The UK government through psychologist, Dr Linda Papadopoulos reported that it supports the ASA in taking steps to extend existing standards to include commercial websites.

An ASA spokesman said that the industry body shares many of the concerns expressed in the review in general, and added that steps were already well-advanced to address its online remit in particular.

The industry is in very advanced stages at tackling concerns surrounding the online regulatory gap by extending the ASA's remit online and we welcome that, he said: The concerns are being addressed by the Advertising Association and, although no date has been set, changes are imminent. Everything is changing so incredibly quickly it is important we keep on top of the industry requirements. The remit extension to include online will help do that.

Though Tiger Woods has lost many of his lucrative endorsement deals since his widely publicized cheating scandal, there's one ad the pro golfer may not care to be a part of.

The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is looking for a local advertiser in Woods' neighborhood of Windermere, Florida to erect a billboard that will feature his image, the Orlando Sentinel reports.

PETA's ad will reportedly include the message, Too much sex can be a bad thing … for little tigers too. Help keep cats (and dogs) out of trouble: Always spay and neuter!

Though it may be difficult to find an advertiser willing to post the billboard, Virginia Fort, a campaigner for the animal rights organization, says the ad isn't intended to offend the golfer: It's a fun, tongue-in-cheek approach. We hope these billboard companies will understand.

As it turns out, Woods isn't too amused by the organization's new campaign. According to TMZ.com, PETA may pull their plans to post the ad, explaining, In light of conversations we have had with Mr. Woods' attorneys, plans to run our billboard are on hold at this time.

A campaign to discourage young people from smoking shows male and female teenagers kneeling in front of a man, as if being forced to have oral sex. A cigarette takes the place of the man's sexual organ. The caption reads: Smoking is to be a slave to tobacco.

The campaign, which was devised for a pressure group supporting the rights of non-smokers, has been attacked as scandalous and potentially counter-productive by feminist and pro-family campaigners.

Marco de la Fuente, the leader of the project for the BDDP et Fils ad agency, said: The old arguments – tobacco is bad for you – don't work any more. The message here is that tobacco is a form of submission. In the popular imagination, oral sex is the perfect symbol of submission.

G้rard Audureau, the president of Les Droits des Non-fumeurs (The Rights of Non-smokers), the pressure group which commissioned the ads, said health arguments did not reach teenagers. Young people think that they are invincible, immortal, he said. Fear of sexual exploitation worries them more than illness.

Opposition to the ads – to be shown in bars, clubs and newspapers – has been widespread. Florence Montreynaud, of the feminist pressure group Chiennes de Garde (Guard Bitches), said that it was inadmissible that an image implying underage sex should be exploited, even in a good cause.

Christiane Terry, of the conservative group Familles de France, said she will lodge a complaint with the French advertising standards watchdog. Mixing up tobacco dependence and sex is ridiculous and scandalous, she said.

The non-smokers' rights group says it does not care if adults are shocked by its posters. Audureau said: Very few anti-smoking campaigns catch the attention of the young. You have to use extreme images to make them take notice.

An internet banner ad, for Peperami salami, appeared on Brand Republic's website and stated $10 000 TO KILL ME IN THE MOST CREATIVE WAY. A cartoon Peperami was shown holding a sign that stated ASSISTED SUICIDE.  

A complainant objected that the ad was likely to cause distress and serious offence, in particular to those who had related personal experiences, in light of recent public debates about assisted suicide.

Unilever said the ad appeared in media specific to the ad industry, which was selected to ensure the ad reached a highly creative audience, rather than the general public, in the hope that many would take up the creative challenge. They acknowledged the ad would have been seen by a wide range of people and a small number might be offended but believed it was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence. They believed visitors to the Brand Republic website were likely to be aware of the history of Peperami advertising and the Peperami Animals sadistic tendencies and would understand the humorous tone of the ad as well as the deliberate and topical play on words. Unilever said, although it was a sensitive matter, they felt the reference to assisted suicide was justified in the context.

ASA Decision: Not upheld

The ASA acknowledged that assisted suicide was a sensitive issue and was distressing for those affected by it. We noted the ad was targeted specifically at those who might want to enter the competition and considered most members of the public who saw it would understand that the ad used a play on words intended to refer to the competition, and its brief. We considered viewers were likely to find the concept of assisting the suicide of an item of food ridiculous rather than offensive or distressing. We noted some might find the ad distasteful but concluded it was unlikely to cause distress or serious or widespread offence.

A TV ad, for a men's fragrance, showed a man and a woman in an apartment. The couple were shown in a state of undress and were gazing at each other and embracing on a bed. The voice-over stated 212. 212 Men. Carolina Ferrera, New York. The ad was given an ex-kids scheduling restriction by Clearcast. Issue

Three viewers challenged whether the ad was offensive and inappropriate for broadcast before 9pm when children might be watching.

