- The Directorate of the Advertising Regulatory Board dismissed a complaint against Canik SA, finding its firearm billboards were not “addressed to or likely to influence children.”
- Canik SA argued that “visible to children” is not the same as “directed at children,” comparing firearm advertising to alcohol, gambling and pharmaceutical promotions in public spaces.
- The Directorate held that it “cannot, on the basis of an individual’s subjective moral preference, uphold a Complaint against an Advertisement for a legal product in a widely used public space.”
A complaint lodged by a consumer against Canik SA, a division of Bosrus, over firearm billboards on Grayston Drive in Sandton has resulted in a ruling that places guns and alcohol advertising on equal regulatory footing under the Code of Advertising Practice.
The Directorate of the Advertising Regulatory Board was asked to decide whether the mere visibility of firearms to children amounts to unlawful influence under Clause 14 of Section II of the Code.
The complainant argued that the prominent display of real firearms along a pedestrian route used by families and schoolchildren “normalises weaponry for children” and may encourage curiosity or desensitisation. She described the placement near a school as “irresponsible and contrary to the protection of minors,” maintaining that children are “particularly impressionable.”
Clause 14 provides that “Advertisements addressed to or likely to influence children should not contain any statement or visual presentation which might result in harming them, mentally, morally, physically or emotionally.” The Directorate noted that its task was to determine whether the advertising or its placement was likely to “harm a child mentally, morally, physically or emotionally” as prohibited by the Code.
Alcohol comparison anchors the defence
In response, Canik SA argued that the Code does not prohibit the lawful advertising of adult-restricted products simply because they are visible in public spaces. The advertiser stressed that “visible to children” is not the same as “directed at children,” and pointed out that the billboard contained no call to action aimed at minors, no depiction of violence, and no “language, imagery, or themes designed to appeal to children.”
Canik SA further submitted that if visibility alone were the test, then alcohol, gambling and pharmaceutical advertising for adult medication would also have to be banned from public spaces. It stated that “The ARB is not a forum for policy debates about lawful products. It exists to assess whether advertising content meets Code requirements.”
The Directorate acknowledged that while the placement of alcohol advertising is regulated, adult-only products “can certainly be advertised in public spaces that are also used by children.” Given that Grayston Drive is a major commercial and transport corridor, the Directorate concluded that it “cannot conclude that, on the basis of placement alone, this Advertisement is directed at children.”
Moral discomfort versus code compliance
The Directorate expressed sympathy for the complainant, recognising that firearm ownership is a contentious issue and that a parent may reasonably not wish their child to be exposed to such imagery. However, it stated that the argument about normalisation amounted to a political standpoint rather than a breach of the Code.
In firm terms, the ruling states that the Directorate “cannot, on the basis of an individual’s subjective moral preference, uphold a Complaint against an Advertisement for a legal product in a widely used public space.” It further found that nothing in the billboard would create the impression that it is “acceptable and safe to be in certain surroundings” or lead children to attempt to emulate firearm use “with the concomitant risk of physical, moral or mental harm.”
The complaint was therefore dismissed.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
