Dr Jennifer Young (University of Groningen)
The United Kingdom’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) ruled last week that this advertisement featuring the image of comedian Fern Brady breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 4.1 (Harm and offence). In their ruling they told her “to take care to not cause offence on the grounds of religion in future ads”. I’m not sure what action they will take should she do so, but such a statement could have a serious chilling effect on the comedian’s creativity and output.
The contentious image was a poster used to promote Fern Brady’s tour titled “I gave you milk to drink”. In the image Ms Brady is depicted holding a baby and spraying milk from her breast into the mouth of a man in religious clothing. The image, as Ms Brady explained, was a parody of the painting by Alonso Cano – as seen below. She considered it contained satire and humour reflecting her “comic brand”. She stated that she did not wish either to mock or belittle the religious significance of the original but rather to align the image with her “irreverent style and her religious up-bringing” as a Scottish Catholic.
Looking at the reasoning the ASA gives for the breach, Rule 4.1 stipulates that advertisements must not contain anything that is likely to cause serious or widespread offence and “particular care must be taken to avoid causing offence on the grounds of […] religion or belief”. Compliance with the code is “judged on the context, medium, audience, product and prevailing standards”. But ads can be “distasteful”, yet public sensitivities should be considered before including potentially offensive material. Finally the section concludes with “The fact that a product is offensive to some people is not grounds for finding a marketing communication in breach of the Code”. Helpfully, on the 21st November 2024 the ASA published a news letter titled “Don’t cross a line that could damage your campaign” which refers to religious offence and then links through to advice published in March 2023.
In this the ASA reiterates that religion and belief are potentially extremely sensitive subjects and that even humorous references to this subject have the capacity to cause serious offence. There is also a guidance booklet on the ASA website on how to avoid causing religious offence. Even when, like Ms Brady, there is no intention to offend, the ASA will consider how people interpret the ad, rather than the advertiser’s intention. It stipulates that humour does not “in itself prevent an ad from being likely to cause offence, and humour which is derived from religion or belief is often likely to be offensive. The use of religious imagery or language may be considered acceptable, provided it is not mocking or disrespectful.” And unfortunately for Ms Brady the ASA found that her ad was mocking and disrespectful.
After the advertisement appeared on the Sky News Website, one person complained to the ASA on the grounds that the ad was offensive because it mocked the Christian faith. Sky UK Ltd was not aware of receiving any direct complaints about the ad.
I should mention at this point that the offence of blasphemy was abolished in the United Kingdom in 2008. It does not exist in law and yet here we have an image banned on the grounds of something which sounds suspiciously like blasphemy.
Fern Brady’s outcome contrasts starkly with one from a few years ago following two complaints to the ASA about a poster for Don Broco’s album Technology. This featured an image in which the face of the Black Madonna of Czestochowa was replaced with that of a snarling dog. This was not upheld, because the ASA considered the image was not mocking or denigratory towards the Madonna or the Christian faith in general (SharpTone Records, 4 July 2018). If I were the Madonna, I know which representation I would prefer.
If we are judging Ms Brady’s image as per the ASA’s rules, one complaint is not indicative of serious or widespread offence. If the image is judged on the context, medium, audience, product and prevailing standards then the outcome is surprising too. The context is a promotional poster for a comedy tour displayed as an ad on an online news website with a broad audience. The image itself is the parody of a painting, arguably not a mocking of religion and this ruling, as pointed out by the Law and Religion blog, goes further than the now defunct offence of blasphemy. All in all the ruling seems like an unjustified limitation on Ms Brady’s right to freedom of expression.
The upside of this is that the news story following the banning of the ad has had the Streisand effect and the image has been seen by many more people because the decision made newspaper headlines. Those who weren’t aware of Fern Brady, now are and the ruling has sparked discussions on the importance of freedom of expression in comedy. Speaking on her Instagram account Fern Brady explained the situation and said “If you’re the person who complained about my poster, I hope you never come!”