Crazy Domains: The Final Slapdown.
Apr. 27th, 2010 09:20 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
logansrogueI don't really have much to say on this. I'll just quote the PDF I was sent:
The complaints, they said, were the result of a deliberate campaign with the expressed aim of
harming the business of Crazy Domains. The advertiser cited a website to support this
submission. The Independent Reviewer considered that, if established, this might be something
that the ASB would consider in deciding the question of breach. At least it would affect the weight
it would give to the nature and content of the complaints.
The Independent Reviewer accepted the review because it would seek further responses from the
original complainants, who would know of this allegation of malice.
Originally there were 16 complaints, 7 complainants responded to the appeal and made further
submissions. They all rejected the notion that they had been motivated to complain out of
malice. Their submissions were directed to the Code and its meaning. There is no evidence that the
complaints were contaminated by the alleged campaign and no basis for suggesting that the ASB
was manipulated.
OH, and that thing about other commercials being sexist too?
The advertiser also argued that the ASB was "not consistent with previous cases and there is
significant existing precedent of other recent commercials that have had their complaints rejected
by the ASB despite their content being IDENTICAL (Independent Reviewer emphasis) to the Crazy
Domains commercial".
The Independent Reviewer viewed the commercials cited. They are of the same genre but not
identical. Good administrative decision making (as opposed to the decision making of courts)
should try for consistency in approach to all complaints. However the doctrine of precedent does
not apply to such decisions. The Independent Reviewer read the decisions of the ASB in this matter
and noted its attention to detail in regards to the submissions made and interpretation of the
Code. The decision was, as is conceded by the advertiser, an exercise in discretion in interpreting
the relevant clause. This was the task of the ASB. The Independent Reviewer found that the Board
made no procedural error in carrying it out.
The Independent Reviewer recommended that the decision to uphold the complaint under Section
2.1 and Section 2.3 be confirmed by the Board.
And in case Gavin Collins is nosing about, I have a final message for you:
The complaints, they said, were the result of a deliberate campaign with the expressed aim of
harming the business of Crazy Domains. The advertiser cited a website to support this
submission. The Independent Reviewer considered that, if established, this might be something
that the ASB would consider in deciding the question of breach. At least it would affect the weight
it would give to the nature and content of the complaints.
The Independent Reviewer accepted the review because it would seek further responses from the
original complainants, who would know of this allegation of malice.
Originally there were 16 complaints, 7 complainants responded to the appeal and made further
submissions. They all rejected the notion that they had been motivated to complain out of
malice. Their submissions were directed to the Code and its meaning. There is no evidence that the
complaints were contaminated by the alleged campaign and no basis for suggesting that the ASB
was manipulated.
OH, and that thing about other commercials being sexist too?
The advertiser also argued that the ASB was "not consistent with previous cases and there is
significant existing precedent of other recent commercials that have had their complaints rejected
by the ASB despite their content being IDENTICAL (Independent Reviewer emphasis) to the Crazy
Domains commercial".
The Independent Reviewer viewed the commercials cited. They are of the same genre but not
identical. Good administrative decision making (as opposed to the decision making of courts)
should try for consistency in approach to all complaints. However the doctrine of precedent does
not apply to such decisions. The Independent Reviewer read the decisions of the ASB in this matter
and noted its attention to detail in regards to the submissions made and interpretation of the
Code. The decision was, as is conceded by the advertiser, an exercise in discretion in interpreting
the relevant clause. This was the task of the ASB. The Independent Reviewer found that the Board
made no procedural error in carrying it out.
The Independent Reviewer recommended that the decision to uphold the complaint under Section
2.1 and Section 2.3 be confirmed by the Board.
And in case Gavin Collins is nosing about, I have a final message for you:
