Has Policital Correctness killed Freedom of Speech?
I've heard people are being jailed for nothing more than raising debate over accepted myths. Myths such as the extent and severity of the 'holocaust' in WWII. From what I can gather there are questions being raised as to the actual severity of the holocaust and when-ever someone does this questioning publicly they are immediately silenced. If there is nothing to hide, why can't this be debated?

GI_Jane

Many people adhering to "political correctness" often do so to conceal what they really believe - in fear of ridicule. In other words we appear to have become a nation of people who speak with "forked tongues."

Having said that, I am not denying that it is essential to practise a good degree of diplomacy and civility in any enlightened nation.

However my chief concern in Australian society is with the state and federal governments' suppression of freedom of information which has been to the citizens' detriment. In addition, I have openly objected to Mr Costello's endeavours to suppress freedom of speech when he legislated to charge the ACCC with the powers to sue any group which may see fit to boycott businesses they sincerely believe to be operating unethically.

"Myths such as the extent and severity of the 'holocaust' in WWII."

So which part of the "extent " and "severity" of the Holocaust do you consider to have been benign, GI_Jane?

Your example of suppression of freedom of speech has me confused since Hitler specifically ordered the Reichstag to convene at Nuremberg to pass the anti-Semitic Nuremberg Laws which revoked German citizenship for all Jews. These are documented facts - not myths.

Nevertheless, in Australia, citizens are free to deny that Hitler's intention was to commit genocide on a specific group of people.

I doubt those who deny the severity of the Holocaust would be "gaoled" or "silenced" for attempting to debate this issue - perhaps shunned by their more "politically correct" opponents or ridiculed or challenged by the more vocal, who would no doubt simply request to view hard evidence in support of those beliefs!

GI JANEY...

I agree.. open debate is healthy.

The problem is.... 'information' is often "managed" in order to fulfill specific agendas.

I heard something on the news a few days ago.. the US government was panicking over a loss of confidence in the financial sector.. shares etc.. and some high ranking person rang Rupert.. and asked 'give things a bit of a positive spin and plug Rup...k? :)

NATO INTERVENTION IN KOSOVO.

NATO came to the negotiating table with three basic economic objectives in Kosovo and Yugoslavia in 1999: (1) to dismantle Yugoslavia’s competing socialist economic system, (2) to gain control of valuable mineral resources, and (3) to command the site of a future energy distribution network.

Describing this focus a year before the NATO intervention, New York Times columnist Chris Hedges labeled northern Kosovo’s mines, rich in "lead, zinc, cadmium, gold and silver," as the "Kosovo war's glittering prize."

the International Crisis Group [ICG], then published a report on Trepca stating that UNMIK should "take over the Trepca Mining Complex from the Serbs as quickly as possible and explained how this should be done."[25] The Trepca mines were occupied in 2000 by UN peacekeepers on the grounds that the mines posed an environmental hazard, and were turned over to the Washington Group, a large U.S. defense contractor with partners in France and Sweden.[26]

woooooooo!

The ugly murkey picture emerges.

BUT WAIT... did we hear anything about this in the build up to the intervention?

NOPE..

What DID we hear? "Human rights trampled.. blah blah yada yada..suffering Albanians.. poor Albanians.. BADDDD Serbs.. EEEEVIL Serbs..

The history of Kosovo and Serbia goes back to 1389!
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=STO20051229&articleId=1666

Any debate on it should include ALLLL the history!

Same with Holocaust..same with many things.

DICKIE..agreed.

I'm a great believer in "freedom of speech" and generally don't advocate censorship of any kind.

However, I've noticed that those who most vociferously invoke the right to free speech tend to do so in order that they can continue to publish hateful, false, distorted and obnoxious claims and ideas under the cloak of anonymity.

For example, I think that in forums such as this, people should be free to post whatever they like so long as they do so under their real names, which have been verified by the site owners.

I don't think you can have it both ways.

Thanks for that - VERY interesting re Kosovo etc - I've been seeking the bigger picture on that one.
I feel like a babe in the woods as I plough through history - so much left unsaid and it is more often the un-said that taints policy rather than that which is said.
I hope that makes sense.
On the holocaust denial issue..see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4733820.stm
regarding David Irving being jailed for daring to debate a moment in history.
Also...talking about free speech - what is happening to our scientists? Dr Watson (of Watson-Crick fame) recently found evidence of a relationship between race and intelligence and stated this publicly only to be attacked vehemently by the press etc and he's now gone - stopped his work it seems. Disappeared.

If j i Jane you think the Holocaust is a myth you have my deepest sympathy.
It happened and to say it did not is a tool some knowingly use to protect a dreadful history of a dreadful political movement we are better of without.
Your quote seems to highlight that dreadful event as untrue?
We always defend free speech but I have doubts about some ideas.

GI Jane and Boazy - a match made in some kind of warped, perverse heaven.

'I'm a great believer in "freedom of speech" and generally don't advocate censorship of any kind.

However,

Says it all!

Interesting to see extreme reactions to the holocaust issue. Nowhere did I say it did not happen.
I used it as an example of how certain issues are so politically incorrect that we can't even talk about the details. You are not allowed to question the possibility of details being incorrect. Do you realise that some of you have just proven my point?
You can't even open up a conversation on the topic without condemning me for even remotely suggesting the holocaust may have been blown out of proportion.
There are jewish people who also question whether it was as bad as it has been made out. There are discrepancies concerning the numbers claimed to have been killed and the severity of conditions at the camps as compared to the conditions that everyone in Europe was suffering at that time.
The thread here is about how freedom of speech is supressed by social pressure to conform to policital correctness. Some issues are sacred cows according to policital correctness and hence off limits to debate. Racism, sexism, the holocaust etc - I'm sure you lot can come up with a few more off-limits topics as examples.

censorship of any kind is bad but we must be a little bit responsible, mature, accept and support the freedom from speak for any person. We must learn to respect the basic rights, the human rights, the human integrity for any person. Unfortunately there are some persons who's ideas come directly from the dark ages, who's behavior is closer to the animals than to human beings. Freedom of speech is good but we can not avoid some limits to protect the integrity from other persons. Our permanent goal should be the extension of the freedom of speech to the maximum.
For example Muslims are evil or take your children and get out of Australia are bad comments. We must know where to stop. No very silly things which humiliate us as human beings.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

G I Jane,

There are laws to protect a person's good name and integrity against false information. There are laws against saying or writing things to incite hatred against others because of their culture, ethnicity or background. Freedom of speech is not an excuse to harm others.

Hitler and Stalin believed in freedom of speech - but only the speech they liked...

So as Noam Chomsky was quoted as saying, "If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it all."

Or as Lenny Bruce once exclaimed: "Take away the right to say 'f...ck'
and you take away the right to say, 'f...ck the government.'

Cheers.

GI Jane: "... certain issues are so politically incorrect that we can't even talk about the details. You are not allowed to question the possibility of details being incorrect. Do you realise that some of you have just proven my point?"

No. Your point would have been proved if your post has been deleted. People arguing with your nutty ideas - calling them nutty, or worse - disproves your point. It doesn't look like there's any censorship on this issue.

"You can't even open up a conversation on the topic without condemning me for even remotely suggesting the holocaust may have been blown out of proportion."

That's correct, but we're arguing with you because you're wrong. If you don't want to accept we're allowed to point that out, then it is *you* who does not support freedom of speech, not us. Freedom of speech does not mean that we sit quietly by while you peddle BS. It does not guarantee you freedom from dissent.

You are not a victim and may say what you want. I'd advice you to use this power wisely, but I sense that plea will fall on deaf ears.

G I Jane,

What you perceive as curtailment of "Freedom of Speech," with the case of - David Irving - is wrong. The fact of the matter is, people simply don't care to listen to what he has to say. He's been exposed for what he is... someone who bends historical evidence until it conforms to his "idealogical leanings" and political agenda. He is not credible.
He uses a double standard for evidence, demanding absolute proof for establishing Nazi guilt and only circumstantial evidence by which to condemn the Allies.

People don't want to legitimize his arguments as worth considering, or give him an audience that he doesn't deserve.
In any case it is impossible to argue with people like him, given their contempt for the tools of honest debate.

But historically, there have been many denialists. Except that today -nobody remembers their names.

Can the details be discussed or must we go around in circles?
When I said that the holocaust deniers have been silenced you all reacted with extreme emotion. How brain-washed are you?
Hollywood movies are propaganda.
The holocaust is simply an example and yet it has become, for many of you in here, the focus of the conversation.
What about Dr Watson not being allowed to report his scientific findings that race and intelligence are linked?

GI_Jane. I thought we were engaged with the issue of freedom of speech - Foxy, Antonius, I and others have addressed the issue. You seem largely to have ignored our comments.

David Irving was jailed in Austria and banned from coming to Australia because of his views. I agree with you that this is beyond appalling, and an abysmal solution to the problem of his stupidity. Stupidity is always be left to expose itself.

