Australian Censorship News: January 2008

UPDATES: January 27th 2008
SLAVES TO PASSION: RC
XCALIBUR-THE LORDS OF SEX: RC.
TRIPLE ECSTASY: Censored.
IEAA:  Games R18+ a Priority for 2008.
HALLOWEEN (2007): New Consumer Advice
SLEUTH MA15+ to M: RB Report

UPDATES: January 19th 2008
GIRLS GONE WILD-SPRING BREAK SEX RIOT: Censored!
DOLL HOUSE DVD: Ruled Offensive.
FETISH WORLD DVD: Confronting but not illegal.
Advertising Standards Bureau: October - November Complaints.
JUICED 2 - HOT IMPORT NIGHTS: TV Ad Complaint Upheld.
SAW 4: Outdoor Ad Complaint Upheld.
SAW 4: Internet Ad Complaint Dismissed.
SAW 4 R18+ to MA15+: RB Report.

UPDATES: January 12th 2008
Australian Government to censor the internet.
GIRLS GONE WILD-SPRING BREAK SEX RIOT: RC
HOTTER THAN HELL: RC
X-RATED DISC 1 Censored.
AdultShop.com X18+ Challenge Fails.
Eros Magazine Vol.8 No.4.
Eros wants X18+ discussed at March SCAG.
Pornography in Australia.
Adult Industry vs. Exclusive Brethren
ACMA ratings restrictions for internet and mobile.
THE SINGLE SHOT Euthanasia Video.
ASB: Most complained about ads in 2007.
Advertising Standards Bureau: July-September Complaints.
SCARFACE Game: Outdoor Ad Complaint Dismissed.
DIE HARD 4: Outdoor Ad Complaint Dismissed

UPDATES 
27th January 2007

SLAVES TO PASSION: RC

Siren Visual Entertainment have just had another hentai DVD banned by the Classification Board. SLAVES TO PASSION was Refused Classification on January 24th. This would have been part of Siren's ever-expanding Hentai Collection. Here is a full list of the titles so far and the details of how they have been treated by the classification board. 

Note that Siren's website gives the following warning for their Hentai Collection.

The Siren Hentai Collection is the best Hentai anime sourced from around the world. Wherever possible titles have been presented uncut, but due to the graphic nature of the content, sometimes cuts have been made in order to comply with local government laws.

So we don't know if Siren have been pre-censoring these titles before submitting them for classification. If anyone has any information please send it in.

What is known of the censorship situation of the Hentai Collection is as follows.

We know of one confirmed case, THE GIRL NEXT DOOR, which was pre-cut before submission, and that SPOTLIGHT and MY BROTHER'S WIFE were censored after originally being banned. 

One of the most notorious hentai releases is the COOL DEVICES series. Volume One of Siren's release contains:

OPERATION 1 - CURIOUS FRUIT
OPERATION 2 - SACRED GIRL

Volume Two contains:

OPERATION 3A - LOVER DOLL
OPERATION 3B - WINTER SWIMSUIT
OPERATION 10 - BINDING
OPERATION 11 - FALLEN ANGEL RINA

Missing from either volume are:

OPERATION 3C: ENEMA
OPERATION 4: KIREI
OPERATION 5: SEEK 1
OPERATION 6: SEEK 2 (SM QUEEN SAKI)
OPERATION 7: YELLOW STAR
OPERATION 8: SLAVE WARRIOR MAYA 1
OPERATION 9: SLAVE WARRIOR MAYA 2

It looks like Siren wisely chose to drop the most extreme episodes rather than face an obvious ban from the Classification Board.

We don't want to sound like we are attacking Siren for this. After all they are the label most likely to take a risk with controversial titles. They have paid the price with five Hentai titles, and THE GORE GORE GIRLS, and IN A GLASS CAGE all being banned. So give them your support. After all, these guys brought you the uncut version of CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST. What more do we need to say!

******

XCALIBUR-THE LORDS OF SEX: RC.
TRIPLE ECSTASY: Censored.

Pierre Woodman's hardcore version of the Arthurian legend XCALIBUR- THE LORDS OF SEX has just been banned in Australia. This is curious as back in October it was originally passed with an X18+ (Explicit Sex) rating. Hardcore films that attempt to tell a story are often going to have problems with out censors. In this case there are numerous sword fights which would not have fitted in well with the X18+ category where violence is forbidden. For an example see the entry for DREAMQUEST.

On a brighter note for Calvista, TRIPLE ECSTASY has finally cleared the censors with an X18+ (Explicit Sex) rating. It was originally banned back in December, but has now been cut down to an acceptable form.

******

IEAA:  Games R18+ a Priority for 2008.

Jason Hill's SCREENPLAY blog has an interview with the New Chief Executive Officer of the IEAA Ron Curry. One of the priorities of the Interactive Entertainment Association of Australia for 2008 will be pushing for an R18+ for games. In the interview, Mr Curry confirms that the South Australian Attorney-General Michael Atkinson is still a major problem. It was Michael Atkinson's pro-censorship views that in November 2002, helped kill off the introduction of a games R18+.

You can contact Attorney-General Michael Atkinson here:

www.ministers.sa.gov.au/ministers.php?id=7

Giving the pirates Curry. The Age 24.01.08

Most people think that the Rudd Labor government will be more sympathetic to the introduction of an R18+ rating than the Howard/Ruddock Liberal government. Has the IEAA got any positive feedback yet?

We haven't had the opportunity to meet with them yet, but the new government doesn't change the legislation that says each of the states and territories must agree unanimously on an R18+ classification before the federal government get involved. That hasn't changed, so we need to continue talking to the state and territory governments.

And South Australia remains a problem...

South Australia is a major challenge, yes.

The GDAA had great success during the election campaign galvanising the support of the gaming community and using that to pressure politicians. Might you employ a similar tactic given apparent the level of support for an R18+ rating in the community?

Yeah, certainly that support is something that could be used tactically at a point in time. What it needs to do is dovetail into any other decision that we make in how we proceed with the R18 argument. It has to be used more strategically than just another voice. But its certainly one of the options on the shelf, it will come down to if and when we use it.

In our opinion the IEAA should definitely use the gaming community to pressure politicians. A well designed site which allows gamers to contact their politicians with their concerns would be an excellent way of getting the message out. The Religious Right do this all the time and are successful in getting their voice heard. 

