Advertising censorship

Subjective tests of ‘offence’ should not appear in the advertising codes of practice that the ASA, CAP, and BCAP maintain. We have long spoken out against examples of censorship that amount to the reintroduction of a blasphemy law – for advertising – by the back door.

Separate to the above is the issue of pseudoscientific claims in adverts. Advertisers have a public responsibility to be truthful. Demonstrably untrue or misleading claims should not be allowed to appear in adverts, even when religiously motivated. We have been generally supportive of the ASA’s approach to banning adverts making misleading claims in recent years.

In depth

CAP maintains the ‘UK Code of Non-broadcast Advertising and Direct & Promotional Marketing’ (‘CAP Code’) while BCAP is responsible for the ‘UK Code of Broadcast Advertising’ (‘BCAP Code’). If a member of the public believes an advert contravenes one of the codes, they may object to the ASA. It will then determine whether or not the advert meets the requirements of the code and issue a ruling on whether or not the advert can appear again. The ASA is a non-statutory, industry-funded regulator, whose rulings are not legally binding. However, advertisers can be sanctioned for non-compliance. Sanctions can include the loss of trading privileges, disqualification from industry awards, having to have future adverts checked before publication, or being placed on ‘Ad Alerts’ – a warning list sent to media owners telling them not to carry certain adverts. Media owners invariably comply because they are CAP members themselves and are bound by the Code. They risk reputational damage or, in the case of broadcast media, referral to Ofcom, if they carry adverts the ASA has ruled against.

‘Offence’ in the codes of practice

Rule 4.1 of CAP Code says, ‘Marketing communications must not contain anything that is likely to cause serious or widespread offence. Particular care must be taken to avoid causing offence on the grounds of: age; disability; gender; gender reassignment; marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex; and sexual orientation.’ It goes on to state that ‘The fact that a product is offensive to some people is not grounds for finding a marketing communication in breach of the Code’ but still urges marketers to ‘consider public sensitivities before using potentially offensive material’.

Similarly, section 4 of the BCAP Code opens by saying, ‘Advertisements must not be harmful or offensive. Advertisements must take account of generally accepted standards to minimise the risk of causing harm or serious or widespread offence.’ It goes on to say in rule 4.2 that ‘Advertisements must not cause serious or widespread offence against generally accepted moral, social or cultural standards.’

Freedom of expression is not mentioned in these relevant sections at all.

We do not believe that adverts should be banned by the ASA, CAP, or public authorities merely for being ‘offensive’. This leads to subjective judgments, risks stifling free speech, and reinstates the blasphemy ban in advertising that the UK Parliament repealed in England and Wales in 2008, and Scotland repealed in 2024.

Examples of banned ads

These sections of the code of practice have repeatedly been used to ban adverts that we think, at best, are mildly offensive to some and, in the worst cases, cannot really be said to be offensive at all. Here are some examples.

In 2024, the ASA upheld a complaint against comedian Fern Brady’s website advert on the basis that it was a sacrilegious depiction of the Virgin Mary. The advert shows Brady in front of a stained glass window with the title for her tour ‘I gave you milk to drink’, a reference to a biblical verse, and squirting breast milk towards the mouth of a man kneeling in ecclesiastical clothing. In her response, Brady explained that the image was a recreation of the painting ‘The Lactation of St Bernard’ and pointed out that ‘satire and reenactment reflected a long tradition of artistic reinterpretation’. Despite this, the ASA banned the advert as it ‘considered that the ad was likely to be seen as mocking the religious figures shown’ and therefore ‘likely to cause serious offence to some within the Christian faith’.

In 2023, the ASA found that a poster promoting Demi Lovato’s album was ‘likely to cause offence to Christians’. The poster had been displayed at only six locations across London in the summer of 2022 before being taken down four days later. It depicted the clearly recognisable singer ‘in a bondage-style outfit whilst lying on a large, cushioned crucifix’, along with the name of the album, ‘HOLY FVCK’. Complaints were made to the ASA about the poster on two grounds – that the advertisement would cause ‘serious or widespread offence’ and that it was ‘irresponsibly placed where children could see it.’ Both grounds were upheld by the ASA. While the poster could have reasonably been banned solely for containing language that was easily recognisable as alluding to a swear word, and for its inappropriateness for children, ASA should not have also banned the image on the grounds of being religiously offensive.

In 2017, an email from online adult retailer Honey Birdette contained the text ‘RES-ERECTION’, ‘Easter Treats’ and ‘Sinful Sunday’ to advertise sex toys. The ASA upheld the complaint because ‘the use of the religious holiday of Easter to advertise a sex toy was likely to cause serious offence’.