Re James Watson, I cannot find any evidence that he was censored. (Here's an cover story that certainly suggests otherwise - http://www.blogistan.co.uk/blog/independent-frontpage.jpg ) Instead, what appears to have happened is that he was dropped from speaking gigs, forced to resign from his laboratory, and generally had his professional life thwarted. I entirely agree that these were egregious follies. It makes my blood boil.

On the same topic, here's an article about a scientist silenced by the Bush Administration for speaking out about global warming. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17926941

GI_Jane, Dr. James Watson does not, nor ever has to my knowledge, conducted any sort of scientific enquiry into race and intelligence. Perhaps this is why he has been censured (as different to censored). Gross misunderstandings as to the nature of his remarks, such as the one just displayed by yourself, only goes to show why they have been denounced so thoroughly.

The wikipedia entry on this part of James Watson's career should elucidate some of the issues that you're arguing about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_D._Watson#Statement_claiming_links_between_race_and_intelligence.

Vanilla, equating the Hansen beat-up with the treatment of Watson, seems to me to be quite obtuse. Hansen was so "censored" that he gets to make an announcement about it, regularly features in the media, shares in a Nobel Peace Prize and still retains his position at NASA. Watson is shunned, and at least on one reading, driven out of his job.

I'm with GI_Jane. I thought more than twice before allowing this post concerned at the sort of discussion it might provoke. I think the discussion does prove her point. There are some topics that you almost can't talk about in "polite" company. It's just another form of discrimination to judge the suitability of someone on the basis of just one set of beliefs that they hold.

I must say though, that although Watson's remarks were misconstrued, they were misconstrued by many sides of the issue. Even though Watson himself has denounced the original interpretation of statements attributed to him (ie the "racist" interpretation), he is still being held up as an example of not being allowed to present "scientific findings that race and intelligence are linked". Watson himself, of course would be completely horrified that his name is being used in this way also. We should all just leave him alone, really.

".........Do you realise that some of you have just proven my point?
You can't even open up a conversation on the topic without condemning me for even remotely suggesting the holocaust may have been blown out of proportion.
There are jewish people who also question whether it was as bad as it has been made out. There are discrepancies concerning the numbers claimed to have been killed and the severity of conditions at the camps as compared to the conditions that everyone in Europe was suffering at that time.
The thread here is about how freedom of speech is supressed by social pressure to conform to policital correctness. Some issues are sacred cows according to policital correctness and hence off limits to debate. Racism, sexism, the holocaust etc - I'm sure you lot can come up with a few more off-limits topics as examples."
Posted by GI_Jane, Wednesday, 20 February 2008 5:10:52 PM

How do I slow clap in a text? VERY VERY cleverly played GIJ......and May my Gods help me;- Graham Young!.!.!.!.!

This is a 'heads I win tails you lose' classic! Any disagreement with your statement proves your point! Ooooohh NICE!!

".....You can't even open up a conversation on the topic without condemning me for even remotely suggesting the holocaust may have been blown out of proportion......"

EVEN REMOTELY?.?.? Give me a damn break! You are not 'remotely' suggesting anything. You are arrogantly and boldly defending your abundantly obvious stance that the holocaust WAS blown out of all proportion. AND without providing any evidence of the Jews who agree with your views, or the source of your statement of disputed numbers/conditions. You attempt to get away with that by your gutless cowardice in hiding behind the 'freedom of speech' defence: "Question what I say and YOU are being politically correct, trying to censor my freedom of speech". (Taking time out to barf!!)

Ct/d.

Ct/d 2.

AND you got endorsed.

As I have said. This so-called freedom of speech-defence /political correctness-attack is bloody evil.

It is always, BUT ALWAYS being used by those who are determined to use whatever tool they can to prove that what they say is correct. The FOS/PC thing is the best way to do it.

Graham, I wasn't trying to equate Hansen and Watson. I'd never heard of Hansen, but came across the article when I was googling and thought it might extend the topic.

Graham: "I think the discussion does prove her point. There are some topics that you almost can't talk about in "polite" company."
But we *are* talking about it. In my circle, this would count for largely civil. I love a good intellectual barney and honestly don't see why this isn't one. In saying her point is proved, are you saying that political correctness is stifling Jane's free expression? If so, I'd love to know what she's *really* trying to say?

Dickie said

However my chief concern in Australian society is with the state and federal governments' suppression of freedom of information which has been to the citizens' detriment. In addition, I have openly objected to Mr Costello's endeavours to suppress freedom of speech when he legislated to charge the ACCC with the powers to sue any group which may see fit to boycott businesses they sincerely believe to be operating unethically.

pale comments

Agreed Nicky and what about the Governments threads to strip RSPCA of its tax deducation because they dared to do their job by highlighting the cruelty of helive animal trade.

RSPCA like any other NFP group have just as much right to Freedom of Speech as anybody else.

Morgan
I agree with you people should be made to use their real ID.

GY
It would certainly save many irresponsible comments that are quite hurtful.
However the comment on the Sorry not Enough thread about aboriginal people is so outragous and I do not belive it would be left there If it had been said about Muslims.

Surley at a time like this when Kevin Rudd has just apoligised to Aboriginal People this comment is more offensive than the young my Muslim Boy who burnt the flag.
Of course the list was endless but the last line reading as follows will be sent to Kevin Rudds office and every newspaper In Australia.
Because If SOMEBODY doesnt express their outrage it will go as a tick! of approval that you can say that type of things to our Aboriginal People but not Muslims.
Well there is freedom of speach and thats important but I be hanged if we will tolerate anybody saying that about Aboriginal people who have suffered so much!
So maybe we need some laws after all.
For those of you who have not seen this comment the following is a copy of part only =

="Captain James Cook first discovered this beautiful country."

Sorry
So angry for aboriginal people forgot to post part of a copy of this offensive comment! = As below=

This is the apology that should have been given:
I'm sorry your black.
I'm sorry you weren't all wiped out the day Captain James Cook first discovered this beautiful country.

Freedom Of Speech Sure= This NO

I have just received this email fro Melbourne;
Now to the current case - Ordo Templi Orientis
Do you remember Dr Reina Michaelson's case?
The Ordo Templi Orientis took a case of 'religious vilification' against her for an article she wrote about ritual abuse where she mentioned the name of their organisation.
Her case was settled after a 5-day Tribunal hearing in December 2006.

The website that posted her article and put her real name on it - was 'Gaiaguys', run by Dyson Devine and Vivienne Legg.
[Gaiaguys claim to be a whistle blower site - we do not support all statements made by them. In fact they talked of aliens and UFOs and had anti-Christian comment on parts of their website.]

The OTO also lodged a complaint against Gaiaguys and Devine/Legg.
When the case initially went to VCAT in 2006, Gaiaguys wrote to VCAT asking what jurisdiction or authority VCAT had over a person living in NSW.
VCAT responded that that is something the Tribunal could consider when the case itself was being heard.
The case was listed for hearing on 28 May 2007.
Gaiaguys did not attend the hearing.

The decision was handed down on 27 July 2008.

Deputy President Anne Coghlan found they had breached the RRTA and ordered them to remove the offending material from their website and not make similar statements again.
Decision at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2007/1484.htm

Cont:
Gaiaguys did not remove the material
The OTO then went back to the Tribunal, on the basis that the Gaiaguys were 'in contempt' of the Tribunal for not removing the material from their website.
The Tribunal issued a warrant for their arrest on 3rd October and they were brought to Melbourne for a hearing on 27 November 2007.
The OTO media release says that FOUR police were sent from Victoria to NSW to bring them to Victoria!
Question: Who is paying for all this? Answer: You and I!
Devine and Legg were asked if they would remove the material and they declined.
They were ordered to attend VCAT the following day - they did not appear.
The Tribunal Member, Judge Harbison, found them guilty of contempt and ordered them to serve NINE MONTHS in prison (she had the power to sentence them to up to FIVE YEARS!)
She noted they had the ability to 'purge their contempt' (apologising or complying with the Tribunal's ruling.)
Decision at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2007/2470.html


During January Dyson Devine and Vivienne Legg were arrested in NSW and brought to Melbourne and put in prison.
They both remain in prison but have both been moved to country medium security prisons.
The hearing next week will determine what happens to them. They could apologise or seek to appeal to the Supreme Court - or stay in prison!


As we said above, we do not support all the statements made by Gaiaguys - or their decision not to attend the Tribunal.

But the question remains - what is the jurisdiction of VCAT?
If it stretches to NSW, does it stretch overseas as well?

AND back to the original question....
Can a person be sent to jail for not complying with the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act?
The answer is YES.

We still believe the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act is unnecessary and divisive and should be repealed.
Robust debate on a wide range of issues is needed now more than ever.

Vanilla " we're arguing with you because you're wrong."

Ahahaha!! I know you are but what am i?

GI Jane: I agree about PC b.s., question you're ideas about holocaust but hey, you and whoever else is perfectly welcome to express them. I might even be willing to look at them with an open mind!

Mule. So open your brain falls out?