During the six years this site has been up we've constantly been impressed with how engaged gamers are with the censorship debate. Read any of the OFLC annual reports and you will see that games censorship always elicits the most complaints. The last time we heard any real noise about film censorship was back in May 2003 when KEN PARK was banned. Since then over twenty films, and a nearly two hundred Adult DVD's have been hit with RC ratings. Not that you would know this from reading the mainstream press. 

******

HALLOWEEN (2007): New Consumer Advice

The Directors Cut of Rob Zombie's HALLOWEEN remake has just been rated by the Classification Board and has again been awarded an R18+ rating. What has changed is the consumer advice which has gone from 'High level horror violence' for the Theatrical Cut rated in October, to 'High level horror violence, Some sexual violence'. The additional scene where two guards rape a patient in Michael's cell would seem to be the reason for the extra consumer advice of 'Some sexual violence'.

******

SLEUTH MA15+ to M: RB Report

Back in October, Paramount Pictures succeeded in their appeal to have the MA15+ (Strong Coarse Language) rating of SLEUTH dropped to M (Strong coarse language, Infrequent aggressive coarse language, Adult themes). The Review Board's report has now been released explaining their decision.

Australian Government
Classification Review Board

22 October 2007 
23-33 MARY STREET 
SURRY HILLS, NSW 

MEMBERS: 
Ms Maureen Shelley (Convenor) 
The Hon Trevor Griffin (Deputy Convenor) 
Ms Ann Stark 

APPLICANT 
Paramount Pictures Australia 

INTERESTED PARTIES 
None 

BUSINESS 
To review the Classification Board's decision to classify the film Sleuth MA 15+ with the consumer advice 'Strong coarse language'. 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION 

1. Decision 

The Classification Review Board (the Review Board) classified the film Sleuth M, With the consumer advice 'Strong coarse language, Infrequent aggressive coarse language, Adult themes', 

2. Legislative provisions 

The Classification (Publications. Film and Computer Games) Act 1995 (the Act) governs tile classification of films and the review of classification decisions. Section 9 provides that films are to be classified in accordance with the National Classification Code (the Code) and the classification guidelines. 

Relevantly, the Code provides that: 

'Films (except RC films, X 18+ films and R 18+ films) that depict, express or otherwise deal with sex, violence or coarse language in such a manner as to be unsuitable for viewing by persons under 15' are to be classified MA 15+, and 

'Films (except RC films, X 18+ films, R 18+ films and MA 15+ films) that cannot be recommended for viewing by persons who are under 15' are to be classified M. 

The Code also sets out various principles to which classification decisions should give effect, as far as possible.

Section 11 of the Act requires that the matters to be taken into account in making a decision on the classification of a film include: 

(a) the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults; and 

(b) the literary, artistic or educational merit (if any) of the film; and 

(c) the general character of the film, including whether it is of a medical, legal or scientific character; and 

(d) the persons or class of persons to or amongst whom it is published or is intended or likely to be published. 

Three essential principles underlie the use of the Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games 2005 (the Guidelines), determined under s 12 of the Act: 

. the importance of context 

. the assessment of impact, and 

. the six classifiable elements - themes, violence, sex, language, drug use and nudity. 

3. Procedure 

The Review Board met on 22 October 2007 in response to the receipt of an application from Paramount Pictures Australia on 10 October 2007. 

A three member panel of the Review Board determined it had a valid application and viewed the film, Sleuth. 

The Review Board heard an oral submission from Mr Michael Selwyn, Managing Director of Paramount Pictures Australia. 

The Review Board then considered the matter. 

4. Evidence and other material taken into account 

In reaching its decision the Review Board had regard to the following: 

(i) Paramount Pictures Australia's application for review 

(ii) Paramount Pictures Australia's oral submissions 

(iii) the film, Sleuth 

(iv) the relevant provisions in the Act, the Code and the Guidelines, and 

(v) the Classification Board's report. 

5. Synopsis 

This is a rewrite and remake of a psychological drama based on an award winning play. An ageing writer of detective stories (played by Michael Caine as Andrew) executes an elaborate plan of revenge on a young out of work actor (played by Jude Law as Milo) who is having an affair with the writer's wife. The plan is a dangerous game of cat and mouse.

6. Findings on material questions of fact 

The Review Board found that the film contains aspects or scenes of importance under various classifiable elements, namely, themes and language:

(a) Themes - The principal themes relate to infidelity and conspiracy to commit a crime. Both themes can be accommodated in the 'M' classification in respect of which the treatment of themes may have a sense of threat or menace no higher than moderate. While the coarse language (to which reference is made later in these reasons) is uttered on infrequent occasions with emphasis or strongly, there is little threat or menace in the themes of themselves. 

(b) Violence - There are scenes where violence is depicted but it was not the basis on which the MA 15+ classification was made by the Classification Board. In any event, the Classification Review Board was of the view that the violence was moderate in impact and was justified by context. 

(c) Language- The coarse language in this film comprises the word 'fuck' and its derivatives and the word 'cunt'. 

The word 'fuck' or its derivatives is used on about 16 occasions by both actors in a film which runs for about 90 minutes, It is used in different contexts: 

1 As a verb: At approximately 7 minutes, Andrew, the ageing writer, confronts the young actor, Milo, about Milo's affair with Andrew's wife: 
'I understand that you are fucking my wife'. 
Then follows some dialogue in which the word 'fuck' is used three times. 

2 As an exclamation or pseudo oath when an actor is surprised or frustrated: At approximately 25 minutes, Milo falls off a chain ladder and exclaims: 'fuck!' And, again, at approximately 24 minutes when a ladder that Milo was using falls from the wall against which it is propped, leaving Milo stranded. He exclaims: 'fuck!' 

3 As an expletive attributive: 
At approximately 26 minutes, Milo is searching for a safe in Andrew's wife's bedroom. Frustrated, he exclaims: 
'Where's the fucking safe?' 
At approximately 112 minutes, as Milo talks about marrying Andrew's wife, Andrew says: 

'Unless you listen to me it will all be a fucking disaster'. 

There is one scene at approximately 33 minutes where the word is used aggressively and loudly by Andrew, Milo claims that Andrew's wife is having an affair with a hairdresser. Andrew responds loudly and aggressively: 
'A hairdresser is fucking my wife?!' 
In the Review Board's view these sorts of scenes are infrequent and in context 

The word 'cunt' is used three times, twice at approximately 21 minutes - in conversational tone and with the meaning 'a contemptible person', At approximately 80 minutes, in Andrew's bedroom, Milo lies on the bed. Andrew stands beside him and lightly strokes Milo's hair with one finger:
Milo: 'Fuck off you big poof,'

Andrew: 'You're a cunt!' yelled loudly and with menace. 
It is the language in this scene which the Classification Review Board regards as aggressive and strong coarse language, but it is infrequent and justified by context. 

