Brigadier Jim

Says anti-Gay rhetoric

Has been silenced here

http//tiny.cc/g904s

Discuss

Forrest Gumpp put this link up on another thread.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/oversensitivity-can-only-compromise-debate/story-e6frg6zo-1226000416817

Respect ? :) haha de haha...

On the strength of a mere and dubious 'phone call' where the plan to have a celebratory gay event at our Campsite, resulted in CYC Cowes being taken to the EVIL OPPORTUNISM and INHUMAN RIECH commissars and it cost us $5000. (appealed)

The 'pledge' is the gay equivalent of Islamic Taqqiya.

Having seen the rabid, merciless and cold nature of some gay activists in action...at the 'gay marriage debate' with Bill Meuhlenberg in Hawthorn... I have no doubts whatsover that the 'Pledge' is nothing more than a 'end justfies the means' deal.

Shintaro:

I'm unable to access your link therefore - I'm not clear exactly what you want discussed in this thread. Bill Meulenberg's stand against gay marriage, Graham Young, for having published Meulenberg's article, or gay marriage itself? Kindly clarify. Thank You.

Shintaro:

Please ignore my previous post. I've just read the link that Poirot provided (should have done that earlier - and the title of your thread should have given me a clue) however, I think that I now get it. Freedom of Speech is always a complex issue, especially from an editor's point of view. An editor must be seen to be objective - however, it's not an easy task, the ultimate decision is the editor's,
and of course being only human, the editor won't be able to please everyone all of the time. People tend to see the world from a viewpoint of subjectivity, an interpretation based on personal values and experiences. As I've written in the past if the world consisted simply of some self-evident reality that everyone perceived in exactly the same way, there might be no disagreement among readers. The truth of the matter is that what we see and read is determined not by what's "out there," but is shaped by what our past experience has prepared us to see and by what we consciously or unconsciously want to see. Inevitably, then, Editors, like anyone else, will be guilty of some measure of bias - the tendency, often unconscious, to interpret facts according to one's own values. This problem occurs in all media outlets but it becomes particularly acute where the subject matter involves issues of deep human and moral concern. I'm truly sorry that IBM and ANZ have withdrawn their support from OLO - however they are business institutions and probably don't want to risk
losing their gay customers. Hopefully replacement sponsors will be found.

Shintaro, "Discuss"

What is preventing you from putting forward your opinion and some argument to support it? That is how the forum works.

I read through the Australian newspapers' article that Poirot gave us a link to above.
Basically it seems to say that Graham Young was upset that OLO lost two major advertising sponsorships from IBM and ANZ because he appeared to promote anti-gay-marriage articles on this forum.

I must say I was a bit disappointed to read this, because I always thought that the moderators of this forum were objective about such contentious issues.

After reading the following statement from ANZ, I must say I agree with their stance:

"The ANZ's Stephen Ries replied first. "ANZ does not advertise on any opinion-type websites that may cause offence or segregate any individuals or group. In this instance our advertising was placed through an automatic advertising placement service and once we were alerted to the content we removed our advertising."
"The removal of our advertising should not be viewed as a violation of free speech; it's simply that we choose not to advertise on blogs that do not align to our organisational values."

The promotion of Gay marriage as an 'abomination' and as something that will supposedly destroy the 'sanctity' of 'real' marriages out there in the community, is an attitude that is predominantly Christian church motivated.

OLO hierarchy should not show a preference for or against such contentious issues, or it will be known as a biased site.

Lexi has it about right, we want the freedom to say what we think.
And it is the endless evil of PC that some times stops us from saying it,too often.
GY Lives and must, in a world that has rules.
One of these is when does free speech become a shield for rock throwers?
I see myself and others getting close, if not actually , bringing concerns to GY in my comments on terrorism.
A re crafted thoughtful thread may make it,if we all confined our selves to the subject without flaming and such it would be interesting.
But we can, truly we can, see how such a thread would get ugly.

"An editor must be seen to be objective - however, it's not an easy task,"

No kidding :)

Well.. the level of flack Graham takes from the 'we are the elite and you should follow OUR guidance' mob, certainly demonstrates this.

Check this out....one now banned former poster says: (in one breath)

//I can only endorse that the comments sectoin requires unbiased moderation.//

Then in the NEXT breath says:

//I recommend checking my own posting history OLO// where the person holds themself up as an example of 'purity'.

Then...calls on Graham to 'compare' what that person describes as 'hate speech' from others who still post here.

Moments later.. one of 'that crowd' says:

//Graham, while it’s clear that honesty doesn’t come easily to you, you really should try a bit harder.
I’m a retired academic, as you’ve been told many times. The “hate site” to which you refer was a private blog for various former OLO users to discuss the abysmal way that you run the Forum section of your site//

Been....TOLD! so.. listen up... right....."told"....

and they whine about 'hate speech' by others ? cough, choke, splutter gaggg.

Hmmmm sounds pretty hateful to me.

suzeonline, on Saturday, 5 February 2011 at 11:16:46 PM says:

"OLO hierarchy should not show a preference
for or against such contentious issues, or
it will be known as a biased site."




suzeonline, that is exactly what OLO has done, published articles both for and against on this issue!





You have said you have read the news item to which Poirot provided a link in the second post to this thread. Did you not notice the second paragraph in that news item? It said:

"In December [Graham Young] published a piece
arguing the case against gay marriage by the
pro-family campaigner, Bill Muehlenberg, and
then a series of spirited exchanges on the merits
of the argument. It was not the first article he'd
run on the subject ; that honour had gone to Rodney
Croome, a gay activist. ..."



This issue is not about the pros and cons of gay marriage.



As can be determined by anyone who wishes to read, up until now those pros and cons could in practise be argued in the relevant comment threads on the OLO site by such as were interested in that issue. The real issue is the muzzling of discussion of just one side of this contention, with the objective that there shall be no real debate. That muzzling is being attempted by an essentially parasitic organisation, the Internet Advertising Sales Houses, one activity of which would seem to be the organisation of secondary boycotts against non-signatories to its 'code of conduct'.

Those who read the news item published in The Australian will note that the ANZ did not exercise active discretion of its own as to where it placed its advertising, but placed it "through an automatic advertising placement service" and only removed that advertising when alerted to the content (ie. the very occurrence of debate) on the OLO site. In short, highly paid senior executives of the ANZ abdicated their responsibilities for oversight of adherence to corporate advertising policy, and outsourced them to an essentially 'standover man' organisation, IASH, working to its own restraint-of-trade agenda.

this is one of those topics..[where an good head-line has been subverted to the perverted cause]

its not enough the media is saturated..or as if the topic hasnt been coverd endlessly here on the forum...and the news and the many media's

its hardly a matter of freespeach..but rather abusing the right of others to speak out against you lot..

im fine with you doing as you like
but resent the way you lot push your adgenda

the non stop adgenda..poor you lot
been closed down everytime you dare speak...[see the joke?]

no i guess you do feel put upon..

but as for freedumb to speak out
you lot have it in spades

many others dont...!

get over it
go sleep with ya lover
find real issues ..that need real tissues

dont bother reply
im not wasting time
on getting more adverts on gay..pr..up on the active/topic search results charter

see you on the real issues
re freedom to speak

gy...please put topic in the heading
headline highjacking is spam

AGIR:

Obviously you did not learn anything from David F., on his "we/they" thread.

Many thanks to all

Articles here seem quite diverse

Was it the comments?

Sorry about link

I raised the topic because

It's about this site

Shintaro, "I raised the topic because It's about this site"

So what is your opinion of the article then? After all, you raised this thread so you must have had some purpose.

Forrest Gumpp,

It is a most insidious form of censorship, resulting in further self-censorship. Those responsible are never held to account and in the ordinary course of events their guidelines and decisions are not made public. As Christopher Pearson says in the article linked by Poirot (and elsewhere by you),

"The code is a triumph of political correctness gone mad, and badly needs rewriting. Schedule C provides that IASH Australia members "are forbidden to place advertising on sites containing barred content - in other words, any of the inventory defined below - in any circumstances. Content articulating views intended or reasonably likely to cause or incite hatred of any race, religion, creed, class or ethnic group. Content articulating views calculated to cause offence to or incite hatred of any individual or group."

The last sentence is the loopiest in the schedule. It forbids anything that might offend anyone."

Muehlenberg's piece

Is rubbish, but I'm not sure

That's the real issue

Other blogs point to

Vilification and hate

In the comments

I'd be interested to know how IBM and ANZ treat the Federal Government which quite specifically does not allow gay marriage. It is very clear that OLO has facilitated debate on the topic, allowing the nay sayers to publish and comment here also provides opportunity to rebut their arguments and to show them for the hollow nonsense that they mostly are.

I suspect that trying to silence contrary opinions does more to harden attitudes than any efforts the anti-gay marriage crowd can come up with.

R0bert

It has been an interesting exercise getting to grips with just exactly what the Internet Advertising Sales Houses Australia, and its 'code of conduct', is.

