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.