I can't stand seeing the ads, but I must admit I'd rather have the yes-on-8 brigade wasting their money here — where they'll reach a largely unreceptive audience — than elsewhere.

You know, I have to say that I am not bothered by the advertising but I am impressed with your careful attention to your readers' feelings. I'm impressed with your explanation, which is the standard explanation for all the reasons you state. It cannot be otherwise. But you really took pains to make it clear.

I just think it's thoughtful - which isn't quite the word I'm searching for - considerate - which isn't quite it either - but both will do.

I would suspect that this is a prime piece of inept ad-placement as Bennett says. If I was gay and living in California (or indeed if I was straight and living in California) I wouldn't want to see that ad but I see ads I detest every day. Just hold your nose and ignore them - oh and make sure their Proposition is defeated and dumped into the trash can of history as it so richly deserves to be.

I will accept this 'reason" when TPM accepts ads from the KKK advocating a return to blacks being given 3/5 representation AND miscegenation.......or an ad from a White Supremacist group calling for a return of Jews being interned in camps because they represent a 'threat to national security'......or an ad from some right-wing group advocating torture for any Arab 'suspected of terrorit leanings"

I;m sure you see my point here.

Disenfranchisement is NOT a 'political point' that deserves promulgation on this site.

But then, when it is not YOU being disenfranchised, I guess it's easier to accept the money.

As the mother of a daughter who is lesbian, I have strong negative feelings about Prop 8. However, I agree with Josh's advertising policy and think it supports real democracy where people have a right to express their ideas, even ideas we find distasteful.
And I agree with some of the commenters that it's a pleasant irony to have those ads running on and supporting a site that expresses the exact opposite point of view, and that is read by people who think Prop 8 is garbage.
Let them spend their money supporting our media sites -- it's to our benefit.

I am wrapping up a 17-hour work day running the NO on Prop 8 campaign in my county here in California. When you choose to hide behind a policy established earlier, I have to wonder if you would have reconsidered your policy if the Yes on 8 campaign was attempting to eliminate the right to marry for inter-racial couples rather than same-sex couples.

Do not tell me that there is some truth to another of the Yes on 8 campaign's ads. They have all contained lies.

Please do reconsider and remove the ads. All of them.

Maybe whatever revenue those despicable ads generated could be given to a charity that helps homosexual people who have been the victim of a hate crime.

While I appreciate you taking the time to explain your decision, I emailed TPM weeks ago when Yes on 8 ads were running here on the site and asked then for an explanation as it deeply offended me.
I come to TPM and to DailyKos. Kos would never accept an ad like this. By using "Google" ads, you set yourself up for this. As the reader above states, you would not accept ads from the KKK or some other hate group, which means that you do have the ability to choose which ads you will and won't accept.
As a gay man who has given money and time to the No on 8 campaign and someone who also spends hours at the Obama headquarters calling people in battleground states, it disappoints me greatly that someone who claims to be progressive thinks hatred of one group of people is acceptable. OBama has come out against Proposition 8. It pains me every time I come to TPM and see these hate-filled ads.
To me, you are hiding behind twisted logic because it is lucrative for you.
If you truly cared about progessiveness in rights for all, you would not accept ads that undermine the rights of one group of people. As usual, one thing every other minority can agree on is that it's okay to hate gays, especially when money is involved.
Maybe someday someone will tell you you can't marry the person you love.

I think this is brilliant - yes to keep it running here!

1. As others have said - we're getting their money!

2. They're wasting their money preaching to the unconvertable and staunchly opposed, yeeha!

3. It's right up front on TPM and annoys the liberals and works as a GREAT REMINDER to donate, donate, donate, volunteer, donate to the Prop8 issue.

Usually, stories just spin by at such speed that it's next to impossible to get our exhortation posts to donate and volunteer). This keeps it upfront, at top, in view, and ALL without any effort on our part - ALL paid for by THEM!!!

4. This emphasizes that the editorial content of this site is independent of the advertisement section. This will encourage future advertisers of all stripes of political opinion and causes. We need (ok, TPM needs) to keep the financial future of this site strong.

5. This provides us with the ammunition should we want to advertise on conservative blogs (we = some liberal cause). They can't hold us as an example against this. We set a good example (we = TPM).

HA!

I mean, this is brilliant, in every way.

Josh, TPM, readers, bloggers, activists, this is GOOD!