According to 'Marketing' online magazine, IASH Australia was formed by 12 online advertising companies in 2009, and is "an industry body that will take over the mantle from Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)". See: http://www.marketingmag.com.au/articles/news/1513/iash_australia_the_new_online_advertising_industry_body/ . Whether any or all of these 12 companies are Australian companies, is not immediately clear from this 'Marketing' article.

Given that the article speaks of IASH Australia 'taking over the mantle' from IANA, and that 'mantle' having presumably included 'code of conduct' matters, I was moved to enquire as to what had been the status of IANA in an Australian context.

It appears IANA is, according to the ACCC website, http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/288509/fromItemId/815972/quickLinkId/816542/whichType/org , an organisation based in the USA;

"... responsible for coordinating some of the key elements
that keep the Internet running smoothly. IANA is
responsible for various administrative functions
associated with management of the Internet's domain-name
system root zone, including reviewing the appropriateness
of changes to the content of the root zone as the Internet
evolves ...."

I question as to whether, before the formation of IASH Australia, IANA had promulgated ANY code of conduct having application, in Australia, with respect to the online advertising industry.

So IANA has of its own authority anointed IASH Australia as the promulgator of an 'industry''code of conduct' for online advertising. IASH Australia has, in turn, determined that the policing of the 'code of conduct' shall be conducted by an entity called, IMO somewhat misleadingly if not unlawfully, ABC Australia, according to the 'Marketing' magazine article. The euphemism for 'policing' used in the article is 'rigorous audit'.

The acronym 'ABC Australia' stands for 'Audit Bureau of Circulations', an Australian print media organisation.

Is it too big a stretch of the imagination to see this as an MSM/US government assault on the blogosphere?

I did read the article, Forrest Gump, and I gave my opinion on it.
I don't like the idea of censorship either, but an online opinion site owner cannot be seen to favour one (legal) view over another either, especially about contentious issues such as gay marriage, homosexuality, abortion, euthanasia, religion and racial issues.

At the end of the day though, don't companies such as ANZ and IBM also have a right to put their advertising where they like?
They are spending megabucks to advertise their products, so I imagine they will advertise wherever they want!

In my experience of the site so far, I found the moderators to be generally fair and equitable in most decisions.

However, it is a fine line between allowing certain contentious articles to be put up on OLO more often than others, and actually promoting their content to some extent.

If I banked with the ANZ [once did] this story would see me leave it.
But this site like any, has to be funded we like to have our say, and get a bit off at times.
Can any one say with certainty it is better to brawl over this subject, some would want to, or to play safe.
Given the event I think GY has not done wrong here.

Well put suzeonline and others.

It was a silly move by ANZ and IBM as the site is really most generous with sharing articles from a variety of worldviews on many controversial topics. These actions actually do more harm to free speech than taking some skewed kneejerk PC approach.

While I do not share the views of the article's author, he like anyone else is entitled to the freedoms we all enjoy. The beauty about freedom of speech is that the responses are many and varied, demonstrating usually more support for, than against, same sex marriage. Most people have empathy and compassion towards others who still have to endure discrimination in a modern world.

At least it explains the recent barrage of 'singles' Ads on OLO.

Traditionally, a corporate policy of independence was demonstrated simply by public assurances to the effect that the company's or public agency's decisions would always remain independent, regardless of the sources of advertising accepted or sponsorships made.

The trap was always the defamation laws and the civil rights movement has long tried to limit defamation laws that are often used as a refuge against transparency and accountability, often by errant politicians.

In recent times a new risk has emerged from lobby groups adept at using the Net and the media to target an organisation or individual to cause embarrassment and have their views prevail. The aim is to cause reputational damage from a gullible public believing that where there is smoke there must be fire. Unfortunately, moves to dispel the often vague insinuations can be construed as giving some credence to them. Rather than waste resources dispelling the allegations, decision makers have tried to distance their operations and decisions from possible 'sensitive' areas, resulting in a 'win' for the political interest concerned.

Many regard such grubby and brutal lobbying tactics as acts of terrorism and I am inclined to agree with them. In any event, the end - even a possibly worthwhile one - does not justify the means. In a way it reminds me of the problem of identity theft where authorities have similarly been slow to act because they had difficulty establishing where laws were being broken.

Pelican,
You cheered suzeonline on for her 'well put' statements. Specifically, which ones were you referring to?

Dear Lexi.. I learned MUCH from David F...but not from that topic here..I learned it from our private email correspondence.

So there is quite a bit more to this saga than is seen here.

But I must confess..I just learned HEAPS from Forrest Gump!

If that kind of sneaky pernicous, malicious undermining of our free speech does not shake you to the bones..you are either dead or in a coma.

If you see NOTHING else.. you must be able to see the extreme sophistication of this attempt at installing an Orwellian "Ministry of Truth".

It's nothing less than an attempted Progressive/Communist/Green COUP.

My opinion, for what its worth, is that Graham, OLO and the team have not done anything unethical, unbalanced, unfair or discriminatory and have given 'both parties' the opportunity to commence threads and receive Australians' views on the subject.

As for Anz, IBM and other companies, surely you do realise CEOs' and Chairmans that Australians are sufficiently intelligent enough to realise that all company advertisements are placed on threads regardless of the topics.

OLO is not guilty of being one sided on issues pertaining to gay people, the marriage rights debates and so forth. I should know given the fact that I have gay relatives and followed this topic closely for a long time on OLO, noting that OLO have given the same rights to both gay people and the anti gay lobbyists.

The views of Australians [OLO participants] are no reflection on OLO or Graham Young, the Editors and Staff.

OLO cannot be held responsible for the fairness in agreeing to threads with the objective of giving gay people and anti gay lobbyists [Australians irrespective of sexual persuasion] the right to raise 'gay' issues.

A loss for Anz and IBM. There are plenty of other companies who are in all probability awaiting their advertisements to pop up on threads after signing advertising agreements.

Pelican, thanks for the vote of confidence. Sometimes we all need that on this forum, instead of the usual 'put downs' :(

Cornflower <"Pelican,
You cheered suzeonline on for her 'well put' statements. Specifically, which ones were you referring to?"

Dearest Cornflower, aren't ALL my statements 'well put'? :)
On second thoughts, don't answer that!

AGIR <" If that kind of sneaky pernicous, malicious undermining of our free speech does not shake you to the bones..you are either dead or in a coma."

I don't think I am in a coma AGIR, but I happen to think that these big businesses have a right to free speech as well.

If they don't like the idea of a site printing an anti-homosexual rant
while also airing their advertisements, then they can 'freely' pull out of that site if they want.

I can see why you would be upset though. We can't have too many objections to anti-homosexual/gay marriage articles, can we?

suzeonline,

I am interested in what Pelican thought, yes.

My impression was that your keel was hung up on gay marriage, a subject that interests you. Whereas Forrest Gumpp had explained that the issue as he saw it wasn't gay marriage but the muzzling of debate through an unnecessarily restrictive code of conduct determined by the Internet Advertising Sales Houses. Forrest was saying that, since advertising was outsourced, it was possible that the senior managers of ANZ et al had shrugged off their responsibilities.

My view is different to Forrest's, as explained in my previous post.

However, either way the outcome is unnecessary self-censorship, for fear of reputational damage through being targeted for embarrassment by activists. I am interested in what remedies exist for companies that are so threatened and what should be the role of authorities -specifically, what laws are being broken.

We should fight to ensure our freedom of speech is protected, yes?

suzeonline,

I'm getting the feeling that we may have been talking past each other. I, too, agree that companies such as ANZ and IBM have a right to put their advertising where they like. Presumably, if they are acting rationally, that will mean they will place their advertising where it will be noticed and get results.

The incongruity is that it seems they have 'outsourced' decisions in that respect to another entity, a third party, one that is giving every appearance of using its discretionary powers over the aggregate internet advertising budget of a number of such companies to effect secondary boycotts of selected internet blogs and/or opinion sites, in possible violation of Australian law, and maybe even to the detriment, so far as advertising is concerned, of the best interests of some or all of its affiliates.

OLO first published an article, 'Parliamentarians should have a conscience vote on gay marriage', by Rodney Croome on 1/11/2010, that attracted 160 comments. It was the 15th article by Rodney Croome to have been published by OLO since April 2005, all seeming, on the basis of their titles, to have been in connection with gay rights. See: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/author.asp?id=3908

OLO subsequently published an article, 'Dismantling a homosexual marriage myth', by Bill Muehlenberg on 25/11/2010, which attracted 130 comments. It was the 18th article by Bill Muehlenberg to have been published on OLO since November 2004, but only, judging by title, his third on the subject of gay rights. See: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/author.asp?id=3123

Subsequently, OLO has seen two of its major advertisers pull out, seemingly on account of the IASH Australia 'code of conduct' to which they have signed up. GrahamY attributes this 96% reduction in OLO's main advertising revenue category to OLO's publication of the Muehlenberg article in late November. A possible consequence of this revenue loss is that ALL discussion may cease on OLO and some other sites, not just that upon the subject of gay rights.