There is no evidence of sex, drug use or nudity. 

7. Reasons for the decision 

In the 'M' classification coarse language may be used and aggressive or strong coarse language should be infrequent and justified by context. 

In the view of the Review Board, there is one scene where the word 'cunt' is used in a context which is judged to be aggressive and strong - at approximately 80 minutes. Also in the view of the Review Board, there are two scenes where 'fucking' is used where it is determined to be aggressively used - at approximately 33 minutes and 52 minutes. The scene at 52 minutes involves an investigating detective who pulls Andrew's face close to his and says in a threatening and aggressive manner: 

'Don't fuck about, don't bullshit me!' 
and forces Andrew into a lift. 

These three scenes and the respective coarse language are, in the view of the Review Board, infrequent and can be justified by the context in which they each occur. Therefore, they can be accommodated in the 'M' classification. The other usages of both 'fuck' and 'cunt' words fall within the 'coarse language' category and therefore are accommodated in the 'M' classification. 

8. Summary 

The Classification Review Board determined that the themes and violence are accommodated in the 'M' classification, the three instances of aggressive or strong coarse language are infrequent and justified by context and that the other instances of coarse language are within the 'M' classification. However, to ensure that adequate warning is given to parents or guardians of children under 15 years that the film is not recommended for viewing by children under the age of 15 years, the Review Board was of the view that these reasons should be explicit as to the nature of and context in which the coarse language is used and that more fulsome consumer advice should be required in this instance as follows: 

'Strong coarse language, Infrequent aggressive coarse language, Adult themes'.

Update 27th January 2008
Refused-Classification.com 

UPDATES
19th January 2008

GIRLS GONE WILD-SPRING BREAK SEX RIOT: Censored!

A censored version of the soft-core DVD GIRLS GONE WILD: SPRING BREAK SEX RIOT has been passed with an R18+ (High level sexualised nudity and sexual activity) rating. It was originally banned back in December.

*****

DOLL HOUSE DVD: Ruled Offensive.
FETISH WORLD DVD: Confronting but not illegal.

Over four years ago customs seized two DVD's which they believed were prohibited. The titles were Andrew Blake's DOLL HOUSE (2003), and Bizarre Video Productions release of FETISH WORLD (2002).

The case has finally reached court this week. Chief Magistrate Elizabeth Bolton described FETISH WORLD as "confronting but not illegal" and DOLL HOUSE as "offensive because of the level of violence".

Guilty verdict over DVD porn. abc.net.au 17.1.08

An Adelaide magistrate has found a man guilty of importing a prohibited pornographic DVD.

When they arrived at a Sydney mail centre, customs officers decided they were in a prohibited class.

.... admitted importing the material but argued it did not offend community standards.

His lawyer argued that the images in the films Fetish World and Doll House were similar to material already available in Australia for private viewing.

So what made DOLL HOUSE "offensive because of the level of violence"? Here is part of Stephen Ochs review from AVN Magazine.

The release of a new Andrew Blake joint is the closest porn comes to the premier of a blockbuster summer movie - eagerly awaited by many and complete with fans that are ravenous and have very high expectations of a good time.  In case you're unfamiliar with Andrew Blake's "thing," he shoots hypnotic, top-of-the-high-end fetish films that blur the line between softcore and hardcore, as well as the distinction between mainstream and porn. 

The action will satisfy porn fans with a wide variety of prurient interests, from some devastating foot-fetish scenes to a cigarette-smoking segment, and even a mildly harrowing girl/girl/girl outing featuring clothes-being ripped off and some sharp-looking buck knives. Blake even throws in an uncharacteristically hardcore boy/girl segment starring statuesque punk-looking Rachel Rotten and a scene involving pounds of red meat that will turn a PETA member's stomach, but will turn on most anyone else. 

******

Advertising Standards Bureau: October - November Complaints 

Here is a breakdown of the complaints heard by the Advertising Standards Bureau from October - November. Go to their website (adstandards.com.au) to read full reports for each one. Thanks to that wonderful thing called the internet many of these advertisements can still be viewed on video share sites.

October Complaints Upheld

There were no complaints upheld in October.

October Complaints Dismissed

November Complaints Dismissed

November Complaints Upheld

***

JUICED 2 - HOT IMPORT NIGHTS: TV Ad Complaint Upheld.

1. Complaint reference number 351/07 
2. Advertiser THQ Asia Pacific Pty Ltd (Juiced 2 - Hot Import Nights) 
3. Product Toys & Games 
4. Type of advertisement TV 
5. Nature of complaint Discrimination or vilification Gender - section 2.1 Health and safety – section 2.6 
6. Date of determination Tuesday, 13 November 2007 
7. DETERMINATION Upheld – discontinued or modified 

DESCRIPTION OF THE ADVERTISEMENT 

This television advertisement for a computer game is set in a night time city street scape with a line of silver bikini-clad young women standing in the middle of the road. One woman announces "It’s all about the speed" as a car circles her at speed, spraying water from its tyres on the wet road surface. A disclaimer appears on screen "Professional Stunt Driver: Don’t try this at home." She continues "It’s all about the control", as behind her a car accelerates and begins drifting through a the line of girls in bikinis, as in a slalom ski race. These scenes are followed by scenes from the computer game of computer-generated cars racing on a track and on a road, and being modified in a showroom, she continues "It’s all about the cars…… the competition… the modding… the drifting." The scene returns to the real images of the women on the road with the cars doing burn outs driving around them. The woman concludes saying "It’s all about…Juiced 2: Hot Import Nights." 

THE COMPLAINT 

A sample of comments which the complainant/s made regarding this advertisement included the following: 

Basically sexist. Using women to sell a product. Not to mention the dangerous driving around the women, even if it is done by computer. It was so bad I thought the ad may be a joke at first. Unbelievable that ads are still made like this and pass the standards. 

THE ADVERTISER’S RESPONSE 

Comments which the advertiser made in response to the complaint/s regarding this advertisement included the following: 

Juiced 2 Hot Import Nights is classified as a racing genre game in which the principal objective for the player is to wins points through skill at racing around street circuits. The video game has received a ‘PG’ classification with ‘Mild gambling’ references consumer advice from the Australian Government Classification Board. 

