Language

Advertisers must take care to use language that is appropriate for their audience and avoid the use of strong or obscene language.

Section 2.5 of the AANA Code of Ethics states:

Advertising shall only use language which is appropriate in the circumstances (including appropriate for the relevant audience and medium). Strong or obscene language shall be avoided. 

There are certain words and terms, such as the ‘f’ and the ‘c’ word, that when expressed in full are highly likely to breach the Code of Ethics.

Others are considered acceptable if the word or term is not used aggressively, where it is used in a colloquial context, where children are not likely to be exposed to it, or when it is obscured.

Ads that use sexualised double entendre are usually considered acceptable when there is a non-sexualised interpretation which could be understood by children.

For more detail and guidance on language in advertising read the AANA Code of Ethics: Practice Note.
 

Examples of previous decisions

Obscene terms

The Community Panel has found a breach of Section 2.5 (Language) of the Code of Ethics in the following cases:

The Community Panel found the following ads did not breach Section 2.5 (Language) of the Code of Ethics:

  • There is a greater acceptability of some obscene terms in advertising which is unlikely to be seen or heard by children, where the terms are appropriate to the context of the advertisement or medium.
    • Southtrade International – 0211-20
       
  • The term ‘shit’ is often considered not inappropriate, when consistent with common Australian colloquial usage of such a word.

Obscured terms

The Community Panel has found a breach of Section 2.5 (Language) of the Code of Ethics in the following cases:

  • Where sound effects have been used to cover someone using an obscene term, if they do not sufficiently cover the word and the term is likely to be considered as inappropriate by most members of the community.
    • Alice Mechanical Solutions – 0303-20
       

The Community Panel found the following ads did not breach Section 2.5 (Language) of the Code of Ethics:

  • Where a suggested obscenity is not used in full, and is not used in conjunction with offensive imagery, it is considered to not amount to an inappropriate use of language or language that would be considered strong or obscene.
  • The implication of a mild swear word in an advertisement through the use of an acronym, which is used in a way consistent with how most people would use the word, is not inappropriate and would not be considered strong or obscene language by most members of the community.
    • McGrath Estate Agents – 0247-20
       
  • Where sound effects are used to successfully cover up terms, to the point of not being able to understand the term used, is appropriate for use.
    • Department of Health and Human Services (TAS) – 0552-18
    • Chemist Warehouse – 0392-19
    • Portable Fridge Solutions – 0306-20
       
  • The use of a word similar to or rhyming with a word considered to be a swear word will generally be dismissed by the Panel.  
    • Southern Cross Austereo – 0223-21
    • Gympie Music Muster – 0356-21
       
  • Lyrics in background music which is not the focus of the ad.  

Innuendo and sexual references

The Community Panel has found a breach of Section 2.5 (Language) of the Code of Ethics in the following cases:

  • Explicit sexual terms or references in a medium that would be seen or heard by children.

The Community Panel found the following ads did not breach Section 2.5 (Language) of the Code of Ethics:

  • The use of terms such as ‘sex’ in a sensitive way which is considered appropriate for the relevant audience.
    • Lismore Theatre Company – 0382-19
    • Prime Video – 0021-20
    • Frucor Suntory Australia – 0148-20
    • Amazon Prime Video – 0152-20
    • A City Free From Porn Toowoomba – 0320-20
       
  • The use of very mild sexual language, where there is a more likely, non-sexual, interpretation of the language used.

​Acceptable terms

The Community Panel found the following ads did not breach Section 2.5 (Language) of the Code of Ethics:

  • Slang terms for body parts that are commonly used.
  • While some members of the community may find certain colloquial terms to be offensive, where the language is not obscene or sexualised it may be considered appropriate for use in advertising.
  • The phrase ‘frigging’ or ‘effing’ when not used aggressively is not considered a strong or obscene term by the Community Panel, and is a term that most members of the community would view as a more acceptable replacement for stronger words.

Children using bad language

The Community Panel has found a breach of Section 2.5 (Language) of the Code of Ethics in the following case:

  • Implying that a child is using an obscene term will be considered inappropriate.

Gestures

The Community Panel found the following ads did not breach Section 2.5 (Language) of the Code of Ethics:

  • While in some context people sticking their middle fingers up is considered aggressive and inappropriate by the Community Panel, content containing the light-hearted depiction of people’s middle fingers is not likely to be seen as depicting aggressive or insulting behaviour.
Scroll to Top