St Kilda Football Club Gets more "Woke"

[mcadam05]

So I finished work and as im waiting for my tram i go and look at my Facebook and I see a nice pic of Nicky Winmar and Gilbert Mcadam from a couple of days ago and from 1992 after a match




its very nice and all , but I look a little closer hmmm something isnt right with the top pic ahhh they blacked out the Sponsors Logo but then i ask myself why would they do that I mean who cares who was our sponsor was 27 years ago. But wait it was a evil tobacco company so it was fine in 1992 too take the money but in 2019 we are now woke and we need too change or photoshop history

its Bull##$% So St Kilda please stop trying too rewrite our History

nothing to do with St Kilda rewriting history, its against the law to display cigarette company logos in any form

I find that hard to believe.

Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act 1992
The object of the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act 1992 (the Act) is to limit the exposure of the public to messages and images that may persuade people to start or continue smoking or using tobacco products.

The Act defines ‘tobacco advertisement’ more broadly than the everyday meaning of the term. Section 9 of the Act defines a ‘tobacco advertisement’ to be any writing, still or moving picture, sign, symbol or other visual image that gives publicity to, or otherwise promotes or is intended to promote, smoking or the purchase or use of tobacco products.

It would have to be a very strict interpretation of that act that causes us to photoshop images of a couple of club legends. In my opinion, it’s more likely the club don’t want to be associated with cigarette advertising, and I’m okay with that.

Having said that, I noticed in the recent story on Plugger v the Swans they made no attempt to photoshop the Tooheys logo.

I doubt you’ll get a response from the mad dog on this.

I agree with you. I reckon it’s our club trying to be ultra PC and has nothing to do with breaking the law, which I highly doubt they are

It’s absurd to force every tobacco logo to be photoshopped from every historical image. Pretty easy to understand that!

So I have posted a lot of videos from the 90 too 93 , must I now put a healthwarning on them??? For goodness sake my point of the post was you can't change history it is what it is , at the time Philp Morris put in millions of dollars in too this club some may say it kept us alive so as I must repeat myself The club we all follow SHOUND NOT be rewriting our history too suit 2019 culture so if posts about Bailey Rice and membership numbers are your thing by all means go read them , but don't tell me my option is silly

[The_Dud]

It must be winter as there are a few snowflakes floating around!

[Enrico_Misso]

Looks like the Gender-free toilet mentality raising it's head again!

[Enrico_Misso]

We put up a photo today on the StKilda website showing Nathan Burke playing his 300th.

But they left the Pura Milk logos intact.

So it's not about offending current sponsors.
It's about political correctness.
Pathetic.

[The_Dud]

We put up a photo today on the StKilda website showing Nathan Burke playing his 300th.

But they left the Pura Milk logos intact.

So it's not about offending current sponsors.
It's about political correctness.
Pathetic.

[Special]

We put up a photo today on the StKilda website showing Nathan Burke playing his 300th.

But they left the Pura Milk logos intact.

So it's not about offending current sponsors.
It's about political correctness.
Pathetic.

Jaysus!

What about the poor vegans?

Cows milk!!!

[CQ SAINT]

We put up a photo today on the StKilda website showing Nathan Burke playing his 300th.

But they left the Pura Milk logos intact.

So it's not about offending current sponsors.
It's about political correctness.
Pathetic.

Jaysus!

What about the poor vegans?

Cows milk!!!

St.Kilda once had a sponsorship deal with a tobacco company. Those types of deals became illegal and ceased when, legislation changed or, the deals at the time expired. For the Saints to continue to provide exposure for these sponsors after that time could be deemed a breach of the law.

Is it really that hard to understand?

[Enrico_Misso]

We put up a photo today on the StKilda website showing Nathan Burke playing his 300th.

But they left the Pura Milk logos intact.

So it's not about offending current sponsors.
It's about political correctness.
Pathetic.

Jaysus!

What about the poor vegans?

Cows milk!!!

St.Kilda once had a sponsorship deal with a tobacco company. Those types of deals became illegal and ceased when, legislation changed or, the deals at the time expired. For the Saints to continue to provide exposure for these sponsors after that time could be deemed a breach of the law.

Is it really that hard to understand?

Well better tell the state library then, as they will need to go through every historical photo in their collection and black out any references to tobacco.

[CQ SAINT]

We put up a photo today on the StKilda website showing Nathan Burke playing his 300th.

But they left the Pura Milk logos intact.

So it's not about offending current sponsors.
It's about political correctness.
Pathetic.

Jaysus!

What about the poor vegans?

Cows milk!!!

St.Kilda once had a sponsorship deal with a tobacco company. Those types of deals became illegal and ceased when, legislation changed or, the deals at the time expired. For the Saints to continue to provide exposure for these sponsors after that time could be deemed a breach of the law.

Is it really that hard to understand?

Well better tell the state library then, as they will need to go through every historical photo in their collection and black out any references to tobacco.

I didnt know the State Library or anyone else were a part of our deal with Phillip Morris.
Provisions in the Act consider incidental circumstances which would exempt anyone other than a party to the sponsorship in displaying the sponsors name.
To understand this you would have to give up the notion of 'virtue signalling' and consider the legal responsibilities set out by the Act.
Simple really.