And isn't that just what government and the MSM would like to see?

Suz
perhaps I wasn't clear enough... it's happened at least once in the history of the universe :)

I was critical of that body which seeks to 'politically correctize' advertizing. Not the advertisers.

Seems to me that there are:

ADVERTISERS=>Outsourced Ad placing mob => Eventual target platform for the ad (such as OLO)

But the impression I got from Forest was that the middle mob "outsourcing agency" was being pressured to sign up to some 'code of conduct' which had a politically correct (insane) agenda.

I wasn't criticizing either OLO or the Original advertisers.

Cornflower/Suze
Apologies instead of broad statements I will be more specific. I agreed with Suze's stance that the ANZ and IBM have a right to put their advertising where they want even if I think the company rationale is flawed, just as I have no problem with articles on OLO where the view differs with my own. The right of reply ensures many sides to a debate are covered and there is often rigorous debate and varying arguments.

I don't support the decision by ANZ or IBM to remove their advertising however, but it is their decision. Unlike Suze, I don't think OLO has promoted any particular article over another. GY has his own opinions but he is also an individual as well as an editor and thus far while he may be biased (we all are), it is not reflected in the wide variety of articles OLO publishes. (Except possibly climate change but I suspect if pro-CC/AGW authors submitted articles they would also be published, all other criteria being met.)

The rise of PC is causing the gradual but continuous erosion of free speech.

Stating one's opinion on pretty much any topic will cause offence to someone on some level, and some topics have become sacred where causing offence is no longer acceptable, and opinions from one side only are OK.

My opinion is that the ANZ's action is cowardly and shows poor judgement.

Suzeonline,

If a subject is represented by both "pro" and "anti" articles on OLO, I would suggest that is adhering to the principle of free speech. You seem to be saying (on the subject of homosexual marriage) that in your opinion only one of those views is ethically acceptable and, therefore, the removal of advertising revenue and it's ensuing consequences is an entirely acceptable outcome.
Does it not appear to you that agendas are being tweaked by those who have the financial power to do so?
If, as Forrest has suggested, OLO was lost as a result of such actions, would it not be a sad day for freedom of discussion in this country?

Ok, ok! It seems I did get the wrong end of the stick. Apologies to all.
I do believe in freedom of speech of course, but unfortunately so does everyone else, including big companies.

I read the anti-gay marriage article in question, and maybe it was a bit too radical to put up on this site?

I too hope this forum does not fold as a result of the decision to put this article up, or as a result of any misguided laws to restrict free speech, but I doubt we can do much about the fallout.

It is perhaps time in this discussion of freedom of speech on Onlineopinion to remind ourselves of the claim, made in Christopher Pearson's news item to which Poirot linked in the second post to this thread, that the actions of IASH Australia and/or its agencies have triggered a withdrawal of advertising that is of the nature of an indiscriminate secondary boycott, and as such is something in contravention of the Trade Practices Act that has been done "because [Onlineopinion] and a group of other political sites have formed a network called The Domain, to bundle up their readers as a more attractive package for advertisers".

It is a turf war over a possibly shrinking advertising dollar.

IASH Australia has seemingly written itself into a position, via the 'code of conduct' it has itself compiled, whereby it can through 'rigorous audit' effectively deny advertising revenue from any of its associates' advertising budgets to any internet site that may be otherwise available as a medium for such advertising.

The consortium of political sites that have formed the network called 'The Domain' seemingly threaten the would-be monopoly control sought by IASH Australia over internet advertising placement. In this context it is important to remember the 'policeman' role played by the Australian print media organisation, the Audit Bureau of Circulations, the organisation tasked by IASH Australia with the conduct of the aforementioned 'rigorous audits'.

Is it so hard to see that the real purpose of IASH Australia may be one of being anti-competitive to non-signatories to its 'code of conduct', one designed to prevent leakage of revenue that has erstwhile been the preserve of the print media to new and independent low-overhead internet sites, sites like OLO?

All the standover 'code of conduct' merchants need is a good contentious topic over which some person or group can be claimed (by IASH Australia) to have been, or be likely to be, 'offended', and bingo!, the non-signatory competitor can have its advertising revenue dried up.

This contention has nothing to do with the merits or demerits of 'gay rights'.

VICTORY IS DECLARED... 'V' DAY... 7/2/2011

reply from the Attourney General

QUOTE:
Thank you for your email.

I can confirm the Coalition intend to legislate to amend the Equal Opportunity Act as we committed to do, by
- removing the "inherent requirements" test for employment by faith based bodies
- reversing the powers given to the Commission by Labor to conduct investigations without even receiving a complaint
- restoring an independent chair of the Commission.

We intend to have those amendments in place before the new Act comes into operation, which the Labor government scheduled for August this year.
Regards
Robert Clark.

UNQUOTE

NEXT PROJECT RRT2001.....Pending.

Much 'speech' which Graham worries about is based on this pernicious law. We will now either heavily modify or repeal that awful travesty of justice and inequality.

pelican,

Thanks for the additional comments.

Subjective judgement will always be needed in the administration and moderation of any site. Subjective judgement is appropriate and expected where powers are exercised. Subjective judgement is a vastly different animal to 'bias'.

I quite like Shadow Minister's pithy comments on political correctness. He is right to reflect on the judgement of managers, although they could do with some support from the authorities at times.

Thanks again to all

I now have a better sense

Of what's at issue

Shintaro:

Ug..

To what cryptic parsimony do you here subject the blog, and for what purpose?

Well, something constructive, please re-confirm the address; http//tiny.cc/g904s: For all intents and purposes, the site is dead.

Dan, I hear colon transplants work.

Have you tried that?

Agreed Cornflower. I did not mean to imply 'bias' as a negative. We are all biased. The trick is not to let that bias reflect in editorial decisions and OLO lives up to that standard most of the time.

Very droll, Bugsy!

But I was remiss in not

Correcting the URL:

http://tiny.cc/g904s

Pelican I think it lives up to the standard as much or more than any such site I ever saw.
Have contributed my thoughts to GYs new thread, and ask yet again, is our site worth as much as the daily paper.
If some of us,contributed say $5 a week.
We would be fool proof that is aimed at the dills at ANZ and IBM, robbing some village of its idiots.

Give Catherine Deveny another opportunity to spew her bile on Q&A and silence the family man. Maybe if he was a liberal theologian in a skirt he could say what he likes. IBM and ANZ are a disgrace to democracy and free speech. Maybe OLO should become like the the ABC and let every vile philosophy be promoted and silence any decency.

At what point is a debate about homosexuality not a debate about homosexuality, but homosexuality is still at the debates core?

As example I give you two old homosexual men who through surrogacy now are a family of three. Elton John and his missus got so bored with life that they now have brought a life into this world to amuse and fulfill their pampered and exaltedly hedonistic old bags of skin. The journo,s words describing the child laying on the old men’s chests immediately after the birth made me puke.

This debate on the rights of two old faggots to legally and morally "own" a child, and congruently should all the rights of heterosexual couples be accorded to homosexual couples , could easily transition to the moral aspects of homosexuality which engenders input from the pros the cons and the homophobic.

How much of a protected species can a subject be, especially if the ongoing acts of that subject go directly against historical cultural acceptance?

sonofgloin,

It's not a debate about homosexuality - it's a debate about freedom of speech.

Poirot:>> It's not a debate about homosexuality - it's a debate about freedom of speech.<<

Thanks Poirot I understand that, hence the last bit about a protected species, possibly intimating to the intuitive that a protected species cannot be libeled verbally or in print.

The post was not a slagging off of homosexuals, or about homosexuals, it was about two old men playing mummy and daddy with a real child. As I said in the post on this subject, even though homosexuality is not the core issue it would come into the debate as a major factor, once again alluding to subjects that are off limits, or the freedom of speech you believe I did not address.

Am I writing in Chinese here Poirot, you seem to understand very little? No offense.

I find it interesting - why certain people and acts - rather than other people and different acts - are considered deviant. Many types of behaviour become "deviant" it seems because they offend "some" people's moral codes. Certain "moral enterpreneurs" such as religious groups or citizens committees, try to arouse public opinion against behaviours they disapprove of, such as homosexuality, abortion, vagrancy, pornography, and so one. The ensuing argument becomes a clash of competing moralities in which the winners declare themselves to be normal and the losers to be deviant and immoral. In general, the decision to stigmatize or even criminalize particular acts will depend on which of the contending groups has the most wealth, power, prestige, and other resources. For example, begging in the street is considered deviant, but living in idleness of inherited wealth is not.

I’ll ignore the “hollow ring” of antipathy and declination of “off” topic remarks by the homosexual lobby in these pages, and soldier on for the cause of the “moral majority” of which I am a proud member!

Without appearing as a conspiracy theorist, I feel the homosexual lobby have much to gain in using whatever means they feel necessary to close balanced web-sites such as OLO.

It is simply not balance but domination they call for!

Diver Dan:

The "Moral Majority" is Neither!

