Australia TV bans anti SSM ad. Discriminatory?

[chris62]

Marriage Alliance made a TV ad asking viewers to go to their website and see what SSM may mean to Australians if it is legalised here.
Channels 7 and 10 decided not to run the ad while Channel 9 ran it.
Are 7 and 10 guilty of discrimination by not running the ad.
Those two channels are very pro-SSM.
They gave no reason why they didn’t run the ad.
On face value, they did not run the ad because it was anti SSM and that it was pro one-man-one-woman marriage.
Are they therefore discriminating on the grounds of heterosexuality, which would therefore be discriminatory.
Any legal minds here to assist?

 

[unstoppable_II]

…
Are they therefore discriminating on the grounds of heterosexuality, which would therefore be discriminatory?].
…

It depends on how you define “discriminate”. In the 1950s, there was a cigarette ad on TV that claimed to be “the cigarette for the discriminating smoker.” An ad claiming its product is for a discriminating person would not go over too well today because of the gross overwork and misunderstanding of the word. I personally believe that to discriminate simply means to observe a difference. My secretary once complained about what she perceived as discrimination, and I asked her if she didn’t want me to discriminate between her outstanding performance and another’s only satisfactory performance come annual cash bonus award time. “No,” she replied meekly. So there are forms of discrimination that are not only legal but desirable.

Bottom line on all this is whenever you make a choice, you have discriminated.

 

[Corki]

Not a lawyer and not an Australian but…

All discrimination isn’t illegal or immoral.

The question comes down to - is it illegal, in Australia, for a private company to discriminate on the basis of creed. Belief in traditional marriage is a creed.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Not a lawyer and not an Australian but…

All discrimination isn’t illegal or immoral.

The question comes down to - is it illegal, in Australia, for a private company to discriminate on the basis of creed. Belief in traditional marriage is a creed.

And so is belief in SSM, so the stations are discriminating against one creed for the sake of promoting another.

This is where freedom of expression takes a beating from the progressive crowd. Rather than the media being neutral and allowing both sides to present their cases, the media has already made up its mind based upon questionable rationalization on which side is “right.” This is prejudice in the true sense of the word - pre-judging an issue and outcome before a complete hearing has occurred and silencing any opposition to one’s own view.

Very convenient for those in control of the media to use their power to foist their view on all of society by deciding which view is heard and promoted and which gets short shrift. Very slimy.

 

[Corki]

**And so is belief in SSM, so the stations are discriminating against one creed for the sake of promoting another. **

This is where freedom of expression takes a beating from the progressive crowd. Rather than the media being neutral and allowing both sides to present their cases, the media has already made up its mind based upon questionable rationalization on which side is “right.” This is prejudice in the true sense of the word - pre-judging an issue and outcome before a complete hearing has occurred and silencing any opposition to one’s own view.

Very convenient for those in control of the media to use their power to foist their view on all of society by deciding which view is heard and promoted and which gets short shrift. Very slimy.

Yes, but the question is whether that is illegal in Australia. I am in the US. In the US, creed is rarely a protected class. For example, there is no federal protection against discrimination on the basis of creed that applies to privately owned businesses. There are a few states that cover it in their local laws.

I don’t think anyone would disagree that these media outlets are discriminating on the basis of creed but is it illegal? I kind of doubt it since the flip side would be that EWTN would have to accept pro-SSM or pro-abortion advertisements.

 

[unstoppable_II]

And so is belief in SSM, so the stations are discriminating against one creed for the sake of promoting another.

…

The way I see it, these questions all boil down to one: does an individual have a right to seek error? Clearly not since society would cease to exist.

 

[unstoppable_II]

…the flip side would be that EWTN would have to accept pro-SSM or pro-abortion advertisements.

Not if it doesn’t air any advertisements.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Yes, but the question is whether that is illegal in Australia. I am in the US. In the US, creed is rarely a protected class. For example, there is no federal protection against discrimination on the basis of creed that applies to privately owned businesses. There are a few states that cover it in their local laws.

I don’t think anyone would disagree that these media outlets are discriminating on the basis of creed but is it illegal? I kind of doubt it since the flip side would be that EWTN would have to accept pro-SSM or pro-abortion advertisements.

Perhaps a case could be made on the basis of the social or moral equivalent of antitrust laws – i.e., unfairly monopolizing segments of the media in order to suppress or silence opposing points of view. This might gain some traction if a comprehensive case could be made that the “progressive” agenda actually or potentially harms the social order over the long term. Certainly, silencing opposition such that one side of the argument gets all the “airplay” is, in itself, not conducive to the good of society since having a full and fair hearing is, generally speaking, good for the well-being of society. Using cryptic denunciations intended to categorize holders of opposing viewpoints as “phobic” or “-ist” without need for justifying that categorization would seem a blatant step towards suppression of unwelcomed views. Effectively, that is what is happening within the public media sector of most modern western societies.

Once seeking the truth of the matter is replaced by promoting a specific agenda or ideology, the public good takes a whupping.

 

[unstoppable_II]

Perhaps a case could be made on the basis of the social or moral equivalent of antitrust laws …

I think a good case can be made that current law amounts to bills attainder aimed at heterosexual white males.