[BringBackMadDog]

So I finished work and as im waiting for my tram i go and look at my Facebook and I see a nice pic of Nicky Winmar and Gilbert Mcadam from a couple of days ago and from 1992 after a match




its very nice and all , but I look a little closer hmmm something isnt right with the top pic ahhh they blacked out the Sponsors Logo but then i ask myself why would they do that I mean who cares who was our sponsor was 27 years ago. But wait it was a evil tobacco company so it was fine in 1992 too take the money but in 2019 we are now woke and we need too change or photoshop history

its Bull##$% So St Kilda please stop trying too rewrite our History

nothing to do with St Kilda rewriting history, its against the law to display cigarette company logos in any form

I find that hard to believe.

Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act 1992
The object of the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act 1992 (the Act) is to limit the exposure of the public to messages and images that may persuade people to start or continue smoking or using tobacco products.

The Act defines ‘tobacco advertisement’ more broadly than the everyday meaning of the term. Section 9 of the Act defines a ‘tobacco advertisement’ to be any writing, still or moving picture, sign, symbol or other visual image that gives publicity to, or otherwise promotes or is intended to promote, smoking or the purchase or use of tobacco products.

It would have to be a very strict interpretation of that act that causes us to photoshop images of a couple of club legends. In my opinion, it’s more likely the club don’t want to be associated with cigarette advertising, and I’m okay with that.

Having said that, I noticed in the recent story on Plugger v the Swans they made no attempt to photoshop the Tooheys logo.

I doubt you’ll get a response from the mad dog on this.

I agree with you. I reckon it’s our club trying to be ultra PC and has nothing to do with breaking the law, which I highly doubt they are

It’s absurd to force every tobacco logo to be photoshopped from every historical image. Pretty easy to understand that!

It is actually against the law, my quote above is taken directly from the legislation, so if you're going to make a statement make sure you know the facts

[kosifantutti]

I'm no lawyer but that looks like a description of the legislation rather then the legislation itself:

http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/ ... cco-advert

It goes on to say:

Key exceptions to the general restriction on tobacco advertising in the Act include:

section 9(1A) – political discourse;
section 9(7) – anti-smoking advertisements;
section 10(3) – tobacco trade communications;
sections 14 and 19 – accidental or incidental broadcast or publication;

The Act can be found here:
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2017C00302

And here's the relevant section:

Accidental or incidental broadcast permitted

A person may broadcast a tobacco advertisement if:

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

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

As I said, I reckon we're just disassociating ourselves from cigarette advertising. Not a legal requirement.

[Spinner]

I'm no lawyer but that looks like a description of the legislation rather then the legislation itself:

http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/ ... cco-advert

It goes on to say:

Key exceptions to the general restriction on tobacco advertising in the Act include:

section 9(1A) – political discourse;
section 9(7) – anti-smoking advertisements;
section 10(3) – tobacco trade communications;
sections 14 and 19 – accidental or incidental broadcast or publication;

The Act can be found here:
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2017C00302

And here's the relevant section:

Accidental or incidental broadcast permitted

A person may broadcast a tobacco advertisement if:

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

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

As I said, I reckon we're just disassociating ourselves from cigarette advertising. Not a legal requirement.

Good work on this.

Looks like it's not just being PC but rather a combination of good social awareness and complying with the law.

Lots of anti PC sooks out there days, jump and whinge at everything.

[barneyboyz]

What wonderful blokes and players. How in hell did they not win a premiership? staggers me

Anyhoo, off for a ciggy then

[asiu]

Anyhoo

[CQ SAINT]

I'm no lawyer but that looks like a description of the legislation rather then the legislation itself:

http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/ ... cco-advert

It goes on to say:

Key exceptions to the general restriction on tobacco advertising in the Act include:

section 9(1A) – political discourse;
section 9(7) – anti-smoking advertisements;
section 10(3) – tobacco trade communications;
sections 14 and 19 – accidental or incidental broadcast or publication;

The Act can be found here:
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2017C00302

And here's the relevant section:

Accidental or incidental broadcast permitted

A person may broadcast a tobacco advertisement if:

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

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

As I said, I reckon we're just disassociating ourselves from cigarette advertising. Not a legal requirement.

As I noted earlier. St.kilda countered the ban with a Quit campaign in 92 which featured the jumper with the logo and then disassociated themselves from the brand from there.
This was almost certainly a strategic ploy which emcompassed a politically correct direction and appeased our contract with PM at the same time.
As it was 27 years ago and Im pretty confident there were legal reasons it happened, there is little doubt internal policy was developed within our own media management policies to avoid complaint and trouble with the DPP.
Claiming an accidental or incidental breach after that would be very difficult and a complaint thereafter would be very difficult to defend.

Edit: telecasting our brand is definitely a benefit, associating it with PM after 92 would most likely be a breach of the Act.

[prwilkinson]

Just replace it with a Sportsbet logo or one of the other 50 gambling businesses that now harass you whilst watching sport.

[Special]

Yep just PC nonsense that’s cleverly been caught out here.

Probably some millennial nuffie straight from PC skool

[CQ SAINT]

I'll be the first to admit that ignorance can be blissful, but it's no excuse to break the law!

[The_Dud]

Yep just PC nonsense that’s cleverly been caught out here.

Probably some millennial nuffie straight from PC skool

Another offended baby boomer I’m guessing?

Talk about the ‘snowflake’ generation...

[saynta]

A quick search through Urban Dictionary turns up this result: "Being Woke means being aware. Knowing whats going on in the community" But it's not quite that simple. Like most slang, the meaning of "woke" changes depending on who's saying it, and to whom.Jan 8, 2016