David Jones Limited has dropped its landmark case against The Australia Institute and its former executive director Clive Hamilton over their controversial 2006 paper "Corporate paedophilia -- s-xualising children by advertising and marketing".
A win for DJ's could have ushered in a new era of corporate combativeness, but instead their strategy has backfired spectacularly.
The Australia Institute’s accompanying media release to the 2006 study, in which David Jones was named, stated:
Children are increasingly being portrayed in clothing and posed in ways designed to draw attention to adult s-xual features that they do not yet possess … Children are being eroticised in the interests of the corporate bottom line.
It is particularly disturbing that this exploitation of young children appears to be becoming accepted as mainstream.
Major retail chains such as David Jones and Myer have jumped on the bandwagon...
Only David Jones pursued legal action, a decision that many have dubbed an dumb PR move given that it sparked a flood of negative publicity in which every article tied the David Jones brand to the unfortunate term "corporate paedophilia" while the Myer name faded into the background.
So what do you think of DJ’s decision to pursue this in the courts under the Trade Practices Act in the first place?
Is their decision to drop the case a win for free speech?
And a vindication of The Australia Institute’s original argument?