If you force Alan Jones off the air, of course it’s censorship

Fair point, I think you’re on the money with the ACMA powers issue.

Tim, while I take your point, people do have the right to refuse to buy a product, and to say why. And they do have the right to organise themselves. But even if Alan Jones did leave 2GB, would it really becnsorig a point of view. Others in the media make the same or similar points without the hate speech.

You say ” if he breaks the rules, the station could lose its licence”. Of course, that has never happened. Even the punishments meted out to 2Day over Kyle Sandilands were not as draconian as they were made out to be. In the end, the station was essentially forced to abide by a code it should have been abiding by all the time.

Ineffective rulings by the watchdog have emboldened Jones and Sandilands to get nastier over time. If ACMA could and did act more quickly, decisively and with some true bite, and the shock jocks were forced to act within the bounds of common decency, then we might not be having this conversation.

Not for what he has to say, but because of the way he says it. If someone wanted me barred from radio for saying “I think opponents of this issue are wrong”, that’s acting in favour censorship. If they wanted me off the air for saying “I want people to go kill opponents of this issue and throw them into a ditch, their families died of shame because they’re so fundamentally wrong. And they’re a woman so they’re wrong.” that’s acting in favour of a hegemonic decency. If a broadcaster has to resort to the latter in order to get an audience riled up enough to listen to them in the first place, the quality of their broadcasting has to be taken into question.

Yes.

It’s misleading to describe public campaigns to get Jones off the air as censorship or advocacy for it. As we all appreciate, media companies are constantly making decisions about the content they publish; what content gets the nod and what doesn’t. The public campaigning around Jones, as described in this article, is simply designed at influencing that decision making process, ie. it’s part and parcel of a market scenario in which media companies, via advertisers, are (somewhat) responsive to the preferences of audiences. Lot’s not to like about advertisers having so much influence over non-advertising content but censorship it ain’t.

The bottom line is that anti-Jones campaigners respect that the decision about whether to keep Jones on air is a commercial one. It’s sloppy to equate [a campaign to influence] editorial decisions about what goes to air to government prohibition of certain speech, backed up with legal penalties. Does Burrowes consider the axing of a TV show with low ratings censorship?

Whenever something like this flares up, people end up conflating the right to free speech with the right to be heard.

I fully support Alan Jones’ right, as an individual, to say whatever he wants. That doesn’t mean I have to keep him on air. I support the boycott because at some point, you have to show some standards. If the Alan Jones program is ultimately pulled from 2GB, he will still be free to start his own website, youtube channel, newsletter, or whatever, along with the rest of us.

He can say what he wants, when he wants about whatever he wants, but I don’t have to pay for it and I don’t have to give my business to anyone who would appear to endorse his views.

That’s not really true though, is it? Jones didn’t say the “died of shame” comment on the air and he’s not being “censored” for it. What he said wasn’t opinion, it was something bordering on defamatory and wasn’t in the least bit true in reference to Mr Gillards own personal feelings about his daughter.

Jones can put it down to glibness or off-the-cuff if he wants, but it was also downright offensive. The community has a right to respond and advertisers likewise have every right to say, “we don’t want our brands associated with that.” That might signify the end of his show (it probably won’t though) but I don’t think it’s a matter of ipso facto he’s being denied freedom of speech. Jones can still be heard – if not on public radio, he could podcast. Losing income is his problem and another matter entirely.

I don’t like what Jones says on air either, but I’ve never thought he should be taken off. I just wish so many people didn’t listen to him. But his on air statements are not what people are reacting against this time. This is not expressing opinion, or being silenced for saying things some people don’t want to hear. There wasn’t this exact reaction after he said all that nonsense about “chaff bag” – that was his opinion but this is entirely different.

Tim there is a difference between censorship and behaviour modification. Some people have said to both ‘guys c’mon you’re behaviour is not up to scratch – time to act like adults’. They’ve been punished but that’s not the same as censorship. Here’s my POV http://tinyurl.com/9at4o4l

I think this is more akin to Matthew Newton losing his hosting role on xfactor (or another talent show). Free speech is about not being arrested or jailed, nothing to do with a commercial arrangement.

You seem to think that free speech is tied to making an income off talking about them. Taking away his ability to make money from his opinions doesn’t stop his from having them. Because if huge radio reach is what free speech means, there are a lot of people being censored.

Jones can hold whatever offensive opinions he want, he can speak freely about them too. No one is seeking to take that right away from him.

For a start who is forcing Alan Jones to go anywhere,
The deliberate ignoring of the fact that whatever happens to Alan Jones is actually the voice of rejection from the people he not only outraged but offended and disgusted. Nobody can force Jones off the air, he part owns his own radio station for crying out loud. He can sit and yap all he likes, what I suspect is that he and the shareholders dont like is he wont be doing it for major renumeration as in the past.

Dont try and make the rejection of a man well known for being completely devoid of decency when attacking people sound like an innocent little blossom that is being victimised. The people who hear and suffer from him have simply heard enough. And as a result they are finally doing unto Alan the exact same thing he has done unto them for decades.

Alan Jones.. suck it up you earnt this.

In this case I’m all for censorship as the person in question is using his right of free speech to further his own agendas – ones which are divisive, destructive and not in the best interests of Australia or Australians.

Jones’s comment, poor as it was, has provided an incredible platform for ALP, Greens & other non coalition groups to launch an attack. An attack, which if merely in response to an anti Green or Gillard comment on air would have had no success.

The social media elite, largely comprised of those sitting left on the political spectrum seized on this quickly, the opportunity to ‘get Jones’ was there and they went for it. The campaign began, ‘hater’, ‘hate speech’, ‘misogynist’, ‘defamed’, ‘disrespectful’, ‘ugly’, ‘toilet loiterer’, ‘closet gay’ were tags.

Thus in the name of the cause of bringing down Jones, the Prime Minister (certainly no supporter of the man) and her mother, suffered a moment of ‘pain’ for the greater good. The good, ideally being the silencing of one of the major conservative media voices, which if one is entirely honest about it, there really aren’t too many of in Australia. The few there are, do however get a lot of attention.

There was no thought that the Prime Minister nor her mother would have not had the opportunity to be hurt by Jones’s comment, if it weren’t for the News Limited reporter (who’s had an interesting history back in New Zealand) recording and publishing them. It would have otherwise have been an off colour remark at a private function. But for the campaign it was even better that it was a Young Liberals function.

The advertisers in the spot light crumbled despite the fact that, say in the case of Mercedes it would be a fair guess the closest that 99.9999% of those petitioning the company would come to sliding their assets onto a Mercedes seat would be via a government run bus.

Campaigners spared no one, almost to the point of condeming anyone who may have even walked past the building the function was held in. They wanted more names, more results. Thus they claimed the scalp of Simon Berger, in their opinion another misogynst (though actually an openly gay past Liberal Bradfield pre-selection candidate) who they cried could not possibly be able to continue in his role as a government liason for Woolworths.

Why, we don’t know, people with different beliefs to the government of the day do it all the time, but that argument would not be listened too. No correspondence would be entered into, “BLOCK” other than if it was in support of the campaign.

