You can almost picture the headlines: ‘Government allows freedom group to run pro-freedom advert!’ or ‘All clear for dictator comparison, say free-speech regulators’. Confused? This is the story of NO2ID’s ‘Hitler’ advert, which some found offensive. The anti-ID cards campaigning group has been running an ad featuring a picture of Tony Blair with a barcode above his upper lip, purposely encouraging Hitler comparisons. After received a whopping eight complaints, the Advertising Standards Authority decided to consider action against the advert.

Fortunately for everyone (bar those eight people who were offended, of course), the ASA decided to permit NO2ID to continue running the ad, after the group argued (to everyone’s astonishment) that free speech was important and that this advert just so happened to be an example of free speech. Presented with such a strong case, the ASA could only but decide that, yes, free speech is indeed a good thing.

The ASA’s reasoning was as follows: as the advert makes a political point about liberty (even though it does feature a picture of a nasty man mocked up to look like a much nastier man) it should be permitted; it would be obviously hypocritical not to permit it. The implication, of course, is that if there were no political point to the advert (that is, if it were just ‘gratuitous’ free speech) then it could have been banned, as it would be purely taking advantage of liberty. Why should speech have to jump through hoops set for it by unelected busybodies in the ASA?

Alex Hochuli