The original commercial was produced overseas and then edited in Australia for broadcasting on Australian television. The commercial received a ‘J’ rating form Commercials Advice Pty Limited (CAD). As such, the commercial has only been scheduled to appear on TV during times that are permissible under CAD guidelines. In this instance the commercial aired between 8.35 – 9.00 pm during the program South Park on SBS on Monday 1st October. 

The title name and many of the game features are under licence from Hot Import Nights, a US based organization that organises large lifestyle custom car shows/events and races in the US and around the world. Many of the Hot Import Nights attractions have been incorporated into the video game including the music, attractive female models, cars and parties. Together, they are a differentiating and integral feature of the video game. 

We do not believe we have breached the Advertiser Code of Ethics (the “Code”) with respect to the nature of the complaint, reviewed against Section 2 of the Code. 

Specifically, we do not believe that the TVC is sexist or breaches section 2.1 of the Code. The woman speaking in the commercial is Ursula Mayes. She is the official Spokes Model and Master of Ceremonies for Hot Import Nights in the US. In the video game she appears as a computergenerated image/person who provides instruction to players and acts as Master of Ceremonies. Ursula Mayes has an authoritative, important role and is integral to the game. That she is dressed in a “bikini” in the commercial only serves to promote the Hot Import Nights pop culture and reflect the nature and content of the actual game. Her attire is not intended to be sexist or discriminatory against women. 

We also do not believe that the TVC depicts material contrary to prevailing community standards of health and safety, as detailed in section 2.6 of the Code. The opening sequence of the commercial features a car drifting around women standing in the middle of a road. This is accompanied by a disclaimer that appears as a super for four seconds at the bottom of the screen; ‘Professional Stunt Driver: don’t try this at home.’ The Vision then transforms from real life footage into game play footage of cars racing and drifting. The intention is to communicate the features and excitement of the video game. In no way is the intention to encourage the audience to drive dangerously and/or illegally in real life. 

While we did not intend to offend anyone with the content of the commercial, we recognize that not all viewers will prefer this type of videogame or entertainment. Our goal, which we believe has been achieved, was for viewers to be informed and entertained by the commercial. We believe that we have communicated the content and features of our product in a manner consistent with the Code. 

The Juiced 2 Hot Import Nights 30 sec TVC campaign is running from Monday 1st October until Saturday 20th October. We do not anticipate running the TVC on air again after this date. 

THE DETERMINATION 

The Advertising Standards Board (“Board”) considered whether this advertisement breaches Section 2 of the Advertiser Code of Ethics (the “Code”). 

The Board noted the complainant's concern that the images in the advertisement were sexist and dangerous. The Board viewed the advertisement. 

In relation to the images of the women dressed in bikini style clothing and posing in the middle of the road, the Board noted the advertiser's comments that the woman talking is the spokesperson for the particular sector of the car entertainment industry and also noted that, although scantily clad, the women are simply posed in the street and are not depicted in any sexual or demeaning positions. The Board noted that not all viewers would find the images of the women necessary or appropriate but considered that the women were not depicted in a manner that was sexist or demeaning or that would breach either section 2.1 or 2.3 of the Code. 

The Board then considered the images of the cars being driven around the women at high speeds. The Board noted firstly that the computer generated images from the computer game were not in breach of the Code as they were clearly depicted as being part of the product, were stylised obvious computer game images and did not depict material that amounted to a breach of the Code. The Board considered however that the non comptuer generated images of the women standing in the street with the cars circling around them were depictions of behaviour that was very unsafe. The Board noted the disclaimer which states "Professional Stunt Driver: Don’t try this at home." and determined that the disclaimer did not detract from the images and would not prove a deterrent to people likely to mimic the behaviour depicted. 

The Board considered that the images of the women standing in the street being used as 'witches hats', although in the context of an advertisement for a computer game, were inappropriate as they were images that could easily be replicated in certain streets all around Australia. Given the concern in many communities about late night driving behaviour (burn outs and high speed racing) similar to that depicted in these real scenes the Board considered that the images were inappropriate and made more inappropriate with the additional images of the women being driven around. On this basis the Board considered that the advertisement depicted material that was contrary to prevailing community standards on safety. 

Finding that the advertisement breached section 2.6 of the Code, the Board upheld the complaint. 

ADVERTISER'S RESPONSE TO DETERMINATION 

We have discontinued the advertisement.

***

SAW 4: Outdoor Advertisement Complaint Upheld.

1. Complaint reference number 378/07 
2. Advertiser Hoyts Cinemas (Saw 4) 
3. Product Entertainment 
4. Type of advertisement Outdoor 
5. Nature of complaint Violence Other – section 2.2 
6. Date of determination Monday, 19 November 2007 
7. DETERMINATION Upheld – discontinued or modified

DESCRIPTION OF THE ADVERTISEMENT 

This outdoor advertisement portrays a surgeon's instrument tray with a pair of scissors that appears to have hair and skin sticking to it. 

THE COMPLAINT 

A sample of comments which the complainant/s made regarding this advertisement included the following: 

This ad is extremely graphic and infers extreme violence, even though the advertiser/agency has obviously tried to keep it within the limits for what may be shown in public. While the image is dulled down to a duotone to make the "blood" appear less confronting, if one looks for longer than a moment it is obvious that the elements of the ad are meant to simulate tools that have been used to torture or dismember a body. Even without seeing the previous films in this series, it's obvious that they are horror films and this ad shows part of that horror in graphic detail on a main street with plenty of foot traffic, including children. While the ad may adhere to the letter of whatever guidelines exist to moderate outdoor advertising, it is disturbing even to me as an adult, and I'd be very concerned about children and young adults seeing it, particular in it's position on the footpath of a busy pedestrian street. The content may be suitable for inside a cinema, but not where it is. 

THE ADVERTISER’S RESPONSE 

Comments which the advertiser made in response to the complaint/s regarding this advertisement included the following: 

This is the most conservative artwork we have used on all four Saw titles to date. The complainant is really clutching at straws with their comments. The poster communicates what it does. Inference is subjective. I think most people would agree this is a very soft approach for the 'horror' genre. 

THE DETERMINATION 

The Advertising Standards Board (“Board”) considered whether this advertisement breaches Section 2 of the Advertiser Code of Ethics (the “Code”). 

The Board noted the complainants' concern about the graphic images used in this billboard advertisement and its effect on children. 

