Your Daily Broadsheet

A cinema ad for the vegan charity Viva!, seen in March and April 2025, featured a woman placing her sleeping baby in a cot while a lullaby played. After switching off a lamp, she turned around to see the baby in the cot. A silhouetted figure suddenly appeared standing over the cot and the room went dark. The woman switched on a light to reveal a man in a suit running a bottle of milk across the bars of the cot, which was now empty. The woman gasped and asked, What have you done with my baby? The man smiled, revealing misshapen, discoloured teeth, and replied in a low, gravelly voice, You cant keep your baby because we want your milk. The womans scream was cut off and the screen went black. The next scene showed a calf in a pen. The voiceover stated, Almost every dairy calf is taken from their mother shortly after birth so most of her milk can be sold to us. And what do you think happens to thousands of male babies like this one? The words Dairy is Scary and the Viva! logo appeared on a black screen accompanied by a loud, metallic noise and the sound of something falling to the floor.

The ASA received 25 complaints, including one from The Dairy Council of Northern Ireland. The complainants challenged whether the ad was irresponsible, distressing, especially to those that had lost a child, and likely to cause serious or widespread offence.

Viva! said they aimed to raise awareness of standard practices in the dairy industry, particularly the removal of calves from their mothers shortly after birth. The ad was based on factual information and was intended to inform and encourage ethical choices, not to shock. They cited a survey which found that 59% of respondents did not know that cows must give birth in order to produce milk.

Viva! said the ad used metaphor and cinematic techniques, rather than graphic imagery, to draw a symbolic comparison between human and animal separation. The character of the bogeyman was a dramatic device used to prompt empathy. They said it was not intended to trivialise human grief or cause distress to those who had experienced child loss.

ASA Assessment:  Complaints upheld

The CAP Code stated that marketing communications must be prepared with a sense of responsibility to consumers, and must not cause serious or widespread offence, fear or distress without justifiable reason. The fear or distress should not be excessive, and marketers must not use a shocking claim or image merely to attract attention.

The ad, which drew on conventions of horror films, was classified as suitable for audiences aged 15+ and appeared in cinemas. The ASA acknowledged that it was surreal and stylised in tone and did not feature graphic imagery. We understood that the approach was intended to encourage viewers to draw a direct emotional parallel between the separation of calves from their mothers and the imagined loss of a human baby. We considered, however, that while viewers would understand that the ad aimed to raise awareness of animal welfare, the nature of that comparison was likely to be seen as insensitive by many and in particular by those with experience of loss or trauma around parenthood.

The domestic scene of a mother putting her baby to bed abruptly changed with the arrival of a menacing bogeyman figure standing over the babys cot, and the babys subsequent disappearance. We considered that the bogeyman character created a strong sense of unease and threat. Although the ad did not depict the baby being harmed, and it was not shown being physically removed, we considered that its disappearance was likely to be seen as shocking and unsettling. We further considered that the statement You cant keep your baby, in combination with the sudden disappearance of the baby, was likely to be particularly upsetting for viewers with experience of child loss or fertility issues, in particular because the parallel with dairy industry practices was revealed only in the latter half of the ad. We considered that the late reveal, in combination with the unsettling imagery, was likely to increase the emotional impact and amplify distress. We considered that the message of the ad did not justify the distress likely to be caused by the approach, in particular to vulnerable audiences.

For those reasons, we concluded that the ad was irresponsible and likely to cause unjustified distress and serious and widespread offence.

The ad must not appear again in the form complained about.

Salaam BCR is a local radio station in the Manchester area.

Ofcom has just fined the radio station owners Markaz-Al-Huda Ltd for material broadcast on Salaam BCR on 17 October 2023 at 14:00 and 16:3

The fine of £3500 was imposed for breaches of the Ofcom censorship rules:

• Rule 3.2: “Material which contains hate speech must not be included in…radio programmes…except where it is justified by the context”;

• Rule 3.3: “Material which contains abusive or derogatory treatment of individuals, groups, religions or communities, must not be included in…radio services…except where it is justified by the context”; and

• Rule 2.3: “In applying generally accepted standards broadcasters must ensure that material which may cause offence is justified by the context…Such material may include, but is not limited to, offensive language…discriminatory treatment or language (for example on the grounds of…race, religion or belief…) ...Appropriate information should also be broadcast where it would assist in avoiding or minimising offence”.

The offending programme was broadcast on Salaam BCR featuring a 38- minute speech delivered by Mr Shujauddin Sheikh. The speech was delivered to an audience outside the Karachi Press Club in Pakistan on 12 October 2023. During the programme, Mr Shujauddin presented his views on the ongoing situation in the Middle East and, in particular, what he considered to be a lack of response by Muslim leaders around the world to the suffering of Palestinian Muslims in Gaza.

Ofcom concluded this broadcast contained antisemitic hate speech and abusive and derogatory statements, which were potentially highly offensive and not justified by the context.

Russian lawmakers have passed controversial legislation that would dramatically expand the governments ability to punish internet users -- not for sharing forbidden content but for simply looking it up.

The new measures, which sailed through the Russian parliament and will take effect in September, will introduce fines for people who deliberately searched for knowingly extremist materials and gained access to them through means such as virtual private networks, or VPNs.

