I think ASA banning the AXE Angel ad is bit of madness. I think if this is the standard they are using to ban ads any ad could be banned in the future for the smallest thing and it sets a dangerous precedent. I personally can’t see how this ad is really offensive to christians, are they so insecure about their believes.
I enjoyed the comments to that article, the Mr Muscle man came under some heavy pressure. AXE’s comeback is probably the best thing they could have done, Nando’s has got this type of response down to an artform.
It added that men insisting on using the fragrance did so at their own risk.
“Those who are continuing to use Axe Excite in the hope of seducing angels, please note - whilst there is no individual danger of disciplinary action from the ASA, the angels have been known to come in at quite a speed, and the use of Axe excite is completely at your own risk.”
Yet another instance of the special privileges religion consistently arrogates for itself. There is no “right not to be offended” written into our Constitution or our law. Nor does there exist any “protection against offence even if you’re a majority” clause. However, you do have the right to switch off your TV or change channels if a broadcast offends you.
The ASA sorely lost its impartial way on this one. What a travesty.
I can’t find the ASA ruling for the Axe deodorant complaint, but this one is related in that a complaint was upheld because it was found to be offensive to a certain group of people. (The issue is actually more directly relevant to this matter.)
It seems then that the ASA also has a minor function as a moral watchdog. It’s those “prevailing standards, degree of social concern, and public interest” questions that make for a troublesome loophole. Maybe we should hit them with complaints about pasta adverts because they are deeply indecent and blasphemously offensive to Pastafarians, who form a sizeable sector of society. These pasta ads clearly belittle a basic perception Pastafarians hold of their FSM’s divinity…
Apologies in advance to Mefiante - had to use your Pastafarian example in a column which references the Axe banning, and don’t quite know how to credit it.
No problem, Jacques. If you so wish (and it’s an e-column you’re writing), you could credit it with a link to the forum. Doing so could help kick start the forum into a more public space, which is something that it could certainly use.
You have to admire the formulating chemist who targets, through the power of scented deodorant, the union of angels and men. Not only will it make a striking marketing feat, but the next generation of customers will be blessed with gigantic armpits.
Mr Gerber lodged a consumer complaint against a billboard for River’s Church located on its premises in Sandton.
The billboard features an image of a man holding his hands against the temples of his face. The following quote “An atheist is a man who believes himself to be an accident – Francis Thompson” appears underneath.
COMPLAINT
In essence, the complainant submitted that the billboard offends him as an atheist as he does not consider his existence to be an accident. Secondly, the depiction of a man with an empty head communicates that atheists are stupid.
The ASA is completely out of control now, and none of us are allowed to frickin’ LIVE anymore because someone else may take offense. So frickin’ WHAT if someone takes offense? They should grow up and get a life, that’s what.
I find it especially offensive that the ASA considers itself qualified to make blanket statements about entire groups or supposed groups of people, as if they are all identical. If Mr Gerber takes offense, then that means I will too and therefore I am not allowed to see the ad. Just like that, without ever asking my opinion or doing an opinion poll of atheists. WTF!?