CJ has a very good point.. people posting hateful stuff against me.. against Christians.. and even CJ does this under his own name.. and shock horror..no one has organized a 'hit squad' to come and take him out for 'mocking the messngers of God'... hmmm perhaps this is because the Bible teaches love for enemies even when/if you don't agree with them.

It also teaches 'speak the truth....in love' but the last bit seems to always get lost in the first bit :) at least in the minds of some senstive sheltered readers.

Robert is a good case in point.. criticizing not just Christians but GOD Himself.. and who is trying to track Rob down ? err.. not me, nor runner..not Grey.. nope.. none of us..

But when one criticizes a certain other belief system.. aah.. well just drawing a cartoon in Denmark earned the cartoonist a plot to murder him.. thwarted fortunately.. and then there is Theo.. and others..

CJ is just trying to get people killed.. whether he realizes it or not. Lets hope he does not, because if he does.. his suggestions take on a very VERY dark and decidedly evil complexion.

CJ.. sometimes you make as much sense as my 11month old grand-daughter in the background.. dadahadadadaaadadaddaadada on 2nd thoughts .. she is brighter :)

As I've written in another post:

"Blessed are you when people hate you, And when they exclude and insult you, and denounce your name as evil on account of the Son of Man."

Within this sentence, Jesus condemns bigotry and persecution in his name, which happens to define the actions of certain people on this Forum who ironically embrace Christianity -- the teaching of Christ.

But then, I suppose we can't really blame those people because the Bible they use is known as the "Fake Bible Which I Made Up to Suit My Bigotry: Large Print Edition."

Ah well, such is Freedom of Speech!

Vanilla: :)

I have heard a lot of conspiracy theories, and lived to tell the tale. I guess its easier to look on with a bemused smile if the topic at hand is not personally relevant though.

Reading through the posts I gained the impression that GI_Jane has sympathy for the idea that the holocost has been overplayed. In the opening post she said the following

"Myths such as the extent and severity of the 'holocaust' in WWII." but I've not seen anything which clearly stated that she considers the whole thing a hoax.

Before I go on I want to point out that I don't hold any serious doubts about the reality of that shamefull chapter in mankinds history. I was not there to observe it but I've seen enough of the accounts of those who survived it to consider the horror beyond what I can relate to.

The emotiveness of the reaction to GI_Janes questioning of history does bother me. We know that winners write history. We know that the issue is emotive.

The kind of society I value allows people to question what everybody knows to be true. It meets ill informed conclusions with evidence but as long as it does not get repetitive enjoys the opportunity to deepen understanding.

Conventional wisdom is not always right. What everybody knows to be true is not always true and the history books are not always right.

The holocost deniers are wrong but if they are condemed for the wrong reasons we all loose.

Boazy points out that I don't have a mob tracking me down for speaking against his god. It's worth pointing out that Boazy can say some quite offensive things about non-christains without a crowd of us getting together to sort him out. No grace of god in that, just some things our society has needed to learn through some big periods of change.

R0bert

While I understand the need that some people feel to have to remain anonymous in order to say what they really think, I think that they inadvertently collaborate in curtailing their own "freedom of speech". I'm also aware that this is a controversial view, particularly in this forum.

I think that an important corollary to the notion of freedom of speech is that those who speak have to be responsible for what they say. Indeed, there is no element I can think of that is more integral to sociality, by which I mean quite simply people getting along together. Yes, there are social and legal restraints on what we can say, but it is a nonsense to suggest that any group of more than two people could live together without them.

Having said that, I'm personally opposed to all enforceable laws that restrict free expression, and I've been known to flout sociocultural coventions for the hell of it on occasions.

But I do that openly and publicly, in my own name. Yes, I have to be careful about how I express my frequently unpopular views, but I regard that as part of my responsibility to the other people with whom I'm interacting.

As I've suggested, I think that everybody should be able to say whatever they think, but that carries with it a responsibility to wear the social consequences. That may involve legal or informal retribution, but in real life I'd suggest it's actually the latter that keeps most people relatively sociable.

I simply think that we'd all be better off if people 'owned' what they say and do, rather than hiding behind anonymity or other devices to separate them from the consequences of what they say and do.

Dear CJ... of all people you should know that anonymity is important whan one is dealing with the issue of Islam. Someone had been tracking my posts for years here.. gathering any information they could, to try to determine where I lived, and as you also know, I received direct threats to my welfare "Perhaps a couple of Muslim brothers should visit you". The case was referred to the AFP and this resulted in some very important and refreshing invterviews.

Responsiblity for what one says.. is entirely fair enough in a social context where the worst that will happen is a bit of verbal rough and tumble. But such is that nature of the Muslim community, that there is always an element.. some.. who feel that, in accordance with the actions of their prophet.. murder is the best option.

Freedom of speech, must also include 'safety' in speech.
As you probably also know, I've placed myself in harms way in the past, when publically making a point, (remember 'Blame China') and I've been physically attacked by a woman who came nose to nose with me and said "I want to punch your face in"... then, she tried to get the 20,000 odd unionists in the vicinity to whack me. (they ignored her)

So, there is nothing 'cowardly' about me... in regard to saying controversial things and 'being there' to back them up.

FOXY.. If Jesus himself had arranged the murder of errr..lets say "Caiaphas" the high priest, because he 'opposed Jesus'..and insulted God, how would you feel if you were Robert or CJ or Ginx or Bugsy ..and I knew where you lived ? If you don't get this point, then I would expect you to post more 'strange' posts from you. (like that last one)

MURDER.... and religion.

IF.. Jesus used the example of another religious figure of history, His 3 yrs may have turned out rather different.

JESUS.
Luke 9:1 When Jesus had called the Twelve together, he gave them power and authority to drive out all demons and to cure diseases, 2and he sent them out to preach the kingdom of God and to heal the sick.

OTHER.(To his companions)
-The Quraysh have boycotted you, therefore raid their caravans, kill them and take their goods (and women) as plunder.
-The town of Ta'if Mocked me, therefore go..and beseige it until they submit to Islam and Allah's messenger.
-Ka'b bin Al Ashraf. "Narrated Jabir Abdullah: "Allah's messenger said "Who is willing to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His apostle?"
(Foxy.. are you noting 'who' said this? would you like the reference/source?)

Now.. if some of kind folks don't see that such values are threat to Australian society I strongly recommend you attend court 3-3 at 250 William street Melbourne any time over the next week or so, and 'meet' some of the people who take the above example to heart, and who discussed murdering the Prime Minister plus as many Victorians as 500kg of Ammonium nitrate can kill in a crowd.

"Good" Muslims.. follow the example of their founder. Don't give me any twaddle about 'not all Muslims are bad'.. the most you can honestly say is 'Most Muslims do NOT follow their founder' the few who do... are terrorists in waiting. MOhammad is said to be the "Best of all mankind" and is regularly proclaimed as just that in Australian mosques and religous schools.

It is not 'wrong' to show that Mohammad arranged the murder of people for the 'crime' of opposing Allah and opposing him. What IS 'wrong' morally and in every sense, is to try to stifle free discussion about such things. Stifling information such as this, is like stifling discussion of Pablo Escobar's drug brutality, while allowing only speech about him building hospitals, churches, soccer pitches for the poor.

Dave here again in regards to freedom of speech I give you a couple of quotes I may not like what you say but I will defend your right to say it ; the truth hurts but it is the truth ;never get involved in gossip as gossip undermines the very principleof natural justice thanks for the time Dave

Let me state again- what I've said in a previous post ...

"Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude and insult you, and denounce your name as evil on account of the Son of Man."

Within this sentence, Jesus condemns bigotry and persecution in His name... which on this Forum happens to define the actions of certain people who ironically embrace Christianity...the teachings of Christ...as part of their strategy.

Throughout His documented life story Jesus' most incendiary comments and actions were aimed at 1) Satan. 2) The men who mixed business and religion (sound familiar?). Nary a word denouncing ... well, except in the Bible used by these Christian Fundamentalists known as the - "Fake Bible Which I Made Up to Suit My Bigotry: Large Print Edition."

As I've said in another post - The Bible contains a lot of hogwash which, in modern context, has little or no validity. The Bible tells us that anyone who comes into contact with a woman who is menstruating must do penance. The book of Leviticus, condemns homosexuality under pain of death. It also condemns the touching of pig flesh on the Sabbath...under pain of death.

That would certainly make football interesting. Whoever touches the ball dies.

Let's hear it for 'Freedom of Speech.'

Just because George W. Bush cites the dictionary definition of marriage as "between a man and a woman," doesn't make it right or justified. This from a man who thought "misunderestimated" was a word.

My previous post was described as "strange."And this from a man who
professes to be a Christian - but whose behaviour is not very
exemplary with Christ's creed of "Do unto others."

Boazy: "anonymity is important whan one is dealing with the issue of Islam"

It depends how you "deal" with it. I think you abuse anonymity to foster hatred of Islam and hence Muslims - not to mention anybody else who doesn't subscribe to your peculiar worldview. At any rate, don't kid yourself that you're really anonymous when you post in forums like this: if anybody really took you seriously enough to want to retaliate you wouldn't be very hard to locate.