Sonofgloin, if you feel that strongly about Elton John and his husband having a surrogate baby, maybe you should start a thread about it?

After all, homosexuality is apparently not the point of this thread, it is about freedom of speech.

Can I say one of the large advertising Companies in NSW is owned by a group of wealthy gay men. Could this have some influence on where they suggest Companies advertise.

Philo:

Bet Bob Brown and his merry band of “Green Fags” are the best customers. See how dangerous this all is to sensibilities of the unaware and naïve populace.

How possible it all becomes to overthrow a whole history of Christian tradition and replace its pillars with crumbling immoral filth as the new social cornerstones.

Shutting down unfriendly web sites is another step of stealth towards that end. Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war! Do not delay!

Lexi:

Wrong! It’s both in my world and I am proud of it!

suzeonline:>> Sonofgloin, if you feel that strongly about Elton John and his husband having a surrogate baby, maybe you should start a thread about it?<<

Suze I said Elton and his missus, you said Elton and his husband, who suckles the child? What a conundrum.

It is evident

That anti-Gay rhetoric

Has not been silenced

I am sure all those who spout anti-gay rhetoric will be the first ones to jump on the Christian Lobby for denying free speech to 'gay activists' who are moving forward to end gay discrimination and villification.

Free speech is a two way street.

Free speech doesn't only count when you agree with the statments made.

Heh, heh, since when did a ninja value freedom of speech (or Online Opinion).

Put the dissenters to the new order to the sword, eh Shintaro?

Shintaro I once took a shot at you.
Withdraw it and say sorry.
Do not change like it now.

Shintano:

Here in smouldering ruins of defeat lies another furtive and failed attempt to advance surreptitiously under the enemy flag, the illegitimate aims of the anti-social homosexual lobby.

The pen is not mightier than the sword unless the pen is used Shintano. Observe the posts of “one under god” who is the evident OLO master of literary minimalism, displayed early by a decisive manoeuver skilfully exposing your “ruse” for the fake it was.

Correction above: Shintano read Shintaro...

Pelly.. we 'jump' on the gay activists not about speech..but about trying to brain wash children in educational programs which are clearly 'perversion' to 68% of Australians who claim Christianity as their faith.

We object to 'tail wagging dog' politics.

We object to the insidious tactics which you are witnessing RIGHT NOW on this forum or against this forum.. to silence one side of the debate.

As I've long said.. Gay activisim NEVER was about 'equality' it is about dominance. Same for feminism.. see SLM's new thread about gender neutral language.

Sonofgloin <"Suze I said Elton and his missus, you said Elton and his husband, who suckles the child? What a conundrum."

Are you suggesting that anyone (women included) who cannot, for whatever reason, suckle a child should not be fit to be a parent then?

Gay people have a right to all the same freedoms as everyone else.
Otherwise there would not be the freedom of speech, or anything else, we currently enjoy in our country.

I say again, why not start another thread on homosexuality and freedom on another thread, rather than hijacking this one?

'Freedom of speech' is

Code for 'right to vilify'

According to some

Shintaro:

I admire the tenacity of suseonline who has the guts and garters to step out with an opinion and voice a view. A sniper is a coward Shintaro

diver dan:

So let me get this straight. When I wrote that the "Moral Majority" is Neither. You claim that it is both (in your world) and you're proud of that fact. So you decide what is right and what is wrong.
Everything is possible - just not too probable. Moral indignation is in most cases 2% moral, 48% indignation, and 50% envy.

Lexi:

“ So let me get this straight. When I wrote that the "Moral Majority" is Neither. You claim that it is both (in your world) and you're proud of that fact. So you decide what is right and what is wrong”

…In my world…yes! The sole arbiter, judge and maker of my own bed.

Next:
Everything is possible - just not too probable. Moral indignation is in most cases 2% moral, 48% indignation, and 50% envy”

The last statement is your own view and statistics, and remain irrelevant: Unless, of course, you wish to push on from there in your own direction!

Dear Sus...you raise some interesting points. Let's annnalyse them :)

Gay people have a right to all the same freedoms as everyone else.

ok.. let's take the first bit.

Gay people

Racist people.

Nazi people.

Murderers

Child molestors

Do each of those have the same 'rights' to be or pursue their chosen lifestyle? if not...why not ?

It is clear that 'rights' are something NO one has.. what they have is the legal permission to do such and such..but NOT such and such else.

So the concept of 'rights' is moot, what matters is...LAW.

The primary reason for denial of some freedoms to Gays is... the 'moral' dimension of Gay life.

If more people feel it is 'immoral' they can make laws which prohibit it. Who is to say they are wrong? certainly not you in Australia to they in Ghana or somewhere.

The Moral dimension is what divides behavior into 'good/right' and 'evil/wrong'.

The issue then becomes.. "on what basis are moral judgements made?"

Mans law?
God's law?

If "Man's" law.. anything goes. It's just a matter of time (Singer and his pet sheep)

If GOD's law.. many things DON'T go...

Ulimately it boils down to the democratic process.. so to talk about rights is to me.. rather irrational.

ALGOREisRICH:>> Ulimately it boils down to the democratic process.. so to talk about rights is to me.. rather irrational.<<

Exactly right Al, no rights as such, just laws and societal acceptance which is of itself a democratic process where the majority holds sway. The eroding of that majority voice by putting caveats on what can be discussed is a fifth column of social engineers eroding our right to an opinion.

I can't see that there is not a valid and legitimate reason of there being “gays” - hermaphrodites do exist in nature, and any action by any person to damage their ability to live a natural life is not to be encouraged or allowed. According to medical reports, the determination of the difference of what sex a person is going to be, rests on two chromosomes and it has been a quirk of nature that this pops up in unexpected people. If this happens in nature where it can be explained with the belief that some portion of that particular chromosome (if this is possible) can exist in any other person, and care has to be taken, not to harm those people, they have no protection against such a condition. Is it natures way to see if we are really tolerant?

diver dan:

Your are entitled to your opinions and your world. However what you're not entitled - is to try to impose them on others. And just because you think something is right/and or wrong does not necessarily make it so - it's merely your opinion. As for the statistics that I quoted - they're actually not mine and are not irrelevant - they came out of several sociological research studies taken from a sociology text book - Ian Robertson's, "Sociology."

AGIR:

Enjoy your own sex life (so long as it damages nobody else) and leave others to enjoy theirs in private whatever their inclinations, which are none of your business.

Dear Lexi... what people do in private is their business..agreed.

If 'that' is as far as it goes.

But we both know...it isn't!

As I said.. it's never about 'equality' it's about DOMINANCE.

Here is the logic/reasoning.

a)I am a sexual deviate.. but I want you to regard me as normal.
b)In order to achieve 'normality'.. we must lobby G'ment and re-educate the community.
c)Our re-education must go so far as to shut down opinion sites we dislike..and implant our ideogy into the primary school or secondary school sex ed programs.
d) We must manipulate high profile opinion leaders to the point where they are embarrased or ashamed to speak their true feelings about our deviance.
e) We must infiltrate such bodies as "Human Rights" commissions to ensure that our side is always successful in complaints, and the other group (right wing or conservatives) are rejected/dismissed.

COMMENT
This same reasoning can be applied to the issue of intergenerational sex..and there are people out there who wilL SWEAR they were born that way (predisposed toward sex with minors, pre-pubescents)
Please don't insult me with any plattitudes about "Oh but that's a crime"...rubbish... it IS a crime for now..but the whole of Islamic society doesn't regard that as a crime if the Quran is to be believed.

65:4
Such of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the prescribed period, if ye have any doubts, is three months, and for those who have no courses (it is the same): for those who carry (life within their wombs), their period is until they deliver their burdens: and for those who fear Allah, He will make their path easy.

I'm quite happy to explore the exegesis/interpretation of that passage if you wish.

AGIR:

You're entitled to your opinion - and that's all it is. As David f., said to you on the "we/they" thread, "I deeply disagree with you, but I shall try to do so politely." Although if the right buttons are pushed I could say, "Lord, save me from your zealous followers!"

Lexi:

Obviously you are out-maneuvered and out-classed on this subject. You have lost the debate.

diver dan:

I get it. You live in your own little world. That's ok. They know you there. Stick to it - you're out of your depth elsewhere.

cont'd ...

As for losing a debate? - I'd have to be equally matched for that to happen. What have you contributed to this discussion? You could at least try to address some of the issues of this thread if you want to be taken seriously. Kindly re-read my earlier posts.

Diver Dan, bite your tongue!
Lexi never loses a debate, she merely out-classes all who cross her, by being probably the most rational person on this site.
But by all means, keep trying. :)

AGIR<"Gay people,Racist people.Nazi people.Murderers.Child molestors

Do each of those have the same 'rights' to be or pursue their chosen lifestyle? if not...why not ?"

Are you seriously asking that question?
All the above people , except the 'Gay people', can be tried and punished for breaking laws if they commit those vile acts.
The last time I looked, homosexuality was not a crime (except maybe in a bigot's small mind).