It has been one of the most successful political internet campaigns in this country, without doubt. The management of GetUp! must be green with envy and the remnants of the ‘Occupy’ movement just gobsmacked. It even beat the ‘Kony 2012’ socail media beat up. Though it is interesting to note that more than a few supporters of all three efforts have been quite active in this one.

As Mumbrella rightly points out all this ‘achievement’ is of a dubious variety. Whilst it pains me to drag it out, the old ‘1984’ ‘thoughtcrime’, it does come to mind. It seems that voices in the media should only read from the approved ‘newspeak’ book, the content of which is now administered by frustrated academics and undervalued, unrecognised journalists, now bloggers or social media experts.

So, charged with success, who will their next target be, what will be the trigger? Andrew Bolt, for questioning carbon tax? Mumbrella, for pointing out that this is in fact censorship? Who knows, but good luck.

This censorship is scary, and it gives pause for thought. Who will hold these new censors to account, themselves?

Whereas I don’t like censorship and I will defend the right of anyone to speak their mind on any subject at all, I do think there is a difference here with Alan Jones. His is not a lone voice crying in the wilderness.

This man has a voice much louder than the majority of the rest of us. He has a platform the extends his voice way beyond the reach of the average person’s voice. He has the power of an organisation and a team of talented people to back him up. There is no equality between his voice and mine. I am but a single man with no resources beyond the carrying power of my own voice and the typing power of my hands.

I have no mirror sites to extend my words. In other words, I am not his equal when it comes to being heard. What are the implications of this? It means the only way I can be heard is to join with other voices who have the same concerns, thoughts, feelings and opinions on an issue. I have a right to join others and voice an opinion.

Alan Jones may have once been a voice of dissent or a champion for the odd little battler struggling against the tyranny of government or organisations but somewhere along the way his unchecked growth in power and influence changed whatever sense of decency was in him (if ever he had one, I don’t know).

He became a peddler of hate, lies and misinformation. He became judge, jury and executioner on issues of his own choosing. I have heard him cut people off in the middle of sentences when they were explaining things in a rational manner. His behaviour has become increasingly abhorrent and uncivilised and there was no indication he would ever stop.

It’s right for people like myself to get together, combine our voices and say enough is enough. that is not censorship. That is not gagging the man. The worst that is happening to Alan Jones is that his voice is being brought back to the same level as the rest of us. A single voice trying to be heard. If nobody is listening anymore, the fault is his because he has nothing we want to hear.

We already have laws which limit what we can say. Would you ever say that our libel and defamation laws are censorship? What #destroythejoint has done is to allow listeners – and all those who are affected by hate speech – to talk back. And that’s the power of social media. We are very lucky to have it.
Mr Tate’s characterisation of #destroythejoint as cyberbullying would only be true if he and the rest of the Macquarie Radio Network Board were poor little powerless pumpkins. But that’s not true. He’s at the big end of town and we are ordinary Australians, nurses, teachers, firefighters, council workers. And we finally stood up to them.
Mad as hell. We won’t take it any more.

It’s a basic battle between idealism and pragmatism. Yes, it’s censorship, and yes, this goes against the ideal of free speech, which we all theoretically uphold. But the fact is that Jones’ comments have the potential to harm wider society, and wider society is making a pragmatic decision that upholding that ideal is not worth the cost.

There’s also another important point here. If we acknowledge that Jones’ right to comment is part of the ideal of free speech, then we also have to acknowledge that his critics also share the same right as part of the same ideal. And, just like we can choose not to listen to Jones and choose not to be offended by what he says, 2GB’s advertisers can choose not to listen to his critics, and can choose not to pull their ad dollars. Free speech cuts both ways.

Renai LeMay
Publisher, Delimiter

I’ve been supporting the #boycott2GB campaign because I was stunned by Jones’ remarks. A boycott is just that. I don’t want my dollars going to support his bile.

The best argument so far for this action is contained in Nic Lochner and Vinay Orekondy’s letter A Statement on Alan Jones http://bit.ly/SFaqlq

Many of us have been using self-censorship by refraining from getting down to his level of nastiness.

So what is the difference between an abc702 listener and 2gb listener? Difference of opinion….doesnt’t make them evil either

It has nothing to do with his views. If my chiildren disagree with someone and argue sensibly, I have no problem with that. If they consistently throw in all sorts of distorted ideas in violent, extremely hateful language and I try to stop that, am I censoring them?

Freedom of speech comes with responsibilities and I’d have been happy to think this might have been just a big shake-up, but deflecting of responsibility makes it unlikely. This wasn’t a one-off – it was just the straw that broke the camel’s back. Considering the ‘chaff bag’ was also subject of an apology, what does ‘sorry’ mean?

I’ve boycotted South African goods because of apartheid and various other companies for various other reasons. I believe Alan Jones harms Australia in a number of ways, so if I choose to not support a company that he claims ‘knows where he stands’ as though he believes they condone his attitudes, that’s me exercising my freedom. They can listen or not.

In a week which also saw dismissal of the appeal for defaming Lebanese, I believe, despite his frequent reference to ‘no choice’, Russell Tate’s simply abnegating or deflecting responsibility for the company’s chosen actions.

Media Screwball, you wrote so much that’s distorted I don’t know where to start so will just say I don’t fit any of the labels you tried to pin on me. I wonder how many others do. There are many clearly LIberal voters who joined in the campaign on change.org. – many of them are tired of being represented by this style and they have more to lose by having him seen as a ‘major Conservative voice’. As you say, there are others but I haven’t seen any hint of an attempt to have them off the air or TV.

I wouldn’t go assuming that its only people that don’t like Alan Jones that would like to see him leave his highly paid gig right now.

I didn’t have a huge issue with Jones before his comments. He annoyed me, and I found his views shallow and ego-centric -but that’s shock jock territory. My views changed entirely when he crossed the line with his comments about the PM’s father. Then I became aware of all the other things he’d said which sounded like they were in fact wishing her dead.

Despite the fact, I think there’s a case for taking him off air, the point really is that if the public object to the point that the advertisers don’t want to be associated with his brand … and if that forces him off air … that’s not censorship, that’s commercial reality.

it’s also a cuitural trend that brands and broadcasters would be smart to pay attention to.

1) The difference between the ABC and commercial talk radio? An ABC announcer will — in fact, is obliged to — give airtime to an interviewee or a caller with whose opinions s/he disagrees, and treat them respectfully. An ABC announcer will not — can not under the charter — attack or belittle a listener or interview subject for “entertainment” value.
2) If the advertisers abandon Jones forever, that’s market forces at play — because they, not the listeners (who get the product for free) are the clients, and they decide where to spend their money based on what’s best for them. I would’ve thought AJ was all for letting the market decide.

Welcome to a whole new definition of talkback, Mr. Jones.

Sack Alan Jones he is a disgusting character. Make it quick, you are losing listeners.

Uhh.. no. Censorship is institutionalised, this is merely activism and trying to change opinions.

I spent 3 years listening to Jones full time (like every show) and its amazing that its taken this long for sensible people to stand up against the advertisers of fair amount of intentional misinformation.

Just now he can be “held to account”, just like he has held so many to account over the years.