"The case was referred to the AFP and this resulted in some very important and refreshing invterviews."

Nice to see the AFP keeping tabs on religious extremists like you.

"So, there is nothing 'cowardly' about me... in regard to saying controversial things and 'being there' to back them up."

I disagree.

I always use my real name, I feel shame to use a fake name in a democratic environment. If our system respect and protect our right to express our opinion, our thoughts, our dreams why do we use fake name? I do not say that I am enough mature and for this reason I write with my real name but I say that I am enough honest and I do not like to hurt any one and of cause I am full responsible for what I am writing. In a democratic system people must be enough brave to express their view publicly and enough mature to undertake fully their responsibilities.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

"If our system respect and protect our right to express our opinion, our thoughts, our dreams why do we use fake name? "

In a lot of ways our system does do this but not completely. We still have places where individuals can be got at for speaking out on issues that concern them.

I'd not like to end up on a list of C$A critics. As a "client" of the organisation the power difference between them and myself is enormous.

I've found it important to talk about my own experiences of the family law system and as a male recepient of DV but if I'm identified by name and post that stuff my former wifes privacy would be breached. Not something I want to do to her or to my son.

I've no control or knowledge of who reads posts on this site. Some have given me the impression that they would take disagreement on the site outside the site if given the opportunity.

I've got no knowledge of how potential future employers/interviewers might react to my views and would rather not have a simple web search expose my views on such a wide range of topics and across a number of years to people who should not take those views into consideration. I gather searching the web to look for info on potential employees is becoming popular in some quarters.

I'll keep my alias and post in a manner that I consider responsible but with the knowledge that the chances of my views being used to harm me in the real world are fairly small.

If my views are worth less because there is not a real name attached then so be it.

R0bert

I wrote hard articles against CIA or against ASIO etc. In a democratic system everything is under critique and really I do not worry or expect from them any kind of retaliation. I think our critique help them to improve their performance, their image. The persons who afraid to express their view publicly, they do not trust and respect our system enough and of cause are not ready to fight openly against the bad sides of our system.
I am bastard migrant with poor English low income enough old and if I lose my job very difficult to find an other one but I have made critiques even for my work place and publicly of cause. When you afraid to express your opinion publicly with your name you sent the message that you are a scary person and ready to run, instead to fight. When you use your real name then they know that you are ready to fight for your ideas and they have to think about the consequences of this fight.
One time an interior minister ordered me to leave a country where I was working, last days he accepted discussion with me about my deportation. I answer to him publicly, --NO DISCUSSION ON MY RIGHTS, YOU KNOW WHERE TO FIND ME-- My deportation canceled. Do not show weakness. Be proud, brave, active citizen. If you are Muslim be carefull.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Agree totally with Boaz on the issue of anonymity & freedom of speech. And I’m an out & out atheist. What is the point of freedom of speech? Isn’t it to guage what people really think? The only true way to find out what people really think is to get their private opinion, not their public opinion. The only way to guarantee that we get their private opinion is by allowing them to give their ideas anonymously – which is why humans invented secret ballot – although this didn’t stop voters being blown up on the way to the polls by extremists in Iraq.

Too many times in history (& the present) have people been persecuted for their beliefs & ideas. It’s bad enough that many are forced to post anonymously ( even when they write to newspapers with name & address, non-PC letters rarely get published anyhow). Taking away that privacy would be in line with fascism (NewSpeak = PC) & the persecution would follow.

Eg.the term “racist” is liberally applied on OLO to those who don’t toe the PC line on issues surrounding practices or beliefs which involve large numbers of non-whites. It is about the 2nd most character-assassinating term after paedophile. Rarely does the accuser provide any evidence to support their claim. Who would be willing to suffer such character assassination? Any sensible discussion is virtually impossible in practice for many in a public forum outside the inet. The labellers know this & that’s why they hurl the labels. And for those who work in a left leaning world, it’s best to keep stumm & endure the PC line ad nauseum. As Boaz says, “Freedom of speech must also include 'safety' in speech.” (spot on) which includes not just physical safety but also career/promotion protection.

If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all. ~Noam Chomsky

Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too. ~Voltaire

All censorships exist to prevent any one from challenging current conceptions and existing institutions. ~George Bernard Shaw

contd:

"The very aim and end of our institutions is just this: that we may think what we like and say what we think." ~ Oliver Wendell Holmes

"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." ~ George Orwell

"Free speech is the whole thing, the whole ball game. Free speech is life itself." ~ Salman Rushdie

"To speak his thoughts is every freeman's right, in peace and war, in council and in fight." ~ Homer

"Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties." ~ John Milton

“Without Fredom of thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of speech” ~ Benjamin Franklin

"The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race….If the opinion is right, (we) are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, (we) lose….the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error." ~John Stuart Mill

Less famous but relevant:

"Censorship of anything, at any time, in any place, on whatever pretense, has always been and always be the last resort of the boob and the bigot." ~ Eugene Gladstone O'Neill

My favourite:

"To choose a good book, look in an inquisitor’s prohibited list." ~John Aikin

A warning:

"REVOLUTION, n. A bursting of the boilers which usually takes place when the safety valve of public discussion is closed." ~ Ambrose Bierce

"He who now talks about the ''freedom of the press'' goes backward, and halts our headlong course towards Socialism." ~ Lenin

"Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings." ~Heinrich Heine

And finally a special thanks to OLO:

"Freedom to speak... can be maintained only by promoting debate." ~ Walter Lipman

"If our system respect and protect our right to express our opinion, our thoughts, our dreams why do we use fake name? "

If I wish to be identified by my views I can. If I wish not to be identified by my views, I am free to do so.

The point, the views I hold are views which others can either agree or disagree with, regardless of the personality.

In this forum I choose to remain anonymous because

not all readers can be assumed to be ‘benign’
the views I express here are personal and not a view necessarily endorsed by any association I may have.

I agree with Robert

“If my views are worth less because there is not a real name attached then so be it.”

However, I do not need to know the details of Roberts identity to find comfort and concurrence in the words of someone who I consider to be a reasonable man.

KGB I did appreciate the quotes you brought to our attention.

I particularly liked the Lenin one

"He who now talks about the ''freedom of the press'' goes backward, and halts our headlong course towards Socialism."

It is out of kilter with the rest. It confirms the twisted nature of Lenin and all he represented

It falls in line with his other quotes, which display the malevolent mind of a communist

“While the State exists there can be no freedom; when there is freedom there will be no State.”

And of course as far as his reference to socialism, it can considered along with another of his quotes

“The goal of socialism is communism”

But most telling

“A lie told often enough becomes the truth”

The only defense we have to a lie told often enough is the freedom to counter it, especially when, Lenin’s political state was never inclined to truthfulness.

I would hate to see Lenin's freedom of speech curtailed

Freedom speech is the first check against abusers of power

Free speech allows us to discern between the sage and the fool,
Censorship makes them sound the same.

“A lie told often enough becomes the truth”

I agree too. It's both beautiful, and beautifully expressed.

I'm beginning to suspect that one of those lies is the pervasive nature of political correctness. We've all found some examples - David Irving's incarceration, the dastardly "niggardly". But can any of you who so enthusiastically congratulate yourselves for your truthtelling find any more relevant, immediate example of where you've been silenced. I keep asking. I can't find one.

If you can find one, I will fight alongside you. But given we're all on the same side, it's beginning to sound like a bit of a beat up.

As for anonymity, I'm with R0bert. I like playing around under a pseudonym and don't want to come out. I do other things under my own name.

Truly fascinating that all the quotations from KGB and Col Rouge are from people who are identified with their utterances (unlike "KGB" and "Col Rouge" of course).

I understand the various reasons why some people choose to express their ideas anonymously. However, not all such reasons are as legitimate as others. What I'm saying is that communicating anonymously in itself contravenes, if not 'freedom of speech', then quality of conversation. Engaging in conversation, or expressing an opinion, anonymously intrinsically changes the nature of the intercourse.

In my opinion, anonymity raises the bar for what is acceptable discourse - as opposed to, for example, face to face debates where the identity of participants is known to each other. However, what I see time and again in forums such as this is that people are willing to spout the most vile, idiotic and hateful ideas and insults at others - principally because they know (or think) they won't be held to account for their utterances personally.

This is of course why we have to have rules, moderators and such.

I'm pretty confident that the most vitriolic of those who plague this forum with hateful and bigoted ideas are actually pretty insignificant people in real life, which is why they need to be so nasty and brave as avatars and sock puppets.

I post here under my real name, and I'm happy to be held to account for anything I say. To me, that's real freedom of speech.

So, what if we set-up a forum where you had to use your own name, and where you had to have a photo on it, and where you had to have an identifiable address (perhaps suburb rather than number, street and suburb)? How many of you would participate? And how many more might participate?

This is a serious question.

I should add that the majority of OLO users - particularly people like R0bert, Vanilla, Foxy etc etc - participate here without abusing their anonymity.

Of course I have no problem with that, and I respect that they may feel more able to express themselves freely under a psudonym.

