Marketing communications should contain nothing that is likely to cause serious or widespread offence. Particular care should be taken to avoid causing offence on the grounds of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation or disability. Compliance with the Code will be judged on the context, medium, audience, product and prevailing standards of decency. (British Code of Advertising, Sales Promotion and Direct Marketing, Clause 5.1, Applied by the Advertising Standards Association in the adjudication of complaints against specific advertisement)We live in an age when issues surrounding the circulation of images that some may consider offensive have a high profile. Indeed, the issues of offence and the possible harm being caused by images and words seem to be at an all-time high. Yet these issues have always been high on the public agenda with regard to advertising. So, as we negotiate demands for more media regulation, there is value in reviewing the existing evidence to see how effective this might be. Ads that are alleged to cause serious or widespread offence invariably attract more public complaint and media attention than ads that contravene the requirement that, as well as being decent, they should be legal, honest and truthful. Perhaps this is not surprising; advertising is ubiquitous and saturates our everyday lives -engaging us in encounters over which we have no choice and only limited control (ASA, 2002a: 11). It is the most quotidian form of media. And while it is still far from certain how advertising works as a social discourse, mediating our identities in a world that increasingly judges our worth on the basis of the choices we make as consumers, it seems indisputable that it is influential.This article argues that the endeavours of the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) -the body responsible for the self-regulation of advertising in the United Kingdom -to regulate against serious or widespread offence are ineffectual and should be abandoned. My focus will be the flaws in the self-regulation of non-broadcast advertising that make adjudicating on the basis of offence meaningless and, on occasion, counter-productive. By addressing key factors (the framework for self-regulation, the nonrepresentative nature of complainants, the inadequacy of after-the-fact adjudication,