AGIR, you keep trotting out quotes from the old bible to prove your misguided views.
If you want to follow an old book written over two thousand years ago by several men 'claiming' to have heard it all from their God, then you go right ahead. You are certainly free to do so.

Please agir, don't assume I care about that book at all though.
I prefer to use my own brain, and exercise my right to freedom of speech.

Lexi:

Mybe we can fit ourselves into this “oronym” appropriately Lexi.

The stuffy nose can lead to problems.
The stuff he knows can lead to problems.

I just wanted to say that I support the Muehlenberg article. God is the same yesterday, today and forever and homosexuality in general is an abomination. Always has been, always will be. It is a concern that some people think that gay "marriage" is ok. My brother is looking for a "husband". Yes, actually marriage that is defined by the Maker is a "good thing", that's why we have it His way. That's why we don't "marry" animals or shoes. True, mixed marriages weren't "traditional" years ago yet God has removed alot of racist ideas from human-imposed traditions and has brought many people from all over the world together. Creating our own Law is welcoming disaster. Think of Moses and the golden calf. The people Moses was leading decided to worship an idol when Moses was spending time with the Lord and when he came down, he (& He) was furious. Think of the Israelites. There's alot of people in the "wilderness" right now. Gosh, I've been there many times myself!! People can candy-coat a snake, but at the end of the day it's still a snake not matter how sweet it appears.

Gen:
Are you saying that marrying a shoe or an animal is comparable to the desire of two human beings make a long term commitment to each other.

We are talking about same-'sex' marriage (ie. two human beings) not marriages outside the species and to inanimate objects.

This thread is about the rights of free speech not the moral issue of homosexuality and the practice of pedophilia by men on boys.

However does a society have the right to identify that the issue is health? That excreta laden with bacteria must not enter the sterile areas of the urethra, womb or the prostate? Anal sex is the abomination condemned by a healthy society and not the emotional bond of brothers. The situation in Biblical times was the bisexual and adulterous practices of men, as it spread abominable diseases

diver dan:

I would prefer to discuss things on a mature intelligent level rather than an emotional one. We can always agree to disagree. I'm looking forward to your further input into this discussion.

Suze:

Thank You for your kind words - coming from you, (who I regard as one of the best posters on this forum) - that's quite a compliment.

I've posted a few articles over the 11 year lifespan of Onlineopinion but not really paid much attention to the forums elsewhere...I've had a good look at various posts lately and it seems most posters are wowsers, rabble-rousers, religious reactionaries and there's even a rather odd poet in there for good measure (I have no idea what he is saying, I think it's contrary to my beliefs, but I am intrigued by the composition)

Whether this sampling of humanity is a reflective microchosm, or merely the rantings of a bunch of self indulgent blow-hards with two much time on their hands, is anyone's guess. The Forum attached to graham's article regarding loss of sponsorship has degenerated, everyone's lost the plot completely. It seems that this site attracts person's who hold extreme views - like moths to a flame. Some have even have websites that promote their red-neck attitudes, and the are able to advertise their websites here. This has become a thriving hub of rat-bag activity. How is this a good thing?

It all leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

"This has become a thriving hub of rat-bag activity."

Really?....pray, don't hold back, Rose C.

It''s interesting that you would come to that conclusion.
I find OLO reasonably stimulating - and although it is host to a few "wowsers" and "red-necks", I don't, for the most part, regard these types as representative of the majority of contributors.

If I discerned that it was a thriving hub of rat-bag activity, I doubt very much if I could be bothered with it.

Btw, Graham started a thread some time ago in the general section, canvassing opinions of future moderation direction on OLO. He was seeking to address this issue because the load and responsibility of sole moderation was a trifle taxing for him.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3848.

I believe the majority of respondents at the time indicated that they were happy with the status quo.

Rose C:

Don't let things get to you. This is a public forum and as such it will attract a wide variety of opinions - some that do make us cringe - and perhaps should be ignored. However, I've learned from my time on OLO that a healthy, vital society is not one in which we all agree. It's more important that we renew dignified and respectful dialogue with those who don't agree with us than we keep congratulating those who have the wisdom to see things our way. Without personal commitment to the attributes of fair play and integrity, our society is in grave danger - malice and intolerance stalk our society, staking claims to our minds. Where people are not free to disagree, there can be no democracy. Our political conversation must shift away from the mass, infantile finger-pointing that now pervades it. It isn't people on both sides of politics who are ruining this country: it's the tendency on so many people's parts to think that their way is the right way and that people who disagree with them are "bad." It doesn't matter so much how we degenerated into such mass disrespect for the right of others to hold opinions different from our own. What does matter is we commit immediately to stop this tendency to condemn others.

Rose C posts, on Wednesday, 9 February 2011 at 11:30:36 AM:

"... The Forum attached to Graham's article
regarding loss of sponsorship has degenerated, everyone's
lost the plot completely. ..."



Absolutely spot-on, Rose C!



This is an observation that was absolutely crying out to be made, and how much better by a registered Forum user who has had a Forum presence since January 2005, and yet from then until now has made a total of only 27 posts to the articles area of the Forum, and one, this one, to the General Discussions area*. It can hardly be claimed that she has any personal axe to grind, or self-promotional agenda, in having made it.

Let me congratulate you on having made this overdue, and in the present dire circumstance for OLO, critically important observation in perhaps the one place on the Forum where it could be ON TOPIC!

Rose C's observation on the degeneration of the comments thread to GrahamY's article 'Wanted - new financial backers'
( http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11583&page=0 ) is critically important because such constructive responses as may have been made have been buried, and subsequently in all probability others have been deterred from even being posted, by the off-topic noise generated by those who have "lost the plot".

GrahamY, effectively alone, is engaged in a fight for the very survival of OLO in a turf war with factota of the MSM for a share of the internet advertising dollar. Concurrently, the MSM displays many characteristics betraying a desire to filter, or effectively censor, topics of public interest. Sites like OLO threaten that degree of desired control. The way to get rid of OLO is to interdict its revenue, and that is being attempted here.

The scheme, conducted by those masquerading under the banner of upholding values, depends upon the diversion of a contentious discussion upon which the short-sighted and self-absorbed in their own importance can be counted upon to focus. And to their shame, they have!

*Rose C is Rose Cooper, and has since October 2003 contributed 14 articles to OLO. See: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/author.asp?id=1349 .

Rose C,
Things that leave a bad taste in our mouth, is related to the things we like. Our opinions are being challenged, and we are not able to defend them. I thought that is what OLO was about. What is one man's poison is another man's medicine. If you don’t like the taste then eat elsewhere; but then we would be missing out on your taste of cuisine.

The real issue is the Gay lobby want to deny Bill Mulenberg any media coverage. The same article could have been written by any of us, unknown, and it would not have been noticed. But because Bill writes for concervative family values those that oppose his views in the Advertising industry want him silenced.

olo should not be sanctioned for allowing both sides of a debate on a controversial topic.

Lexi,

From your posts in here I thought it a safe assumption that you are not a Christian Fundy. Given that Suzy holds you in such high regard I suspected that you might be an atheist. As you are held out to be such a fine debator I thought you might be interested in a discussion that I believe is unusually meaty for an olo thread on the prospect of a theistic presence in the Universe (or somewhere) and you might spice it up for my opponent who is an atheist convert from Christianity.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3814&page=47

In spite of the title it is currently a debate as to whether or not theism is rational. My opponent sets a very low threshold. He believes that there is neither any reasoning nor any evidence for theism and quoted with approval someone who pejoratively likened theistic belief to reading chicken entrails and has likened any suggestion that there is an alternative to atheism as being like a belief in unicorns. (However he gets very offended if I call him an extremist) He is currently waiting for me to finish my current posting. I got cut off from the thread for 23 hours due to doing 8 successive posts in there. The consequence will probably be that I can't post until tomorrow as I need to leave soon and probably in any case I'll probably leave without trying.

Your comment history seems to contradict my assumption in that you consider it obvious that there is some type of higher power. Nevertheless, even though my original guess is incorrect, I am inviting you anyway as your skills could spice things up in there and I expect that this post will also attract the interest of anti-theists who will bulk up the other side in any case. The thread is an old one that many would have forgotten as it has dragged on very slowly in recent months. Thus I'd like to make it more visible via this post.

mjpb:

I'm a Catholic. I'm extremely flattered though by your comments as I have always thought your debating skills far superior to mine. I'm not sure that I'll be able to convince someone whose mind seems to be already made up. However, I'll give it a go - as you said - to "spice" things up a bit.

Rose C:>> I've posted a few articles over the 11 year lifespan of Onlineopinion but not really paid much attention to the forums elsewhere...I've had a good look at various posts lately and it seems most posters are wowsers, rabble-rousers, religious reactionaries and there's even a rather odd poet in there<<

Hi Rose I read you bio, Helen Reddy type eh?