Rather, I'm talking about the small but extremely vocal and offensive minority who voice hateful and divisive vitriol under the cloak of anonymity. I think that people who want to express such ideas and sentiments should only be allowed to so so in public forums if they are willing to be identified with them.

Sorry Graham, our posts crossed :)

As you know, I'd be interested.

Interesting question Graham. I think at least two things would happen:

You would have far less people discussing things on it. However, you sure as hell won't have people spouting off about particular ethnic groups or cosmic conspiracies. Whether that's a good thing or not, I'm not sure yet, because at least here know who the nutbags really are when they start, and that tends to make you listen less to the other stuff they say. On a non-anon forum, it would be difficult to tell whether a particular opinion was really held by normal people or religious/vegan/white supremacist nutters as it were. Although the anon sites like this are overrun with these types, it's only because they can say stuff here with out any fear people learning who they are. Normal people with a major gripe write letters to the editor- and get them published.

At the end of the day, I don't think it would work. But it is an interesting question.

Graham Young
We would be interested and think there would be a steady flow of new members. The name and reputation would be boosted respected more IMOP
People would be on better behavior which would have to cut down some of the staff work on OLO.

We have always wanted a section on OLO seperate from people using bodgey names .
Count us in with C J Morgan

Graham Young
We would be interested and think there would be a steady flow of new members. The name and reputation would be boosted respected more IMOP
People would be on better behavior which would have to cut down some of the staff work on OLO.
Ok I will tell you our biggest problem with your forum for us Graham, in the hope, you will consider, everybody’s position.

(Including ours) and it might help sway you to opening an ID only section.
Pale is targeted by extreme groups. Because we work in conjunction with RSPCA QLD
Of course we know who these people really are but we can’t do anything because of the bogey names. If everybody had to be honest about their ID it would pretty much put a stop to it and allow us to educate him public in instead of responding to attacks unable to defend ourselves properly because we can’t accuse these extreme libbers.
Even the Federal Government is aware of this but that doesn’t solve the problem.
So Yes we would be able to allow the members to post in their real names. They would return because that’s why they stopped refusing to put up with to bogey names.

So if you are serious about making at least part of OLO ID only posters we would be delighted.

GI_Jane

I think we would all agree that freedom of speech is an important right and that we should all cherish and protect it fiercely. As with most rights however there is a concomitant responsibility and in the case of speaking freely it is that our words should not offend. Linking race and intelligence is an offensive concept as are David Irving's attempts to whitewash the Holocaust. Defending freedom of speech in order to denigrate racial groups in this way is not a defensible position.

Hadn't read to the end of the thread before my last post or I would have commented on Graham's suggestion then!

I would definitely prefer a forum without pseudonyms and have argued against them on several occasions on other threads. I don't think surnames or photos need to be included but suburbs could be.

Col (and KGB) make the very important point.. that the closer one comes to Socialism/marxism/Communism... the further one departs from true freedom of speech.

Graham asks "How many would participate" if pic and general location were manditory. I'd participate, and..I'd speak about every issue or other religion, except Islam. Why? because that is the only one I know if where some of its followers deliberately seek to murder its critics. (as their prophet did)

I've never heard of Hindus outside India doing that.. and I know of no other faith which has as fanatical followers outside Islam than Hindusim (with a strong nationalistic streak) A missionary from my own denomination was burned alive in his car with his children by radical Hindu's.

If someone ever wanted to meet me, and "have it out" one on one about Islam or PC or whatever etc.. I'm happy to accomodate. I've done this quite amicably with Fellow Human, I have the runs on the board. But I'll do it on my own terms..no one elses.

But I've been curtailed here on OLO in the past week..and I'm mystified why. I tried to do a thread

"Happy Chinese workers means miserable Australian Consumers"

and it was rejected.. amazing, yet GI Jane can get pretty close to a much more sensitive issue and here we are discussing it.

Ah well.. roll with the punches as I alway say.

BRONWYN.....

you said: <<there is a concomitant responsibility and in the case of speaking freely it is that our words should not offend.>>

I register my disagreement with that.

Then you said:

<<Linking race and intelligence is an offensive concept as are David Irving's attempts to whitewash the Holocaust.>>

Now with that..I can agree.

This issue should not be 'Does what I say offend' but "is what I say true".

I'm not offended when people rant about "Ohhhh the Christians slaughtered many thousands during the Crusades" Because it is quite true. (But I need to come back to them in terms of Christ's example and teaching)

Even those who deliberately speak falsehood about Christ "you believe a bunch of fairy tales" (CJ Morgan in the 'Total Christ' thread) does not offend me, because he speaks from ignorance and unbelief. (though that ignorance is becoming less of an excuse before God, as he learns more about Christ)

I'd love to see how brave CJ is in Riyad or somewhere.. if he wrote under his real name to the local paper "Islam is based on fairy tales and myths" :) aaah.. that would sort out the boy CJ from the man CJ.

Unfortunately, it is unlikly he would survive such a tryst with fate.
He would quickly discover that the ranting raging mobs on the streets of London "Annihilate those who insult Islam" are more than just 'words'..it simply depends on where you are.

It is precisely because of that situation, that we must never never never allow that value system to take hold in Australia.
Aside from discriminatory legislation for immigration, and possibly banning the Quran, the most viable solution is national repentance and a return to Christ...which is the one I'm aiming for.

Cheers Col. And I agree with your sentiments on socialism. On that note there’s a new book by Jonah Goldberg titled “Liberal fascism” which has caused quite a stir in the US recently. Haven’t read it yet but apparently argues that there is a disquieting amount in common between liberals and fascists. The Nazis (national socialists & total govt control) & communists were both socialists but the only 2 parties in contention for the leadership prize – 2 competing leftist mafias. The Nazis had to differentiate themselves from the commos by pretending they were anything but left. Of course it was the same old stink, just a different name.

Second PALEIF's motion, Graham, if only to test my hypothesis: that on the 'real names only' section you'd get the same self-congratulating “I’m morally-superior” talk you hear any time like-minded people people get together - the 'great minds think alike' type. On the soft topics, numbers would rise, as some people love to see their name in print. On the really controversial ones, the non-PCers would tread very cautiously, hiding or moderating their real opinions, so the debate becomes fake. What’s the point of that?

But if you want people's real opinion, you want their private one. The 2 are rarely the same whenever a private opinion conflicts with self-interest. The comments from the ‘we really truly do believe in free speech, but…’ crowd are the antithesis of debate-seekers judging by their posts. I’ll second Runner’s “says it all!” riposte. Beautifully succinct. Watch the tone of their posts on the controversial topics. Full of emotion, never asking any questions,rarely engaging, full of ad-hominems & always closed-minded. They come across as totally afraid of debate on the such topics. They keep trying to remind themselves that “I'm pretty confident that the most vitriolic of those who plague this forum with hateful and bigoted ideas are actually pretty insignificant people in real life”. I’ve seen that time & time again. Who are they trying to convince? Why the fear? No dissent shall be tolerated. There’s “my-way or the highway”. That is the definition of ‘bigoted’. They can’t see that they are what they claim others to be. They are the ones displaying frenzied anger & hate - one poster described the alleged “racist” posters (no proof of course) as “spawn of cockroaches”. Such posters are the real haters. Get thee to a mirror, guys. And I’ve noticed those arguing the opposite to these people are overwhelmingly more reserved and use ad-hominems in reply far less & are much more open to debate.

And is it really that courageous to post a real name if your opinion toes the PC line? Or if you're discussing soft topics? Hardly.

I agree with Boazy. Yes, I know, hallelujah.

I don't believe anyone has the right not to be offended. We need to be more robust than that. Truth is a rightly a defence in defamation cases (for which reason I can say, for example, Boazy's last post about CJ is yet more evidence why he operates as an anti-missionary, driving people from god) as is satire (the way Boazy posts endless YouTubes featuring angry Muslims is beginning to make me feel like converting to Islam), but "it offended me" - I believe - should never be.

To make offense a defense institutionalises weakness. Culture needs to play out its debates to strengthen them. Vilification laws create martyrs - like David Irving. We should have faith that we can defeat obnoxious ideas fair and square, not really on the state to do it for us.

I believe.

Graham, count me out.

I've already had one other poster attempt to take a conflict on site off the site, thankfully they did not get access to identifying details.

I'm not convinced that those who post under real names are less prone to making abusive comments or telling outright lies.

We each have different lives, different willingness to take on certain types of risks, different levels of acceptance of conflict, different professional responsibilities etc. I chose to retain control over the impact my participation in OLO has on the rest of my life. If others choose differently then that is their choice.

In regard to the idea that the normal rules of conversation should apply this is not a normal environment. Anybody can read comments so identifying posters does not tell us who is listening. Maybe only registered posters could be allowed to read posts but then if thats an issue we'd still need to monitor who was taking part in a particular discussion.

Graham has my contact details and if he need more verification of who I am I'll supply it but the rest don't need the kind of details that would allow you to track me down or track down my associates.