The Board noted that Section 2.2 of the Code provides that 'advertisements shall not present or portray violence unless it is justifiable in the context of the product or service advertised.' The Board noted that the advertisement is for a horror movie that is for mature adult audiences. In the context of the particular movie the Board considered that a certain level of graphic horror image was justified in the advertisement. 

 However the Board noted that, as a billboard, the advertisement is visible by children and young adults under the age of 15. The Board considered that the advertisement was overtly violent with clear depictions of the items covered in blood and with bits of what appear to be skin and hair left on the scissors. The Board considered that these images were very strong and were inappropriate for an outdoor advertisement where there was an unrestricted audience. 

The Board determined that the advertisement breached Section 2.2 of the Code by depicting a level of graphic violence that was not justified by the product advertised. Finding that the advertisement breached the Code, the Board upheld the complaints. 

ADVERTISER'S RESPONSE TO DETERMINATION 

Please note that the outdoor campaign referred to is no longer being displayed.

***

SAW 4: Internet Advertisement Complaint Dismissed

1. Complaint reference number 382/07 
2. Advertiser Hoyts Distribution (Saw 4) 
3. Product Entertainment 
4. Type of advertisement Internet 
5. Nature of complaint Violence Other – section 2.2 
6. Date of determination Monday, 19 November 2007 
7. DETERMINATION Dismissed

DESCRIPTION OF THE ADVERTISEMENT 

This internet advertisement shows a pair of scales on zero, with the chains swinging below, and the words "Saw 4. It's a trap". The scene then morphs to show the scale dial rotate and stop on 3 as the screen is spattered with blood, and a severed head is seen in the scale tray. 

THE COMPLAINT 

A sample of comments which the complainant/s made regarding this advertisement included the following: 

I realise this is an ad for a horror movie, I am not sure of the rating but it is likely to be 'R' rated, I find it disturbing to see this sort of image at anytime especially on a quiet Sunday morning checking emails from overseas grandparents with my 4 and 2 year old children! It also just stayed at the top of the screen and played itself over and over and I was unable to get rid of it. I think it is a needless depiction of violence and mutilation inappropriate for anyone under 18 years,or anyone who is squeamish, or anyone who does not like or appreciate the horror genre. 

THE ADVERTISER’S RESPONSE 

Comments which the advertiser made in response to the complaint/s regarding this advertisement included the following: 

The ad was targeted to the demographic and profile that matched our MA15+ rating, we bought advertising on hotmail targeting 16-29 year old males. 

THE DETERMINATION 

The Advertising Standards Board (“Board”) considered whether this advertisement breaches Section 2 of the Advertiser Code of Ethics (the “Code”). 

The Board noted the complainants' concern about the violence used in this internet advertisement and the fact that it can be shown on the internet at any time of day including while small children are around. The Board noted the advertiser's response that the internet advertisement was targeted to a specific adult male hotmail users. 

The Board noted that Section 2.2 of the Code provides that 'advertisements shall not present or portray violence unless it is justifiable in the context of the product or service advertised.' The Board noted that the advertisement is for a movie that is for mature audiences only and that the advertisement is targeted to that audience when they access their internet based email. In addition the Board considered that the advertisement was not overtly graphic and that the images were distorted and unrealistic images of the severed head. In the context of the particular movie the Board considered that the images were justified. 

 The Board noted that, as an internet based advertisement, viewable once the adult's internet based email was being accessed, the advertisement is unlikely to be viewed by children without adult supervision and that it would be realistic to expect that an adult could prevent the children from seeing the advertisement. 

The Board determined that the advertisement did not breach Section 2.2 of the Code. Finding that the advertisement did not breach the Code on other grounds, the Board dismissed the complaint.

******

SAW 4 R18+ to MA15+: RB Report.

Back in October, Hoyts Distribution succeeded in their appeal to have the R18+ (High Level Violence) rating of SAW IV dropped to MA15+. This brought it into line with the other three entries in the series which were all awarded MA15+ ratings, with different consumer warnings.

SAW - High level violence
SAW 2 - Strong violence, Blood and gore, Coarse language
SAW 3 - Strong horror violence, Blood and gore, Strong coarse language
SAW 4 - Strong horror violence, Graphic autopsy scene 

The reason for the drop from R18+ to MA15+ is detailed in the following report from the Review Board. Incidentally, since leaving the dark side, it looks like former Director of the OFLC, John Dickie has carved out a nice little consultancy role for himself. He now uses his knowledge only for good. That is arguing on the side of big film companies who wish to have a rating reduced.

Australian Government
Classification Review Board

10 October 2007 
23-33 MARY STREET 
SURRY HILLS, NSW 

MEMBERS 
Ms Maureen Shelley (Convenor) 
Mr Anthony Hetrih 
Ms Kathryn Smith 

APPLICANT 
Hoyts Distribution 

INTERESTED PARTIES 
None 

BUSINESS 
To review tile Classification Board's decision to classify the film Saw IV R 18+ with the consumer advice 'High level violence', 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION 

1. Decision 

The Classification Review Board (tile Review Board) classified the film Saw IV MA 15+ with the consumer advice 'Strong horror violence, Graphic autopsy scene', 

2. Legislative provisions 

The Classification (Publications, Film and Computer Games) Act 1995 (the Act) governs tile classification of films and the review of classification decisions, Section 9 provides that films are to be classified in accordance with the National Classification Code (the Code) and the classification guidelines, 

Relevantly, the Code in the 'Films' table provides that: 

"Films (except RC films and X 18+ films) that are unsuitable for a minor to see" are to be classified R 18+, and 

"Films (except RC films, X 18+ films and R 18+ films) that depict, express or otherwise deal with sex, violence or coarse language in such a manner as to be unsuitable for viewing by persons under 15" are to be classified MA 15+

The Code also sets out various principles to which classification decisions should give effect, as far as possible.

Section 11 of the Act requires that the matters to be taken into account in making a decision on the classification of a film include: 

(a) the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults; and 

(b) the literary, artistic or educational merit (if any) of the film; and 

(c) the general character of the film, including whether it is of a medical, legal or scientific character; and 

(d) the persons or class of persons to or amongst whom it is published or is intended or likely to be published. 

Three essential principles underlie the use of the Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games 2005 (the Guidelines), determined under s 12 of the Act: 

. the importance of context 

. the assessment of impact, and 

. the six classifiable elements - themes, violence, sex, language, drug use and nudity. 

