Hmm.

[apocalypsos]

So everybody seems to be posting about how a NOM ad made it onto LJ. Oh, joy.

I sent feedback to LJ saying that I disapprove and that I do not want a bigoted ad like that associated with my journal. Considering the way ads work on the internet, I'm not entirely sure it's their fault just yet -- I know there have ad problems like this in the past that have been solved with a few emails back and forth -- so I'd rather wait and see how they respond to the feedback they receive from this (I imagine it won't be pretty) than go off the hinge and decide LJ wants its GLBT bloggers to have to see that crap in an ad that's most likely randomized.

Of course, the downside comes when it gets taken down. Not so much because we never have to see it again, but because people like that feed on vindication. They get their ad taken down and they get to scream about freedom of speech, regardless of the fact that other people exercising their right to free speech (at least, according to their Internet definition of it) is the thing that would cause it to come down.

Bah. Stupid country. *grumbles*

Comments

[azzinita.livejournal.com]

I console myself with the knowledge that this bigoted line of thinking is on it's way out. I'd like to think that these are the last desperate gasps of these groups and these bigoted people as gay marriage, and GLBT equality in general becomes more widely accepted.

These people are on the losing side of a battle, and they know it. That's why they're being as ugly as possible, which only serves to destroy them faster.

[palmetto.livejournal.com]

I'm more inclined to believe it's something the ad company put through. *shrug* In any event, I sent lj feedback as well.

[apocalypsos.livejournal.com]

Yeah, if it's something the ad company put through, enough people complaining should be enough to get them to go to the ad company to pull it, IIRC.

[suaine.livejournal.com]

Hm. I'm not sure how I feel about it. I'll have to think about that one a while.

[tviokh.livejournal.com]

*shrug*

Free speech works both ways.

Whether you agree with them or not, they have the right to their view and to not be silenced because others disagree.

For the record, I don't agree with them or their viewpoint, but I still believe that they do have the right to speak their mind just as much as anyone on the other side does.

[apocalypsos.livejournal.com]

Oh, definitely. My complaint to LJ basically said I just don't want them associated with *my* LJ, so ... *shrugs*

[lavenderfrost.livejournal.com]

I get what you're saying, and I'm not trying to be bitchy in response - just need to point out that no one's trying to throw the members/founders of NOM in jail for speaking their mind. They just want the ads off LJ. It's really not an issue of free speech, it's an issue of customer satisfaction. :)

[sabra-n.livejournal.com]

Free speech as a constitutional concept applies to government regulation of speech, not what private companies do to regulate speech on their message boards/ad space/whatever. Private companies can regulate their sites pretty much any way they want to, and they have to in some cases to be in compliance with the law.

That said, it is morally troublesome when a quasi-open private forum starts regulating speech by content. The question is whether or not you believe that LJ is really an open forum or a controlled one, and given the screaming fits users have had with the company in the past, I'm kind of leaning towards the latter. It's just that now they're hitting NOM instead of fan artists.

I am kind of mixed on this, but you know what? LJ hardly has a monopoly on blogging, social networking, or Internet content of any kind. Blocking NOM from this forum doesn't block them from using a bunch of other online forums that have similar viewership numbers and probably similar ad prices, so it isn't completely or even significantly cramping their ability to speak. So I'm not overly troubled in this particular case.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Nobody is being "silenced", here. Our Host is telling Livejournal that their accepting of bigot money means she's not going to give them *her* money, which is entirely fair.

Nobody has an obligation to run advertising that makes them look stupid for having it on their site.

LJ is taking those ads down now

[shalanna.livejournal.com]

LJ is responding quickly. Take a look at what Marta, a staff member, is doing--http://news.livejournal.com/114780.html?thread=78083164.

Of course, when I pointed out on one of the original threads that LJ is responding and made the point that we must tolerate dissenting voices (even when we disagree or feel those are wicked voices and etc.) so that OUR voices may continue to be heard, I got some really obscene and nasty comment replies on the threads. That makes me think that some people just jump on any bandwagon to complain. (Wow, an INSIGHT you never heard of before! *grin*)

I cringe when I see those threads take that turn. They say you're a sycophant if you thank staff members for helping to take those ads down, for example. And they just want to talk about how BAAAAD anyone is who doesn't immediately jump on the companies accepting the advertising. If people carry on about how those groups must be silenced, though, it kind of proves the point of the banner ad itself, in a way, in that it claimed that someone IS wanting to silence their group and will do anything that it takes to silence them. I mean, it just feeds into their claim. If we just said "we prefer not to see political ads such as this," it might be more reasonable as an LJ appeal. This is an issue of good customer service, not of freedom of speech, I agree--you are one of the few people who actually gets it. Still, we must remember that the reason we get to express our views freely is the same reason THEY get to express their views freely. It's a trade-off, and I think a fair one.