Dear Graham

I believe the following link should adequately answer your question:

http://larvatusprodeo.net/2011/02/11/larvatus-prodeo-statement-on-cessation-of-relationship-with-on-line-opinion-and-the-domian/

J Parker,

From the page you linked to on the LP site,
"LP intends to make no further public comment on these matters at this time, and the comments thread on a previous post about the advertising controversy has now been closed"

and below that again,

"Comments are closed."

Yet you can post on OLO at will and do.

Freedom of speech on the LP site? Nope, classic FAIL.

I am a bit shocked by what is going on, although it is indeed the right of any organisation to pull out of an existing arrangement.

For myself, and I know many others on OLO, extensive debate should never be feared, but be encouraged.

Look what happened to One Nation with extensive debate.

Whether it be gay, environmental or any other issue, we should have faith that debate will result in progressive policies
(albeit such a term may be subjective), and we should not ban any view.

The left should see OLO as a forum to be won. I do not agree with many respondents or articles, but that is the challenge of writing on a forum with such diverse views on a wide range of issues.

As far as I am concerned, OLO is as good as any site in Australia because it represents the greatest diversity of views, and good quality.

I just hope that we have enough passionate contributors and readers to keep OLO working, even if it is run on minimal resources.

Just thought I'd post this Feb 7th link to Larvatus Prodeo and their discussion of the controversy.

http://larvatusprodeo.net/2011/02/07/on-line-opinion-and-the-advertising-and-free-speech-controversy/

J Parker, no-one who comments on this blog is treated with discourtesy when their comments are moderated or at any other time. Nothing in what you have linked to, or Poirot for that matter, gives any primary material to demonstrate that.

The complaints arise from people who could only be satisfied if I agreed with them. When I don't they assert I don't have a right to moderate. It would be pretty pointless to have moderation if you were obliged to agree with the complainant every time.

It is interesting that LP claim the letter was "leaked" to the ALP. I received it at 9:20 on Friday, yet by 11:19 the ABC asked me whether it was true, because they had a copy. This isn't exactly what I would call a "leak", it's more like "special delivery". Either LP did it themselves or they spread it so widely that leaking was bound to occur.

At that stage I had not forwarded the email to anyone, even my board, so it couldn't have been me.

So you should be very wary of relying on a party who is being adversarial to another as your sole source of information where they are at best a secondary source, and probably even further down the food chain as I don't think any of them has ever posted a comment on OLO, let alone had it moderated.

Poirot, Kim's piece is interesting, but she can't be taken too seriously. I engaged with her on Club Troppo where she evidenced no understanding of the liberal position on free speech. Take this quote from JS Mill and contrast it to her claims.

'If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind'

LP is full of hate speech, it is just about people they disapprove of, so they see that as OK.

Perhaps a better question would be to ask how those sites are moderated? J Parker.

I believe J Parker is directly referring to the other public forum sites he/she raised GY making the point that OLO accords respect to complainants and/or requests of elimination of posts if not in the public's best interests.

I wish to make a valid and relevant point regarding this issue to the gay community.

How many occasions [if you are not naval gazing]about your own hurts and reading other OLO or public forum threads, do you read the hurtful and sweeping generalisations made about young girls behaviour and female victims stories? Rarely, I have observed, do these female adult victims, or women, jump on a bandwagon and request abuser remarks to be removed, or revenge taken.

Most of these women victims and posters, on the most sensitive subjects close to their hearts, bravely deal with the stirrers, mysoginist commentators, and a wide range of posters, taking it all on the chin, rarely requesting for discriminatory or abusive remarks to be removed. Totally selfless,intelligent and giving human beings.

One of the reasons for this I believe, is that women victims are fully aware that some positive outcomes will follow on from those subjects [education and the site being one of the positives].

Kipp, people who are gay are not the only people on the planet who participate in forums that cop flak. Every person does at some stage regardless of their current station in life.

Some people who have copped flak are just selfless enough to endure the battering in order to promote a greater good for the community.

If women victims on public forums got together and read every thread on forums with the intent of complaining about gender and abuse issues, there would be an almighty stink!

Yet, most of these women are totally selfless in their natures, knowing they are commenting with the objective to assist other victims and educate the general public, particularly some males who have not been on the receiving end of abuse.