Media screwball, you say that Simon Berger was accused of being a misogynist but he is ‘openly gay’. What does one have to do with the other? He did show poor judgement in his donating of the chaff bag suit and his blatant praising of Alan Jone’s speech at the event (until it got into the press and he changed his mind). I was disgusted by Jone’s comments, and although I don’t listen to 2GB I don’t want to support any company that by giving him dollars in advertising keeps him spouting his bile on the airwaves. It may make no difference to sign that petition but it felt good to do something that may at least send a message that common decency should prevail.

Tim – “Let’s remember, that when Jones speaks on air, he is regulated by the Australian Communications and Media Authority. Ultimately, if he breaks the rules, the station could lose its licence.”
and Media Screwball – “The social media elite…”

How many LOLs can be in one thread?

No doubt poor Alan tomorrow morning will call this censorship and an attack on his freedom of speech, but the truth is that Alan Jones has had more free speech than just about anyone else in Sydney.

This is simply a case of the free market doing it’s thing. For 20 years Alan Jones has made a motza thanks to the advertisers he spruiked, because he has been able to delver them a relatively small but loyal audience. The vast majority of Sydneysiders couldn’t stand what he had to say and didn’t listen to him. They outnumber his audience 10:1. Now they have a platform to tell those advertisers that sponsoring his poisoned words is not acceptable… and they are listening.

This isn’t censorship – everybody is expressing an opinion. The only difference is that now people are being held accountable for those opinions. There’s plenty of free speech to go around, and Alan is free to express any opinion he chooses – he just can’t, fingers crossed, make any money off it anymore.

It sounds like Alan and 2GB management expect free speech to be a one way (struggle) street.

Jones has every right to stick his head up his arse. He does not however have the right to stuff our heads up there as well.

Unfortunately many have decided that not only do they have a right to free speech, but also a right to be heard.

If Alan Jones is being censored, then so am I. Where is my breakfast radio programme?

cyberbullying
noun /saɪ.bər.bʊl.i.ɪŋ/

Any act using new media with which one disagrees or that is contrary to one’s financial interests.

It is NOT censorship. Nobody is disallowing Jones from speaking his opinion. All that is being done is consumers, approaching advertisers and informing them that their financial support for his show does not sit well with the Australian public.
Calling that censorship is ridiculous.

So how is Jone’s campaign to have the Prime Minister sacked any different? Is it Ok for him to deprive her of her job and platform to speak but not for us to hold him accountable?

Tim,

No-one (or only a few really extreme people) are demanding that Alan Jones is completely silenced.

He is entitled, just like every other private citizen, to express his views through letters, calling into talkback radio and via online channels.

If he wishes to run his own blog, or own YouTube channel – even source advertising for it – that’s up to him.

However he – and everyone else operating in 20th Century media – need to recognise that they don’t have a (god given) right to the loudspeaker that their legacy distribution networks allow them.

Where microphones, cameras and columns used to be a sign of privilege and distinction – with those in front of the mike or camera being ‘gracious’ towards the masses on the other side – they are now merely a person with a larger loudspeaker – and often not as large (compare daytime television show ratings with many high profile bloggers. The bloggers have much larger audiences).

The notion of ‘celebrity’ or that people with a microphone are more knowledgeable or even more eloquent than the rest of the population is under significant threat.

When the trust disappears, so does the influence and the revenue.

What comes out of people’s mouths and goes in people’s ears matters – just like fresh air. Jones and his ilk are junk food for the mind – encouraging lazy and not helpful thought patterns like racism, bigotry and yes hatred of women for men who are at the pointy end of social change as women step up to the challenge to “hold up half the sky” So tired of people getting all PC about other people being PC. If Jones has the right to speak we have the right to let others know we don’t want to listen – to him firsthand or his secondhand smoke.

The whole premise of this article is completely wrong – Alan Jones chaff bag comments were not censored, neither were his stupid remarks at the Liberal dinner. Far from being censored, they have been reblogged, retweeted and shared many times on facebook. What Alan Jones is suffering is *consequences*. Different thing, Mumbrella.

And as Alan Jones has a bigger megaphone and (has had) more influence than most of us, the fact that the consequences are more severe than we’d get if we made similar remarks at the Xmas lunch are merely a reflection of that.

But Groucho has said all this better in fewer words!

It is not censorship, it is market forces.

If Jones were to lose his radio show (which is almost certainly not going to happen) he could always blog, or tweet or provide his opinion via many other sources and independent of the need for advertisers.

Derryn Hinch is losing his radio show. Is that going to ‘censor’ him? I doubt it.

Do you seriously think anyone could censor Alan Jones? Its quite laughable. The same when Andrew Bolt was carrying on about it. I hardly see these men as victims. They play that card and any other card when it suits them but I doubt they will ever be silenced against their will.

Q: “What happens when we deny a living to anybody who expresses opinions that we disagree with?”
A: They don’t make any money from expressing their opinion. It’s rough, but after thirty years I’ve kind of got used to it.

Oh come on. Censorship, if it’s going to actually have any meaning whatsoever, refers to a function of government. if you are clamoring for ACMA to remove Jones from radio, then you are trying to censor him. If you are complaining to private advertisers and asking them not to support him, then that is not censorship (although it may be censorious in character, not to mention over the top and obnoxious). If it is, then logically criticising a new Channel 10 show is also censorship

It’s not that complicated is it, Tim?

It beggars belief that you try to conflate being deprived of lucrative advertising arrangements and the (tiny) possibility of losing a high-profile daily broadcasting role with censorship. Jones is free to say whatever he likes to whomever will listen without fear of going to jail or being killed. He’s not free to make money out of it if it pisses people off.

It’s not censorship when advertisers withdraw their ads due to consumer backlash.
It’s the market mechanism – advertisers are making decisions based on their bottom line.

Yes, it’s based on public sentiment; but it’s still driven the market. This is “socially led” capitalism at work.

Regulated by The Australian Communications and Media Authority?
What a joke. To keep your licence you must make an effort to broadcast both sides of controversial subjects. There goes John Singleton’s radio licence right there.

So, essentially, people MUST continue to shop at those companies they’ve said they’ll boycott otherwise it is censorship?

Really?

That is your understanding of the free market? That people should be forced to shop at Woolworths because if they don’t they are censoring Alan Jones?

Have a good think about it, mate.

I’m not on air. I don’t part-own a radio station. Does that make me censored?

I expect we’ll continue to read more of this kind of discombobulated tortured logic from media apologists…

The reality is the man regularly abuses his privilege as a broadcaster, providing a narrow tunnel view of the world despite ACMA – which surely must be the most laughably ineffectual body ever..

The market has spoken, stop whining. If I don’t watch a tv show or movie, or wish to support it’s sponsors or advertisers, then it’s ludicrous and embarrassing to suggest that is censorship.

Perhaps you’d prefer consumers just shut up and swallow anything without preference?

We’ve been told for years that the new communications technologies would herald a new era of democraticisation of society and expression. Alan Jones, his radio station, and everyone now shocked at the public response to his recent comments re the PM are either ignorant, disingenous, or both. Now that he finds himself in a metaphorical ‘hessian sack’ being taken out to sea, will Alan Jones (and his kind) learn anything? The world has changed, Alan. Bye-bye.

Imagine a world we said whatever we wanted to whomever we liked. I dont have that luxury, but if i indulged myself,there would be repocussions in my work and personal life. This is nothing to do with censorship, this is simply putting him in his place. Alan Jones ……please….stop talking!!!!

