Violence

Violence should only be depicted in advertising if it is justifiable.

Section 2.3 of the AANA Code of Ethics states:

Advertising shall not present or portray violence unless it is justifiable in the context of the product or service advertised.

Violence includes both actual depictions of violence and suggested violence (e.g. a strong sense of menace or threat, sound effects).

In some circumstances, the portrayal of violence may be considered justified, such as in community awareness advertising or if the product being advertised contains violence (e.g. computer games or films).

Where violence is considered justified, it must not be excessive or gratuitous. If the level of violence is too high, it may not be considered justifiable even if it is relevant to the product or service being advertised.

The depiction of violence extends to the consequences of violence (e.g. depiction of an injured person not just the image of them being hurt), feelings of violation, shock and fright, and may involve:

• depictions that condone or incite violence
• intimidating behaviour
• abuse
• bullying
• domestic violence
• sexualised violence
• use of weapons
• vandalism and violence to property
• consensual violence
• aggressiveness
• a person injured or in pain
• aggressive action
• exposing oneself to dangerous activities
• threats
• accidents
• horror and gore
• human atrocities and massacres
• war
• torture
• exploitation and cruelty, including to animals.

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

Examples of previous decisions

Community awareness ads

The Community Panel has found a breach of Section 2.3 (Violence) of the Code of Ethics in the following cases:

• Where the depiction of violence is not justifiable or related to what is being advertised.
  • Cancer Council Victoria – 0075-22, 0089-22

The Community Panel found the following ads did not breach Section 2.3 (Violence) of the Code of Ethics:

• Ads which portray realistic and graphic situations intended to evoke a strong reaction in the community in response to an important call to action, or awareness raising, is a justifiable use of violence.
  • Quit Tasmania – 0179-19
  • Department of Social Services – 0096-21
  • Transport Accident Commission – 0050-22
  • SA Ambulance Service – 0048-22
  • SafeWork NSW – 0077-22

• Advertising which uses confronting and graphic imagery to promote important health services are a justifiable use of violence.
  • SA Health – 0171-19, 0329-19
  • Dept Justice & Community Safety – Victoria – 0399-19
  • Pedestrian Council of Australia Ltd – 0405-19
  • Channel Nine St Vincent de Paul Bushfire Appeal – 0411-19
  • Cancer Council Western Australia – 0323-20

• Ads which only reference violence, and do not depict it, to raise awareness about an important social issue.
  • United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees – 0129-19
  • Amnesty International – 0279-20

​Domestic violence

The Community Panel has found a breach of Section 2.3 (Violence) of the Code of Ethics in the following cases:

• Any malicious threat of violence towards a partner, even in a fantasy situation, is unacceptable.
  • Betta Games – 0338-21

• Violence is not justifiable when promoting an unrelated product or service.
  • Uber Eats – 0361-21

The Community Panel found the following ads did not breach Section 2.3 (Violence) of the Code of Ethics:

• An unlikely interpretation that an ad is suggestive of domestic violence.
  • Taste My Bean – 0066-19

• Light-hearted banter or disagreements between couples in safe and loving relationships, where the tone is not threatening or aggressive.
  • Yum Restaurants International – 0235-19
  • Supagas – 0225-20
  • Athena – 0307-20
  • Optus Communications – 0100-21

• Ads for literature apps or novels which include domestic violence in the storyline if advertised in a manner that is sensitive to the audience.
  • Dreame – 0197-20

Entertainment

The Community Panel has found a breach of Section 2.3 (Violence) of the Code of Ethics in the following cases:

• Ads for entertainment products where violence may be justifiable, but is likely to cause undue alarm or distress to members of the community.
  • Roadshow Films – 0301-19, 0302-19, 0315-19

The Community Panel found the following ads did not breach Section 2.3 (Violence) of the Code of Ethics:

• Depiction of characters from video games when advertising the game is a depiction that portrayed violence that is justifiable in the context of the product being sold.
  • Sony Interactive Entertainment – 0128-19
  • Take Two Interactive (2K Games) – 0012-20
  • Wildlife Studios – 0278-20
  • Activision – 0119-21
  • Rockstar Games – 0011-22

• When promoting acting schools, movies, events and shows, it is reasonable for the advertiser to show violent images or scenes related to the product being promoted.
  • Binge – 0059-21
  • The Walt Disney Company – 0060-21
  • Paramount+ – 0226-21
  • Sony Pictures Releasing – 0341-21, 0068-22, 0069-22
  • Apple Pty Limited – 0102-22, 0103-22

• Movie trailers which suggest violence through suspenseful and menacing tones which are relevant to the movie’s content.
  • Universal Pictures – 0138-21, 0137-22, 0154-22
  • Paramount Pictures Australia – 0095-19, 0019-22, 0018-22
  • Sony Pictures – 0149-19, 0070-20, 0340-21
  • Roadshow Films – 0289-19, 0316-19, 0335-19
  • Stan – 0229-20, 0246-20

Weaponry

The Community Panel has found a breach of Section 2.3 (Violence) of the Code of Ethics in the following cases:

• Ads which show weapons used in a threatening or violent manner when not related to the product being promoted.
  • Club-Mate Australia – 0174-21

The Community Panel found the following ads did not breach Section 2.3 (Violence) of the Code of Ethics:

• The use of a weapon in an ad which is unrealistic, exaggerated and humorous, and where the use of weapons is clearly fantasy and unlikely to encourage similar behaviour in real life.
  • iSelect Pty Ltd – 0084-19