Thanks for explaining, Josh. I had hoped that was the rationale. Curiously, I saw those ads on your site today as well, though I'm many hundreds of miles from California, hanging out in Boulder, CO. When I saw the ad, I had an initial gut reaction along the lines of a strong interest in why you hadn't taken the ad down. I did, though, come around to the same thought I'd had the last time I saw an ad for a stance with which I disagreed; it does set a terrible precedent to start turning away these ads on basis of content, so long as the content is, in fact, appropriate.

On the other hand, if you all are paid on a pay-per-click basis, it might make business sense for y'all to take it down on that basis instead. :-)

"1. As others have said - we're getting their money!"

So does a whore.

Perhaps someday you should learn the difference between 'earning' money and 'getting' money.

TPM's not a money whore!! See, they show both sides of an issue! They can't help it if both sides are dying to throw money at them! ;-)

Having worked for many newspapers, I know that accepting political ads is part of the business of running a newspaper. And TPM is a newspaper in the best sense of the term. At a newspaper you trust your readers' intelligence. You let them decide. You assume they are intelligent enough to vote. Ads pay for websites and newspapers. Political ads are important revenue sources, especially now. Ads are the fundamental expression of the First Amendment to the Constitution. If a political ad is not misleading or deceptive or otherwise somehow foul or obscene, it must be accepted, imo. Ads are like editorial content. If you don't agree with the message or the way the message is delivered, then don't accept the message. Turn the page. Avert your eyes. Don't click on it.

Without ads, there is no TPM.

Cheers.

To argue that allowing Pro-Prop8 advertisers to "waste their money" here on TPM before a nonreceptive audience is a bit disingenuous, don't you think? It smacks a little of the use of false equivalencies by news organizations -- you know, equating hate speech by one candidate with an attack by the other candidate on the first's policy stances.

As an out lesbian for the past 40 years, I find your explanation of "free speech" thin and pretty meritless. Unless you're ready to take the dollars of terrorist organizations, too.

And by the way -- since you KNOW that Obama is anti-Prop8, you're also propagating lie-based propaganda using his image. Media must be held accountable for activity like this -- are you ready to accept THAT responsibility?

I'm gonna have to agree with the folks that say Proposition 8 is a civil rights issue, and additionally that the "Yes on H8" folks have been guilty of hate speech. (Whether or not that hate speech is contained in the specific ad on your site is irrelevant; their homophobic hate speech - which includes succumbing to Godwin's Law in meatspace - is beyond easy to find, and is also germane to your acceptance of this ad. Check youtube for "Prop 8 spokesman says defeating same-sex marriage is like defeating Hitler." )

If ads were posted here that exhorted viewers to work to rescind laws that protect the rights of African Americans to rent or buy property where they wish, or to gut laws that protect citizens from discrimination for their gender or ethnicity or any other such basis, would you remove or not accept them? If yes, then it is not consistent to allow these "Yes on 8" ads to remain. If no, then I am deeply disappointed in your organization. Again, it is more than "political disagreement" - it is about civil rights & homophobia.

I'm disturbed that you did not ask to have these ads removed, and I don't find the mildly-enjoyable recompense of clicking on the ads & costing them money (though I have, many times) sufficient reason to allow them to remain, and to cause pain to my G&L fellow-beings.

Josh,

When I first read your explanation I thought you had a good point.

But after reading the responses, of posters like Christie Keith and GayIthacan , It is clear that they have better points.

You would not except these ads if they were for banning inter-racial marriage. Can you can explain to me,and yourself, how theses ads are any different...???

One other question.

If TPM had existed in the 1960's, would you have argued that your journalistic integrity obliged you to except ads for banning inter-racial marriage...???

A principle only has meaning if it involves sacrifice, and a person only has integrity if they hold to their principles when it is painful to do so. Great respect to you for this difficult decision.

That being said, I pray that Californians vote no on Prop 8 and that Obama, through the voters example, finds the political courage to support the ideal of equal treatment under the law on this issue and comes out in support of gay marriage during his first term.

I spent a significant amount of my time in high school wondering when the homophobia that I was subjected to would progress from taunts, threats, being pushed and spit on, to violence. This wasn't an abstract issue, another classmate was beaten to the ground and kicked while he lay helpless on the sidewalk because he is gay.

His attacker was suspended for two days. That same year someone was suspended for two weeks, arrested and convicted of a hate crime for drawing a swastika on a wall in pencil. It was painfully clear what kinds of hate was socially acceptable and what was not.

