Defacing Bathurst History - Digital Tobacco Sponsorship Removal

[FAS33]

Originally Posted by peckstar

havent smoked for ten years, but after the weekend i had to try one. two packs in now.

Back to the hypnotist tomorrow

hahaha

you should've just closed your eyes as they came past you peck rofl..wouldve saved you a couple thousand bucks right there.

[david5]

Originally Posted by bluesport

..........and in the meantime the taxpayers pick up the tab for medical bills that run into millions.

Are they the taxpayers dollars raised by the taxes on ciggie sales ???

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by david5

Are they the taxpayers dollars raised by the taxes on ciggie sales ???

I don't know if all the costs associated with the detrimental affects of smoking could be worked out.

[R4z3rw33n]

Originally Posted by bluesport

I don't know if all the costs associated with the detrimental affects of smoking could be worked out.

Here's some approximate costs:
- Tobacco-related excise (2009/2010), Federal budget: $5.65 billion.
- Tangible costs for Tobacco-related illness/abuse: $12.02 billion.
- Intangible costs for Tobacco-related illness/abuse: $19.45 billion.

Bearing in mind, these are only approximate figures.

Back on topic, there's no reason to censor or limit expression (particularly with regard to historical record) solely because legislative circumstance dictates certain matters to be too sensitive or contentious for public discourse. If there were any sincerity behind state-backed efforts toward substance control, altering historical records to achieve such wouldn't be considered reasonable (or, worthwhile) practice.

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by R4z3rw33n

Here's some approximate costs:
- Tobacco-related excise (2009/2010), Federal budget: $5.65 billion.
- Tangible costs for Tobacco-related illness/abuse: $12.02 billion.
- Intangible costs for Tobacco-related illness/abuse: $19.45 billion.

Bearing in mind, these are only approximate figures.

Thanks for that.......end of story I dare say.

[STEALTHY]

Originally Posted by bluesport

Thanks for that.......end of story I dare say.

My opinion was (is) that smokers themselves should have to foot this bill if they choose to smoke, but thats not really the topic here.

The topic here was, is there going to be an increase in smoking because of some footage of an old racecar?...
I'm sure the answer is no

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by STEALTHY

My opinion was (is) that smokers themselves should have to foot this bill if they choose to smoke, but thats not really the topic here.

The topic here was, is there going to be an increase in smoking because of some footage of an old racecar?...
I'm sure the answer is no

There could be........even if it stops ONE person, it's worth it.

[R4z3rw33n]

Originally Posted by STEALTHY

My opinion was (is) that smokers themselves should have to foot this bill if they choose to smoke, but thats not really the topic here.

The topic here was, is there going to be an increase in smoking because of some footage of an old racecar?...
I'm sure the answer is no

Short answer: no.
Considered answer: no.

It's also worth noting that, had CH7 showed the footage unedited, they'd seemingly not have contravened the 1992 act or, any of the later amendments.
They'd have had an out, as broadcast of such content is permissible conduct under any of the following provisions:

TOBACCO ADVERTISING PROHIBITION AMENDMENT ACT 2012 (NO. 5, 2012) - SCHEDULE 1

Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act 1992
...

Insert:

15A Tobacco advertisements not to be published electronically

Offence

(1) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person publishes something, or authorises or causes something to be published; and

(b) the thing is a tobacco advertisement; and

(c) the tobacco advertisement is published electronically; and

(d) the tobacco advertisement is published in Australia.

Penalty: 120 penalty units.

Exceptions

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to the publication of a tobacco advertisement if its publication is permitted by any of sections 16A, 16B, 17, 19 and 20.


Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in subsection (2): see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/c...2394/sch1.html

TOBACCO ADVERTISING PROHIBITION ACT 1992 - SECT 19
Accidental or incidental publication permitted

A person may publish a tobacco advertisement if:

(a) the person publishes the advertisement as an accidental or incidental accompaniment to the publication of other matter; and

(b) the person does not receive any direct or indirect benefit (whether financial or not) for publishing the advertisement (in addition to any direct or indirect benefit that the person receives for publishing the other matter).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/c...92314/s19.html

TOBACCO ADVERTISING PROHIBITION ACT 1992 - SECT 20
Publication by individual not receiving any benefit permitted

An individual may publish a tobacco advertisement if:

(a) the publication is not in the course of the manufacture, distribution or sale of tobacco products; and

(b) the individual publishes the advertisement on his or her own initiative; and

(c) the individual does not receive any direct or indirect benefit (whether financial or not) for publishing the advertisement.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/c...92314/s20.html

There's also a possible defence for display/broadcast of signage under contracts entered into, prior to the 1992 act being passed.

Seems as if CH7 just weren't willing to use (or possibly test) the affordances of the law, as it might have stirred some controversy amongst the cookie cutter crowd (and, possibly cost them some money in legal defense).
Apologies for the long post. Thought that deserved clarification.