Why is it that so many people are able to get their point across in a good comment of 1 short paragraph, but some people need 600 words? Do some work!

of course it’s censorship you fools. You either believe in free speech or you dont.

and to justify cyberbullying on the basis that ‘he did it first’ is hypocritical and immature

I don’t listen to him and now even more reason not to listen to him. Saying what he said when the PM was grieving is cruel and unacceptable behaviour – no matter who you vote for.

You know all this might be well and truly over by now if AJ had simply and sincerely apologised… “I’m sorry”, or “I was out of line” take a moment to say, not 45 mins and we’d all be talking about other stuff now.

It is not censorship it is simply the reality that Alan Jones is no longer relevant, a fact he keeps proving by the way he behaves. He has run his race and we are sick of him. He has been sent a message, that’s all.

It’s a free market, the advertisers are free to ignore the public outrage if they wish to.
It’s free speach, people a free to complain as they like.

You seem to be applying a double standard when a large chunk of society is saying; enough of this crap.

Jones brought this backlash on himself. He can go to hell (and the sooner the better) – the pontificating, hypocritical, self important twit.

Last time I checked Alan Jones was still on air. His advertisers have made a commercial decision that the upside of reaching his audience is outweighed by the downside of been seen to be endorsing his bigotry. That’s not censorship, it’s democratic capitalism in action.

We have been told for years and years by the Right that we exercise our preferences as consumers, just as we do as citizens. Well, here it is in action, folks. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.

By the way, there’s nothing to stop Alan starting up a self-funded webcast or a blog or a twitter account. And there’s nothing to stop new advertisers associating themselves with that.

Tim, I’m not sure that you understand what censorship is. Censorship is a top-down mechanism employed by some authority to prevent some content from being made available to the public.

Censorship is problematic because the same mechanism that prevents unsavoury material (even if it is agreed to exist) can often be used to block valid material, thus censorship is wide open to abuse by those in power.

Social media exerting pressure on brands is absolutely not censorship. It’s a misuse of the word to call it such. Jones is still able to be on radio, write books, give talks etc. The government is not seeking to take him off the air.

It is actually a sign of a healthy system when the spread of unsavoury material (whatever that may be) is hampered due to public resistance. When people choose not to buy brands because of the associations they have, that’s a good thing. That encourages brands to make positive associations.

This doesn’t mean the public is always right, nor that brands will associate with truly positive individuals or causes because of public pressure. But this approach is far less prone to abuse from the powerful than is censorship.

Tim, given your position and your reach, I think it’d be worth you boning up on some of the issues at play here, including what censorship is, why it is problematic and the difference between censorship and public calls for advertisers to stop supporting a broadcaster.

It’s NOT CENSORSHIP

He has more than sowed the seeds…. too bad for him. But the self serving bleating game he now indulges in – after NOT having offered any meaningful apology – shows just how pathetic he really is.

He can stay on the air. I just won’t buy any brands that are advertised on his show. I don’t see that is censorship. I think that is personal freedom.

this is a politically motivated cyber witchunt. no more, no less

The notion that a public media campaign exhorting people of a similar viewpoint to voice their opinion to advertisisers (i.e. that if the advertiser continues to support Alan Jones, the individual consumer who is originating this communication, will no longer support said advertiser by purchasing their product or service) is akin to censorship, is ludicrous. Even if taking the extreme warcry “”Sack Alan Jones” as an endgame, it equates LESS of a demand for CENSORSHIP than “Put her in a Chaff Bag & dump her out at sea” could be interpreted as an exhortation to MURDER.

All this is, is people giving Alan Jones some of his own back, albeit by a far more civilised and democratic way – voicing their opinion and calling other likeminded citizens to arms.

Jones has always sought to influence public opinion to his ends and now the worm has turned. Now the public has merely sought to influence Jones to its’ collective end (not to have to hear his whining hateful rantings).

That is not censorship that is democracy in its purest of forms – voting with your feet and gathering a following of likeminded individuals to assist in the cause.

This is just a manifestation of the notion that democracy IS public opinion – but as with all poloitics, we cannot confuse public opinion with “popular” opinion which is something that Jones has always sought to do.

Freedom of speech is being able to call for censorship, to try and influence and inspire others actions and opinions with our words – and most importantly – accepting the consequences of our speech and what it precipitates, good or bad (not whine & whinge like a snivelling hypocrite – how does it feel to be on the other end of the sword Alan?).

He who lives by the sword, ultimately dies by the sword. For once Alan Jones, take it like the man you never could hope to be. Stand tall and accept your consequences with humility – accept the judgement of your peers!

Alan Jones is talking to adults who presumably choose to listen to him and presumably tolerate his views and language. They buy his sponsors’ products, part of the proceeds of which is used by the sponsors to buy airtime on his show.

Presumably those who are appalled by his views or language can avoid offence by not tuning into his show. And if they tune out, but happen to buy one of his sponsors’ products, they are certainly not providing the sponsors with a return on their investment in Alan Jones.

So can someone explain to me what the motivation is of the people who are trying to shut him down? They aren’t listening to him. They aren’t bankrolling him. Short of him inciting a situation that threatens their safety, they can effectively ignore his existence. Isn’t it none of their bloody business what he says to other consenting adults, either at a private young libs function or on a radio broadcast? They’re effectively meddling in someone else’s conversation aren’t they, saying that they know what’s better for his listeners than those listeners do?

Are we so short of problems around here that we choose to cook up some spurious “right to be free of vicarious offence” and unleash our awesome collective online power to enforce that right on some guy who uses dumb language to express his dumb views to an audience with different sensibilities to ourselves?

Tim, with respect your argument is completely wrong-headed.
I think, like many of us, that you’re uncomfortable with the self-righteous zealotry of those calling for an Alan Jones witch-hunt – but this isn’t by many means censorship.

For my money, whats happening is the equal and opposite reaction of the tone Jone’s himself cultivates on his program.

As for the issue of a stronger regulatory authority, your argument is a fairly bizarre one for a commentator on the media. The media companies would rather a face a media/social media firestorm (even one that threatens advertisers) any day of the week rather than have to deal with regulator with ‘teeth’.

What’s happening to Jones is perfect example of the market regulating behaviour. Jones made what everyone including himself knows what was a cruel and truly idiotic statement. He also was unprofessional to allow himself to indulge in the undergraduate nonsense that is de rigueur in student politics. He is now paying the price for having over stepped the line of what his audience and their peers are prepared to accept.

Some interesting side issues are lessons for smartass comms managers who think they can ride a social media wave on an issue like this (Bet the Gruen team give Mercedes a swipe) and journos investigative methods. I’d be interested in Media Watch’s views on journalists mounting blatantly duplicitous (i.e pretending interest in political party membership) fishing expeditions and then self righteously chest beating about Jones’ unsavory conduct.

If Australia had decent media regulation, people wouldn’t have to resort to social media campaigns to force offensive and abusive broadcasters to clean up their act. The industry writes its own Code of Practice. It’s a joke. The next review of the Code isn’t due for another 2 years. If you care about it – make a submission! While you’re at it – demand some real teeth for ACMA.

