As far as I can tell, the requests to boycott Mr Jones' programme have been made to the advertisers, not to his listeners.

So the primary concerns of the writer are by and large irrelevant.

"The current effort to collectively boycott sponsors of Alan Jones is designed to change behaviour."

Well... err, yes. Put another way, "...express our disgust to those who indirectly pay his wages".

But this activity surely falls outside the scope of...

"...section 45D of the Competition and Consumer Act [that] prohibits the intimidation of people to prevent them buying things from a company."

There is no power - that I am aware of - that would enable me or anyone else, on my own or in a mob, to prevent anyone single person from listening to Mr Jones, if they feel so inclined.

Which is the way it should be.

But I see no impediment to the public letting a sponsor know that they associate their products with the medium used to advertise those products. And the sponsor has the right to take note, or ignore, as they choose.

Which is also as it should be.

As Houellebecq so astutely observes:

>>...the advertisers should know a little more about the behavior of people<<

I expect they will analyse the various media and reassess the benefits of presenting their products to Mr Jones' audience - which is substantial within its demographic - and come to a decision. Will the outrage felt by these people - predominantly from an entirely different demographic - have a greater impact on our brand than the benefit we experience from advertising on this particular show?

A commercial decision. Which is as it should be.

As for the fuss about Mr Jones, I cannot generate any personal outrage. From the occasional early-morning cab ride I have gleaned that he is clearly a sad old man with a massive chip on his shoulder about life in general, and I feel genuinely sorry for him.

But not to worry. It will blow over in another few days, and we'll be "outraged" by something else entirely.

Allan Jones can dish it out but can't take it. I agree with MarkOstryn that if Nick, the 'person with above average intelligence' was to be the target of Jone's vitriol he wouldn't like it at all.

What I really like about the consumers taking an active stand against Jones is that it has been started by young people. How wonderful to see the initiative of young people in saying that they are sick of the hate and venom put out by the likes of Jones.

It makes me very happy that young people are being active in reprimanding old fogey's like Jones. (For the record it has been quite a while since I was young).

So, from one smarty-pants to another, Nick I think you are witnessing a wonderful event of young people taking up their responsibility of shaping a more considerate future for Australia; an Australia where dog-whistling and hate/fear campaigns lose favour.

'How wonderful to see the initiative of young people'

Yeah gotta love a bit of slacktivism.

Ooh ohh my finger is worn out from clicking on that link to rid the world of jokes in bad taste recorded in secret!

Where is Kony!

And what about Wah Wah, that kid who was about to be eaten by Naomi Robson? Or was it her pet lizard?

Houellebecq, ain't it grand.

I think this is more than the Kony thing as it is in real time and the organisers are able to stand up and talk openly about what they are doing and why they are doing it.

Young people might use a click here and a like there but they seem to be wonderfully successful in making their point heard.

It is kind of odd though to think of us oldies commenting on this thread, going around and around in circles and achieving not much at all in change - whereas the campaign against poor little Alan Jones is an instant change bringer.

I honestly believe that the young people of Australia are a lot smarter than many people give them credit for - and they are putting forward their view on what they would like to see Australia become, more respectful and less hate-fueled.

It might be time for some oldies to look and learn from the younger folk.

'section 45D of the Competition and Consumer Act... prohibits the intimidation of people to prevent them buying things from a company'

Exactly how has anyone been intimidating the BUYERS of products from Alan Jones sponsors? Are people being threatened if they set foot in Harvey Norman, shunned if they buy a Mercedes? Of course not - the social media campaign is aimed at getting Jones off air by diminishing his value as a broadcaster, which is working quite well so far.

I'd be interested to know if there has been research on the duration of boycotting behaviour - mine tends to stick, but what do the majority do? I will never set foot in Cotton-On because of their 'Shake Me' baby clothes some years ago, which were as offensive as Jones' suggestion that the PM should be put in a chaff sack and taken out to sea. My boycott of Kraft goes back decades, Hewlett Packard about 10 years.

Jones comment palls into insignificance when you call on Australian wives and mothers to be regarded as prostitutes.

"PROSTITUTION TAKES MANY FORMS AND IS NOT ONLY THE EXCHANGE OF MONEY FOR SEX....PROSTITUTION IN MARRIAGE IS THE TRANSACTIONOF SEX IN RETURN FOR LOVE, SECURITY AND HOUSEKEEPING"

Policy adopted and promulgated by the Australian Union of Students in 1993.

Julia Gillard was a member of that Union, a member of the Executive of that Union, and the President of that Union at the time of the formulation and proposal of the policy.

Did she support that policy or did she raise her voice in opposition to people calling for her mum to be labelled a prostitute?