We are very pleased to report that we have successfully defended our movement against legal threats from Sexpo, with the Federal Court in Brisbane dismissing an application  brought against Collective Shout by Sexpo Limited. Sexpo Limited was also ordered to pay Collective Shout’s costs.

It was in May 2017 that we were alerted to public buses servicing school routes in Perth that featured advertisements for Sexpo. The ads included the web address for one of their sponsors, a broadcaster of live streamed sex shows.

Ad Standards dismissed complaints and rejected our request for a review. Case Manager Nikki Paterson claimed that advertising live sex shows on the side of a bus was not a breach of the code. Our petition to prevent similar ads on Brisbane buses, due out the following month, attracted over 5000 signatures.

Brisbane Sexpo ads running on school buses, billboards- News.com.au

Sexpo’s lawyers threatened to sue Collective Shout for damages for “misleading and deceptive behaviour” under consumer law, citing social media posts by two staff members.

Sexpo claimed that Collective Shout was misleading because the bus ads promoting MyFreeCams.com did not share a url, and only included the words ‘My Free Cams’ with no .com to follow. They also denied that the image existed on a bus or any other physical medium. Take a look at a range of photographic evidence that proves otherwise:

In the weeks following the release of our petition, the ‘.com’ from the following billboard was blacked out:

Last month, The Honourable Justice Reeves dismissed Sexpo’s application against Collective Shout, concluding:

I do not consider Sexpo has established that it held a reasonable belief that it had suffered any harm to its commercial reputation as a consequence of Collective Shout’s alleged representations such that it may have a right to obtain relief in a claim against it. Sexpo’s application under r 7.23 must therefore be dismissed. I will order accordingly.

Justice Reeves also noted that Sexpo provided more than 500 pages of affidavit material in connection with their application, yet only three paragraphs were directly devoted to the existence of Sexpo’s belief about its right to obtain relief from Collective Shout, an argument ultimately rejected by the judge. Real the full judgment here.

The ruling against Sexpo is a significant victory- not just for Collective Shout and our supporters, but for all those who support the rights of children to live free from pornography. The sex industry in Australia has been permitted to target children with advertising for pornography and prostitution in public spaces for too long, and we are more committed than ever to stand up for the rights of children.

See also:

Sexpo organisers take on prominent feminists in Federal Court- Courier Mail 

Brisbane Sexpo ads running on school buses, billboards-News.com.au

Sexpo loses federal court bid against anti-sexualisation organisation- Brisbane Times

Corporate Paedophilia: Ad Standards Board justifies promoting porn sites to children

Ad Standards have upheld complaints against a strip club, Goldfingers Mens Club over an “unavoidable” poster on the corner of King Street and Lonsdale Street featuring a highly sexualised image of a woman with a guitar between her legs.

Last year, father of three Kenneth Thor started a petition calling on Westfield to stop Honey Birdette’s consistent sexist and porn-inspired imagery in shopping centres across the country.

The following is a complaint to Ad Standards we received from a supporter. The complaint was made in response to a Bras N Things advertisement featuring a woman wearing nothing but lacy panties and in bold red font, the words “THE TAKE IT ALL OFF SALE.”

After years of Collective Shout campaigning, the Advertising Standards Board has announced long awaited changes to the AANA Code of Ethics regarding the use of sexual appeal in advertising.

Figure 1: An example of sexually exploitative advertising permitted in public spaces under the current system.

Previously, under section 2.2 of the code, advertisements were in breach if they were found to be both exploitative and degrading. An advertisement deemed simply exploitative was not in breach. From March, updates to the code mean the use of sexual appeal in advertising cannot be exploitative or degrading.

Collective Shout welcomes this revision of the code. While this is a positive step, there is much more still to be done in order to effectively regulate sexist and sexually objectifying advertising.

25 Reasons Why Ad Industry Self-Regulation is a Disaster

While the ASB claims most companies comply with advertising codes and rulings, we’ve spent years documenting and exposing serial offenders such as Honey Birdette, UltraTune and Wicked Campers - companies who continually exploit the weaknesses in the current system of self-regulation to promote their products and services. There is still a long way to go, and we’re not backing down any time soon.

Read the ASB’s media release in full.

See also:

Why is the advertising industry still promoting violence against women?

Collective Shout community responds to ASB failures

Ad watchdog in Australia a dismal failure – ASB “failing to protect children”, says President of Australian Medical Association

“The Board noted the images featuring a topless model next to an elephant. . . . and considered that the model’s nipples are not visible and while there is no need for the model to be topless this is not of itself a breach of the Code.”

The final decision came down to whether a finger hooked in the side of a g-string was “part of the woman’s pose” or intended to look like she's pulling them down

"the placement of the advertisement in food court area of a shopping mall means that the entirety of the advertisement would be viewed by people using the food court . . . the content is too sexualised for this broad audience which would include children."

Lingerie retailer Bras'N'Things has been forced to discontinue a Playboy video ad due to its overtly explicit content.

Complaint about porn brand advertising and its impact on children mischaracterised as complainant being "offended by images of lingerie clad women in shopping malls where children can see them."