Responsibility and freedom go hand in glove. Responsibility includes getting your facts right and considering the consequences of your actions. People who believe they have a right to a public soapbox to blather garbage under a cloak of “freedom of speech” threaten more freedoms than just speech. That people are attracted to that garbage is no reason for allowing it to accumulate.

im not sure what you mean fleshpeddler, a witch hunt on whose side? AJ bangs on and on about what he thinks should happen, and now everybody who cant stand the guy is giving their opinion.

Censorship would be making it illegal or impossible for Jones to air his views publicly. Exerting economic pressure in no way resembles censorship. Organisation allows advertisers to understand the impact their decisions has on the perception of their brand and they can make decisions accordingly. Social media simply makes it easier for consumers to engage with brands. If there are individuals calling for it to be illegal for Jones to express his views, then I could see your point.

It should be noted that you went on TV making the very bold claim that this would all be forgotten in a couple of weeks and advertisers would return to Jones. I think now you are seeing that you spoke a little too soon, and that this is a little bigger than you had imagined. Could it be you are now trying to engineer opinion to fit in with your own views?

Serena you have nailed it…. the most profound comment, in just a few words, God bless ya darlin’…

Censorship is a mandated restriction on free speech. Last I heard the Parrot is squawking louder than ever. This is people exercising their right to have their voices heard – aka free speech.

So if Jones believes that “they” are trying to censor him and bring him and his programme down, wouldn’t a logical extension of that argument be that over the past two years Jones’ programme on the public airwaves, his comments at public gatherings, and now his comments at private gatherings, which appear to be aimed at bringing down an a government he doesn’t like and a Prime Minister he wants in a chaff bag at sea, not be a million miles from sedition?

Section 24 of the Federal Crimes Act of 1914 deals with ‘seditious intention’. Section 24 (d) says it includes “to excite disaffection against the Government or Constitution of the Commonwealth or against either House of the Parliament of the Commonwealth”. Section 24 (g) says “to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different classes of Her Majesty’s subjects so as to endanger the peace, order or good government of the Commonwealth”. Does any of that sound familiar? I’ll let you look up the prescribed punishments which include incarceration among them.

There are so many ways your comment is wrong, Tim, I’m going to have to enumerate the ways:

1. Ultimately, if he breaks the rules, the station could lose its licence.

Broadcast Spectrum is not a right. It is licensed, under terms and conditions, some of which include character of the owners etc but none of which include censorship of political or religious views. Indeed, the government would not be able to apply such censorship as a term of a license condition even if it wanted to, owing to certain High Court rulings about implied freedom of speech.

To the issue of fines, how much would be enough to dissuade Jones? He owns many millions of dollars of property. And levying a fine – *that* would be censorship, and very possibly illegal

2. What happens when we deny a living to anybody who expresses opinions that we disagree with?

Nobody is denying Mr Jones a living. It is up to him to earn a living in ways that are commercially practicable. If I make a television show that nobody wants to advertise on, because it’s about, say, yak milking in Canada, is it censorship if Channel Nine declines to run it? As a commercial program maker surely it should be my job to frame my content in such a way as to attract advertisers?

3. But let’s be clear: You are trying to force somebody off the air because you don’t like what he has to say.
Be sure to admit to yourself that you are acting in favour of censorship.

I shall do no such thing. I am exercising my right of free speech in protest. Would you deny me this?

This is a commercial matter, not a freedom of speech issue. Were Jones to publish a blog he could say this an get away with it. He can stand in the street and spout it. But if he wants advertisers to help support him to use an enormous virtual megaphone, well, he’d better be sure the advertisers are comfortable with that. Nobody owes him a living, and making him responsible for his speech is not removing his ability to make a living.

IIt’s not censorship when someone is free to keep saying what they want, as Jones is. Wanting us all to indirectly contribute to him saying it, that’s quite a different matter.

Sorry, but this is just ridiculous. Consumer lobbying is not censorship. Censorship is something enforced by government, not by private citizens seeking to sway commercial decision-making. The organisations in question have complete freedom to ignore such pressure, as they see fit. Jones can and will continue to say whatever he wants until the day he dies and modern technology means he will never be denied a platform from which to do that. He easily broadcast to as many thousands of people who are interested in hearing what he has to say from his lounge room at any time, with a budget of a few hundred dollars.

What will not be happening in that scenario (say Jones broadcasting a podcast show from his own website) is just that large media companies and sponsors will not be profiting from what he is saying. As such, no one will be pressuring those companies to withdraw their implied support of his opinions (their money) and everyone will be happy. The only point at which Jones should or will face *actual* censorship is the point where defamation laws kick in, or other important laws that are designed to make society more peaceful (eg. he has already “breached discrimination laws and incited racial hatred against Lebanese Muslims.”) That is as it should be.

“Can somebody hold views so unpleasant that, even if they break no laws, they should never be allowed to broadcast again?”
“But let’s be clear: You are trying to force somebody off the air because you don’t like what he has to say.”
“Be sure to admit to yourself that you are acting in favour of censorship.”

No I won’t because I’m not. I’m acting because I don’t like the way he says it. Jones can still stay on air, he can still broadcast his views. What this action is about is the vitriol, the anger, the hatred, the antagonistic contribution to debate, the deliberate distortion of facts, and the use of misinformation to promote his views.

Since your proposition is based entirely on an incorrect assumption the rest of your argument is null and void.

i love the irony of this hissy-fit amongst the left-leaning people who hate Jones’ influence. His views are now well-understood by a much wider group of people than would normally tune in, thanks to them being constantly re-broadcasted to keep the story alive.

If people were truly thinking about the welfare of Julia Gillard and her family they’d have shut the hell up.

The comments made at the “private” dinner in front of less than 100 guests are clearly not the issue the lynch mob is running with – it’s a convenient mistake to beat the guy up with.

Rebecca Mifsud, wife of Minister Chris Bowen, tweeted to her more than 350 followers that she would like Alan Jones’ to die……i await with interest the calls to boycott her employer and/or run her out of town.

@Monkeyvellian

“So can someone explain to me what the motivation is of the people who are trying to shut him down? They aren’t listening to him. They aren’t bankrolling him.”

If you buy products from his sponsors then technically you are bankrolling him. I’m not saying take him off the air, but I am saying I won’t buy products from his sponsors. Call that sophistry if you like, I call it exercising free choice. As @BenC says above this is “the market regulating behaviour”.

Tim – It’s not right to call this censorship. This is precisely what freedom of expression is. The sponsors don’t have to pull out. They have that choice. If they truly do support what Alan Jones has to say they are free to say so or not. Advertising imposes a crude form of moderation on media towards centrism. If you tip too far towards extreme views then the market will exert itself. Freedom of association also allows for freedom of dissociation when your behaviour is out of line.

Tim, with respect, this is not censorship at all. Jones is, of course, perfectly entitled to hold and air his opinions. He’s just not automatically entitled to the wads of money that advertisers have decided to spend elsewhere.

Free speech does not give one the right to yell “fire” in a crowded cinema when there is no fire. Jones has used his platform to bully and promote riots. It’s not censorship to take him off his privileged platform. He can tweet freely with the rest of us.

Monkeyvellian,

“Short of him inciting a situation that threatens their safety, they can effectively ignore his existence.”