3. Procedure 

The Review Board met on 10 October 2007 in response to the receipt of an application from Hoyts Distribution on 3 October 2007 to determine its validity. 

Three members of the Review Board viewed Saw IV on 10 October 2007.

The applicant made a written submission. The Review Board also received oral submissions from the following persons representing the applicant: 

. Mr John Dickie, Consultant 

. Mr Robert Slaviero, CEO 

. Ms Heather MacMillan, National Sales Manager 

The Convenor advised the applicant that she knew Mr Slaviero, the CEO of Hoyts Distribution, as his first wife was a friend of the Convenor's. The Convenor invited the applicant to make submissions on the matter. Mr Slaviero advised that he was well aware of Ms Shelley's position as Convenor and believed that she would make the decision on submissions made and the material available to her. He thanked the Convenor for the opportunity to make submissions on the matter.

The Review Board then considered the application for review. 

4. Evidence and other material taken into account 

In reaching its decision the Review Board had regard to the following: 

(i) Hoyts Distribution's application for review 

(ii) Hoyts Distribution's written and oral submissions 

(iii) the film, Sav IV 

(iv) the relevant provisions in the Act, the Code and the Guidelines, and 

(v) the Classification Board's report.

5. Synopsis 

The film is the fourth in a series which has a plot line revolving around a terminally ill engineer who devises elaborate machines of torture and death, which he uses to perpetuate a strange and violent "game". His victims are physically restrained and must choose between a horrific and bloody death and maiming themselves or another captive. 

6. Findings on material questions of fact 

A number of classifiable elements were present in the film, however, the Review Board found that they could all could be accommodated at an M classification or lower. Of note were a scene of a medical procedure and the classifiable element of violence - particularly torture. These are addressed below. 

Autopsy - 
The film's opening sequence is of a medical autopsy. It is a fictionalised, although realistically simulated, depiction of an autopsy of the engineer Jigsaw. The scene is graphic and detailed. It shows (apparent) cutting open of the rib cage with removal of organs. Realistic-looking organs are split open with an object being removed from the stomach. The scalp is cut and the flesh part of the back of the head is drawn over the face. A hole is cut in the skull and the brain examined. The scene is set in what appears to be an autopsy theatre. 

The dramatisation of the medical procedure appears to follow standard autopsy procedures as is seen in factual documentaries. The depictions are unusually graphic and at the high end of strong in impact. However, this impact is mitigated by the character of the scene. Whilst it is the opening scene of what the intended audience would be aware is a horror film, its character is to be taken into account when determining the classification. Standard instrumentation appears to have been used and standard procedures appear to have been followed by what are depicted to be professional medical personnel. The film makers do not use horror or other accentuation techniques to intensify the impact of the scene; its impact is in its graphic nature. 

It was the view of the Review Board that the scene of the autopsy should not be classified as "violence", but rather as themes involving death and graphic medical procedures. Given the characterisation of the scene and the likely audience the Review Board determined that the scene could be accommodated at the MA 15+ classification. 

Violence - 
There were a number of scenes of strong violence in the film. In particular were two scenes of note. 

One is at 42 minutes (as described in the Classification Board's report, except that the Review Board noted only one spike being driven into the victim's eye being depicted) and the second at 78 minutes when the drug user who was "responsible" for Jigsaw's wife's miscarriage is tortured. 

The second scene involves the use of a machine that the drug user must push his face into so that slashing knives will cut his face and thereby activate a release mechanism. By doing so he is severely injured. On release, with a bloodied and gory face, he falls into a bed of razor wire further injuring himself - possibly fatally. The scene is prolonged and detailed and strong in impact.

7. Reasons for the decision 

It was the majority view of the Review Board that the impact of the torture scenes was strong and as such required the legal restriction provided by the MA 15+ classification. Further, the majority of the Review Board determined that the simulated autopsy scene was at the high end of strong in impact, but given its character as a medical scene, without any accentuation techniques, and the likely audience of the film (horror buffs), that it could be accommodated within the MA 15+ classification. 

In the minority view the film contained violence that is high in viewing impact. While some of the individual scenes of violence were not more than strong, the frequency and cumulative impact of the violence contributed to make the overall impact of the film's violence high. 

8. Summary 

The majority of the Review Board determined that, while the film Saw IV contained several scenes of horror violence that were strong in impact, the film could be accommodated within the classification MA 15+ with the consumer advice 'Strong horror violence, Graphic autopsy scene'.

Update 19th January 2008
Refused-Classification.com 

UPDATES
12th January 2008

Australian Government to censor the internet.

The new government is barely a month old, and already they are showing their censorship credentials. They intend to offer a clean, censored internet, and if you want anything else you'll have to ask. It's an obviously unworkable scheme, but it's going to be interesting to see how this pans out. In the mean time check out a selection of the latest media reports here. Feelings are running high about this proposal, with several of these articles receiving hundreds of anti-censorship comments. Now if only a few of these people could write as intelligently to Communications Minister Stephen Conroy, then maybe he would realise the depth of feeling against this proposal.

Contact details are as follows.

Senator The Hon Stephen Conroy 
Deputy Leader of Government in the Senate 
Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy

senatorconroy.com/message.htm

Canberra office: Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 Tel: (02) 6277 3295 Fax: (02) 6277 3317

Melbourne office: 4 Treasury Place Melbourne VIC 3002 Tel: (03) 9650 1188 Fax: (03) 9650 3251

minister@dbcde.gov.au

******

GIRLS GONE WILD-SPRING BREAK SEX RIOT: RC

The final item banned in 2007 was the soft-core DVD GIRLS GONE WILD: SPRING BREAK SEX RIOT. The GIRLS GONE WILD titles are not hardcore, so it would be expected to receive an R18+ rating. Unfortunately, there was something in the DVD that pushed it out of the R18+, and X18+ categories. Zeal Entertainment were the applicant.

On a related note, back in October, Zeal Entertainment had an X18+ awarded to GIRLS GONE WILD - MARDI GRAS INVASION.. They went away and censored the DVD, and on December 3rd were awarded an R18+ (High level sexualised nudity, High level sexual activity) rating. 

******

HOTTER THAN HELL: RC

We're only just over a week into 2008 and already we have the first ban of the year. The dubious honour goes to Mach 2 Entertainment's HOTTER THAN HELL. The applicant Homesafe DVD Pty Ltd, had already had HOTTER THAN HELL 2 banned back in December.

******

X-RATED DISC 1 Censored.

