Having signed the change.org petition to have Sandilands sacked over his attack on journalist Alison Stephenson (see http://mumbrella.com.au/sandilands-thre ... show-66147), I was given another perspective by a 12-year-old (she is no Kyle fan):
His dumping by 2Day FM might lead to his breakdown.
Should we treat him as we would a disturbed person who makes offensive remarks in public, that is simply ignore him?
I am beginning to think so.

Via Twitter: 11/28/11 7:17 PM
@johnbevins lovely sentiment but you don't keep a bad employee in the workplace on the basis they might need help. Just refer to that help.

If we think he's a disturbed person who makes offensive remarks in public then we are doing him no favours at all in giving him a prominent public platform from which to make his offensive remarks. All we do is massively increase the amount of damage that his disturbance can wreak, on him as well as on everyone else.

The twitter comment is correct. If someone needs help, they need help. They don't need to be ignored.

[I'm not convinced that Sandilands falls into this category. He is just a person with poor judgment who has been placed in a position where he is required to entertain the public by being outrageous, but not too outrageous. He has difficulty drawing the line. He would be better off if he were not in that position. We would all be better off if the position did not exist.)

Thanks Peregrinus. Perhaps what separates Sandilands from the (disturbed) man in the street whose obscenities we can simply ignore is that Sandilands is paid to disturb. And his employers are in turn paid by advertisers. Sandilands is arguably in a position of influence too, although I have faith in the immunity of his listeners. But should society be censoring him through a petition on change.org? (Mind you, I've signed the petition.) What about the advertisers? What is their responsibility in all this?