we concluded that it made an undue appeal to peoples fears about home security and was likely to cause fear and distress.

A billboard image of a naked woman on all fours with a large arrow provocatively placed below her and preceded by the words entrance this way was an unacceptable way to advertise the Erotica Lifestyles Expo, the Advertising Standards Authority decided.

The Erotica Expo, promoted by porn tycoon Steve Crow, is an adult entertainment convention held annually.

There were two complainants about this image, both with similar arguments.

The image was offensive and inappropriate for public display, according to one whinger from Palmerston North. The complainant took particular objection to the arrow and statement entrance this way as it represented the direction for sexual intercourse and made the billboard even more offensive.

In response, promoter Eden Digital said that the use of the arrow alluded to sexual intercourse was unintended.

The ASA upheld the complaints. While the advertiser was entitled to promote the expo, the image of the naked woman on all fours was unacceptable, the ASA said in its deliberation. The image had been before the board previously and in keeping with its previous determination of a similar advertisement, it found that basic principles and code of ethics were breached

Update: A Nice Juicy Whinge

27th August 2010. Based on article from nzherald.co.nz

More than 50 complaints have been made over porn king Steve Crow's mobile billboard promoting this weekend's Erotica Expo in Auckland.

But it didn't stop about 10,000 people going to the event at the ASB Showgrounds.

The mobile billboard shows a woman holding half a melon with her finger in it.

Complaints have been made to the Advertising Standards Authority.

Crow said the billboard had worked: At the end of the day the billboard shows the girl holding a melon. How people interpret that is up to them. I'm not responsible for how people think.

The billboard has been slammed by lobby group Family First. It's absolutely disgusting, said national director Bob McCoskrie: It's suggestive, it's offensive and quite clear what it's getting at. It exposes children to inappropriate material. We need to protect the moral innocence of children.

A direct mailing, for a marketing agency, was in the form of a valentine's card; text on the front stated I F**CKING LOVE YOU. Further text on an adjacent page stated … You might f**cking love us.

Two complainants objected that the language in the ad was offensive.

The Fuel Agency Ltd (TFA) said no expletive was used in the ad. They believed it was commonly understood that to communicate an expletive without causing offence, it was acceptable to use the widespread format f**k. They said 1,000 of the ads were sent to a purchased mailing list.

ASA Assessment Upheld

The ASA noted the expletive in the ad was partly obscured but considered the intended meaning was still clear. We were concerned that the expletive, although partly obscured, was used on the front of an untargeted direct mailing. We noted the expletive was irrelevant to the product and considered its use was gratuitous in the context of an ad about marketing services. We concluded that the ad was likely to cause serious offence to some recipients.

A radio ad for the Anti-Terrorist Hotline stated The following message is brought to you by Talk Sport and the Anti-Terrorist Hotline. The man at the end of the street doesn't talk to his neighbours much, because he likes to keep himself to himself. He pays with cash because he doesn't have a bank card, and he keeps his curtains closed because his house is on a bus route. This may mean nothing, but together it could all add up to you having suspicions. We all have a role to play in combating terrorism. If you see anything suspicious, call the confidential, Anti-Terrorist Hotline. If you suspect it, report it.

1. Ten listeners, who believed the ad encouraged people to report law-abiding citizens who acted in the way described in the ad, challenged whether the ad was offensive.

2. 16 listeners, who believed the ad could encourage people to harass or victimise their neighbours, challenged whether the ad was harmful.

3. Nine listeners challenged whether the ad made an undue appeal to fear.

ASA Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA noted that the ad described a man who always paid with cash, did not speak to his neighbours and kept his curtains closed during the day. We noted that description was based on behavioural trends identified by the police, and that the ad suggested that, when taken together, those behaviours could be grounds for suspicion.

However, we considered that the ad could also describe the behaviour of a number of law-abiding people within a community and we considered that some listeners, who might identify with the behaviours referred to in the ad, could find the implication that their behaviour was suspicious, offensive. We also considered that some listeners might be offended by the suggestion that they report members of their community for acting in the way described. We therefore concluded that the ad could cause serious offence.

2. Not upheld

We noted that the ad conveyed its message in a measured and reasonable tone, and we therefore considered the ad was not sensationalist. We also noted that it did not suggest that listeners approach, harass or victimise anyone about whom they might have concerns, but instead asked listeners to call a police hotline. We considered that the ad did not encourage or condone harassment or victimisation and we therefore concluded that the ad was not harmful.

3. Not upheld

We noted that the intention of the ad was to raise awareness of the planning stages of terrorist attacks and to engage the public in reporting anything they might find suspicious. We also noted that the ads message was presented in a measured tone, which we considered was unlikely to provoke alarm.

Notwithstanding our concerns, in point 1 above, that the ad could cause serious offence, we noted that the ad stated that the behaviours described may mean nothing, but together could add up to you having suspicions, and we considered that that conditional wording was proportionate and unlikely to cause anxiety for listeners about the extent of terrorist activity in their neighbourhood. We therefore concluded that the ad did not make an undue appeal to fear.

A poster, for a lap dancing club was headed Corporate Gentleman's Entertainment Club Oops …!. The ad showed an image of a naked woman from the waist down with underwear pulled down around her thighs. In the place of her face and upper body was a cartoon drawing of the silhouette of a naked woman pole dancing, above the word Oops ….

Issue

The complainant challenged whether the ad was sexist, offensive and demeaning to women and the nudity and sexual content was unsuitable for public display.

ASA Assessment: Upheld

The ASA understood that the poster had been in place for a year, but was no longer appearing.

We noted that the woman was pictured naked and considered her pose and the removal of her underwear were likely to be seen as sexually suggestive. We noted that the nudity in the ad reflected the nature of Club Oops, but considered that the depiction of the woman in such a provocative pose with her underwear pulled down around her thighs, was likely to be seen as unduly explicit and degrading to women.

We concluded that the image was likely to cause serious or widespread offence and concluded it was unsuitable for public display.

Comment: Widespread Offence of One Person

6th August 2010. Based on comment from IanG on the Melon Farmers Forum

ASA: We concluded that the image was likely to cause serious or widespread offence and concluded it was unsuitable for public display.

This conclusion is based on one complaint from one complainant after a year on display...

Methinks the ASA is full of shit. To conclude an ad would cause widespread offence and is somehow unsuitable for public display after its been on display for a year and attracted only ONE complaint in all that time can in no way lead to, substantiate or support the ASA's, quite irrational, conclusion.

The ASA are clearly not fit to judge. There's not one shred of rationality in their thinking. Not one shred of evidence to support their view.

Offence is not grounds to censure ANY material under the terms of Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998. This poster is clearly not a threat to national security; it is not libelous or slanderous; nor is it potentially harmful. A drawing of a partial female figure removing underwear is not physically, psychologically or morally harmful, indeed, I'd bet 99.99% of females remove their undewear in a similar fashion everyday without causing any harm to any on-lookers of any age.

Why I wonder do the ASA believe their Code can be implemented in a way which is compatible with the HRA when the HRA doesn't allow mere offence caused to some cretinous and/or deranged twat to justify censorship? Subjective opinions DO NOT constitute proof of harm. One complaint after a year on display doesn't tend to suggest there's any major widespread concern or widespread offence.