ASA Assessment: Not upheld

The ASA acknowledged that the ad featured a number of sequences showing a couple embracing and looking into one another's eyes and that the ad had a mild sexual overtone. Although we noted the couple were naked from the waist up, we considered that the majority of sequences in the ad focused on head shots and images of the couple looking into each others eyes which were suggestive but not sexually explicit.

We agreed with Puig and Clearcast that an ex-kids restriction, which prevented the ad from being broadcast in or around children's programming, was sufficient for the ad's content. Although we understood the ad may have been distasteful to some, we concluded it was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence to most adult viewers or cause distress to children who might see it.

A moving internet banner ad on the British Medical Journal Learning website showed a young boy looking miserable next to the headline WHO'S A STINKY, STUPID, BABY BEDWETTER? The next frame showed the young boy smiling next to text which stated MELT AWAY THE MISERY OF BEDWETTING WITH DESMOMELT.

The complainant, a doctor, objected that the ad was offensive and demeaning to patients who suffered from this condition.

ASA Decision: Not upheld

The ASA understood the BMJ front page could be accessed online by anyone and that it contained a link to the BMJ Learning site. We understood that the ad appeared on the front page of the BMJ Learning site, which was open to unregistered users. However, we accepted that the ad was aimed at medical professionals and that the BMJ Learning Site was designed for and aimed at that audience.

Whilst we acknowledged that the headline WHO'S A STINKY, STUPID, BABY BEDWETTER? could be shocking, we considered that it was intended to elicit sympathy for the child depicted, by referring to the taunts they might receive from others. We understood the ad was intended to highlight the product to medical professionals as a potential prescription product which could help alleviate bedwetting. Whilst we accepted the ad might be distressing to some readers who saw it, we concluded it was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence in the professional medical contexts in which it was presented.

We investigated the ad under CAP Code 5.1 (Decency: offence) but did not find it in breach.

A poster for the horror film The Descent Part 2 featured an image of a screaming girl's face covered in blood with what appeared to be bloody scratches down it. Behind her, emerging from a red glow, was a monster with his mouth open, baring his teeth. Text from a review at the bottom of the ad stated THE FEEL SH*T SCARED FILM OF THE DECADE.

Eighteen complainants challenged whether the language and imagery used in the ad was offensive and whether the imagery could cause fear or distress, and was therefore appropriate for public display where children might see it.

ASA Assessment: Upheld

The ASA noted that the poster had not been targeted to reach a particular audience, but had appeared in places that were easily visible to all, including children. We noted that the text THE FEEL SH*T SCARED FILM OF THE DECADE was prominent and, although asterisked, we considered the meaning and intention of the word SH*T was clear. We recognised that it was therefore difficult for parents who wanted to ensure that children were not exposed to swearing to avoid it, and we considered that the use of SH*T on this poster, that could be seen by children, was likely to be considered unacceptable. We further considered that it was likely to cause serious offence to some readers who would not expect such language in an untargeted medium.

We also considered that the image of the screaming girl, covered in blood and scratches, with the monster behind her was an aggressive and threatening image. Although we considered that that image was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence, we did consider that it could cause distress to younger children. We therefore concluded that, in the context of an untargeted medium where it could be seen by a general audience including children, the poster was unacceptable.

A Super Bowl advertisement for Electronic Arts' Dante's Inferno game has fallen victim to CBS censors.

An original version of the ad had utilized the tagline Go to Hell, but that phrase was deemed to over the top for viewers of this Sunday's big game and CBS rejected it. The Hollywood Reporter blog reports that EA will instead substitute the more sedate tagline Hell Awaits instead.

Update: Hell Banned

12th February. See article from gameslatest.com

Dante's Inferno is not being released in the Middle East. In a move that surprised absolutely no one, EA states that, Electronic Arts has decided not to release Dante's Inferno in the Middle East after an evaluation process which is based on consumer tastes, preferences, platform mix and other factors.

After first setting our eyes on Dante's Inferno last year, it seemed like one of those titles that might never hit the retail shelves in UAE. Dealing with the afterlife, the game focuses on Hell and its 9 circles of sinners within. Such a premise itself is a very touchy topic within the region, one of the reasons why we think Darksiders got banned here.

In fact, this region is so sensitive to such topics that God of War is also banned over here just because it has the word God in the title, despite being based on Greek mythology!

The band Massive Attack have been banned from advertising their new album Heligoland on the London Underground because it looked like graffiti.

Robert 3D Del Naja who had to redesign his artwork for stations, said: They won't allow anything on the Tube that looks like street art.

They want us to remove all drips and fuzz. It's the most absurd censorship I've ever seen.