Gun billboard near school route cleared by Advertising Regulatory Board

In dismissing a complaint against Canik SA over billboards along Grayston Drive, Sandton, displaying firearms, the Advertising Regulatory Board (ARB) said 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.

This comes after a mother lodged a complaint that the advertisement is inappropriately placed and harmful to children and impressionable youth.

The complainant had noted that the billboards are positioned directly along a busy pedestrian route used by families, schoolchildren and young people, and that she sees it daily when collecting her child from school.

She argued that the prominent display of real firearms in a public, family-oriented area normalises the presence of weaponry for children and may encourage curiosity or desensitisation towards guns.

The mother further argued that while the advertising of firearms is legal, that advertising weapons in close proximity to schools and child-dense areas is “irresponsible and contrary to the protection of minors”.

The advertiser responded that the ARB’s Code does not prohibit lawful advertising of adult-restricted products from being visible in public spaces, noting that “visible to children” is not the same as “directed at children”.

It argued that as the advertisement promotes an adult-restricted, licensed product, the messaging is directed exclusively at adult customers.

The advertiser argued that if visibility alone were the test, then alcohol advertising, gambling advertising and pharmaceutical advertising for adult medications would be banned from public spaces.

It pointed out that Grayston Drive, where the billboards are located, is a major commercial and transport corridor in an area comprising offices, retail and transport infrastructure. It is not a school, playground or child-exclusive environment, it said.

The advertiser commented that there is no firearm-specific advertising restriction under South African law, the ARB Code, or any industry code that prohibits outdoor advertising of lawful firearms.

In analysing the complaint, the Directorate said it is sympathetic to the views of the complainant, and understands that the possibility of gun ownership, as a contentious topic in both South Africa and internationally, is something that a person could reasonably not want their child exposed to.

The Directorate noted that a similar debate exists around whether it is acceptable to sell toy guns to children who might then become desensitised to or admiring of firearms in general.

While some parents might take the view that children should not be exposed to firearms, others believe that an understanding of such items is normal and supports their sense of safety.

The Directorate further noted the advertiser’s argument that the Code does not prohibit the advertising of other adult-only products such as gambling or alcohol in public spaces. However, it said, the placement of alcohol advertising is regulated by the Code.

The Directorate accepted that this advertisement’s proximity to a school puts it in view of one of the busiest commuter routes in Africa, and on a major feeder road for the commercial heart of Johannesburg. Therefore, the Directorate cannot conclude that, on the basis of placement alone, this advertisement is directed at children. It also accepted that nothing about the advertisement indicates that children are intended as its target.

Cape Times