[peckstar]

just checking R4z3rw33n, are you a lawyer?

Do you think Channel 7 might have some really expensive lawyers who might have a better understanding of advertising rules.

Do you think channel 7 might have some PR people who might not want to crap that goes with showing adverting also.

[R4z3rw33n]

Originally Posted by peckstar

just checking R4z3rw33n, are you a lawyer?

No. The material's public, though. It's also pretty clear there's certain purposes for display of Tobacco signage that pass as reasonable (such as those where it's inadvertent or not directly beneficial to the party publishing it).

Originally Posted by peckstar

Do you think Channel 7 might have some really expensive lawyers who might have a better understanding of advertising rules.

Do you think channel 7 might have some PR people who might not want to crap that goes with showing adverting also.

It's a decent possibility they have expensive lawyers.
It's also a pretty decent possibility they'd be averse to spending money in legal defense or, risking their PR unnecessarily.

This doesn't mean that displaying signage, in that context specifically, is explicitly illegal - as was earlier suggested in this thread.

[david5]

If Ch 7 have expensive lawyers, then they did a crap job of looking after their client. During the segment there were several shots of JPS, Camel, Winfield and Gallagher even got a sound bite. I wonder if this might be a copyright issue as was the bonnet of the 888 car ?

[GTRMagic]

[mod]Hmmm, this is getting to become something of a pattern

Can we please stick to the subject at hand? Which, in case you have forgotten, is related to #7's decision to blur our the tobacco branding off historic, period race cars.

If we dont stick to topic... this thread wont keep going

[/mod]

[chavez]

Originally Posted by peckstar

just checking R4z3rw33n, are you a lawyer?

Do you think Channel 7 might have some really expensive lawyers who might have a better understanding of advertising rules.

Do you think channel 7 might have some PR people who might not want to crap that goes with showing adverting also.

Yet the previous week the same Channel Seven had no problem in showing cigarette advertising during their VFL / AFL Footy Marathon show.

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by chavez

Yet the previous week the same Channel Seven had no problem in showing cigarette advertising during their VFL / AFL Footy Marathon show.

a replay of something from the past, compared to something happening currently.

a big difference

[STEALTHY]

Originally Posted by bluesport

There could be........even if it stops ONE person, it's worth it.

I'm sure if anything, its created more smokers than its stopped.

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by STEALTHY

I'm sure if anything, its created more smokers than its stopped.

Oh dear, that's a shame.

[STEALTHY]

Originally Posted by bluesport

Oh dear, that's a shame.

Thats funny, that was my thoughts when i realised you were serious in thinking blurred images on brocks car has stopped a smoker

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

[mod]Hmmm, this is getting to become something of a pattern

Can we please stick to the subject at hand? Which, in case you have forgotten, is related to #7's decision to blur our the tobacco branding off historic, period race cars.

If we dont stick to topic... this thread wont keep going

[/mod]

Originally Posted by STEALTHY

Thats funny, that was my thoughts when i realised you were serious in thinking blurred images on brocks car has stopped a smoker

Stealthy, GTR has already told us not to keep carrying on like this........there's nothing more to be said.

[STEALTHY]

Originally Posted by bluesport

Stealthy, GTR has already told us not to keep carrying on like this........there's nothing more to be said.

bluesport, he said discuss blurred images, my post discusses blurred images

I think you'll find he wanted the health statistics crap out of here

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by STEALTHY

bluesport, he said discuss blurred images, my post discusses blurred images

I think you'll find he wanted the health statistics crap out of here

No, the stats are still there........they are relevant to the discussion and as to why the images were blurred........not crap at all, but rather reality.

[STEALTHY]

Originally Posted by bluesport

No, the stats are still there........they are relevant to the discussion and as to why the images were blurred........not crap at all, but rather reality.

And as has been pointed out, why blur them this time, but they didn't 2 weeks prior (and as others have said, other sports aswell)

Can you answer that?

[bluesport]

Originally Posted by STEALTHY

And as has been pointed out, why blur them this time, but they didn't 2 weeks prior (and as others have said, other sports aswell)

Can you answer that?

It must have been an oversight.

[STEALTHY]

Originally Posted by bluesport

It must have been an oversight.

[chavez]

Originally Posted by peckstar

a replay of something from the past, compared to something happening currently.

a big difference

But Channel Seen also blurred the replays of "something from the past". ie footage from past Bathursts from the 70's and 80's.

[Falcadore]

Because offending motor racing purists is considerably better public relations and considerly less likely public outcry (and potentially legal action) led from the anti-tobacco lobby.

Nobody cares about offending motor racing purists because at the end of the day it is just a bunch of motor racing nerds, where as the anti-tobacco lobby is quite the powerful lobby group. As far as Channel 7 is concerned, the impact to them is much less if racing nerds get upset. We might jump up and down and throw tantrums, but nothing would ever result from it. Not so much in the other direction. It's just percentages.

So deal with it.