Okay, we've had the first ban of the year, so how about the first confirmed censored title. The award goes to Pat Myne's X-RATED DISC 1 which was Refused Classification  back in October. Metro Interactive Australasia edited the film down, and on January 2nd were awarded an X18+ (Explicit Sex) rating.

******

AdultShop.com X18+ Challenge Fails.

Back in September 2006 AdultShop.com had the hardcore compilation DVD VIVA EROTICA rated X18+ (Explicit Sex) by the Classification Board. Frustrated by the continued ban on the X18+ rating in all States, in October 2007 AdultShop decided to challenge. The rational was that if hardcore could be passed in R18+ since the ROMANCE case in 2000, then why couldn't a full hardcore feature be rated the same. Unsurprisingly the Review Board did not agree, and in December 2006 they confirmed it as X18+. 

Following the confirmation of the X18+, the Eros Association attempted to demonstrate that the double standards that exist within the OFLC when it comes to sex and violence. To do this, in February 2007 they submitted Saddam Hussein's Execution Video presuming that it would pass with an R18+ rating. Instead four members of the Classification Board voted for an RC, one for an R18+, one for an MA15+, and one for an M. So by a majority of four to three it as banned.

Undeterred in February 2007 AdultShop launched action in the Federal Court. This finally came to a close on November 29th 2007 with the case being dismissed with costs.

The result is that hardcore will continue to be passed at R18+ if it is an art house film, anything else will be X18+. 

******

Eros Magazine Vol.8 No.4.

Eros Magazine Vol.8 No.4 is out now.  

All the usual news, reviews, and features are included. Here are a couple of news items of interest showing how the adult industry is coping with current censorship issues.

Eros Magazine Vol.8 No.4
NEW CLASSIFICATION REGIME 

It's now been six months since the long- standing official Australian censorship organisation, the Office of Film and Literature Classification, was disbanded and it's functions absorbed into the Australian Classification Board and the federal Attorney General's department in Canberra. From the adult industry's perspective there appear to be no real policy or efficiency changes to the classification process. 

However any real changes would be unlikely to show up until a few months after the new federal government is installed. Any major policy or directional changes would likely happen in February and March 2008 and would also be contingent on the makeup of the new Senate. Watch this space.

Eros Magazine Vol.8 No.4
Clarification on Importing DVDs 

Eros met with the Deputy Secretary of the Attorney General's department recently, who is effectively the new 'boss' of the 'old' OFLC. We talked through a range of classification and enforcement issues around the industry, and gave him a national snapshot of the industry and the need for the states to come into line with the Commonwealth's scheme. He was very supportive and keen to understand our issues. We discussed the Federal government's new bill enabling films that have not been classified, to be advertised. Unfortunately X has been exempted from this. 

When Fiona Pattern, Eros CEO, addressed this with the Federal Attorney General's office she was told in no uncertain terms that this was not a time for the adult industry to be stirring the pot. She was told that his office is being pressured by a few vocal MPs to further restrict X rated films and any agitation would encourage these people even more. Our concern about this new legislation is that companies would no longer be able to classify films that were being brought in as finished units and had trailers for films that were not classified.

Fiona has now met with the ACT AG's department and had a number of conversations with the new head of the Classifications Operations Branch to work out how we can get around this. 

We argued that it would only affect the licensed traders in the ACT and I NT who were submitting films for classification. If legal distributors were prohibited from legally supplying these films it would hand over' even more of the market to operators who chose not to classify. 

The good news is that the definition of an 'advertisement' excludes trailers on a disc that cannot be modified which still allows the industry to import and sell finished unit DVDs that feature trailers for unclassified films.

******

Eros wants X18+ discussed at March SCAG

With a new Labor Federal Government, and wall to wall State Labor Governments, the Eros Association are hoping to put the X18+ ban on the agenda at the March Standing Committee of Attorneys-General.

Call for uniform approach to porn. The Age 05.01.08

Fiona Patten, a spokeswoman for the Eros Foundation, an adult industry lobby group, has called on Federal Home Affairs Minister Bob Debus, who is in charge of classifications, to raise the state laws issue at the March meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General (SCAG).

She says bans on X-rated material by state Labor governments are untenable, "given that the Federal Labor Government approves of their sale".

"It is illogical and ideological madness for state Labor governments to argue that people should not be able to sell legal X-rated films when federal Labor says they can run a business with the product," she said.

Ms Patten also called on the Victorian Government to "bring their censorship laws into line with federal classification laws".

"The current ban on classified X-rated films has opened the market to unscrupulous operators who sell pirated and refused classification material from a wide variety of outlets, including weekend markets and petrol stations," she said.

A spokesman for Mr Debus said no correspondence had been received from the Eros Foundation.

A DVD/video industry source raised concerns that any sales of legal X-rated films from adult shops could eventually see ordinary video stores selling or renting X-rated material. But Ms Patten said the sale of X-rated films should be restricted to adult shops.

Victoria's Attorney-General, Rob Hulls, said many issues would be discussed at the meeting of SCAG in March, "but I would be surprised if this issue was high on the agenda".

******

Pornography in Australia

Malcolm Day from Adultshop.com and Fiona Patten from the Eros Association contribute to this article about pornography in Australia.

Would you like porn with that? The Australian 02.01.08

There's huge demand for X-rated DVDs. A La Trobe University survey found 26 per cent of the adult population, men and women, had watched an X-rated film in the last year. For under-35s the figure rose to a third. The La Trobe figures show the significant disparity between men and women, with the male percentage hovering in the mid-30s age group while for women it was about 15 per cent.

Fiona Patten from the Eros Association, a lobby group for the adult industry, points back to the sexual revolution as the starting point.

"I think the adult industry truly became a commercial reality here in Australia in the 1970s. Prior to that it was little more than a cottage industry, with 8mm films distributed between like-minded couples privately and in something of an underhand way. Before this there were no adult theatres or adult book shops. We became a lot more commercial then.

"At the same time as the social mores were changing, so were the laws. There was a relaxation of customs laws so it became legal to import some adult material. Also the R-classification was introduced at that time.

"It was through this time that we started seeing adult stores and theatres beginning to pop up in Melbourne and Sydney's CBD, and the other capital cities as well," Patten says.

Then came the introduction of video which boomed, in no small part due to the sex industry. You didn't have to go to the cinema to watch an X film any more. You could watch one in your own home, in your own bed.

