Note: This advice is given by the CAP Executive about non-broadcast advertising. It does not constitute legal advice. It does not bind CAP, CAP advisory panels or the Advertising Standards Authority.
The CAP Code does not contain a section that relates specifically to the advertising of weapons. Marketers should nevertheless ensure that their marketing communications are prepared with a sense of responsibility to consumers and to society (Rule 1.3). Furthermore, rule 4.4 states that ads must contain nothing that is likely to condone or encourage violence or anti-social behaviour. Marketers should bear in mind rules 1.10 (legality), 4.1 (offence), 4.2 (fear and distress) and 4.5 (safety) and ensure that the sale of the weapon is legal.
Even ads for replica weapons can generate complaints. In 2005, the ASA rejected a complaint about a direct mailing for knives and swords from various films. Although the mailing claimed “the name or ‘look’ of the sword/dagger/knife in no way implies or suggests that it is suitable for combat. These items are sold for decorative purposes only”, the complainant objected that they could nevertheless inflict considerable harm. He was especially concerned that children could buy the items. Because the mailing was addressed to an adult, made clear the products were not available to those under 16 and was not presented in an irresponsible way, the ASA rejected the complaint. It made a similar ruling in March 2005 (Pegasus Militaria, 9 March 2005).
Ads that are not for weapons but show images of weapons, such as ads for computer games, films, TV programmes, should ensure that they do not promote violence or anti-social behaviour by depicting weapons in a threatening context (Choice Stationery Supplies, 7 June 2006) or in a manner that could be seen to be glamourising violence (Universal Music Group, 4 January 2006). Here, the ASA upheld complaints that an image of Curtis “50 Cent” Jackson armed with a gun was likely to be seen as glamourising and condoning the possession and use of guns. Conversely, a poster showing the singer Morrissey in an old-fashioned pinstripe suit holding a 1920s Tommy gun was considered unlikely to glamourise violence.
Marketers have a little more leeway if the image reflects the nature of the product on offer but should always take care to avoid offence or condoning the use of weapons. In 2005, the ASA rejected complaints about two film posters. One featured Bruce Willis’s bloodied hand and a soldier aiming a rifle. The other featured a machete. More recently, the ASA also rejected complaints about an ad that featured an image from a sci-fi TV series and showed a man pointing a gun at another man’s head. The ASA noted the picture comprised only a small part of the ad and concluded that, because of the size of the image and its context (to reflect the frustration reported by landlords and tenants), the ad was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence or to glamourise the use of guns in everyday life (Oakfield PM Ltd, 28 February 2007).
Marketers should be aware that images of weapons and implied violence are likely to offend some consumers, especially when used in more untargeted media such as posters or where children are likely to see them. The ASA has received, but not necessarily upheld, complaints about such posters that appeared in areas where gun crime was especially prevalent. For example, the ASA rejected complaints about a government anti-gun crime campaign that showed a stylized image of a young man holding a gun with the text “Would you do anything for your mates? What about 5 years? Carry anyone’s illegal gun and get a 5 year sentence minimum”.
Generally, marketers should avoid showing weapons pointing directly at the reader or guns that look as if they have just been fired.
See also ‘Violence and Anti-social Behaviour’, ‘Fear & Distress’, ‘Sexual Violence’, ‘Firearms’, ‘Air Weapons’, ‘Stun Guns’, ‘Replica Guns’, ‘Crossbows’, ‘Knives/Martial Arts Weaponry’ and ‘Protection Devices’.
Last modified : 26 July 2010