Of course, Jones has in the past incited situations which threatened people’s safety during the Cronulla riots. That immediately made Jones’ rantings the business of everyone. He should have been thrown off air back then, but if people have chosen this moment to decide he’s gone too far, then so be it.

It’s not as if anyone is demanding another election just because we didn’t like the outcome of the last one. This is market forces, pure and simple.

To me his comments are not in good taste. They are on par with the Australian past time of sledging. Sledging or Trash-talk is admired by most sport loving Australians and many times crosses the line in to personal abuse.
Parliament lately has been the training ground for sledging. The masters being A. Albanese and Wayne Swan with help from the many Unionist masquerading as MP’s. Most of them could only rise in the Union by demonstrating their ability to sledge the bosses.
Alan Jones with his nasty comment about our PM demonstrates the inability of our society to be reflective and moderate when commenting about our fellow human beings.

Wow – all power to the keyboard hero – 17,515 people hit “Like” on Facebook, 111,402 write a name and address on a website and suddenly it’s an organised movement to create “censorship” and destroy the power of freedom of speech.

Kony managed to over 90 million views, and yet Mumbrella ran an article about how it had no impact at all, and some of the social media backlash against brands referenced on Mumbrella had similar numbers, but no one ever talked about it being censorship (https://staging.mumbrella.com.au/yours-truly-angry-mob-the-real-value-of-a-facebook-fan-backlash-109591) The sensationalist angle on this story seems at odds with opinions previously published by Mumbrella and the team.

Consumers have proposed boycotts of this size against advertisers around all sorts of green issues (palm oil, anyone?) and the large corporates involved haven’t even blinked an eyelid. As soon as the media hype dies down, the advertisers will come back to the audience aggregator and life will go on. Nice angle on the story though – has my vote for “most comments on a story for this month”

I wonder what David Gaines thinks

The only one who’s imposed censorship here is Russell Tate!

Advertisers were free to spend their money supporting Alan Jones. Consumers were free to exercise their (purchasing) power by buying from or choosing not to buy from those advertisers.

But 2GB has removed the ability of those advertisers to say whether they support Alan Jones or not.

Every brand and product worth their salt has tried to get into social media over the last decade to influence their audience and interact with them, which ultimately (and hopefully, in the eyes of the company) leads to the audience buying or consuming more of their product or service.

So you can’t have it both ways.

You can’t use social media to influence people and soak up the glory when the power of social/personal networks amplifies positive messaging about your brand/product; and then cry out “its bullying” when that very same social/personal network delivers an amplified negative message.

Companies live and die by their actions, and the public is now ever more-empowered to take positive and negative actions.

Let’s not forget many, many petitions and organised protests fail to change anything (remember the “convoy of no confidence?”, or “occupy wall street?” both achieved very little).

We’re only talking about this one because it actually worked.

That’s not censorship, or bullying.. its people power.

I love that today Jones is complaining about the being the victim of a ‘cyber-bullying campaign’. This is rich from someone who has built his whole broadcasting reputation on being a bully. This isn’t ‘cyber-bullying, this is free speech in action. If you build your reputation by polarising audiences, as all shock jocks do, then you risk that the audience who hate you will say so – all at once on all social media channels. It just comes with the territory – maybe it’s a positive shift, it sounds pretty democratic to me. Much more so than a single voice spewing bile on the airwaves with very token opportunities for anyone to answer back. No, this is free speech and if Jones is a casualty of it I’m fine with that.

hypocrites, I am not left leaning at all, and I have never voted labor, ever. I am even dissapointed that Young Liberals got him to speak at a dinner. I am thinking of swinging to labor simply ‘cos I dont want anything in common with AJ or his league of fringe wingers.

Jones should rightly be criticized for an awful statement, compounded by his past reputation of similar

Radio listeners should make their judgement call and switch off/switch over accordingly

Radio advertisers should make appropriate decisions regarding the feelings of their target audience to the affair

What I do not like in this mix is the zealots who
a) Never would listen to his show
b) Would rarely if ever use a product or service advertised on his show
start to flame and troll past and present advertisers, employees etc.

The loud minority as amplified by Get Up, Change.org and similar should be something all of us as marketers and communicators are aware of. Whilst they have some positives in some causes, I find their naive, self-righteous, collectivist default positions most often diametrically opposed to what we do to make a living

Good point well made:
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/.....278ki.html

No, it’s not even close to censorship.
People like Jones invoke censorship to convey the impression that the efforts to bring them to account are akin to some totalitarian trial in which opponents are tried simply for expressing their beliefs.

That’s not what is happening here. Here, we have men like Jones who make tonnes of money by doing little more than appealing to humanity’s baser fears and talking very loudly over a host of political personalities (or stroking their egos, as he does in the case of those he likes).

His income is a privilege bestowed upon him by those who see it worthwhile investing money to have their products announced to his audience; i.e. his income is not a right. His right is to freedom of speech, not to be paid to say whatever the hell the likes. He can still say what he likes if he is taken off the air, the only difference is that he won’t be given an income because (presumably) a large enough proportion of the POPULATION (so not the government) has decided that the will exercise their rights within the free market to avoid corporations who sponsor him.

What is happening in reality is that Jones is being given a lesson in what free speech is actually about: it’s about the right of all people to be heard.

The distortion comes from the fact that Jones’ speech is so much louder. Jones is given the privilege of a megaphone to voice his speech by his advertisers, what the many people involved in the campaign want to take away is not his speech, but his megaphone.

So no, I won’t admit this is censorship because it’s not. Jones will still be able to have his voice heard, but it has simply gotten to the point that enough people think he shouldn’t be able hide behind his studio walls screening calls so he only speaks to people who agree with him.

This piece strikes me as a garden variety misinterpretation of ‘free speech’ and the sequence of events that provide him his megaphone.

He’s ‘free’ to say anything he likes. He says what he likes currently and advertisers pay him for it. His credibility as a vehicle for advertising is that his “free speech” carries an association the advertiser wants. The moment that ends he’s speaking in a vacuum. His ‘free speech’ rights have not been altered in ANY WAY WHAT-SO-EVER.

If there’s a campaign to organise against him, then that is just one set of free speech (‘actions’ in this case) drowning out another.

It’s EXACTLY how it should work. Previously the broadcaster with the megaphone had the upper-hand. Now they don’t. Boo-hoo.

I hope he chooses to retire, he can keep yelling at his pet salamander while comforting himself with all his money.

@Pete. Now I feel REALLY sorry for the salamander.

Serena 65 – very well put

So I assume you believe that Julian Assange should be held responsible for the freedom he abused too?

What would male privilege be without that overweening sense of entitlement, eh? The world doesn’t owe Alan Jones a living. The world doesn’t owe 2GB a living.

Advocating that Alan Jones be banned from every form of media is censorship. Is 2GB ‘censoring’ Anne Summers by not hiring her to present a show? No. They don’t do it presumably it’s bad for their business. Now Alan Jones is bad for their business. Too bad so sad.

People who have been active around this may not listen to Alan Jones, but they sure as hell buy groceries. And there’s no reason they should support a company when there’s a perfectly good alternative that doesn’t pay Alan Jones’ way.

So Serena I assume you will be goose-stepping along to the next meeting of the Committee for Public Safety?

