Larvatus Prodeo wishes to point out that this blog is associated with On Line Opinion only through an agreement to bundle several public affairs websites together for the purpose of selling advertising space under the rubric of The Domain. Any editorial, policy and publication decisions regarding content and comment are the sole responsibility of each individual website.
We do not share the views Mr Young puts forward in his article regarding free speech, the complaints of aggrieved parties and the decisions of advertisers, and we disagree with his views on the appropriate moderation of the comments thread in question. We have only been aware of this issue for a few days.
We recognise that Mr Young has a different approach to issues of acceptable and unacceptable speech, and we have no doubt that he has formed that approach in good faith. We cast no aspersions on his motivations and note OLO’s policy on the publication of offensive material. However, we wish to emphasise that his position and ours are completely separate and independent of each other.
You cowards. You disgraceful, craven cowards.
I used to have a lot of respect for LP. Although I disagreed with their editorial position on most matters, I felt they always had well written posts, with strong arguments for their positions, and their work on civil liberties in particular I thought was an incredibly valuable addition to the Australian blogosphere.
They were a must read for me every morning. But no longer. Because this despicable act of giving in, and denying the fundamental freedom of speech - the freedom that is at the bedrock of our society - is not something I can tolerate or forgive. I have just unsubscribed from their RSS feed, and suggest you all do the same.
To those of you who are somewhat puzzled by this, the backstory:
GRAHAM Young is the founding editor of a well-regarded e-journal called On Line Opinion, and is a regular contributor to The Australian. I'd describe him as belonging in the centre of the political spectrum, perhaps tending to mild conservatism.
In December he 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. Nor were most of the essays run opposed to gay marriage.Young commented on the blog in mid-December. "The On Line Opinion approach is one that many find difficult to accept, and we are currently under attack from a number of gay activists because we dared to publish [Muehlenberg's essay] which is mostly a pastiche of comments by gay activists, even though the majority of articles I can find on the site support gay marriage. And by attack I mean attempting to intimidate me, sponsors or advertisers. How ironic . . . when we are sponsoring the Human Rights Awards."
When I spoke to him on Wednesday, Young said it wasn't the first time advertisers had made life hard. A group called Ethical Investments had objected after their ads sometimes appeared on pages alongside articles questioning anthropogenic global warming.
On account of the Muehlenberg piece, Young told me two major advertisers had just pulled out: the ANZ Bank and IBM. Comparing this year's January gross ad sales with last year's, he calculated that revenue from his main category of advertising had fallen by 96 per cent. Young is worried that these bizarre decisions will adversely affect other websites as well as his own and could even lead to some of them closing down.
As a result of this attack on freedom of speech, Young formed The Domain, through which they could "bundle up their readers as a more attractive package for advertisers. The sites are very diverse in terms of ideology, from the ultra-leftist John Passant, to the more mainstream centre-Left Larvatus Prodeo, Club Troppo, Andrew Bartlett, skepticlawyer and the likes of Henry Thornton and Jennifer Marohasy".
LP gladly joined The Domain, and sought the revenue it offered. Yet, it would seem, as some of their more extreme and more rabid supporters have risen up to condemn Online Opinion for providing both sides of the story, they have backed down, and are scurrying away. Having already committed to the project.
In their own words:
This statement has been posted because the name of this blog has been associated with On Line Opinion in discussion of this issue, because of the shared advertising. LP has been adversely impacted by all this
They have retreated from supporting freedom of speech because they have been "adversely impacted".
There is a lot posted on the internet that I think wrong. Indeed, many posts here on Menzies House I think wrong. Yet I believe in freedom of speech and expression, and, as much as I may disagree with you, I believe you have the right to say it. Personally, I did not agree with the arguments put for in that contentious post. I found them flawed, and can see how some may find them bigoted. Yet that is not the point. The point is that we should have public debate free from fear of attack, and free from fear of retaliation.
LP had the choice to stand up for freedom of speech. They chose not to. They had the chance to prove they had integrity and character. They chose not to. They had the chance to be loyal to those who had supported them. They chose not to.
There is no other term for this than cowardice. They had the opportunity to stand up for freedom of speech. To say "yes, we disagree with them, we believe in marriage equality, but we support the right for people we disagree with to write". Yet they did the opposite. They bowed.
This was a test of intellectual courage. A test they failed.
They are nothing more than a joke, and a disgrace.
And to think I once respected them, and thought them a sane voice amongst the left.
Boy do I feel foolish now.
UPDATE: Andrew Bartlett refuses to back away, and demonstrates his support for freedom of speech. LP can learn a lot from him.
(Posted by Tim Andrews, acting Editor-in-Chief of Menzies House).