Rose C Forrest has given you the stamp of approval, considering his words and yours, even if you include me in the sin bin I do too.
This thread and a few others seem to have been invaded by a few I would rather not talk with.
We, all of us get it wrong now and again.
It may well be both threads on the subject did more good than harm.I am pleased so many made contributions as GY reported in his news letter ,and sad that fools, yes,,sorry, want to find wrong that does not exist here.
So maybe Rose C I share more of your views than I first thought.

[Off topic.]

[Deleted. Off-topic.]

At least I can smirk at the irony of that action given the topic.

Posted by mjpb, Thursday, 10 February 2011 1:52:32 PM:

"At least I can smirk at the irony
of that action given the topic."

Despite the enormous latitude effectively given by Shintaro's brief and enigmatic opening post for you to post an opinion even remotely having anything to do with freedom of speech on OLO, you chose not to contribute in any way to this discussion.

I saw the two posts of yours before they were removed, and they were, as noted by the moderator and confessed to by yourself, simply off-topic. They had no objectionable or controversial content, they simply promised to disrupt any on-topic discussion that might yet continue on this thread. (Viewers can judge for themselves from all but the first line of mjpb's post of Wednesday, 9 February 2011 4:02:53 PM the general vein of irrelevance for which the two subsequent posts were deleted.)




I only remark upon your most recent post to make it clear to viewers that there is/was nothing remotely ironic in the deletions and because I see your attempt to imply that there was as being somewhat disingenuous.




Given the threat currently posed to OLO's continued existence by those purporting to maintain that OLO's moderation is inadequate in not having deleted comments certain persons claim to have been offensive on the Muehlenberg article, your remark on a thread discussing that very threat as a consequence of OLO having UPHELD freedom of speech strikes me as 'biting the hand that feeds your ego', and, as such, is one worthy of being shown up for what it is.

Yes, let's get back to

Vilifying gays - that's what

Freedom of speech is

Shintaro,

The discussion has dealt with and progressed well past that earlier diversion.

The primary intent of your remark coming as it does at this stage of the thread could easily be taken as to provoke other users into a desired emotional response or to disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

Forrest you have my admiration.
I did not see those posts, have never visited the place the war on GY stems from.
I do my bit as long as I can to keep this forum running, donations,and beg others to do the same.
But you may have noticed I have distanced myself from a few who played an unhappy part in our longest thread on this subject.
I am no angel, have re thought about some posts. But a side effect of this needless controversy worries me.
I have seen some posts that should be deleted, and not reported them,did not want to add to Grahams load.
Forums such as this have been destroyed by not harsh enough control.
I would like a straight out honest answer how many think we have a problem?
I think some who say yes are the problem not the answer.
This site exists because GY and a few put it together so we can play here have a say here.
Such sites are not mushrooms they do not grow over night,and do not come free.
Those looking for non existent problems should consider this.
What do you want for free,have you contributed.
And are you aware this forum is if not the best the one that brings us back, in my view clearly the best.

Thanks to Cornflower

For telling me what this thread

I started's about

Shintaro,

Your opening post contained but 12 words, if the non-functioning link you posted is counted as a word.

That left you 338 words remaining under the word limit with which you could have more fully explained what aspect of freedom of speech on OLO it was that was of concern to you. Instead you concluded your brief post with the peremptory single word sentence "Discuss".

Twenty-two other posters engaged with your topic, and in the absence of a working link that may have otherwise amplified your own concerns, effectively discussed, with the knowledge provided in the link in the second post to your topic that indeed the whole OLO site stands in danger of having to shut down because its revenue has been dried up because of the invocation of a private 'hate speech' advertising code by some gay-rights activists, your assertion that "... anti-gay rhetoric has been silenced [on OLO]".

What is your complaint?

Brevity may indeed be the soul of wit, but only if the brief exchanged is indeed witty. Absent such wittiness, and the haiku art-form you have chosen can become little more than a cloak for quick cheap smart-arsed remarks destructive of the Forum in general. Its up to you how you want to be seen as a Forum participant.

If you click the 'Legals' button at the bottom of any page you will see, under the heading 'Monitoring site content':

".... However, [OLO does] not assume any obligation to monitor or censor materials.

[OLO] reserve[s] the right to host moderated or unmoderated forums or other web pages to which site users can post materials ("Forums"). [OLO is] not responsible for:

* materials posted to Forums by third parties, whether or not [OLO] moderate those Forums;
* materials altered by [OLO] in moderating Forums; or
* [OLO's] removal of, or failure to remove, all or any part of those materials."

My point, dear Forrest

Is that 'freedom of speech' has

Not been truncated

Forrest Gumpp,

If there wasn't irony before there is now that, in conjunction with my response, removing posts presumably for the purpose of preventing disruption has fired the thread up.

I agree that the posts didn't contain any objectionable or controversial content but don't also jump to the conclusion that they would be as disruptive as you assume. In the space of 4 posts it appeared to be very finalised. I have seen some very derailed threads in my day some of which recover. I admitted within the first post that it was irrelevant but not the second for the little that is worth because they were both irrelevant. I also also admitted to Graham in an email that the post you pointed to was disingenous in that the first line was just there to get a foot in.

You could also use Lexi's subsequent post to get some indication of the content particularly as my first paragraph in the first deleted post was an expanded thank you to that.

There was no attempt to be disingenous. It was an ill considered emotional reaction. While in a certain state of mind I did smirk and consider it ironic immediately before typing it. I was very disappointed that the second deleted one was gone because it let someone get away with something. Adding to this was the fact that I have seen so many off topic comments not actioned. With hindsight it makes sense that Graham would be watching this one more closely and feel more strongly about it. You have already explained the significance of the thread which is obviously close to his heart. Indeed in my email to him included an apology.

I'm open to the biting the hand that feeds ego comment but hope some day you will walk in my moccassins since you put your condemnation so forcefully.

Shintaro,

Could you unpack things a little? You haven't been very expansive in your comments. You seem to be saying that the article should not be published because you don't believe it was not about gay marriage but rather the theme was a vilification of gays and that mistreatment should trump freedom of speech. I took your equation of the two as being sarcastic.

One possible take on vilification is the thing prohibited by this:

A person must not, by a public act, incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of, a person or group of persons on the ground of their (in this case sexual preference) by threatening or inciting others to threaten physical harm to the person, or members of the group, or to property of the person or members of the group.

I agree that it looks poorly drafted but I grabbed it as a starting point. Is that what you were saying and does that approach to vilification accord with your take on it.

Still waters run deep. Your hesitation to say too much may indicate strong feelings and you have every right to contribute. I can appreciate that you were bombarded with a defence of freedom of speech comments and may not thought you would be heard. I'm listening (reading).

mjpb, I have not seen

Any complaints about the dumb

Article. Comments,

On the other hand,

Seem to be subjected to

Selective freedom

Bill Muehlenberg's article did not present a balanced point of view, in my opinion.
It seemed to be full of unsubstantiated - sweeping generalisations. Some of the comments that followed however were quite extraordinary in their - how shall I put it? - strong emotions?. I simply stopped reading them after a while. It's very difficult I would assume to know where to draw the line. Most of us believe in the freedom of speech but people who enjoy the rights of free speech have a duty to respect other people's rights. A person's freedom of speech is limited by the rights of others - for example their right to maintain their good reputation. Most democratic societies, put various limitations on what people may say. They prohibit certain types of speech that they believe might harm others. But drawing the line between dangerous and harmless speech can be extremely difficult - and often it is a matter of judgement.

“Dumb article” speaks?

Sacred cows stampede with fright?

Miraculous times!

Shintaro, in his post of Friday, 11 February 2011 at 7:57:48 PM, says:

"... Comments,
On the other hand,
Seem to be subjected to
Selective freedom"

On the following evidence, I would have to disagree.

I was beginning to think I had been a bit harsh in suggesting "the haiku art-form [Shintaro has] chosen can become little more than a cloak for quick cheap smart-arsed remarks destructive of the Forum in general" until I saw an item written by Brendan Bolger, published on the website 'SX'
( http://sxnews.gaynewsnetwork.com.au/news/scare-tactics-008393.html ) on Wednesday 9 February 2011. Bolger wrote:

"IBM and ANZ recently withdrew sponsorship
from the web site On Line Opinion following
a post that called for homosexuals to be murdered
in light of the same-sex marriage debate."

A comment posted by a 'Chrys Stevenson' on 10 February 2011 to that news item on the SX site identified OLO UserID 'Shintaro' as being the author of that claimed call to murder, with that comment given the bold text heading of "Online Opinion comment taken out of context".

SX poster Chrys Stevenson proceeded in the body of the comment to defend the allegedly offending post of Shintaro's made on OLO (see: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11533#197140 ) on Wednesday, 2 February 2011 at 11:25:29 AM to the comments thread to the article 'An 'unthreatening' lunch with Tony Abbott', by Garry Wotherspoon, published on 27/1/2011.

