This is pretty harsh, but I'll have to be frank: I'd rather Tribe.net not exist if it can't exert enough control over its ad networks to keep something like this off the site. I help run my own (much larger, much more unwieldy) site, and we would never let something like this appear.

Ick, but at the same time I'm glad they're spending their ad money here where they're less likely to find a sympathetic ear to influence.

Erin,

Thanks for the thoughtful reply...The issue of being tolerant of intolerance is one that I’ve struggled with my whole life. I’ve come to see that there are times when it can be useful to remain open-minded in the face of close-minded people and that sometimes, this approach is necessary to effectively foster dialogue. Other times, I value the ability to discern and pass judgment on a behavior as unacceptable.

Here’s a few reasons why I think it’s within reason to request that Tribe.net remove the ads and why I don’t think is a free speech issue:

So, I’m not saying that the “YesOn8” campaign should not, LEGALLY, be allowed to advertise on Tribe.net. That, in my mind, would be a violation of free speech. Instead, what I’m asking for is for Tribe to choose to not accept money from what is, in my mind, a hateful campaign. In the Wikipedia entry on “hate speech” it is written “Among those who hold that hate speech must be regulated, it is undecided as to whether hate speech should be regulated by the state or by voluntaristic communities. Criticisms of hate speech regulation include the view that such legislation would be unjust to those with controversial political or social views.” Whether or not YesOn8 is “hate speech” can be argued somewhere else, I only bring this up because of the principle invoked. I think Tribe.net should act as a “voluntaristic community” and reject prejudiced views from the “paid advertising” portion of its site.
I’m also not saying that Tribe should not allow any comments/blogs/posts in support of Prop 8 to be posted anywhere on the site. That would certainly stifle dialogue and, in my mind, be wrongheaded. I do think that a company’s choice to accept ads is just that: a choice. And I don’t think that a company needs to accept ads from “anyone” with a dollar to spend. In my mind, I do see that this is something of a slippery slope, and I see the dangers inherent in a “policy” about rejecting ads. As with most slippery slopes, I see that it’s slippery in both directions: if you’re going to draw a line, where do you draw it? Ads recruiting members to join the KKK or some other neo-nazi group? What about an ad for a pro-choice campaign? Some people put forth a good argument on slippery slopes and say that they are to be avoided at all costs. I think that as a matter of public policy, that’s sometimes true. But as a private company that espouses certain values, I believe that it’s in their best interest to NOT act hypocritically (when you post a photo, you get a note that says: “Note: Tribe is a respectful and considerate community. You may not upload photos that...symbolize hatred...”).
This brings me to another point, albeit, a fairly subjective one and one that “rhetorically” might not hold much water...I like to think that a company should consider the end-user in its day-to-day business practice decisions. I know this is a little crazy—and I’m sure you could find a Tribe user or two that support Prop 8 (shudder)--but I think that the majority of users would be offended by the ad. And I feel that a company should probably try not to offend its users. I’m letting Tribe know since I think it’s possible it wasn’t a conscious decision to let it happen, but an oversight.

Anyway, I have more to say, but I have trouble expressing myself concisely sometimes...Thanks again for the “tolerance of intolerance” reminder and feel free to let me know any other thoughts you have on the matter...

-=zachary=-

I also just got a phone call from protectmarriage.com with a clip of Obama's "own words" about how he sees marriage as between a man and a woman. BARACK IS AGAINST PROP 8 - do NOT let anyone tell you otherwise.

What Constitutional lawyer in his right mind would promote discrimination being written into law, much less a *black* Constitutional lawyer?!

NO ON PROP 8