« Labour’s YouTube Boob | Main | White Knight »
Labour’s YouTube Boob 2
By Steven | October 30, 2008
I mentioned the Electoral Commission v Cameron case in the post below. The Court of Appeal granted judicial review against an Advertising Standards Authority decision upholding a complaint against the Electoral Commission.
One of the grounds of that decision was that the ASA shouldn’t have used its own complaints jurisdiction to trespass on the Electoral Commission’s functions. Get a load of this:
… in the exercise of the assumed jurisdiction [of the ASA] we would expect the [ASA’s complaints] board to tread carefully in relation to such matters as the public education advertisements of the [Electoral] commission and similar public authorities to ensure that it does not substitute its views for those of an expert body charged with particular responsibilities.
Now, isn’t the Broadcasting Standards Authority a “similar public authority”? It has jurisdiction over the broadcast of political ads on radio and TV but not on the internet. If anyone complained about this ad to the BSA it would have to determine whether it was fair and accurate.
Isn’t that pretty similar to the standards being applied by the ASA (which decides whether an ad is misleading or deceptive)? Isn’t the BSA an “expert body charged with particular responsibilities” such that the ASA is in danger of “substitut[ing] its views” for the BSA’s?
I think there’s a pretty strong argument on the basis of the Cameron case that the ASA should have butted out here. After all, no-one is left without a remedy: a complainant who saw the YouTube ad could be redirected to the BSA by the ASA. As it stands, we have the prospect of inconsistent decisions.
Would the BSA decide the case any differently? This case would suggest not. The BSA upheld a Maori Party complaint against Labour for saying in an ad that the Maori Party had voted with National 227 times. The Maori Party felt this overstated their support for National, but rather shot themselves in the foot. The correct figure, it transpired, was at least 277 times. The BSA felt it had to uphold the complaint because the ad inaccurately undercounted the number.
That seems pretty silly and disproportionate to me. Even the BSA described it as “technical”. The BSA said it has adopted a “strict approach” to the accuracy principle. This isn’t really true – it quite often stretches to find reasons to avoid upholding merely technical breaches of the accuracy standard. Even if it was true, it doesn’t mean to say that the BSA need to adopt the same approach in electoral advertising cases. The Electoral advertising code, after all, accepts that the Bill of Rights required “robust debate, advocacy and expression of political opinion”.
Topics: Advertising Standards, Broadcasting Standards Authority, Electoral speech | 48 Comments »
48 Responses to “Labour’s YouTube Boob 2”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
May 28th, 2020 at 8:59 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=182 […]
June 3rd, 2020 at 8:13 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=182 […]
July 5th, 2020 at 8:47 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Info here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=182 […]
August 31st, 2020 at 4:52 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=182 […]
September 2nd, 2020 at 2:45 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=182 […]
September 2nd, 2020 at 10:13 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you can find 2595 more Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=182 […]
September 2nd, 2020 at 11:09 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=182 […]
September 3rd, 2020 at 9:45 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=182 […]
September 19th, 2020 at 8:32 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=182 […]
September 23rd, 2020 at 11:16 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=182 […]
September 30th, 2020 at 2:39 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Info here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=182 […]
October 1st, 2020 at 3:38 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=182 […]
October 29th, 2020 at 12:55 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=182 […]
November 11th, 2020 at 5:40 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=182 […]
November 12th, 2020 at 1:27 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Info here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=182 […]
November 17th, 2020 at 4:54 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=182 […]
November 24th, 2020 at 4:48 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=182 […]
December 21st, 2020 at 11:56 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Info here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=182 […]
December 22nd, 2020 at 11:15 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=182 […]
January 5th, 2021 at 8:19 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=182 […]
January 5th, 2021 at 1:15 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=182 […]
January 11th, 2021 at 12:49 am
… [Trackback]
[…] There you can find 36277 additional Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=182 […]
January 23rd, 2021 at 12:03 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=182 […]
February 28th, 2021 at 9:57 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you can find 58652 more Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=182 […]
March 20th, 2021 at 8:05 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=182 […]
March 26th, 2021 at 1:32 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=182 […]
April 9th, 2021 at 1:56 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you can find 20635 additional Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=182 […]
April 22nd, 2021 at 9:35 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=182 […]
April 29th, 2021 at 12:54 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Info here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=182 […]
June 12th, 2021 at 8:43 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=182 […]
June 28th, 2021 at 2:33 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=182 […]
June 29th, 2021 at 10:44 am
… [Trackback]
[…] There you will find 68908 additional Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=182 […]
July 3rd, 2021 at 11:47 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=182 […]
July 6th, 2021 at 9:33 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Information here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=182 […]
July 10th, 2021 at 11:21 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=182 […]
July 16th, 2021 at 1:16 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=182 […]
July 16th, 2021 at 3:20 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=182 […]
July 17th, 2021 at 3:25 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=182 […]
July 24th, 2021 at 3:23 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Info here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=182 […]
November 19th, 2021 at 1:33 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Information here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=182 […]
November 22nd, 2021 at 12:46 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=182 […]
November 27th, 2021 at 12:51 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=182 […]
January 11th, 2022 at 1:57 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=182 […]
March 10th, 2022 at 3:16 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=182 […]
March 16th, 2022 at 3:31 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Information here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=182 […]
April 6th, 2022 at 7:04 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Info here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=182 […]
May 6th, 2022 at 8:44 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=182 […]
May 22nd, 2022 at 12:48 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=182 […]