It’s not a pleasant duty to stand up for the rights of the gambling industry, even if the harm inflicted on society by gambling is the subject of much hype and handwringing. Gambling is, mostly, a voluntary tax on stupidity, one that this writer never feels the urge to pay. My views on one of the primary gambling industries, animal racing, are well known to Crikey readers. And as a now-retired TV viewer whose couch potato habits relate to downloaded content, MASH, and the Big Bash over summer, nor am I particularly irked by gambling ads during televised sporting contests. So, arguably, I come to the issue with the air of a dilettante, or more of one than usual. But supporting free speech is only authentic when you support the speech of those you disagree with, and the leaked proposal to further restrict gambling ads merits strong opposition.
Gambling is already the subject of an extensive nanny state regime in Australia, particularly online, where the Howard government’s Interactive Gambling Act has been a spectacular failure that the current government is keen to prop up despite a series of reviews showing its failure. Now the government, it appears, is hell bent on further restricting sports gambling advertising on television. The main proposal, it appears, is a ban on gambling ads during live match broadcasts — the prime real estate for gambling companies.
Unsurprisingly, the free to air networks are trenchantly opposed — gambling ad revenue is one of the few growth areas in a market where revenue is flatlining. According to media reports, the major sporting codes are also opposed, and understandably: the amount that TV networks can pay for the broadcast rights of their sports depends on ad revenue, and significantly cutting ad revenue means less money for broadcast rights.
Bear in mind, the major sports are already the subject of another nanny state free speech curb — anti-siphoning rules, which prevent subscription TV channels from bidding for the broadcast rights independently from the free-to-air cartel. That anti-competitive mechanism significantly reduces the amount of revenue sports can command for their broadcast rights. Now the government, in an effort to get Australia’s most prominent anti-gambling politician Nick Xenophon to back its media ownership reforms, is proposing more cuts to major sports’ revenue.
As the codes have correctly noted, Australia can legislate all the nanny state nonsense it likes against gambling, but it won’t affect offshore gambling sites one iota. The result is to simply encourage Australian gamblers to go to those sites and not Australian sites, which are better regulated and which pay Australian taxes. Every attack on gambling sites in Australia simply means more money for foreign gambling sites, and less revenue for Australian governments.
If consumers don’t like the ads, then they can boycott the product, stop gambling and stop watching sport until the TV networks respond to the market signal. But Australians gamble — a lot. There’s a gap between stated and revealed preference here — the twenty billion-plus dollars we lose gambling each year belies the visceral objections to gambling ads that so many people seem to have.
And, curiously, the free speech warriors who want to defend racist cartoons and homophobic abuse are as yet nowhere to be seen. Then again, that crowd are highly selective — they only defend speech they agree with.
This is exactly the same TV industry whining that occurred when cigarette advertising was banned. The industry survived and flourished notwithstanding.
While I may be wrong, is your advocacy that cigarette ads be reintroduced on a free speech ground?
Dunno that free speech is such a black and white issue. There’s a case for gambling advertising to be restricted during ‘daylight hours’ – ie when kids are watching.
But I’m with you on the taxation aspects (of gambling).
A voluntary tax! What could be fairer?
Sorry Paul, my reply was meant for the OP. I have a medical condition called ‘fumble fingers’.
Perhaps I don’t want to have to ‘boycott the product’. Why should I have to?
Perhaps I want to enjoy watching a game of cricket on TV without worrying about the relentless normalisation of addictive gambling.
Perhaps I want to watch the game with my son and not worry whether he will be able to grow up and avoid the perils of gambling addiction.
Perhaps, some believe that gambling is not morally neutral. It’s a particular form of exploitation of addiction and weakness.
Perhaps the Americans, those most ardent defenders of free speech, have it right on gambling advertising – don’t allow it.
If its a competition between Nanny State and Big Gambling on this one I’ll take the Nanny State every time. I don’t want my kids getting preyed on by these advertisers and their mates. I think a bit more time spent working with the downside of gambling and its corrupting influence and bit less worrying over corporates as if they were oppressed individuals might lead one to a different view.
As the father of a 20 year old son, targeted and sucked in by these constant ads, I heartily disagree. There is a difference between free speech and a constant misinformation campaign that deliberately targets susceptible people. The gambling industry is simply a mechanism that mostly syphons money from people who can least afford it into the pockets of the big, rich gambling companies. Gambling provides no net social benefit, it promotes addiction and mental illness. The more controls on it, the better our society will be. Stop this nonsense “free speech” argument, it has no moral justification at all.
Fail #1: Corporations don’t have “free speech” rights because they’re not people. Thus, restricting their ability to advertise is in no way, shape, or form, an attack on “free speech”. And that’s before even considering whether advertising is a form of “speech” that should be “protected”.
Fail #2: “They’ll just go overseas and do it anyway” is not valid justification.
you can’t have it both ways – if corporations aren’t people, why do we expect them to have a support progressive social causes like marriage equality?
I don’t.
I do expect them to not be discriminatory against people’s gender and sexuality because a) that’s the law and b) it produces the best outcome for society.