That violence was enabled by the indifference of a school administration that was uncomfortable addressing issues surrounding homophobia. It was enabled by parents that actively organized in opposition to a student anti-racism group sponsoring programs against homophobia. It was enabled by a wider social discourse that establishes homosexuality as pathological.

What is 'political'? The Ku Klux Klan had a respectable political establishment that enabled them too. What are the social processes through which violence and hate are made respectable?

I'm not gay (I was targeted for abuse just for speaking out against homophobia), but my twin sister is. Last year, when she told me that she was engaged I started to cry. Partially it was because when she first came out 10 years or so ago, I never thought that marriage would be a possibility for her. That her love could be validated with social and legal recognition. That a fundamental aspect of her humanity would be recognized by a community wider than that of her friends and family.

I understand your editorial policy in the abstract, and the need that you feel to assert your 'objectivity'. (Although, you don't seem to try too hard to be 'objective' in any other area of your site.) And I take you at your word that this is a good faith effort to approach some editorial ideal.

But I reject the idea that the Proposition 8 ads you have up on your site are just 'politics'. It is trying to legally establish that a significant group of society is somehow less than fully human. The fact that it can establish itself in a socially respectable guise, makes it far more dangerous than any explicit 'hate speech' could be.

I signed up for an account just now after reading your family of sites daily for over 4 years. To tell you how disappointed I am in your interpretation.

Folks here have already put it so well, but since I just went through the sign-up process, I'll add my two cents.

I share the view that if this civil rights issue affected some racial or ethnic group, you would have blocked them. If they were sponsored by a group you already consider a hate group, instead of one cloaked behind organized religions, you would have blocked them.

It is offensive for one's civil rights to be subject to plebiscite. To me, support for that proposition is a direct affront to my human dignity. As well as the human dignity of my husband and many of my friends. Knowing that my right to stay married to my husband is being voted on tomorrow makes me ill.

And I will not subject myself to that affront tomorrow by visiting your site.

The indignity may be forced on me by the voters of California. And I'll work to change their minds, and I have faith that in time we will eliminate this type of discrimination here.

And I may come back to your sites at some point, because I admire the work you do here. But I'll also remember this time when this site could have taken a stand on this issue and failed to see it for what it was. And I think that I will always be pained by that.

Just a thought before I go to bed...

One would not find this level of disagreement, qualitatively or quantitatively, on any blog frequented primarily by conservatives...Pats on the back all around...

Josh,

One of the most frustrating things about establishment"journalist" is their inability to ever admit they are wrong or culpable....

Dude....An apology is owed...

i respectfully disagree, because i don't think this is primarily a free speech issue, but a civil rights one.

if it were an ad for keeping the darkies to the back of the bus, would you make the same arguments? how about putting the japanese in camps? what if an ad proposed death to israel (the state, not the people)?

i don't think you're money grubbers, and while i understand your argument, i think i might even disagree with the idea that running only lefty ads would make it appear that you are endorsing the lot of them -- i visit several sites that do that, and i feel no compunction to assume endorsement; i presume instead that they're buying a more targeted ad service. and you know? i like that. the crap ads are all around me, i don't need them in clearly partisan news sources as well.

if anything, i'd actually click on the ads more often. as it stands, i avoid clicking altogether because i don't always know what slime i'll end up with.

as a total aside -- that ad is stupidly designed: visually we have mccain and obama, and then the large text "marriage is between a woman and a man", casting mccain as the woman and obama as the man. ok, maybe i'm reading too much slash in general (and this particular pairing would gross me out), but that was my first intuitive impression, no kidding. *wry grin*.

I don't know what to say. A big part of the Yes on 8 campaign is that the homos are gonna git your children. This is not political discourse. Sullivan points out that this is the old blood libel against homosexuals, that they will recruit your children. The similarities with libels against Jews is striking.

Your reasoning on political advertising is principled and strong, but is this political advertising? Honestly, I'm not sure.

The libel aspects of the campaign, not these ads, may put this issue into the realm of what we now call hate speech and was part of a routine part of de jure discrimination against blacks and others. And it obscures the very difficult issue of marriage.

By the way, sexual activity was also legislated and still is in some places. Would an ad for a proposition on criminalizing public demonstrations of affection between same sex couples on the basis of danger to children be political?

A distinction can and should be made between "sacred" and civil marriage and I think that it is too soon for a majority of Americans to admit to this distinction. Obama apparently doesn't, though he says he opposes 8 based on opposition to writing discrimination into a state constitution. It's iffy, I admit. And there is the opening for the opponents.

