DJs sues thinktank over report on sexualised images of children in advertising

Todays SMH: Sex, lies and advertising: DJs sues over child exploitation claims

IN WHAT is believed to be a world first, David Jones begins a legal case tomorrow in which it is suing the left-leaning think tank the Australia Institute and its executive director, Clive Hamilton, over claims the giant retailer’s advertising eroticised and sexually exploited children.

The case, in the Federal Court in Sydney, is thought to be the first time a court will consider the sexualisation of children in advertising.

The retailer is suing under the Trade Practices Act, claiming the institute engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct. The avenue of suing for defamation was closed to big companies after the introduction of uniform defamation laws in January 2006.

The Australia Institute’s report “Corporate Paedophilia: Sexualisation of Children in Australia” was widely publicised amid much controversy last October. The main thesis of the report is that the increased sexualisation of all advertising in the last decades has led to a creeping normalisation of portraying young female models in poses that are inappropriately sexualised for their age, and that the fashions marketed to young girls are becoming more and more sexualised as well. Many people agreed, while others thought that people perceiving sexualisation of children in advertising were either prudes or perverts. (A long and nasty discussion ensued in my crosspost to Larvatus Prodeo.) I’ve been getting intermittent comments telling me I’m dreaming on this related post as recently as last week.

The David Jones action (and a similiar suit by Australian Wool Innovation against PETA regarding PETA’s campaign against mulesing) have been brought under Section 52, outlawing misleading or deceptive conduct, which is the part of the act dealing with consumer protection. There are raised eybrows from some legal commentors at these attempts to use Section 52 in these suits, as it has generally been considered to apply to commercial competitors acting to enhance their own profits at the expense of a rival rather than non-profit organisations making commentary and criticism of a corporation.

The SMH article quotes Australia Institute director Clive Hamilton defending the report, Sydney academic Catharine Lumby criticising the title “Corporate Paedophilia” as irresponsible, and Brian Walters, SC, the author of Slapping on the Writs and vice-president of Free Speech Victoria, who said:

it was becoming more common for powerful corporations to sue people who criticised them, which was distorting the democratic system.

Crossposted at Larvatus Prodeo

Categories: culture wars, gender & feminism, law & order

Tags: , , , ,

3 replies

  1. I suppose the comment I left at LP on another thread would be pertinent here. There’s a new ad for a car, still can’t remember the brand, where the very young boychild jumps into the car, takes off on the open road. Very young girlchild is hitching on the side of the road and is picked up. End of the ad has them sitting arm in arm on the car at the beach. I’ve seen this ad three times now and I’m still so amazed at it that I don’t see the car’s brand. The first time, my mouth dropped open and I couldn’t believe that the agency thought this was a great way to go.

  2. My jaw also hit the floor on that one, JahTeh. The effort that was put into it to show the kids in adult display poses was palpable: kids just don’t naturally do that.
    Much like the Bugsy Malone movie way back when, I don’t find that cute, I find it creepy.

  3. There’s a very good oped about the damage this case will do to DJ’s in The Age today:
    link edited by moderator as too long

%d bloggers like this: