"It seems that your idea of a "discussion" is limited only to those words that are sanctioned by the gay lobby. (and I'll add that I am a supporter of gay rights and opinion as an expression of freedom)." -- Poirot

Do you endorse language that vilifies gay people? Do you think it's ok to call gay people perverse? Do you think that's acceptable, especially as Gregory Storer has pointed out, given that such language contributes to the alarming rates of youth suicide in this country. I suppose you're ok with young kids killing themselves, simply because people like you want to allow open slather on gay people.

Next you'll be telling me some of your best friends are gay.

Michael.

Hey Mikey, here's an idea; a wise man recently said:
"If you're not interested in the conversation, you are welcome to unsubscribe from the topic."
Herein lies the whole crux of the censorship debate. I am not the slightest bit interested in going to a Christian site and rubbishing Christianity. Ditto for Muslim sites, or Hindu sites...
Equally I have no time for the chap who spends 8 hours in a dark cinema, and then comes out demanding that pornography should be banned.
I didn't read the original article, nor did I join the ensuing debate, simply because what consenting adults choose to do is none of my business, and of no interest to me.
I would have thought reading half a page of that tripe would have convinced you that the rest wasn't worth reading, nor would the comments be.
And yet...
I suggest you follow your own advice.

"Do you endorse language that vilifies gay people? Do you think it's ok to call gay people perverse"

There are a lot of people on OLO who have supported equal rights for gay and lesbians over a long period. Some of us disagree strongly with silencing (or muting) public disent.

I'd provide the same level of endorsment to language that vilifies gay people as I do to the portrayal of the gay and lesbian community that is given in the media coverage of the Mardi-Gras. No endorsement for either but as long as contrary views are allowed it's better than the type of society which silences unwanted expression of views.

Both are I hope representations of the extreme and hopefully not represenative of broader views.

Trying to drive those comments underground won't stop them when no one can do anything to help, if anything it will reinforce views already held. Far better to have them in the open where they can be rebutted and exposed for what they are.

R0bert

"I suggest you follow your own advice." -- Grim

Hey Grim,

I have no complaint with this discussion. My complaint is with Graham Young's double standards in allowing vilifying comments to remain on this site. It demonstrates an inability to act impartially.

Michael.

I'm with Poirot:

Salman Rushdie said:
"What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist."

Mikey, if Graham allowed only comments which both you and he agreed were inoffensive, wouldn't that be an infringement on free speech ? Would you want to post comments on any site which allowed you only to say nice things, and which blocked anything offensive you might want to write ?

All of us enjoy saying and writing stuff which we expect others to find incredibly offensive, we usually get a real kick out of doing that. But as well, of course, we have to be able to take as well as give. We all have to grow a pair.

Yes, freedom of expression has limits - it should never include the right to incite violence or gratuitous denigration against anybody or any group. But freedom of expression is vital to tease out what we believe and support, and what we don't.

Joe

I don't think anyone should get too carried away with the idea that Greg and Mike caused the damage to OLO. They were never mentioned to us in any correspondence with the advertising agency. The credit apparently goes to an employee of IBM and an employee of another advertising agency (not ours).

Greg and Mkie have an interest in magnifying their role, and have been quite clearly looking for a fight from the beginning.

Greg sent an email to me complaining about the whole comments thread at 11:07 on Friday the 26th November. At 11:38 he sent an email to at least one of our sponsors complaining about the comments thread. This is hardly the action of someone wanting to mediate a problem. I'm not sure when I saw his email, but I responded to him at 12:01 asking him which particular comments he objected to. So before I had had a chance to clarify his concerns he was already agitating against the site.

I know I've been accused by some of being rude in my responses to complainants, so I'm going to reproduce my response to Greg:

"Thanks for your comments Gregory.



I’m happy to look at any complaint that you want to make, but I need to know what comments you object to. The site works on the basis of complaint moderation, and we make it easy for someone to bring a post to our attention by putting a red cross icon under each comment.



I’m happy to convey your comments to Bill about his participation. It is up to him what he does, but the vast majority of writers do not get involved in the comments thread to their article either. I think this is a pity, but I can understand that they don’t necessarily have the time available, especially after devoting some hours to writing the article in the first place.



Regards,"

TBC