And who are the opponents? They are overwhelmingly religious organizations that want to write religiously based doctrine into law. Are their efforts political? There is religiously based view expressed in law; or is it the confluence between religious doctrine and needs of civil society: Thou Shalt Not Kill.

Now that I've tied myself in knots without strong intellectual argument, I'll end by saying that this whole thing hurts: Prop 8, the ads showing up here, fear-mongering of the campaign.

Putting on my comfortable analytical hat, I'd say that while they may be wasting their money here, the fact that they're advertising here indicates to me that they have a very clever campaign organization and lots and lots of money to spare -- something that No on 8 can't say, and that is why I think that the prop will probably pass tomorrow.

Like I said, it hurts and I feel bad about the whole thing. Thanks for the opportunity to post here.

I support running this ad for the same reason I supported allowing the Nazis to march. There is a pesky thing called the First Amendment.

Come on, fellow liberals, we are not "cut their mike" kind of guys.

P.S. Josh, I'm the guy who wrote you about your post about Jorg Heider's male lover. Respectfully, I don't think you "get" this issue completely. For what it's worth.

I have been a long time reader and I find your explanation for running these ads entirely unconvincing. If Proposition 8 opposed bi-racial marriage at a time when such bans were legal, I seriously doubt you would have run these ads. Why is denying gay men and women the right to marry any different? I am very disappointed because this is not a matter of genuine political controversy, it is about intolerance and homophobia, things that have no place in our society. Shame on you.

Those misleading ads for the Calif. anti-gay Prop. 8 started to dominate my little blog too. I am disgusted. However, I agree with Josh on his policy of keeping content and ads separate. I also wrote a post clearly explaining why the ads were there, I also clearly stated my opposition to them. I highlighted this by a counter-ad so-to-speak: a large reproduction of a "No on Prop. 8" poster, much bigger than the teeny ad just below it. That's the least I could do: not letting them dominate my blog home page visual. I reserve the right to vehemently disagree and crowd out hate ads.

Let me preface this by saying that I am a transwoman, and consider myself to be a gay woman, in a relationship with another gay woman. I discovered TPM a couple years ago when Kerry was running for president and Gay Marraige was suddenly all everyone could talk about.

I come to TPM daily, multiple times every day, and have learned to sort of 'tune out' the advertising, which has long since saturated me with the understanding that the ads that come to this site are non-partisan in nature. I dont like seeing Republican propaganda here, but I agree with the idea that neutral journalistic integrity means allowing ads that come from all sides to be shown here.

When I read Josh's post above, I initially agreed with him. It is important to remain as neutral on political issues as possible in order to keep your credibility as an investigative news outlet and not a front for the Democratic party.

But when I started reading comments, I changed my opinion. As Josh said, TPM reserves the right to remove adds that can be considered 'inappropriate and tasteless', and in not so many words he implied that 'hate-speech' ads would receive the same treatment.

Josh didnt give us any examples, but I think it can be safely assumed that ads from the KKK endorsing laws or amendments that if passed would restrict the rights of African Americans or ads from some Neo-Nazi organization advocating that Americans who identify as Jewish be shipped off to camps or discriminated against on the basis of their heritage or religion would be considered 'inappropriate', 'tasteless', and 'hate-speech.'

But the fact that we consider those kinds of statments to be Inappropriate and Tasteless Hate-speech is a societal given right now. We consider these kinds of beliefs to be about 'Right' and 'Wrong.' Not political disagreements. I dont think the majority of people who are dissenting with the showing of these ads are against the right of people to NOT SUPPORT Gay Marraige. But these ads aren't about political disagreement. These ads are taking a clear position that Gay Marraige is WRONG (morally, culturally, religously, whatever) and that Gay People do not deserve equality with Straight People on this issue. That the rights currently enjoyed by these people should be legally STRIPPED from them.

THAT is hate speech. THAT is discriminating against one group of people by denying them rights. TAKING their rights. That is WRONG. Most of the people here are not saying "TPM should come out advocating a Gay Marraige Allowing Amendment!" They are saying "TPM should not run an ad that tells people that other people do not deserve equality." Gay Marraige isnt the issue. The issue is the Ad's position that a particular group of people are not equal with other people, in direct contravention of what we consider 'RIGHT' in this country.

