With the greatest of respect Graham I think that the decline in civility on this forum relates to the tone of the article. You have published an article that begins with the line, “"Buck Farrack" is a hugely popular car sticker in the Commonwealth of Virginia...” and the article contains a number of cheap shots aimed at Barack Obama and its overriding theme is that President Obama should not visit Australia. The article states, “[B]y disappointing American working families on both jobs and health care, he has shown himself to be a colossal failure.” This is actually quite ironic considering the date on which it was posted. But the author then posts a comment suggesting that President Obama is a Muslim – moreover that he has concealed his Muslim identity and that this is sinister.

In this context it isn’t hard to see why this article is controversial. Nor is it hard to see why the debate can get quite heated on this topic specifically or on similar topics. I do understand that you are not endorsing the sentiments of the author

I do take your point with respect to maintaining civility on Online Opinion. But at the same time, there are quite a number of racist or semi-racist comments that are made on OLO and which understandably cause offence. I think you have to allow for the fact that in confronting racism some users will have an emotional reaction first and an intellectual reaction second. So combating incivility but not combating racism seems quite wrong.

It wouldn’t be fair to exempt these comments or the users who consistently make them from challenge. If we fail to challenge racist remarks, and just let them remain on cyberspace where they offend others, then this can be tantamount to endorsing them. We can’t just sit idly by and let others be denigrated on the basis of their race or ethno-religious background – I’m commenting here on some posts that I’ve seen in other threads and the author’s post in this one.

I think it’s worth considering how an average Muslim person would feel if they read the author’s post. Its one thing to have a strident view it’s another thing to be deliberately cruel. Given the amount of racist material that does get posted on OLO its worth considering the impact that this does have on non-white users and even white users. Who would want to be associated with racism? Who would contribute to the forums or articles if their ethnicity is going to be attacked? I think that this is a relevant consideration in this context because it has arisen in the article and the author’s post

I think that Ngarmada makes a fair point, and it’s one that he has brought up before – that it is one thing to talk about civility but it’s another thing to either allow racism to go unchallenged or to allow it to escalate.

On OLO I’ve seen a contributor get severely attacked in a forum because he happened to be Muslim. In that instance his Muslim identity had nothing to do with his article. But it was used by a poster to discredit him. I have seen another contributor referred to as less than equal as an Australian because of her race. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10174&page=0 I’ve seen one user chase and harass a female user from thread to thread. Unsurprisingly she now appears to have left. I have seen another user, in another thread, call for “A final solution to the Black Problem.” I’m not sure how you read that but I read that as being fairly sinister. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10150&page=0

In my opinion, it is one thing to liken OLO to a town hall. That’s fair enough there should be a broad church of opinion. But it’s another thing to allow racist viewpoints to congregate. Legally, the Silberberg decision suggests that OLO isn’t liable for racist posts that are unlawful under the Racial Discrimination Act or the Anti-Discrimination Act. But ethically, to have knowledge of this material and to do little seems wrong.

Again, its just my opinion, but I wonder why the author of this article, in response to a number of flame attacks from forum users, decided to rely on a Barack-as-a-Muslim smear in order to get some credibility back. Did the author think that he could exploit racial or ethno-religious prejudice to advance his own standing? If so, what does that say about OLO and its users?

Well said David J.

This article makes Andrew Bolt appear the paragon of factual research, but then, that is OLO all over: from the sublime to the gutter.

Our Editor in Chief has never let trash get in the way of attracting attention, that he then complains about the low level of discussion generated by such spurious articles is simply disingenuous.

I should not have to point out that Obama was handed the most poisonous of chalices, the campaign mounted by Republicans against him the worst smear effort in American history yet, despite this, has achieved (for the USA) a health care program that brings America into the 20th century - still has a ways to go, but now 30 million people (more than the population of Australia) can access health care where they were prevented from so doing in the past.

What David Jennings and Severin said.

Yes Obama is a total failure.

His health care is fraught with impossibility and the US probably will never see it's actual implementation.

The only bipartisanship about it was the opposition to it.

The next Senate elections will see the Republicans in control and the great likelyhood the provisions of Obamacare overturned with a simple majority. It would have been easier if Obama had used the Democrat super majority to enshrine the legislation so that a simple Senate majority wouldn't be able to overturn it but unfortunately for him Republicans and Democrats joined together in opposition.

Hah some success eh?

Obama won't release copies of his Passport? I didn't know that. Is it true?

Ngarmada,'racist bigots have been systenatically denigrating people', now that's a very disturbing general ascusation. Can you back it up with specifics?