Comments on: Why is LA Metblogs running anti-gay ads for Yes on Prop 8?!

By: Dave Bullock / eecue

Dave Bullock / eecue — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 23:45:47 +0000

no comment on the subject at hand, but big ups to liberal gun-toters! and congrats to sean and tara!

By: RumorsDaily

RumorsDaily — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 22:33:35 +0000

You have ads on this site? I love Firefox.

By: lamapnerd

lamapnerd — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 21:51:47 +0000

I dunno – if people are going to spend money advertising their latest initiative in organized bigotry, I’m not sure that sucking up their ad-buying dollars by allowing their ads to be placed next to articles explaining just what a load of deceptive bigotry their campaign really is, is all that bad an idea.

Just a thought. :-)

By: Sean Bonner

Sean Bonner — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 20:13:02 +0000

Most folks have said what needs to be said but ads are not editorial. We’re as wide open and welcome to discussion on editorial as possible, and I think it’s amusing we’re getting called liberal here now when it wasn’t that long ago that my pro-gun posts were bringing out hoards of people calling me/us right wing. But ads are a different thing, we have the right to choose who we want to support and who we want to take money from. I wouldn’t accept an add from the KKK and I’m not going to take one from something like this either. Every publisher does that very thing.

By: David Markland

David Markland — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 05:03:52 +0000

1. Metblogs has the right to choose whatever ads it wants – there is no legal requirement whatsoever for even a major TV network ad, let alone a blog.

2. Indeed, LA Metblogs does have a liberal leaning, but not by design. While I was City Captain, I would routinely try and recruit authors with an opposing POV… for example, Frazgo! I even brough Chal on board because he often has a different POV. The difficult part is finding not only alternate viewpoints, but people who are also friendly about it… that said, I don’t know why I never pursued Ugly American, who I disagree with 95% of the time (Lucinda is the new Captain – hope she’s reading this!).

3. I also agree with Chal that opposition to Prop 8 does come down to bigotry. I see absolutely no justification to block gay marriage that doesn’t involve a purely religious viewpoint or a flat out intolerant one. If you disagree, lay out your case, and I will nail you on it point by point. That is, unless you simply believe homosexuality is a mental disorder, then in which case you’re a moron, and not necessarily a bigot.

By: rodger

rodger — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 04:28:37 +0000

Questions of semantic and terminology cannot convince me otherwise

I see …

By: Britney speaks, Tim Robbins gets a star, and remember the 1988 World Series? It’s last links! » noosoop

Sat, 11 Oct 2008 02:43:00 +0000

[...] L.A. Metblogs has a Prop. 8 conundrum. [...]

By: Chal Pivik

Chal Pivik — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 02:07:26 +0000

The gay wedding chapel ad looks icky, I must say. So much for gays having the market on good design covered.

By: darleene

darleene — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 02:05:39 +0000

You guys have the right to run whatever ads you want — or not. Just as I have the right to not click on them. :)

By: keith

keith — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 01:38:53 +0000

Hm. I don’t believe this proposition is an example of “opposing viewpoints”. To me, it is simply adding discrimination to a document that is intended to describe our rights and freedoms. And IT IS bigotry and intolerance from the folks from Yes on 8. Questions of semantic and terminology cannot convince me otherwise.

The question of bigotry and intolerance on behalf of LA Metblog is what I consider questionable. As stupid as the Google technology might be, it’s the way it works (don’t we benefit from the internet in so many ways?) Censoring advertising, as much as I hate to admit, might be unethical — and perhaps unlawful?