Shintaro's allegedly offending post was separated by seven posts by other users from his preceeding post, which was thus off-screen and not visible without scrolling as part of the overall context. The allegedly offending post was:

"He had it coming
Gays should stay in the closet
Or be murdered"

Two more posts by other users separated the claimed offending post from the subsequent post referred to by Chrys Stevenson in defending Shintaro as having been misunderstood and taken out of context.

Its interesting to see the attempt to now put the focus upon comments and moderation, rather than OLO's publishing of Muehlenberg on 25 November 2010. How did Bolger get it so wrong? Haiku too brief?

Forrest Gumpp,

Well explained.

It does seem that this issue has now jumped the divide and is concentrating on moderation. And it is easy in hindsight to see where this misunderstanding occurred.
Following Shintaro's comments, it was clear that he was referring to the murder of Ugandan gay activist, David Cato, as that story was prominent of news services at the time. It was also clear that Shintaro was defending gay rights in holding up the murder as a shocking illustration of the results gay vilification in Uganda.
However, someone parachuting into the conversation and cherry picking Shintaro's comments, in their brief form and without reference to his line of argument, would have taken them at face value and made a judgment solely according to the words of the haiku and not the intended message.

Poirot,

I don't agree that this thread has "jumped a divide" to be about moderation at all. There has been some good discussion about freedom of speech which should continue despite the diversion.

Shouldn't Shintaro speak for himself though? You did well to read his mind at the outset and guess his broken link. However after 18 pages Shintaro has not raised a grievance about moderation and from a quick look at his postings I can't find any reason why he would be so concerned or have such a secondary agenda, especially in view of his start to this thread.

As a light-hearted suggestion given the misunderstandings arising from Shintaro's blurred posts - his sarcasm and inscrutability are too heavy for mere mortals) - perhaps a fellow Ninja could help (with apologies to Shintaro wherever he is),

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEMvHg_rdng

Whoops, I meant this one, but he is a funny fellow so no harm done. So again in good natured fun while we await Shintaro, who will have a simple explanation maybe,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXCHlyFLWZM&feature=related

Cornflower,

I was referring to this "issue". You are no doubt aware that this is also being debated in the articles section.

My reference about "jumping the divide" was merely acknowledging Forrest's contribution prior to mine in that it was not only the publication of Muehlenberg's article that raised the ire of some, but also comments that were allowed to stand in various threads - several of those being Shintaro's.
I did note that you were one who encouraged Shintaro to expand upon his haikus early in the piece.

Poirot posts:

"... someone parachuting into the conversation
and cherry picking Shintaro's comments, in their
brief form and without reference to his line of
argument, would have taken them at face value and
made a judgment solely according to the words of
the haiku and not the intended message."

Agreed, precisely.

The problem is that it was this haiku, by necessary inference, that was effectively attributed by the writer of the SX news item as being the basis upon which both IBM and ANZ withdrew their advertising from the OLO website. Brendan Bolger must have had a source that informed him that it was this post that had been the basis for that withdrawal.

It is to be noted that Shintaro's haiku was posted on Wednesday 2 February 2011 at 11:25:29 AM AEST, and not to the Muehlenberg article thread, which had been last posted to on Thursday, 30 December 2010 at 2:55:55 PM, 34 days previously, and likely closed to comment. Christopher Pearson's article that broke this story in The Australian was published on Saturday 5 February 2011. Pearson claims in that article that he spoke with Graham Young on Wednesday 2 February 2011. With respect to that conversation Pearson said:

"On account of the Muehlenberg piece,
Young told me two major advertisers had
just pulled out: the ANZ Bank and IBM."

Graham Young already had been told by the time on Wednesday that he spoke with Pearson that ANZ and IBM had pulled out, and that it was because of the Muehlenberg piece, that they had done so. Between that conversation with Young and Pearson's deadline sometime before midnight Friday 4 February, the ANZ's Stephen Ries got back to Pearson saying:

"... our advertising was placed through an automatic
advertising placement service and once we were alerted
to the content we removed our advertising."

It begins to look to me that a decision-maker within ANZ was assessed as needing 'something more concrete' than just the Muehlenberg article as a basis for withdrawal of advertising. Was this haiku that 'something concrete'?

Forrest,
With that bit of detective work I think you have out Poiroted Poirot.

Did Shintaro --unwittingly-- play the role of an agent provocateur?
Were the advertisers spooked by shadows?

Hmmmm...curiouser and curiouser!

I await you next instalment.

I am going to be in trouble here.
Let me say so be it.
First without reserve I am a supporter of OLO and Graham Young.
Have no issues with moderation.
But we do not all know every thing that takes place here, a thread title is inactive.
The title leads to some idea why,can we know why or at least can it be deleted.
Please let no one use my post as a stone to throw at any one.

Hi people. This is quite fascinating, isn't it? ( Yes, I've dropped the haiku format for the next couple of posts)

Context is everything. While I'm indebted to Forrest's sleuthing efforts, I think he's got the actual situation arse-up, so to speak.

With respect to my obviously offensive (if taken out of context) post in that other thread, it should be read in context with not only my other clearly anti-homophobic comments, but more immediately with the clearly hateful comments from ‘diver dan’ that preceded and followed it.  The clear implication in dan’s posts is that gays shouldn’t advertise their sexuality publicly, lest they be subject to violence from those who engage in “gay bashing” or worse.  My post hyperbolically extended his sick logic.

I now regret having made that comment. It didn't occur to me that anybody could be dumb or obtuse enough to take it at face value, let alone someone who purports to be some kind of journalist. I am indebted to Chrys Stephenson for pointing out the journo's gross misapprehension of my comment.

Having said that, I'm quite certain that my comment was not the cause of any complaint to advertisers, and evidently not to the moderator, since it's still there. My intention in starting this thread was to explore whether the good Brigadier's assertion that anti- Gay sentiment had been effectively silenced at OLO was correct

Continued....

Continued...

Quite evidently, from this thread and others, it isn't. What seems to be the case is that several significant sponsors no longer want to pay for it. That to me seems quite reasonable.

Also, my haiku format is simply a way to force myself to be economical with text, and to stick to the point. I endeavor to be polite and to stay within the forum rules as I understand them. Soon after I joined, I was moderated quite reasonably for an ad hominem comment about an article author, from which I learnt. I have received several favorable comments from others here about my haiku. I mean no offence to anyone.

I hope this helps.

[Deleted. Poster may be sock puppet. Investigating.]

What is the point of this poster giving out his email addresses to others and opening up the prospect of gathering other posters' working emails as well?

That it was posted at 10:58:17 PM on a Sunday is also a problem. What site would have moderation active at that time?

Why challenge the administrative staff to discuss his private account on the open forum anyhow? Forum rules,
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/rules.asp

It should be a requirement that posters always maintain a working email address with an ISP for example Internode, not with an anonymous free site such as hotmail, gmail and so on. Where a poster cannot be contacted, posting privileges should be withdrawn temporarily and suspended where it continues past a set deadline.

Graham Young, in his article 'Wanted: new financial backers' ( http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=11583&page=0 ), also quotes the ANZ response that Pearson did. Part of that ANZ response was:

"The removal of our advertising should not be
viewed as a violation of free speech; it's simply
that we choose not to advertise on blogs that do
not align to our organisational values."

Graham then goes on in his article to observe, in relation to the ANZ:

"If they don’t advertise on any “opinion-type
websites that may cause offence or segregate
any individuals or groups” what were they doing
on New Matilda months after this decision was made?"

Indeed.

This is where a seeming inconsistency in the ANZ response to Pearson is revealed.

When first approached by Pearson, it seems the PR people at ANZ knew nothing of the exercise by ANZ of any policy in respect to advertising placement. Had any such policy existed, one would think PR would have known of it. Then, after further inquiry, ANZ PR came back to Pearson with the explanation that:

"In this instance our advertising was placed
through an automatic advertising placement service
and once we were alerted to the content we removed
our advertising."

The inconsistency resides in the fact that, according to Graham Young, the decision to withdraw the ANZ advertising was conveyed to him months ago (around the time of publication of the Muehlenberg article in November 2010), whereas SX site editor Brendan Bolger's news item claims that withdrawal to have been consequent upon what was taken as an 'incitement to murder' comment published on 2 February 2011.

This inconsistency suggests to me that it was the 'automatic' advertising placement service that effectively made the initial decision, months ago, that advertising was to be withdrawn, and that ANZ was not party to that decision at that time. I suspect that it was only when it was realized the matter was going public that ANZ was advised of the specific content, the 'incitement' post, as justification for action already taken on its behalf, upon which basis ANZ ratified the decision.

ANZ deceived!

Shintaro,

Maybe you protest too much while continuing to argue the toss on the open forum. Keep it between you and admin thanks.

[Deleted. Post tends to confirm poster a sock puppet.]

Forrest Gumpp,

Fascinating developments. So the original article immediately resulted in financial pressure/withdrawal of advertising from ANZ (although the action was taken on their behalf) as originally believed.

However supporters of the action against the original article such as Bolger relied upon Shintaro's post to demonstrate that the original article was vilificatory in conjunction with the comments Shintaro's post spawned as a result of its own vilification albeit due to being misunderstood.

