I note two things…

It tends to be the ‘liberal’ minded who support the value of free speech (and who, coincidentally, tend to support other Australian “Liberal” values).

It tends to be the left of politics who support the silencing or curbing of opinions when they are not in align with their personal perspective or see merit in censorship (the Krudd government internet consorship program.. a process which was consistently rejected by the previous liberal government)

Any number of lefties here on this board have demanded, from time to time, I be silenced and banned from posting, largely because, I presume, they just cannot deal with the perspective I hold and values I express (their problem).

Yet like GrahamY, I value and would protect everyones right to free expression.

If I wanted to write on a board where almost everyone agreed with me, one dominated with the views of rightwing posters, I would visit debate-relate more often than I do.

If I wanted to see real censorship and repression of opinion I would go to some of the left wing boards and see how long my posts would last there before being bounced as “inappropriate” by the installed thought police.

Of course the originator of the thread is possibly dealing with his own personal issues and projecting his own shortcomings and misconceptions on to others (in this case GY)… it would not be the first time.

OLO is very fair and balanced. You only have to look at the history of articles for and against the validity of climate change, religion, politics, gender and the like. I would expect much would depend on the quality of articles submitted for publication that determine acceptance rather than the content.

Would OLO would have the following if it was heavily skewed one way or the other. Probably not.

Col I would disagree with your rose tinted view. Free speech is highly valued by both the Left and Right of politics as they exist in Australia. Extremes of Left and Right in other parts of the world perhaps not so - Communism and Facism being representative of the worst examples

One of the reasons that I like OLO is that it presents a wide range of views in its articles, which in turn stimulate very diverse opinions in the commentary. Over time, I've observed that Graham's moderation is about as scrupulously fair as it is possible to be for an individual of any persuasion.

The best thing about OLO is its commitment to freedom of speech - which, as pelican suggests, is neither the preserve of the "Left" nor "Right" - but is a feature of small "l" liberalism that is also neither "left" nor "Right".

Having said that, there are certain topics - such as religion, gender, climate change and recently asylum seekers - that have been done to death at OLO, such that any commentary quickly polarises into quite nasty rock throwing by the same old mostly anonymous extremists. I tend to avoid such topics these days, unless there is an article or comment that introduces a fresh perspective that is worth commenting on.

CJ I'd be happy to take other suggestions as to what other subjects we can publish apart from the ones we tend to now. A lot of it the agenda is driven by what is sent in, but we do solicit as well.

I think Graham tries to maintain balance in the selection of articles, except where Malcolm Turnbull is involved.

Can you remind us, Graham, of the Turnbulls' relationship to OLO and yourself?

When one submits a topic here, it has to be approved beforehand.

I have a BIG problem with that.

Being a born again Labour supporter I understand and support the absolute and undeniable value of freedom of speech (the union movement has fought long and hard for this for centuries); it's an intrinsic part of the Aussie way of life. There's politically correct conservatives who'd love to thrust down your throat "only" their point of view and their version of political correctness (no shortage of those types here), and there's politically correct people on the other side in Australia who would love to do the same thing.

Freedom is about ALL people being able to express an opinion about ANYTHING.

GY, ditch this "approval" rubbish, it doesn't reflect well on the site. Topics, just like any post, should be subject only to normal moderation. Let anyone post ANY Topic for discussion without "first" vetting it ............. just like it's done for any post.

If a topic presents legal problems, then take the appropriate action (even if it means deletion as a result) AFTER it's been posted. This would be what's done with any post.

Having a condition that a topic must require approval BEFORE it appears only creates suspicion regarding the "real" level of freedom of speech on this site.