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