I don't want OLO posters or readers contacting me uninvited. I don't want OLO posters or readers contacting my employer, my son's school, my ex wife or other associates. I don't want any of our resident religious extremists targetting me with visitation or calls to discuss their faith with me.

Quite frankly I find the emphasis some place on having those details quite concerning. I use an online name that's as close as I could get to my first name, polite but relatively safe. I fail to see why anybody other than Graham needs more than that unless you are trying to limit my freedom of speech by leaving the spectre of retribution hanging over my head.

R0bert

Graham Young
Count me in. Only Cowards hide behind false names. I have been victim more than once to those cowards and I cant afford to run off to lawyers so mostlty I stopped posting.
I would like to post a great deal more and I know if the people who make attacks against me had to use their real ID then the problem would never have stated for you or me in the first place.
I had a great deal of trouble with you Robert and I said My Name Is Taryn Winter and I am a aboriginal lady. My Name Is Taryn Winter. Thats my real name. If I have something to say I will be honest enough to put my real name on it.

I am a proud aboriginal lady with a lot to offer your forum if I were given the oportunity but I use my real name and find it impossible and unfair being abused from trouble makers.
If you had a section as pale suggested for real people using real names I would use it.
I would also invite many others and we would be much happier because it isnt fair when as I said cowards can come in and say things they are quite illegal but then we have to pay for lawyers and annoy you.

New people who are real will see you have this new forum and I think you will get much interest.
Let the cowards play all day with each other but give us a REAL forum with some standars. please.
Why Not have both. Why should the honest ones be forced to deal with cowards and pay for lawyers>
Its not fair.

CJ Morgan “I post here under my real name,”

I would contend, because of the relative commonality of what you claim is your real name, it results in you being pretty anonymous anyway.

GrahamY “So, what if we set-up a forum where you had to use your own name, and where you had to have a photo on it, and where you had to have an identifiable address”

I support Robert post. In the past, some posters have attempted to followed up beyond the this forum. Like him, I do not wish to attract spam or invitations to join Amway.

Graham, I trust you will recall something happened a couple of years back where, through the uniqueness of my name, another poster identified my street address and deliberately published it here.

I have enough problems already with random graffiti artists, I do not need more.

As I said before

not all readers can be assumed to be ‘benign’

I recall one OLO poster went to some efforts to find out my identity when I opposed his view. Since that person has criminal record for violent criminal activity and I suspect would not be averse to following up on intimidation, I would not wish to mark an “X” on a street map for him.

Equally, the views I express here are personal and not a view necessarily endorsed by any association I may have or represent.

If disclosure of personal identity became mandatory, I would have to consider seriously, whether to post here or find a different forum to post on

CJ Morgan “Truly fascinating that all the quotations from KGB and Col Rouge are from people who are identified with their utterances (unlike "KGB" and "Col Rouge" of course).”

In other arenas, where my views are used in concourse with my business life, I readily use my own name.

However, since some of my income is derived from government contracts, I do not wish to limit that competitive opportunity by presuming the tolerance of small minded bureaucrats who may be offended by my right wing views and belief in small government.

KGB “Of course it was the same old stink, just a different name.”

Exactly, Nazis were not to the right where communists were to the left.

It is more like the face of a clock, liberal democratic values place the minute hand on the hour, whereas the Nazis are at 29 minutes ”past the hour” and communists at 29 minutes ”to the hour”.

However, Stalin achieved 3 times what Hitler achieved, in terms of the dead.

Graham

Unfortunately, I have to say, count me out as well.

I’d very much like to be recognised for my views and my efforts towards improving road-safety, achieving good environmental policy, population stabilisation and sustainability, and various other subjects that I have been involved with on this forum, but it is obvious that there are nutters around who wouldn’t hesitate to make trouble for me away from the forum if they could.

One particular poster has made it patently clear that he would make life as difficult as he possibly could, if he could find out who I am. Not over one of our recognised highly emotive subjects, but over a pretty benign subject: tree-clearing and vegetation management!

I used to be an avid writer of letters to the editor. I became well known in my town and polled very well as a minor-party candidate in the state election a few years ago, largely on the back of that reputation.

The small number of idiots that rang me up just to be abusive in response to my letters were not worth worrying about. Some fifteen years of letter-writing was by and large very rewarding.

But now, on this and other forums, with a very much wider readership, I simply dare not go under my real name.

This sort of forum has huge advantages over letters in newspapers: your message is out there instantly, unedited, instead of a few days or a couple of weeks after you write it, often edited, sometimes ridiculously so, and fairly often not printed at all.

But there are highly hateful irrational people out there who are intolerant of others’ views. Maybe only the occasional one, but that’s enough for me to stick with the very difficult decision write under a pseudonym and forego the personal recognition, except from a small number of people who know who Ludwig is…and sleep at night without worrying about rocks coming through the window.

Having said that, I constantly think about terminating Ludwig and coming back onto this forum under my own name.

Oh Come On Col Rouge
I am a woman and am not too scared to put MY real name up and I assure you I get far more hate mail then you do.
Much of it from my own people when they do not like when i say we are reasonsible as well for alot of our problems.
If a man- or a woman cant put their real name to a comment then they are not much of a person.
Look at pale when they get stuck into Muslim Leaders who they work with.
If anybody should be a bit concerned surley it would have to be them. They are saying the opposite to you because they think much of the behavoiur that spolis OLO would dissapear.
Why do you think I stopped posting. Because there is no accountabilty and I cant run to lawyers and why should I have to.
I say let us have as pale suggested a Cowards section and a real section with a higher degree of credibility.

ASymeonakis,said

I always use my real name, I feel shame to use a fake name in a democratic environment. Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide
Posted by ASymeonakis, Friday, 22 February 2008 6:32:22 PM

ASymeonakis - Well said and I will be reading your posts a lot more because of it.

When I know a person is real I then am interested in what that person has to say.

Even if I do not agree with them. You may not be aware but a person using a false name on the sorry thread has upset many of my people. We now have to pay for lawyers to address it. I dont thnk this person would have made those comments if they had to post their real names.

Its cowdly and hurtful and the aboriginal people have been hurt too much.


Taryn Winter A Aboriginal Lady proud to be honest about who she is and what she has to say!

I believe that by using your real name you are more accountable for the information you provide to others. I am not saying that some information given might not be true, but one would do its research prior posting and stick to the truth to the best of ones knowledge and experience in a particular field.

Using Nick Names leaves certain people with the assumption that they are “immune” to prosecution and can publicly demean, defame, insult, spread hatred, ran a smear campaign, be aggressive or damage another’s person or Organizations Reputation and a Solicitor has to be employed to bring these people into line. –This costs an awful lot of money and should not be necessary.
Yes, sometimes heated discussions produce outrageous irreversible comments that have to be deleted.
The whole world can read the comments we put up on the net and it is in our best interest to conduct ourselves with integrity, respect and compassion towards another poster and to reply in a experienced, civilized, non aggressive and professional manner. This makes a huge difference between well educated people of our Society (upper class) if you like and the lower class and it raises the Standard of the overall performance of this Political Forum.

The point is to discuss a topic in a sensible manner in order to achieve the best possible outcome towards a solution.
I do not believe that there should be a Public Photo ID - that could be voluntary but the Names should be real and all other details should be made available to the Forum Owner when Register as a member for specific reasons.
If someone has a profession and wants to withhold his/her Name for a very specific reason (like life might be in danger etc) this should be told to the Forum Owner so that a Nickname can be provided under the condition that the label says Person is known to Forum Owner or similar.
Does it make sense to you?

Taryn, maybe the difference between you and I is that you have the confidence that I'm not the type of person who would seek to make trouble for you off the site given the opportunity whereas I lack that confidence in you and some of your mates who are so keen to have real names published.

I have never attempted to make trouble for you, mostly I try and avoid you. You have attacked me on numerous occasions and yet continue to try and portray yourself as the victim.

You are one of the reasons I choose to continue using an alias online.

R0bert

I use my real first name and that is good enough.

Who in there right mind would consider posting thier real name here.

A/ Wouldnt matter if you lean to left or right, hackers love a challenge.

B/ Would you be prepared to even for the slightest chance to place your loved ones in harms way?

C/ Whenever you are on line there is always the risk of being hacked for your personal, financial and piece of mind. Dont make it easier for the whack jobs to track you down

A. Symeonakis, A very quick 5 minute check of your name revealed your address and organisations you belong to. You should fix this, I enjoyed your site some good hints.

1)

You know, if nothing else, this freedom of speech thing is a tad frustrating when one can only post twice on a thread in any 24hr period and must restrict each post to 350 words!

Yes, I realize why it's necessary, but it illustrates a point; FoS must by definition have its own restrictions..(how many words wasted there?)

No Mr Young. My work requires anonymity. I have a silent line and am not on the electoral role. I do not even use my real name online in ANY form. TarynW kiddo; that is not cowardice; trust me here; it is the opposite!

______________________________

OK.TJ; back to you.

R0bert:'holocaust deniers are wrong, but if condemned for the wrong reasons we lose'. Agreed.