• The depiction of a gun or other weapon in the promotion of a game, movie or show that features weapons is justifiable, if that weapon is not being depicted in an overly threatening or alarming manner.
  • Ubisoft – 0117-19
  • Roadshow Films – 0121-19, 0193-19
  • Paramount+ – 0230-21

Cruelty to animals

The Community Panel has found a breach of Section 2.3 (Violence) of the Code of Ethics in the following cases:

• The depiction of people interacting with animals in a cruel or unhealthy way which could be copied.
  • Brand Developers – 0263/20

• Depiction of simulated animal cruelty in an ad for a gaming app.
  • Special Gamez – 0147-22

The Community Panel found the following ads did not breach Section 2.3 (Violence) of the Code of Ethics:

• The depiction of confronting but not violent imagery to raise awareness of animal cruelty.
  • PETA Australia – 0068-21 
  • World Animal Protection – 0345-21

• The depiction of people interacting with animals in a realistic manner, where the animal is not seen to come to any harm is not considered cruelty to animals.
  • Tom Waterhouse – 0386-19
  • ReAmped Energy – 0040-22

• The depictiong of animal hunting or fishing when related to legal practices.
  • Victorian Department of Health and Human Services – 0014-21

• Where an ad is humorous and/or unlikely to be real or taken seriously by the general community.
  • Aldi Australia – 0296-20
  • Specsavers – 0050-21
  • Uber Australia Pty Ltd – 0104-22

Bullying

The Community Panel has found a breach of Section 2.3 (Violence) of the Code of Ethics in the following cases:

• Any depictions or threat of violence towards a person will be seen as bullying, especially if the person on the receiving end of the actions reacts in a hurt or negative manner.
  • AHM Health Insurance – 0004-20, 0005-20

The Community Panel found the following ads did not breach Section 2.3 (Violence) of the Code of Ethics:

• Siblings interacting with each other in a playful and realistic manner will not be seen as bullying.
  • Hyundai Motor Company – 0015-21

• Community awareness ads depicting bullying in a negative light with anti-bullying messaging.
  • Dolly’s Dream – 0166-20

Sex and violence

The Community Panel has found a breach of Section 2.3 (Violence) of the Code of Ethics in the following cases:

• The suggestion of children being the target of sexual assault or predatory behaviour will breach this Section of the Code.
  • Grill’d – 0276-21

• Depictions or suggestions of sexual violence through words or images.
  • Wicked Campers – 0120-19
  • Sax Fetish – 0142-21

The Community Panel found the following ads did not breach Section 2.3 (Violence) of the Code of Ethics:

• The depiction of someone restrained or wearing BDSM paraphernalia, may not considered to be suggestive of sexual violence where the person is depicted as confident and happy and actively participating in the situation.
  • Crazy Maple Studios – 0004-21
  • Honey Birdette – 0147-21

​​​​Depictions of pain

The Community Panel found the following ads did not breach Section 2.3 (Violence) of the Code of Ethics:

• Showing a lack of reaction to a violent event may lessen the impact of the violence and make it appear unrealistic and humorous.
  • Ultra Tune – 0051-20, 0062-20
  • Enatin Group – 0293-21

Suggestions of violence

The Community Panel has found a breach of Section 2.3 (Violence) of the Code of Ethics in the following cases:

• Depicting a person with the intent to physically harm another person where a high degree of malice is present, even if no actual violence depicted.
  • Gem Puzzle Dom – 0167-20, 0168-20, 0169-20
  • Rollic Games – 0034-21
  • App Quantum – 0148-21

The Community Panel found the following ads did not breach Section 2.3 (Violence) of the Code of Ethics:

• Where there is no graphic imagery or no actual image of violence.
  • Universal Music Australia – 0136-20
  • Aware Super – 0366-20

Other violence

The Community Panel has found a breach of Section 2.3 (Violence) of the Code of Ethics in the following cases:

• The use of an unnecessarily high degree of menace which is not related to the product being advertised.
  • IAG Insurance – 0266-20

• The depiction of violence in a way that is not relevant to the product/service being advertised.
  • Kayo Sports – 0114-20, 0132-20
  • Raiz Invest Ltd – 0101-22
  • iSelect Pty Ltd – 0122-22
  • Brickworks Building Products – 0150-22, 0151-22

• The reference to or depiction of suicide without providing appropriate referral information.
  • Wicked Campers – 0406-19
  • Sonus Complete – 0226-20

The Community Panel found the following ads did not breach Section 2.3 (Violence) of the Code of Ethics:

• Advertising which uses humorous or exaggerated scenes which are clearly fantastical and unlikely to be taken seriously by most members of the community.
  • Westpac Group – 0221-20
  • The Man Shake – 0325-20
  • Frucor Suntory Australia – 0228-21
  • Grill’d – 0295-21
  • Raiz Invest Ltd – 0110-22

• Depictions of people acting in a humorous, light-hearted manner are unlikely to be considered as being acts of violence.
  • Tabcorp Holdings Limited – 0320-19
  • OPSM – 0138-20
  • Reckon Limited – 0216-21

• Depicting extensive body modification through tattoos and piercings.
  • Icon Ink – 0092-22

• Depicting a kiss where there is no explicit consent given, but also no indication that the kiss is not consensual.
  • Procter & Gamble Australia Pty Ltd – 0210-22
  • Mars Wrigley Australia – 0067-23