They believed that the action was triggered by Shintaro's post. Further, ANZ seemed to have ratified the action based on a belief shared with Bolger that the article itself had incited vilification (as evidenced by Shintaro's post) even though that wasn't correct. There are a few twists and turns there so I summarised to check if I have all this correct?

Shintaro if your account is deleted how can you post? If it was about to be deleted you should be aware that expressing disappointment like that means that you risk flaming and if your account is deleted you will have no opportunity to respond.

mjpb, re your post of Monday, 14 February 2011, at 12:10:36 PM, and the points on which you seek confirmation:

1. "So the original [Muehlenberg] article immediately
resulted in financial pressure/withdrawal of advertising
from ANZ (although the action was taken on their behalf)
as originally believed[?]"

So GrahamY has appeared to say here on 12 December 2010: http://www.ambitgambit.com/2010/12/12/human-rights-awards-chris-sidoti-pauline-hanson-and-on-line-opinion/ from his text link 'an initial blog piece' in paragraph 13 of his article. Graham's words were: "... we are currently under attack from a number of gay activists because we dared to publish [on 25 November 2010] this piece by Bill Muehlenberg ... And by attack I mean attempting to intimidate me, sponsors or advertisers." I read 'intimidate' as meaning 'we'll dry up your advertising if you don't ...'.

As to what the demand being made of OLO may have been, my speculation is that it was 'sign up to the IASH Australia code of conduct or else ...'.

2. "... supporters of the action against the original
article such as Bolger relied upon Shintaro's post to
demonstrate that the original article was vilificatory ..."

Essentially yes, except that I am not alleging that Bolger was one of the activists. I am taking it that as news editor for the SX site he was simply reporting what a source had told him.

3. "They believed that the action was triggered by
Shintaro's post."

I am taking your word 'They' to mean ANZ. My answer is, "no, not quite". Rather I see it as being that when questioned (by Pearson) as to the reason for the withdrawal of advertising, that that was the reason given to ANZ by its 'automatic' advertising placement service for a decision in reality made, or threatened, at an earlier time by that service without ANZ's knowledge.

The deception of ANZ of which I speculated earlier being one by its placement service as to a decision being taken that was in the interests of an agenda perhaps separate to that of the best interests of its advertising client.

Thanks for the clarification. There is an interesting story behind the story.

mjpb,

There may well yet be an even more "interesting story behind the story".

You are to be congratulated for what now stands as a partial witness to the circumstances in which the opening poster to this topic, Shintaro, was seemingly suspended from posting to OLO.

Shintaro's deleted post of Monday, 14 February 2011 at 10:50:06 AM was an haiku to the effect of 'My account has been suspended: so much for freedom of speech on OLO', however that could have been expressed in three lines of five, seven, and five syllables respectively.

There earlier had been another post of Shintaro's, posted after Cornflower's post of Monday, 14 February 2011 at 1:26:20 AM, removed without any moderation notation, and it did look, on the face of it, as if Shintaro's profile had been deleted from OLO. It appears Shintaro, too, jumped to the conclusion that his profile had been deleted, and posted a test(?) parting shot seemingly revelatory as to his real purpose in starting the discussion.

Shintaro's haiku format may well have been "simply a way to force [himself] to be economical with text, and ... stick to the point", but it is equally possible that it may have been adopted as one of the few means of disguising a literary style that might otherwise show through in any fuller engagement with discussion upon the Forum. Cornflower's concern expressed in her post of Monday, 14 February 2011, at 1:26:20 AM, as to "anonymous free site[s] such as hotmail, gmail and so on" providing a cloak as to the originating IP address of any post or poster is, I suggest, not fully founded. Moderators can trace the origins of posts, it is just that it takes resources to do this, and therefore has to be worthwhile.

What has every appearance of being a sustained attack on the moderation, and indeed the very survival, of the Forum, may have well recently made such effort in the case of suspected sock-puppets worthwhile, Shintaro being one to pay the price.

I'm not going to get into any "conspiracy theories" or - politics,
(way over my head) - instead I'd like to simply comment on what
Freedom of Speech should possibly mean... I found these few quotes
from some of my old assignments, and on the web. I thought they may be appropriate.

A few thoughts by Milton Meltzer, "Four Who Locked Horns with the
Censor."

"Somebody in France wanted to put Voltaire in jail. Somebody in Franco's Spain sent Lorca, their greatest poet to death before a firing squad. Somebody in Germany under Hitler burned the books, drove Thomas Mann into exile, and led their Jewish scholars to the gas chamber. Somebody in Greece long ago gave Socrates the hemlock to drink. Somebody in the USSR banned Solzhenitsyn and Pasternak. Somebody at Golgotha erected a cross and somebody drove nails into the hands of Christ. Somebody spat on his garments. No one remembers their names."

Or to put it another way:

Pier Tyler wrote this poem, January 08, 2007:

"Now is not the time to be silent
Exercise your right to speak freely
For that dependent, latchkey, smart,
But a baby having a baby child or teen
For that single mum, whose work is never done
Educated, yet been through domestic violence
For that disabled worker, who can't give 110 per cent
But when he could, he did. And still has vivid dreams
For that Veteran POW, whose braved wars and rumours of wars
Those who came home and those who didn't
For that elderly man or woman who still has
something vital
To give, through work or to volunteer, who are often overlooked
For those endangered species whose purpose may not be understood
But are just as important as our earthly purpose
For all others who cannot speak up for themselves
Your voice, your freedom of speech is needed
Not because the Constitution says so
But because it's good common sense."

Anyway, people, have a great two weeks - I'm going on leave (tomorrow) and won't be back until the 25th Feb.

The attacks on moderation happen on all sites but an open site like OLO could expect to have more risks to manage.

Maybe you or others can suggest more efficient and effective controls? My experience is limited, the few sites I subscribe to apart from OLO are very narrow and specialist in focus.

Cornflower:

There are controls already in place that most people find quite adequate. The "X" button is there for all to use - (if someone finds a particular post really objectionable). Which is not all that common. Otherwise - one can always simply scroll past and not read any given post. As for asking for explanations concerning moderation decisions - of course all posters are entitled to ask - however in my opinion - this should be done privately and with discretion, preferably via a private email and not on a public forum.

I think this is the thread to talk about another.
I am taking part in a thread about multi culturism.
GY could have played safe, not given it a go.
He may yet have to stop it, it could go Ferrel, indeed some will claim I already have there.
Ferrel or not if complaints start it will challenge GY.
Put your self briefly in Grahams shoes, his hand made site has risen to heights he must have dreamed of.
It can/will go higher with the right support.
However it is nearly illegal to say what you think on some subjects.
We could be in the spotlight in just hours charged with no one knows what.
No easy job.
Freedom of speech is never going to be on every subject,and it often is walking a very high tight rope without a net

They say you can learn something new every day.

I learned something new yesterday through surfing a link within a blog post of Gregory Storer's to which a link had been posted by OLO userID 'Mikey Bear' in this post to the 'Wanted: new financial backers' comments thread: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11583#198395

The link within Greg Storer's blog post made on Monday 14 February was the text link word 'blog' on the first line of paragraph 12 thereof. Clicking it delivered me here: http://www.ambitgambit.com/2010/12/12/human-rights-awards-chris-sidoti-pauline-hanson-and-on-line-opinion/ . As it so happened, I had never viewed this post on Graham's blog, Ambit Gambit, (which can always be reached from a standing link on the OLO main page) before. Clicking the text link 'Comments' at the bottom of the page displayed 14 comments.

Imagine my surprise when, upon reading the comments, I saw the very first one was made under the name of CJMorgan on 19 December 2010, a full week after Graham's blog post had been published. See: http://www.ambitgambit.com/2010/12/12/human-rights-awards-chris-sidoti-pauline-hanson-and-on-line-opinion/#comment-20765 . There were in all four posters to that comment thread: CJMorgan3, Severin2, Gregory (Storer)1, and Graham Young2, the remainder being pingbacks. Comments closed on 22 December.

I had no idea CJMorgan had been a participant in this current contention. (I had seen the quotation, which I now realize had come from a subsequent comment by CJMorgan in that Ambit Gambit thread, posted by AGiR earlier in this thread, of unattributed snippets that did strike me as reminiscent of CJ, here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4263#107840 , but had thought no further on it, believing him to have been banned from the site.)

Maybe there has been more substance to my perception of his desiring to effectively shut down discussion of certain subjects on OLO than I had previously credited.

JuliaGillardHasFailed,

I told you you'd become addled with all this darting between threads. Don't know if your obvious excitability is a good look for the "right".
Shadow Minister could probably give you a few pointers there.

Anyhoo, you've got the wrong end of the stick....Forrest wasn't referring to Graham Young.

A newbie with 20 inflammatory, nonsensical posts up in six hours. Sock puppet or troll, why feed it?

Thanks cornflower you have a way with words, please hold me accountable if I ever refer to the bloke again.