But as TJ pointed out, she didn't do that. What she did was far worse.

TJ:" MYTHS(mass hallucination eh?) such as the extent and severity of the holocaust''.

TJ:'You can't even OPEN UP A CONVERSATION (so don't get the sh#**s when people respond)-,without being condemned for EVEN REMOTELY (Glod; I love that!!)-,suggesting the holocaust may have been blown out of all proportion'.

Foxy:'Hitler and Stalin believed in FoS - but only the speech they liked'. Hallelujah praise that girl!! That nails it! ABSOBLUUDYLUTELY!!

__________________________________

2)

So TJ;..........let us exercise that subjective FoS your kind covet.

"11,000.000 killed, 6,000.000 Jews"

Shall we go for a figure of 3,000,000 who were worked or starved to death; who were used for medical experimentation, who were exterminated in gas chambers?

Any advance on 3,000,000 TJ? How about 3,433,564 TJ?
(Teflon Jane btw).

Any advance? 4,000,000/........OK, OK,.. ONLY 1,700,001?.?.?.?.? TJ??

And of course, they were not the only ones to suffer were they TJ? Most of Europe was covered in flees and tick, had dysentery, were worked to death, medically experimented upon, and exterminated in gas chambers. WEREN'T THEY TJ?

____________________________

If you are too bluudy enamoured with your own elite arrogance you will not understand what I am saying.

________________________________

I vividly remember a lecture by a man in the 1970's. He was the lucky one; the surviving twin..., he only lost his arm.

Mengele amputated his arm and that of his twin;- and was going to swap them around. His brother bled to death. I remember him saying how they stopped his bleeding. He was made to sit on a chair by 'nurses'. His arm was on the chair next to him. He was so severely shocked that he sat next to his arm. HE WAS SIX!

_______________________

You will use your smart anointed point of view to point out that that you are not denying any of this; that I am clearly emotive (yes I am).

What you and your like miss in your pursuit of so-called Freedom of Speech is that makingthe holocaust less than, does NOT diminish its utter unforgivable evil.

And THAT TJ IS what you are trying to do. That IS your aim.

I tell you girl, until MY Freedom of Speech is cut short; and I am expecting GY to do that. I will exercise what you hold so dear and give you and yours a mega dose of the ....s.

I've been thinking about whether I would post under my real name or not... And, I've decided that if the Forum was to go in the direction of real names - I would have to bow out.

Anonimity - protects me and my family.

I would prefer to be judged by the content of what I write.
The rest - is a private matter - which I prefer to remain private.

Graham

Please, Please, Please do not consider for a mille-second the thought of including specific identification (ie: suburbs) of the contributors to this forum.

For example, I have had the misfortune of being threatened with defamation just this week by a contributing OLO imposter- oops I meant poster. Thank goodness my personal details are protected by OLO (aren’t they?) so I can continue to contribute to the forum without the fear of certain litigation happy people wanting to sue for defamation because their feelings got hurt.

I proudly use my real name to share my views and opinions- but that is just my preference. I cherish the privilege of “ Freedom of Speech” and using my real name does not curb my opinions and observations however having any specific identifying information certainly would. I don’t have a problem with others using whatever name they like if it stimulates healthy and considered discussion of issues.

There is one exception to this though. I do object to posters using the name of an organization to spout their opinions when the organization’s manifesto has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. Perhaps this can be changed first before anything else!!

Finally, it is refreshing that opinions on OLO are not sanitized like they are in letters to the editor sections of newspapers- which does require name and suburb. Hell, half the fun of this forum is reading how posters respond with relative freedom to issues. I fear that this openness would be lost if real names & suburbs needed to be included. Besides, ultimately people do tell you who they are just from their comments alone. What name is used is irrelevant.

Graham Young

Below is just one of the many examples a organisation can have when attacked by cowards not prepaired to put their names to a comment.

please note this comment is still up on the forum doing great damage to our organisation which you already know is linked to RSPCA QLD.
Even it is wasnt we are a organisation of our own identity. Why should honest users need lawyers to deal with the problems.

Given also we work with AFIC and Aboriginal Elders of course that particular comments is outragous.It IS defamtation in a legal sense.


Point. I do not believe that comment and the comment below would have been made if your forum made people accountable for what they say.
Either way its very unfair. >>

PALE ~ You're a moron. Racist pig. Get back to saving cows. You've got ZERO idea, and if you're the quality of Hansons support, thank christ that scrag won't make it past the hick bandwagon.
Posted by StG, Monday, 27 August 2007 7:59:09 PM

Now legally the problem we have with these types of comments is we have to sue the person who has published it.
Not fair on You and not fair on us.


He is another example of irresponsible cowards.>

This is the apology that should have been given:
I'm sorry your black.
I'm sorry you weren't all wiped out the day Captain James Cook first discovered this beautiful country.
Posted by wassup, Wednesday, 20 February 2008 7:08:01 AM

If you don't want your organisation's image tarnished by the dumb and hateful rants of individuals, why don't you get them to post here under their own names or nicknames rather than as PALE? Rest assured that I'll continue to refute and lampoon egregiously xenophobic, racist or otherwise hateful comments in the manner which they deserve, no matter whose name they're posted under.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Wednesday, 5 September 2007 6:50:53 AM

But Who can forget the CAR PARK Started by ROBERT who demanded WE post In our REAL names.
What a bleeding joke!
Enough is enough

Dear VANILLA.. now I'm worried about your mental condition.. unless you were having me on with that thing about "Now I'm thinking of turning to Islam" because of my links to video's of angry Muslims..

I appreciate your agreement about the offense thing, but your reaction to my links shouldn't be what you said even in jest.. strewth..

I could much more relate to "I'm so sick of boazy's links to video's of angry Muslims I'd like to go nose to nose with him and yell at him for about an hour".. now that..I could relate to. (between you and me...I'd be happy for that :) I could even understand you wanting to have a rant about 'Church abuse' or make a long list of Church/clergy 'sins'....

But saying what you said just blows my mind. Why in the wide world would you even joke about that? If you said it to annoy me there a much better ways (and less self destructive) to do it.

In a way...that is the terrible horrifying danger of Islam. One of my youtube correspondents confessed "Even if you can prove that the Quran permits child abuse, I'd still follow it" He at first charged me with "getting info from hate sites" but patient dialogue showed him the facts of the matter.

Vanilla.. you do have a very crucial point though. Raving on about the evils of Islam does little for the cause of Christ.

This is where some understanding of the dual sphere of the Christian life is needed.
On the one hand.. as Christians, we do want to share Gods love in Christ. Lets call that 'evangelism'.. proclaiming the sacrificial death of Jesus for our sins, and His wonderful resurrection.

But we also exist in a social context. As such we also (as individuals in society) need to take responsibility for how things work..or are changed.

Ideally, I'd have 2 profiles.. good cop and bad cop :)

I'd use bad cop for all the info about Islam.

Col Rouge: "If disclosure of personal identity became mandatory, I would have to consider seriously, whether to post here or find a different forum to post on"

While I'm sure that would be a tragic outcome, I think OLO would survive without "Col Rouge".

Boazy: "... the terrible horrifying danger of Islam"

Yawn, but I'd defend your right to post such tripe. A shame you don't have the courage of your convictions to consuct your crusade under your real name.

PALE&IF: "...irresponsible cowards"

I'm not sure why you've included me under that rubric, given that my comment you've quoted was quite legitimate (if not exactly complimentary) and under my real name. Incidentally, I note that in the same post you identify the poster of the "racist pigs" comment, who is not me.

Would you like to retract your claim that I made that comment now?

Dear GrahamY
You know that I agree with it. More responsible, more mature, more sensitive, more honest, more truth, more credible.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Before I start I would like to point out that when I refer to PALEIF I'm not refering to the organisation but to the person or persons using the name "People Against Live Exports & Intensive Farming" as an id on this site - I'm somewhat over being accussed of attacking the organisation by someone hiding behind the organisations name.

PALEIF has made a couple of references to the carpark recently. Some who were not around at the time or had better things to do may not know what it was about. "But Who can forget the CAR PARK Started by ROBERT who demanded WE post In our REAL names." In regard to PALEIF's claim that I wanted real names see my comment at
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=989#18535

For the carpark itself see
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=989&page=1

TammyJo your concerns are discussed at length.

If it's any comfort you are not the first to be threatened with a lawsuit. A few of us have been there in one form or another. As far as I'm aware the threats have so far being a tactics to stifle opposing views but you probably should read a comment by Graham on the carpark at

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=989#18525
"I note that PALE is now threatening legal action. That need not stifle legitimate discussion, but you should all bear in mind that you are responsible for your own comments, and that in the event that the threat is carried through a court has the power to order us to provide them with your personal details."

For anybody who wants to get an understanding of the comments PALEIF has been posting about me or who has been threatened by PALEIF have a read through the carpark. There is another thread opened by PALEIF http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1022&page=1 which those who want to be sure they've got both side of this should see.