"Video was instrumental in introducing women to X-rated material as consumers in their own right. Sure the cool couples in the '70s were going to watch Deep Throat in the cinema. But the emergence of video took the product into the suburbs," Patten says.

"The porn industry was also the first to really come to grips with the idea that there was money to be made in straight-to-video releases, whereas the mainstream film industry often considered that a failure."

Access to video pornography was a key driver of the internet revolution in the '90s and as the internet continues to expand, demand for and supply of pornography grows with it. And as the big media players struggled to make money from the internet, porn sites were setting the template, raking in money by providing fee-based content across the globe.

It is estimated that 12 per cent of all internet sites are pornographic, 25 per cent of all search engine requests are for pornography and 35 per cent of all internet downloads are pornographic in nature.

Day is even more optimistic. "If the federal Government and Telstra can finally get our broadband problems sorted out, we may some day be in a position, like they are in the US, where adult DVDs are delivered online. In years to come the AdultShop website might be in some ways no different than Foxtel is today, using a set top box to deliver DVD on demand into the home," he says.

The industry believes children's access to online porn is a concern but one that should be the preserve of parents and government. Their market is adults, they say, and adults can filter out and block material.

Day says his company is at a serious commercial disadvantage because it only stocks material that has been classified through a censorship process in Canberra, whereas most DVDs Australians buy are overwhelmingly sold illegally, though the consumer may not know it.

"I reckon that only about 10 per cent, or $50 million, of the retail industry for adult DVDs in Australia is sold legally. The rest is done through a black market often operated by organised crime," Day says.

"The big warehouse type stores, some newsagents and often even the local corner store are selling pirated, unclassified material. It's out of control. It puts minors at risk of being able to see things in regular retail outlets that are actually illegal in Australia."

There is a big difference in Australia between the law on X-rated DVDs and the enforcement of the law. It is illegal to sell X-rated or unclassified films anywhere except for the Northern Territory or parts of Canberra. But it is not illegal to buy or own them.

Day says the law is the law and the police should do their jobs more rigorously. He wants other outlets to be forced to compete on a level playing field.

But Patten says the police have taken a pragmatic view. "It is largely overlooked because it is a moral issue, and police largely don't want to go there. Do they really want to be stopping adults buying adult films in adult shops? Don't forget, the federal Government has endorsed the X classification. We're not talking child pornography here, we're talking consenting adults watching consensual sex."

******

Adult Industry vs. Exclusive Brethren

The Eros Association are accusing the Exclusive Brethren religious sect of funding a campaign against Adult stores.

Adult shops fight Exclusive Brethren sect. news.com.au 16.12.07 

THE adult-entertainment industry has declared war on the fundamentalist Exclusive Brethren sect for allegedly infiltrating local councils.

The Canberra-based Eros Association says the conservative Christian group is bankrolling legal challenges to halt the spread of adult stores.

The accusations come after a group of Exclusive Brethren business leaders offered to fund Lithgow City Council's Supreme Court fight against a development application for a sex shop.

The Department of Local Government gave the offer a green light, claiming councils were allowed to "accept donations from third parties" - a clause critics say amounts to sanctioned bribery.

Flirt Adult Store owner Jeff Oliver won an appeal in the Land and Environment Court after the council refused him planning permission to set up shop in Lithgow's main street.

According to council and independent correspondence, local members of the Exclusive Brethren offered to fund the council's appeal against the court ruling.

The council was prepared to accept the money after the Department of Local Government decreed there was no legal impediment to it "accepting a donation from a third party".

It decided not to pursue the appeal, however, and the Flirt Adult Store was allowed to open.

About 100 members of the Exclusive Brethren live in the Lithgow area.

"There is increasing evidence that the Exclusive Brethren have infiltrated other morals groups around the nation and have embarked on a national campaign to stop adult retail shops from opening," Eros co-ordinator Robbie Swan said.

"There is also increasing evidence that their members are secretly being elected to local councils, with moral agendas their main reason for being there.

"There's an urgent need for a national enquiry into just how far this 'entryism' has gone and to what extent local government decisions on moral matters have been compromised by this cult."

Lithgow councillor Martin Ticehurst said he was disturbed by the fact it was perfectly legal for councils to accept money from groups such as the Brethren that wanted to influence outcomes.

"It's not just the involvement of religious groups that concerns me. Councils should not be allowed to accept money from any activist group," Mr Ticehurst said.

"It could be perceived as a form of bribery, and I think it's potentially dangerous."

The sect, which does not allow its members to vote, is known for its large donations to the Liberal Party.

******

ACMA ratings restrictions for internet and mobile.

New restrictions for MA15+ and R18+ rated content have been announced by the Australian Communications and Media Authority. Why if....

‘In developing these new content rules, ACMA was guided by its disposition to allow adults to continue to read, hear and see what they want"

.....is X18+ is banned?

******

THE SINGLE SHOT Euthanasia Video

In late 2007 Dr Philip Nitschke began holding his euthanasia workshops around the country. The five minute video titled THE SINGLE SHOT that shows a groups of elderly people manufacturing a "Peaceful Pill" was due to be shown. The authorities were unhappy because the video had not been classified. Exit International simply posted it on You Tube for all the world to see. Once again demonstrating how utterly helpless those who seek to control what the public views are becoming.

In February 2007 the Review Board had banned Dr Philip Nitschke's book THE PEACEFUL PILL HANDBOOK.

******

ASB: Most complained about ads in 2007

The Advertising Standards Bureau have just issued a media release detailing the most complained about advertisements of 2007. These ads are going to live on, on You Tube long after they are pulled from TV.

Advertising Standards Bureau
MEDIA RELEASE 
20 December 2007 

Most complained about ads in 2007

A TV ad which showed a woman pole-dancing was the most complained-about advertisement of 2007, according to figures released today by the Advertising Standards Bureau (ASB).

The ad for Nando's Restaurants attracted more than 300 complaints from members of the public, largely about the level of nudity displayed by the woman pole-dancing. The ad showed the woman in various scenes including walking along a busy street, pole-dancing and having dinner with her family.

The Advertising Standards Board dismissed the complaints against the ad at its meeting in June 2007, deciding that it did not contain sexual, nude or discriminating material that was inappropriate at an M rated timezone

The second most complained-about ad for 2007 was for the Hyundai Santa Fe which received more than 140 complaints. This ad depicted a toddler driving a car and picking up another toddler who was hitchhiking.

ASB Chief Executive Officer, Fiona Jolly said the level of complaints about this ad reflected a concern about depictions of