“People who believe they have a right to a public soapbox to blather garbage under a cloak of “freedom of speech” threaten more freedoms than just speech”

Are you for real? How do these people threaten free speech? Which other freedoms do they threaten?

People’s right to ‘blather about garbage’ is precisely what free speech is all about. Or do you think that some of us are more equal than others in our right to blather?

Get some perspective. Jones made a very cruel comment about the death of the PM’s dad for which he has been rightly condemned by all and sundry. She should not have to cop that and it demeans public debate and civil life in Australia, but it’s not like Jones (however obnoxious he is) sought to incite hatred or genocide against a racial minority in this country or something equally beyond the pale.

On the issue of social media campaigns targeting businesses which advertise on Jones’ program, up to a point I agree it is the market regulating what it will bear in terms of public comment. But, as Mack alludes, groups such as Get Up have been deliberately adopting campaign techniques from similar groups in the US and Europe and seek to damage the brand and reputations of companies who support causes which they oppose. This tactic was used during the debate about the carbon tax (prior to its becoming law).

For me, it’s an emerging ethical issue because when does this cross the line from a fair campaign tactic to bullying and seeking to deny people their opinions by brutally attempting to attack viability of a business?

It has huge flow on effects. What will corporates be willing to sponsor in the future? Only things which are absolutely risk neutral? Under risk of a social media brand attack which distorts the outrage out of all proportion to the people who are actually outraged, what will be risk neutral? Mercedes Benz is currently a sponsor of many public art exhibitions and performances. What happens when some tiny group of savvy social media activists targets them for sponsorship of some exhibition that offends them?

As communications professionals reading this blog – watch this space MUCH MUCH more of this is coming.

Tim: I generally like what you do & say (hey I visit Mumbrella), but it’s totally odd to find such a savvy media (& social media) commentator as yrself clambering out onto this risky dogmatic branch.

And doing so under a headline that includes that watch-out phrase “of course” – as if it’s totally self-evident and there can be no discussion, etc.

Well, it’s not as much the label on this particular bottle as what the bottle contains, and more than that, what it does. And I think that enough people now are saying it plain and simple: ALAN JONES MAKES US SICK!

The backlash against Jones is the audience asserting itself, and using whatever tools are available to have done with his public influence, which I’d kinda imagined is what social media was letting people do.

I saw you soon interviewed on one of the commercial TVs after Jones’ apology (ha!) suggesting that this would be over pretty soon, and I thought you’d called it wrong then.

And then I watched the failure of Mumbrella to keep on top of (OK, then: totally ignoring) what’s been happening during the biggest media tale of the year, and I thought: HUH?!

Anyhow, it’s playing itself out pretty quickly now, and my reading is this:
JONES IS GONE: Macquarie will dump him within the week, and this pernicious creature will sink into the swamp of ignominy.

Ah, BenC. I wondered when someone would jump the Hitler simile. Guess you don’t care for the idea of personal responsibility. However while not doing your thinking for you, you ought already be aware of trends such as talk of more control of newspapers, more control of the internet, reduced racial and religious tolerance. These are the responses to rabble rousing, of blather without responsibility. The performer’s glow in leading a crowd to raise their fists. If you look down, you’ll find the boots are on your feet.

Serena,

you followed a coherent and eloquently made point #65 (which I disagreed with…but it was well argued) with something at the opposite end of the spectrum.

what exactly did you mean in #93?

I can’t believe Mumbrella even published Tim Burrowes’ article. Wow, so far off the mark!

Anyone else notice the vast gap between the well written and well reasoned posts like @Daniel and the frothing at the mouth posts from supporters of the wee Goblin. Hard to believe that there are people who still support him who don’t work for his decaying empire.

Fleshpeddler, I’ll give it a go. It surprises me that you do not agree that freedom and responsibility are two sides of the same coin. Abuse our freedoms and we will see moves to restrict them. Alan Jones in his public speaking is uninhibited by facts or civility, believing that his goals justify whatever distortions and manipulations serve his purpose. Our implied freedom of speech carries with it a responsibility for the “truth”, insofar as it can be represented by accurate reporting and ascertainable facts. Expressing opinion does not free the speaker from that responsibility and this thread is discussing consequences of Jones neglecting that.
If you think that heavily biased reporting is harmless and an aside to our daily lives, then perhaps you might read ‘The Dreyfus Affair’ (Piers Paul Read). Should you believe that any simple orator skilfully amplifying his audience’s hopes and prejudices is only entertaining, you might read “Inside the Third Reich’ (Albert Speer). An uncritical audience is easily lead in directions that should surprise them.
When we have a public forum our freedom to speak implies responsibility to be rational. That any opinion or cause we promote has an honest grasp of “truth”. That responsibility is in proportion to the intended consequences, and especially great when the intention is removal of a government.
You might well say that Allan Jones is just a performer, loving the adoration of his fans. Entertaining them with outrageous remarks and light hearted jousts with chosen opponents. All good harmless fun. No more responsibility implied than that of a standup comedian? You really think that?

@BenC,

Anyone who tries to communicate via mass media, whether advertising, sponsorship or something else, must be aware that there’s always a risk that some of the audience will respond positively, some negatively. In this case, some that would respond negatively are telling the advertisers so even before they spend their money.

In this specific case (temporary actions of 2gb management notwithstanding) and every case into the future, it’s the job of marketing management to “do the math”: will this investment, this creative in this medium, have a greater positive return for my business than negative?

It’s a risk-reward equation. Companies that seek only risk-neutral avenues/media/creative (and there are many already) will generate commensurate results. Companies that are bold and position-taking in what they say, when and how they say it, should be prepared for the reaction of those who disagree with them.

Everytime a consumer chooses a brand, they are implicitly rejecting all alternatives. All marketing communication is designed to influence both decisions.

Whoa there! “Removal of a government” reads more strongly than intended! Change of government may read more accurately.

One of the problems of these threads —- I’m not meaning to imply that Alan Jones wishes to take over the world. I’m using him as an example in a discussion about freedom.

Serena, everyone rational is in furious agreement that Jone’s comments about the death of the Prime Minister’s father were an outrage. Most also disagree with Tim that the various expressions of outrage amount to censorship.

Where I take issue with your comment are their breath-taking naivete and sheer lack perspective, historical or otherwise. Your responses to counter points, are with respect, shallow.

1. I’m against totalitarianism perpetuated by the left or right of politics, by individuals, by families, by the military by whoever. They all fundamentally share the same characteristics – including restricting free speech by claiming that those advocating things they don’t agree with is somehow irresponsible, dangerous, contrary to the common good etc. As Orwell points out, the rise of these regimes is often assisted by progressive small repressions of things like free speech which are supported by society (especially the middle class) because they sound so worthy.

In fact some of the most dreadful repression restriction of freedoms has come at the hands of those maintaining that they were fighting for freedom – hence my reference to the Committee for Public Safety.

2. Freedom of speech is about the free expression of opinion and ideas. It’s their free expression, not their truthfulness which is the primary priority. So before you lecture others about Inside the Third Reich, why don’t you check out John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty.

Because only democracies have the balance of freedom and authority required to provide ‘rights’ to their communities, we as a community act to restrict expression of some ideas where those patently act to undermine democracy.