Now, I am very sleepy, so my logic may be ... not logic. But I asked a friend of mine who is, like me, gay and in a gay relationship, a friend who doesnt regularly read this site, to read this post and give me his opinion. And his response echoed what I was thinking with my muddled brain.

AARON: I can see how Josh's argument would make sense
AARON: if this were really a matter of "disagreement."
AARON: But it's not. It's about right and wrong.
AARON: It's about equality. And simply because the hypocritically Christian majority aren't offended by it doesn't reduce people outraged by it to people who "disagree."

I still appreciate the reporting style of this website and intend to continue my visits here for its reporting. But I have long held TPM up as a very noble-minded enterprise in the often-slimey and hypocritical world of reporting. I'm not saying that this issue, which is, admittedly, somewhat sticky, and their stance on it makes them hypocrits, but it does make them CLEARLY WRONG, and it makes me feel as though the writers behind the site are not as high-minded and impartial on the issues as they claim to be. That they do let their personal bias affect what ads are displayed whether they mean to or not. Now, I'm okay with that. People are human, and make misatkes. But ignoring that mistake when pointed out does not make the stance on principle seem respectable and noble. It seems hypocritical. It seems ... a little dissapointing, because honestly, my opinion of the site and its authors had been high enough before this that I would have expected them to say 'oops, you're right, we goofed,' and ... I guess I was wrong.

A lot of talk here about TPM profiting from those ads, which strikes me as a bit confused. If they'd killed those ads, Google would have just served up different ads. If there was a financial gain for keeping the original ad, it was trivial.

I don't believe accepting the ads is about the money and I don't think TPM has some kind of latent homophobia. I do think that the principles argued in the policy are wrongheaded on the interpretation of what hate speech is.

There's been oodles of time spent here on TPM over "dog whistles" that are race-baiting and anti-semitism. There is largely agreement that such dog whistles are hate speech of one form or another.

The words "Yes on 8" and "traditional marriage" are dog whistles, but maybe you have to be a homophobe (which few are here at TPM) or gay to hear it.

Yes on 8 means protect the children from gays, gays molest children, they are sub-human and deserve to be treated as pariahs. Traditional marriage means holy matrimony, and gays can never, ever be affiliated with anything holy because they are sub-human and deserve to be treated as pariahs. Fifty years ago traditional marriage meant white married to white. It was a dog whistle then, and it's a dog whistle now, just being applied to a different group of "not us."

TPM would not accept an ad to repeal women's right to credit, to repeal the counting of black Americans in the census, to repeal the right of asian to marry caucasian, to repeal the right of Jews to own land. All of these rights had to be fought for, and once gained, were never subjected to a vote as to whether they could be kept. Gay people get that lucky place in history.

Advocating for a law that would dehumanize a specific group of people with pastoral words instead of a George Wallace snarl doesn't change the hateful, denigrating, dehumanizing message. Gay people hear it.

Reconsider your definitions of "taste," "appropriate" and "hate speech." Its cases like these that ought to refine them, not entrench them in outdated thinking.

While it's a tough one to handle, I think you have your wits about you on this issue.

Sorry for the triple post, your server said it failed twice!

Heh, speaking of taking down ads for prop 8, I was just feeling a bit too much late night energy, so I went for a walk to the nearest open gas station to pick up some smokes and a diet coke. On the way, I saw 4 yard signs for "yes on prop 8" along the way, all in abandoned yards or by the highway.

So now there's four less pro-prop-8 ads in my hood :-)

I've been reading TPM and its related sites from the beginning and am one of those gay readers who has repeatedly recommended it to friends. I support your policy regarding advertising as the right way to go. Its the tough choices where character and intelligence most show themselves, as you have here.

I think your policy is both sensible and principled. It is a tough tightrope to walk and I think you've managed it successfully. Keep up the good work.

I don't particularly take exception to Josh's decision to not kill the ads. Business is a spineless, heartless, emotionless worm that seeks self preservation only.

What I do take exception to is the even wormier excuse Josh gives.

Dude, just say it! "I can't afford not to get the revenue."

It's at least honest.

The full page epic rationalization you gave just makes you look disingenuous. My god, man, your readers must have given you a thousand better rationalizations than yours. They now only need to decide whether they can view you in the future with any expectation of honesty and integrity ... or not ... ever.

Me? I still gotta decide. I mean, I finally got around to opening this profile just for the sole purpose of rolling my eyes at someone I've never bothered to speak back at because he's always nailed it dead on.

.