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.