ACL: Once Again Showing Their Hypocrisy

Well, it seems like the good guys and gals over at the Australian Christian Lobby are up to their good old fashioned tricks of censoring the debates they start themselves.

At 3:52pm this afternoon, I posted a comment against this hypocritical article – (hypocritical since the ACL are a constant ally of Stephen Conroy in his push for a mandatory filter of the internet in Australia). As I write this, it is 8:19pm, and this comment is still “awaiting moderation”.

Take a look at this screen grab of the article just a few minutes ago in which you can see my comment awaiting its religious freedom – click for larger view:

As you can see, a “positive” response to this article from “Ben” was posted at 8:06pm, and cleared for publication by 8:10pm – after four long minutes – yet my “non-positive” comment is still waiting after more than four long hours. Note the time on the clock in the bottom right of my screen.

I guess I should quote the exalted Jim Wallace from the article:

“If we are to have a full debate on this issue it must be that,” said Mr Wallace, “not one closed down by abuse and deceptive tactics or corporate pressure and collusion to limit free speech, as we have seen used here by homosexual activists and their apparent allies.”

Free speech? A debate closed down by deceptive tactics? Who are you kidding ACL?

If you want to “have a full debate”, allow comments from both sides of the debate, right? Isn’t that what you’re saying?

I might add, this is not the first time you’ve closed down comments that are contrary to your position. How about this one or even this one?

If you’re going to call-out the ANZ Bank or IBM on filtering the debate on the subject, how about getting your own house in order first?

As noted anti-filter campaigner Mark Newton very succintly put in this tweet: “Matthew 7:1-5”, which reads:

“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”

The front cover of the “Viewpoint” magazine shown on the site calls for “courage and integrity in public office”. How about a little courage and integrity of your own? Why are you afraid of the debate?

Credibility zero.

  • I actually posted that Matthew 7:1-5 quote to their site but of course they wouldn’t allow their hypocrisy to be shown.

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention ACL: Once Again Showing Their Hypocracy --

  • Anonymous

    I know of a number of others comments that never get published on the ACL site, including mine.

    Speaking for myself, these comments are in no way abusive or offensive, unless asking the ACL for proof to back up their claims offends them, and they break no rules. The only reason seems to be that they are not in 100% support of the ACL. Other than the ACL censoring debate and limiting critical thinking I see no valid reason why they’ve not been approved.

    It is however their site and they can moderate it however they want, but their heavy handed moderation only allowing positive comments, even some satire they seem too dim to detect means that they have no right for calling out others who do the same. Their moral high ground is starting to crumble away and getting lower and lower with each of their views they inject, often uninvited into debate that they think concern them.

    Here is a screenshot of the comment I posted on the “ACL calls for ANZ and IBM to explain attempt to censor On Line Opinion website” media release which has never seen the light of day and does not even appear to be “awaiting moderation” to me when I visit the site anymore.

    I don’t believe I’ve broken any rules, been abusive or used foul language. All I see is them censoring debate on their own site.

    • You’re absolutely right that they are clearly censoring debate on their site, and they have a right to do so.

      I have simple policies for my site – such as no links to advertising material (an obvious one), and no personal abuse or foul language. That’s it.

      Every comment that is approved within these bounds automatically sees the commenter added to my whitelist for future comments.

      I would never censor a comment that was contrary to my position in the post, just because I didn’t like it – and there have been examples where I’ve bitten my tongue on comments.

      As more and more examples of their conscious effort to stifle debate renders them more and more irrelevant to those debates.

      This example in particular, is of course especially relevant given they are complaining about the censorship of a debate, and they go right ahead and censor responses to their response to the censorship of that debate.

      So so so full of fail!

  • Pingback: ACL: Get Some Credibility or Butt Out()