The Debate: Australia’s Betting Ad Ban
Monday, June 3rd, 2013
Last week Australia’s Prime Minister Julia Gillard announced a ban on the broadcast of live betting odds during sporting events. This was a decision aggressively supported by a surprisingly large proportion of the public and many government officials, some of whom proposed a blanket ban on the odds being telecast at all.
The official ban pertains specifically to the broadcasting of promotional betting ads during play, allowing only for advertisements in the surrounding breaks – this decision is based on a desire to decrease the level of gambling promotion in general. It’s thought that the motive for such a ban is with the best interests of children, and young people generally, in mind. The move was described by the Prime Minister as “very good news for Australian families”. Internet users in support of the ban have expressed their resentment at what they describe as having gambling “continually rammed down their throats” – although we believe that the “if you don’t like gambling, don’t gamble” argument holds up sufficiently here. A recent poll in British newspaper The Guardian asking whether or not a total ban was preferable resulted in a staggering 87% voting in favour of the ban on account of the supposed “protection” of children. A sea of uproarious users have commented on this poll reminding those in agreement of their rights, stating entire disapproval of the idea.
Needless to say, the debate has incited a great deal of controversy among fellow bettors worldwide. The suggestion of such a blanket ban undoubtedly can be, and indeed has been, labelled by gamblers as a “removal of freedoms”.
Beyond this, there are suggestions that there’ll be a governmental crackdown on online gambling altogether. Those in full support of betting have understandably stated that a far more sensible and logical conclusion would be to limit the accessibility of bets with regards to children. For example, the restriction of online betting adverts to pay-to-watch TV or sites requiring logins would surely quiet this concern without the need for any overall betting limitations.
The question here is whether, at its core, this issue revolves around the alleged immoralities and dangers of betting or the preservation of the public’s freedoms. There’s some doubt as to whether it’s at all justifiable to impinge upon a person’s free will when they’re the only person who stands to lose anything as a result. Can/should a government forbid something on account of our “best interests”? While it’s only Australia who has seen such a ban thus far, the ongoing debates regarding the international future of gambling were inevitable.
Do you, like us, feel that these ad bans and the proposed blanket ban are a violation of your freedoms? What do you think is the best plan of action moving forward? We’d love to hear from you.
Leave a Reply