In 2016, a Boylesports Gaming advert about a gambling promotion was deemed offensive under rule 4.1 by the ASA. The advert ran during Easter and featured a hand nailed to a cross. The ASA wrote, ‘we considered that the way in which the ad made light of the subject matter, with the play on words “NAILED ON BONUS”; the jokey language of “BETWEEN 5-25 QUID”, “dearly departed JC” and “sacreligious Bonus”, and the cartoon-style image of blood dripping from the hand pierced by the nail, a particularly sacred image for Christians, were likely to cause serious offence to some recipients. We considered the offence was likely to be particularly strongly felt by those of the Christian faith at Easter, when the imagery would have a particularly strong resonance.’ No consideration was made of the graphic depiction of violence in the ad.

In 2014, the ASA deemed offensive under rule 4.1 a Sporting Index advert about placing bets during that summer’s World Cup in Brazil. The advert featured a picture of Christ the Redeemer and a bikini-clad woman, encouraging ‘£500 in free bets’ and with the tagline ‘There’s a more exciting side to Brazil’. The advert already broke rules linking gambling to sex. However, it was also found to have broken religious offence rules because, ‘despite this secular use [of the statue], it was still a depiction of Jesus and was likely to carry a large degree of religious significance for Christians in particular’. The ruling also stated ‘we considered that a depiction of Jesus with his arm around a largely undressed woman, holding a champagne bottle and apparently celebrating a gambling win was likely to cause offence to a significant number of Christians, regardless of this humorous intention or references to Rio de Janeiro and the World Cup, because it depicted the person of Jesus in a context at odds with commonly held beliefs about the nature of Christ.’

In 2011, a Phones 4 U advert was deemed offensive under rule 4.1 by the ASA. The advert featured a drawing of the Buddy Christ from the movie Dogma saying ‘Miraculous deals on Samsung Galaxy Android phones’. The ASA reached this view because ‘We considered that, although the ads were intended to be light-hearted and humorous, their depiction of Jesus winking and holding a thumbs-up sign, with the text ‘Miraculous’ deals during Easter, the Christian Holy Week which celebrated Christ’s resurrection, gave the impression that they were mocking and belittling core Christian beliefs. We agreed that the ads were disrespectful to the Christian faith and were likely to cause serious offence, particularly to Christians.’

In rulings in 2009–2010, the ASA banned a series of adverts under rule 4.1 by ice cream company Antonio Federici that depicted, respectively, a priest and a nun about to kiss; two priests about to kiss; and a pregnant nun. The ads were deemed to be ‘mocking the beliefs of Roman Catholics and was therefore likely to cause serious offence to some readers.’

In 2008, ghd hair straightener TV adverts were deemed offensive under the broadcasting code for using the tagline ‘thy will be done’, a line from The Lord’s Prayer, juxtaposed to pictures of women.

Humanists UK’s banned advert

We have our own example of over-zealous censorship in the run-up to the 2011 Census. We proposed to run three adverts (below) in railway stations encouraging non-religious people to tick ‘no religion’ on the Census form. However, the owners of the advertising space submitted the adverts to CAP prior to their running to see whether or not they might be offensive. CAP replied that, were the adverts to run and then be subject to an ASA adjudication, in their view it was likely that the ASA would deem the phrase ‘For God’s sake’ as offensive under paragraph 4.1 of the Code.

As a consequence, the company controlling the advertising space at the railway stations immediately refused to even carry the ads.

Transport for London’s advertising policy

The ASA is not the only body to use subjective ‘offence’ tests in deciding which adverts to run. Paragraph 2.3 of Transport for London’s (TfL’s) advertising policy states ‘An advertisement will not be approved for, or permitted to remain on TfL’s services if, in TfL’s reasonable opinion, the advertisement… is not socially appropriate… More particularly, an advertisement will be unacceptable if: (a) it is likely to cause widespread or serious offence to members of the public on account of the product or service being advertised, the content or design of the advertisement or by way of implication… (h) it contains images or messages which relate to matters of public controversy and sensitivity.’

An older but similarly worded version of the policy was in force when a High Court judge ruled in 2013, and a Court of Appeal judge agreed in 2014, that earlier adverts by Stonewall and Humanists UK – saying, respectively, ‘Some people are gay. Get over it!’ and ‘There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life’ – broke TfL’s policy, and so if TfL had been implementing the policy correctly, the adverts should not have been allowed to run. These findings were incidental to the main thrust of the case and therefore had no practical impact on the running of these two adverts which had already gone ahead as planned. However, the risk of censorship by TfL is particularly alarming, given that both adverts were subject to ASA complaints but deemed by the ASA to be Code-compliant.