So the point again Serena – Jones made a cruel, outrageous comment and you can loathe him as much as you like, but to conflate what he said with a threat to liberty is way over the top. More importantly, once you start restricting freedom of speech on the basis of your distaste for them you do end up inside the third reich.

3. Surprisingly aware of discussion around new regulation of opinion in the media and various mediums – thanks for the condescension. However, context is everything. For instance,discussion around new media laws in the UK stems from the phone hacking scandal. While many seem to think that Jones is a scandal all on his own, surely you aren’t suggesting that the nations laws should change in response to his idiocy?

It’s almost as bizarre as trying to compare the difficult question of how much of the German population supported the Nazis with Jones’ comments. By far the majority reaction to these comments is disgust, not fist waving or Nazis salutes.

Your reference to the Dreyfus Affair is also weird. Obviously the anti antisemitism inherent in Dreyfus Affair was appalling including by leading media voices. But while it was an horrendous episode and appalling miscarriage of justice, dissenting voices were heard and in the end justice was belatedly done.

Obviously, the web is a game changer in the media and free speech as in so many other areas for our society. Responsibility is going to have be exercised by all sides in social media if we are going to maintain societal cohesion. In his article what Tim was trying to point out are potential new issues around free speech throne up by coordinated social media campaigns. While not censorship I don’t think the broader point should be dismissed.

4. All this responsibility seems very guided in your world. Responsibility to be rational? Who says? If you want your point of view to be persuasive it might help. But rational according to whom Serena? Factual according to whom Serena? How many times in the past have people been dismissed as being irrational or untrue only for the opposite to turn out to be true?

5. Declining religious tolerance? By whom of what Faith/s?

Robespierre would be so proud Serena. Only through restricting freedom of expression can we safeguard it? Work sets you free? All animals are equal but some are more equal than others?

Yeah Serena I get that. Guess my points are:

1. I seriously can’t Jones but he’s not a threat to freedom.

2. He’s been especially obnoxious but let’s keep some perspective or we’ll pay the price from uber earnest self righteous nanny staters for rest of eternity.

Tim, this is not about Alan Jones’ freedom of speech. Jones has more of that and applies more of that than anyone I can think of. Even if his commercial value collapsed, which is of course possible, he’d still be out there giving speeches and being reported far more widely than virtually any person you can name.
Who cares what he thinks? Not me. Nor many who are now responding to what he has said.
Jones has made a career from extremism. His positions are, in a calculated way, designed to provoke. On that path he was just another cash for comment, shock jock.
The separation is when he puts himself in a position that very deliberately attacks the office of the PM. And then steps way over the line.
It was Jones who casually and constantly abused Gillard. He berated her for being late for his show.; He made countless remarks along the lines of the chaff bag out to sea. He created the thematic Ju-Liar.
Then, shortly after her father had died, he said of the PM that her father died of shame.
I am one of many who probably don’t much like this Government. But I am singularly appalled at the awful conceit of a few like Jones who for their own commercial purpose actively damage fundamental civilities that make a democracy work.
I don’t think he should be using publicly licensed airwaves to do that, but I accept his management’s choice to keep make money from him.
I do however retain my right to tell his commercial sponsors what I think of that. And what I think of their decision to reward his activies.
That’s my little contribution to freedom of expression.

A direct response to the author.

You can’t be pro-free speech and opposed to the anti-Alan Jones campaign.

Those who are campaigning against Alan Jones are exercising their right to free speech. Asking advertisers to pull out of the show is speech. Advertisers pulling out of the show is speech. This campaign is free-speech in action.

This is what free speech looks like, just as much as Alan Jones’ violent, sexist racism is free speech.

To be opposed to this campaign on the grounds of free speech is an inherently hypocritical position.

To stand your arguments on the grounds of free speech you must apply the same standard to both sides.

You have to grant the right to free speech to *both* Jones and his detractors.

This is not censorship – he can still say whatever he likes but will not get paid by the public through advertisers to do it.

David Penberthy is no longer welcome on 2GB
http://www.dailytelegraph.com......hare=ee740

Censorship, or their prerogative?

@Hugo, whilst I agree that both Jones and his detractors are entitled to free speech. I don’t see how bullying advertisers who want to talk to his audience via his programme into pulling advertising from the programme is allowing them a genuine opportunity to exercise freedom of choice.

Mondayitis, advertising to people isn’t free speech (no matter how edgy ad executives think it is).

Consumer telling advertisers that they will not buy a company’s products if they keep advertising on Alan Jones’ show is no more bullying than consumers telling VB they won’t buy their beer unless it returns to full strength, people saying they won’t buy Vodafone services if they don’t perform reliably or that they won’t buy new Coke because it doesn’t taste like original Coke.

It is proactive market research with consumers indicating that the brand has failed to meet its own values.

Brands are free to ignore these views. Of course their shareholders might become unhappy.

Sure new channels are being used and the feedback comes faster – but doesn’t that help brands, meaning they can address bad decisions more quickly & stem the losses.

Anyone ever heard of Pluralism? It’s the hard way between total freedom of the individual and high regulation. It’s about being discerning and about drawing the line at a reasonable point.

What’s a reasonable point, well I’m not completely certain in this case but the advertisers seemed to have drawn one.

Freedom of speech is no excuse to allow some to incite hatred or the like. Maybe Jones hasn’t gone that far but there is also the question of ethics. That is, is it ethical to use the power he has gained through his popularity in this way?

The Juli-liar is a good example. He completely ignores the fact that in the case of a hung parliament the party that does the winning deal to get power are still considered a minority government. Naturally with this sort of situation it doesn’t matter what she promised, it’s what arrangements she can make with the new partners in government. Therefore it’s a complete furphy to say she has lied about no carbon tax; does the Australian public really expect her to recall an election because she can’t get one part of her promised policies through the New Order?

@Craig, thanks for pointing that out. The point I was trying to make was not about freedom of speech or it’s definition. I was trying to point out that Alan and his detractors are using freedom of speech to base all their arguments in and yet the detractors are using bullying tactics to stop advertisers having freedom of choice and in so doing not allowing advertisers the freedom to advertise on his programme and bearing the consequences of that choice at the cash register in entirely the way you describe.

Now watch the Twittersphere go into freeze-down, with today’s news about the radio ratings.

Older topic but not old issue. I have been a little surprised how people are still hounding say the NRMA on their Facebook page (some mistakenly posting there thinking it’s also the NRMA insurance corp). But I suspect some of these ongoing campaigns anti AJ and anti any business who goes near 2GB will wind up back-firing because sooner or later corps. will wind up saying “damned if we do…damned if we don’t..so…we will just do what sits with our corporate philosophy and you’ll have to wear it.” A little like the way the Ryanair CEO speaks about consumer views. It’s clear that large organisations are generally still willing to listen to mass consumer views but, as said, when there is either a split view OR a lobby group just won’t leave a corporation alone, in the end what can the org do? Probably what the NRMA is doing and largely try and ignore the ongoing complaints and commentary. But then in the process also leaving any dissenting voice to cope with the troll backlash if they dare to disagree with all those calling for complete 2GB boycotts. Seems some don’t know how to moderate a page and yet keep neutral on the Jones issue.