VPNs are already widely used in Russia to circumvent the many blocks on websites.

Russia defines extremist materials as content officially added by a court to a government-maintained registry, currently with about 5,500 entries, or content produced by extremist organizations ranging from the LGBT movement to al-Qaeda.

Until now, Russian law stopped short of punishing individuals for seeking information online; only creating or sharing such content is prohibited. The new amendments follow remarks by high-ranking officials that censorship is justified in wartime.

Similar legislation passed recently in neighboring Belarus, Russias close ally ruled by authoritarian leader Alexander Lukashenko, and has been used to justify prosecution of government critics.

The fine for searching for banned content in Russia would be about a $65, while the penalty for advertising circumvention tools such as VPN services would be steeper -- $2,500 for individuals and up to $12,800 for companies.

The BBFC writes:

The BBFC can reveal that 1 in 3 adult pornography users have been exposed to violent or abusive content online in the last three months. In a survey of 2,021 adults who had accessed pornography online, over half (58%) expressed concern about the levels of violence or abuse depicted.

The research provides the most up-to-date insight into the types of violent and abusive content pornography users are exposed to online in the UK. The concerning findings come just four months after the Government published the Independent Pornography Review . The Review, led by Baroness Bertin, recommends parity between how pornography is regulated online and offline.

Offline, the BBFC has had statutory responsibility for classifying pornographic material released on physical formats (such as VHS, DVD and Blu-ray) for 40 years under the Video Recordings Act 1984 (VRA). The BBFC supports adults right to choose their own entertainment so long as it is legal and non-harmful. The BBFC will not classify any content that is in breach of the criminal law nor any material that might cause harm -- for example by encouraging dangerous emulation or unhealthy fantasies relating to violence, sadism, abuse and non-consensual behaviour. It is a criminal offence under the VRA to distribute a pornographic video work that has not been classified by the BBFC. However, the BBFC has no statutory role online.

The research shows that, in the past three months, users had been exposed to online content depicting physical violence, non-consensual activity, incest, and adults role-playing as children. Such content may cause harm by promoting an interest in sexually abusive relationships or in activity (such as strangulation) that can lead to serious physical harm. As such, it would be refused classification by the BBFC and would therefore be illegal to supply or distribute offline (on DVD or Blu-Ray). Of those exposed to these types of content, users were most concerned (67%) by material depicting adults role-playing as children.

Users most often reported having seen depictions of physical violence (19%), such as strangulation, with 62% of all respondents thinking that depictions of physical violence are normalised in online pornography. 64% of those surveyed agreed that violent or abusive pornography is contributing to the normalisation of violent sexual behaviour in the real world.

Whilst the Online Safety Act requires providers of online services to remove illegal content -- such as child sexual abuse material or extreme pornography -- it does not address all material that would be refused a BBFC classification for distribution offline. This means that harmful depictions of non-consensual, violent, abusive and degrading activity remain available to UK users.

Despite variation in individual exposure and concern of the respondents, a large majority would back regulation, with 80% of adult users supporting new rules to prevent online platforms from publishing or distributing pornography that depicts violence or abuse and 88% indicating they are in favour of new regulation to verify that all individuals shown are consenting adults.

Today, the BBFC joins the first meeting of the Independent Pornography Review Taskforce. The Taskforce has been established by Baroness Bertin and will bring together politicians, campaigners, police, charities and organisations who are invested in making the online world a safer place. Todays meeting, chaired by Baroness Bertin and co-hosted by the BBFC, will take the form of a roundtable discussion to which other key figures have been invited to contribute.

During the roundtable, the BBFC will welcome the Government's recent pledge to criminalise pornography depicting strangulation. The BBFC remains fully committed to supporting the Government with the implementation of Baroness Bertins recommendations, to ensure parity between online and offline regulation, including by bringing our unparalleled expertise to take on a formal role auditing online pornography.

President of the British Board of Film Classification, Natasha Kaplinsky OBE said:

The BBFC has long been concerned about the increasingly violent and abusive pornography so easily accessible online. Our findings that 1 in 3 adult pornography users have been exposed to such content in the last three months is shocking, but sadly it is not surprising.

Parity on and offline is paramount and our research suggests that there is broad support among pornography users in the UK for aligning the regulation of online pornography with the standards already applied offline. Whats illegal to distribute offline, should be illegal to distribute online.

We stand ready to better protect audiences online by taking on the formal role of auditing online pornography as recommended in the Independent Pornography Review, which would be a natural extension of the role we have fulfilled offline for decades.

Baroness Bertin, Lead Reviewer of the Independent Pornography Review said:

This BBFC research shows a clear path for regulating online pornography. The industry has faced virtually no scrutiny, despite widespread concerns about violence, misogyny, and content involving unclear age of performers or consent.

The Governments recent announcement to ban pornographic content depicting strangulation and suffocation is a welcome and significant step. It shows ministers are beginning to listen to growing concern about the harms caused by violent online pornography. But any law change could be ineffective if there isn't a regulatory body that will proactively assess whether standards are being met, and the law is being enforced. The BBFC stepping up to audit content and expedite reports of non compliance is a vital move the Government should back.