Factual claims

Unlike the censorship of ‘offensive’ adverts, the ASA and CAP have made better decisions in disallowing adverts that make demonstrably false claims. This includes claims about the supposed efficacy of homeopathy, but also religious claims that at their most extreme can be seriously dangerous to people’s health. Below is a non-exhaustive list of examples.

• In 2025, the ASA upheld a complaint against online retailer Na’vi Organics, for featuring a ‘bio-resonance tool that works to support your body’s energetic field to promote deep cellular healing’. The webpage further stated that the device ‘is recognised as a medical device within the EU for the treatment of chronic pain, migraines, fibromyalgia and skeletal pain’. The ASA found the claims to be misleading because CE certification did not constitute evidence of medical efficacy, and that consumers would be led to believe the device was effective in treating the listed conditions, for which no evidence was produced. Further, the ASA found that a notice at the foot of the webpage stating that the device was not a substitute for medical attention, would easily be overlooked by consumers and therefore the advert breached rules against discouraging essential treatment for conditions that require medical supervision.
• In 2024, alternative medicine advocate and author Lynne McTaggart was found to have made misleading claims by the ASA when an email advertising that the ‘Power of Eight’ method could heal paralysis, crippling arthritis, cataracts, multiple sclerosis, genetic liver disease, depression, and chronic fatigue ‘just through people sending their loving thoughts in a group’.
• In 2023, the ASA found that claims made by The Jewellery Channel that products containing ‘mineraloid shungite’ had health benefits, with reference to its ability to block electromagnetic fields and 5G signals were misleading and irresponsible.
• Also in 2023, the ASA ordered the Heal-Air Ltd to cease stating or implying that hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) could treat long Covid or certain symptoms of it unless they held adequate evidence that substantiated those claims. The ASA found that such claims were misleading.
• In 2019, the ASA upheld a complaint against holistic therapy clinic Body Resonance for claiming on their website and a leaflet that bioresonance could treat and/or diagnose neurodermatitis, chronic eczema, candida, diarrhoea, Lyme disease, digestive and bowel complaints, fibromyalgia/fatigue, hayfever, insomnia, and lack of sleep. This was found to be misleading and discouraged essential treatment for which medical supervision should be sought.
• In 2015, the ASA found that a website for a hypnotherapist and Neuro-Linguistic Programming practitioner was likely to discourage essential treatment for conditions for which medical supervision should be sought in breach of the Code. The ASA stated that the website implied their services were preferable and more effective in treating conditions such as alcoholism, substance abuse, and gambling addiction when compared to conventional methods, due to the implied ease of these alternative treatments and the lack of psychological and financial burden.
• In 2012, the ASA ruled that Healing on the Streets should not be able to claim, in its leaflets or online, that ‘God can heal… Back Pain, Arthritis, MS, Addiction… Ulcers, Depression, Allergies, Fibromyalgia, Asthma, Paralysis, Crippling Disease, Phobias, Sleeping disorders or any other sickness’. Disappointingly, howeve,r it later decided that the group’s website was outside its remit.
• Following a complaint by Humanists UK in 2009, the ASA ruled against the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God’s billboard claiming a holy ointment cured a child’s otherwise fatal heart and lung conditions.

What we’re doing

We consistently speak out against the ASA’s censorious decisions where it deems adverts to be ‘offensive’ on grounds of religion or belief.

We have met and extensively corresponded with CAP officials to try and secure a change to the Codes, as well as responding to consultations on revisions to them.

In 2019, we responded to CAP’s consultation on public sector equality duty, urging it to take seriously any cases of discrimination but that religion and belief must still be subject to scrutiny and criticism, even if it causes offence. Prior to 2019, the Codes only covered religion, but not belief. However, CAP proposed to include an expansive understanding of belief as protected under the Equality Act by Employment Tribunals. This includes pacifism, vegetarianism, and the belief that climate change is a man-made phenomenon. In this context, we support an interpretation of belief to mean ‘worldview’: a collective belief that attains a sufficient level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance and that relates the nature of life and the world to morality, values and/or the way its believers should live. Our proposal was not adopted.

Appendix: Past work on this issue

• In 2019, we launched a petition calling for the removal of the rules surrounding offensive content in response to the review of these rules by CAP.
• In 2016 we responded to an Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) consultation about religion and belief advertising to speak out against these past decisions.