Sorry to those who never wanted to see this stuff again but my tolerance for PALEIF's misrepresentations and nasty digs has expired again. I'd be happy to leave it in the past but apparently PALEIF and Taryn are unwilling to do so.

R0bert

Robert
I dont want to argue with you but i DO want people to use real Ids for a very GOOD reason.
If anybody wants to get pales comments bla bla bla
That’s not the point. We are talking about people using real Ids here.
We are talking about being answerable to our comments. So you had no right to start any car parks challenging the way they post. But you did and they said nothing not wanting to rub your nose into it. I know because I was angry and wanted to complain to GY but Wendy said no let it go because some people might understand we are not snobs. Or something similar)
PALE by the way is a member institution so there for entitled to post under what they joined as. See>

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/member.asp?id=46

You should have been pulled up a long time ago for starting car parks to try to change their posting rules.
It’s not up to you. Its GY forum.
Its time somebody spoke up for pale Robert.
They have never broken a forum posting rule ever and they by choice posted in their REAL ids

I used to post under pale but YOU complained so because I didn’t want to cause trouble for pale I got my own ID.

Then you darn well complained AGAIN that I was really pale posting under Taryn.
Mind you ALL THIS TIME you are refusing to post under your real name.
Here is pales membership which can by found under members.




Look at the attack on aboriginal people made in a false name a few days ago. Do you think I am going to let people say that about my people many of them family?
No Real names should be made laws as far as I am concerned
I will always use my real name its unfair others don’t have to and yes I would like it changed.

Let’s analyse each line that upset PALEIF so & try to identify where they feel the need to take legal action.

“You're a moron.” Your’re joking, right?

“ Racist pig.” That’s a par for the course ad-hominem leveled at the non-PCers on many a controversial topic. Deal with it.

“Get back to saving cows. You've got ZERO idea,” You’re joking, right?

“and if you're the quality of Hansons support, thank christ that scrag won't make it past the hick bandwagon.”

Unless you’re Hanson, or threatening to take action to defend Hanson, you’re joking, right?

“If you don't want your organisation's (ie PALEIF) image tarnished by the dumb and hateful rants of individuals, why don't you get them to post here under their own names or nicknames rather than as PALE?”

Again, you’re joking.

“Rest assured that I'll continue to refute and lampoon egregiously xenophobic, racist or otherwise hateful comments in the manner which they deserve, no matter whose name they're posted under.”

As above.

“Now legally the problem we have with these types of comments is we have to sue the person who has published it. Not fair on You and not fair on us.”

PALEIF, do you think it’s fair that your own over-sensitivity should translate into a problem for OLO? And for other posters?

Here’s wassup’s lines:

“I'm sorry your black.” Yes, that’s racist. (finally a genuine case where the term is accurately applied)

“I'm sorry you weren't all wiped out the day Captain James Cook first discovered this beautiful country.”

Yes, that’s racist too & beyond the pale. And maybe he really thinks that way, or maybe he doesn’t & was ‘fishing’ as he says (the rest of his posts there are positively mild). But freedom of speech trumps all, I think, except where there is immediate and present danger to people or the national interest. I don’t think either is threatened here. But very tough call on Graham. I think he’s done the right thing, by an atom’s width.

(contd)

Evidence of PALEIFs over-sensitivity - on that same forum you called for the removal of TammyJo’s posts & Belly’s too without any hard specifics to back it up. A casual reading of their posts on that thread reveal them to be totally inoffensive & innocuous.

“Also Bellys contiuned attacks flaming of pale and contiuned personal abuse towards a decent aboriginal lady (where on this thread did this occur??) should be likewise removed. TammyJo, likewise. Her comments straight out defamation of this organization" (ie People Against Live Exports & Intensive Farming)

Interesting that you came in for about the same amount of criticism as wassup from other posters on that thread. To what extent is your enthusiasm for censorship of those who criticize the organization “People Against Live Exports & Intensive Farming” behind your call for removal of wassup’s racist post?

If that post is deleted, I think most people wouldn’t bat an eyelid, but my concern is that it might start the slippery slope, eg “the apology to the Aborigines” post on the “The politics of apology” thread I don’t think is racist & should not be deleted, as controversial as it is (please go to that thread so this thread doesn’t become a repeat. )

PS - what a scary post from Robert (the post, not Robert!)

I have discovered this thread just now and would like to comment on the use of real names and monikers.

I must say that I agree a lot with RObert about safety; I too, am using a name as close as possible to my real name. In fact, some people used to call me by this name.
I have not only myself to protect but my children as well.

No matter what your honest opinion is, some people, somewhere in the world, will take offense.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of maniacs and stalkers out there.

Some time ago here on OLO a woman was able to take my identity and posted adverse posts using my moniker in several threads; I was glad that I had protected my real identity as I found it quite upsetting.
It felt like my moniker had been contaminated and for a while I thought of changing my moniker.

Changing a real name is harder.

With all respect to Taryn, I don't regard security, taking caution to protect someone's children or family, as cowardness. Protecting oneself and others is precaution rather than cowardness.

Anyway, *I* am the one who owns my name and *I* am the one who decides when to give out my name and to whom. Not others.
I would refrain form posting on a forum that would dictate to me what name I should post under.
I am happy for just Graham to be in possession of my real identity details.

Let's leave each other free to decide what name to use without judging the character or honesty of that person or asking for explanations.
It's a personal choice- just because we have a name doesn't mean that we have to give it out to complete strangers, who could then do with it as they please.

Even though I appreciate and trust many of you, one can never tell who's lurking around the corner...

This is almost funny
What are you all so scared of. If you write to the Parliment bank local newspaper school dentist Dr join a local clu etc you give your details.
Celivia The person using your ID tag was only able to do that under the false name system. Has proper Id sercurity been in place here is no way that could have happend. And it was ONLY a false name anyway.

WE have already had to pay out huge legal costs to sort out someone who was defaming us and RSPCA QLD
Do you honestly think that is fair that any nutter can make up a false name and attack to the point they a A breaking the law and B causing damage to an innocent party?
So you think thats fair do you?
Well we do not.
Now as it stands and if you like take this latest problem regarding the racist comment made about aboriginals if you like.

Again the way it is a lawyer has to go through GY and bother him pluss who ever is paying the bill for the lawyer is paying out huge costs.
So you feel that is fair. Ok well thats your idea of being fair its not mine.
So if there were at least a choice those who only wished to exchange posts with people who were honest enough to put their name to their comment could and- those who wanted to just lark around could also posts to others who were too scared to put their name to their comment.
So you see the real people would not have to worry about idiots coming in and purposely going out of their way to create drama.
So give people a choice but dont force people NOT to have protection either.
Thats is entiley unfair.
So you do not force your ideas of false names on me and I do not force my morals of honesty on you

Celivia- You submitted a perfectly logical, dignified and well considered opinion. I may or may not necessarily agree with you on some aspects but I fully respect your position. Long live Freedom of Speech!

Unfortunately the next poster came out with all guns blazing with the aim of intimidating you and others who dare have an opinion that varies from them.

But look, as far as this forum is concerned it, helps to view the situation kind of like dealing with a really pesky ole mosquito- you know- it buzzes around and pisses everyone off. No matter how hard you try to swipe the damn mozzie it keeps on annoying the hell of you.

Anyway goodnite for now. I need my rest from mozzie fatigue syndrome. Zzzzzzz.

Tammyjo

Yes she did.She always does . In hindsight perhaps Celiva doesnt know what happend with the racist comment . Its really upset taryn and a lot of other aboriginal people. We have had people email us through our web site from all over Australia thanking us for speaking out in protest.
That we could possible at least have two sections of the forum- One for people who only wished to debate those honest enough to put their real names to their comments and another for false names.

That is fair in preference to people disregarding that there is a real problem here for many others especially insuitions.


I refer you to your comment TJ after the racist remark on the sorry thread. You were an eye wittess as to how somebody posting a racist remark can upset and cause huge emotional distress and possibly a law suite.

That person would NOT have made that comment or spread a racist email on a political forum if he could use a false name which is the point.

After saying that Celivia if you think I was rude then I apoligise but I a sick to death of these selfish people who give no consideration to others.

I am tired and sick of paying costs for lawyers to protect RSPCA QLD and Pale.

Dont you see its only fair others who do put their real names or organisation to their comments must also have some safe guards as well.

I think PALEIF has made the case against the use of identifying information far better than I can.

Key reasons for not using identifying information on posts

- It's much easier to be defamed than if you are using an alias. People and organisations may suffer unnecessary damage.
- You are more likely to be subject to frivilous legal actions and intimidating letters from lawyers than if the person launching the action has to make some kind of case to get at your details first.
- At least one poster thinks threats of legal action are a valid tactic in this space.

So hands up who wants to be on a forum where PALEIF can have a lawyer send you a threatening letter whenever PALEIF gets upset by something that you have said? What does PALEIF's talk to legal action do to everybody elses sense of freedom of speech? How many think their involvement here is worth the stress of fighting a malicious legal battle?

If defamation is such a big issue then maybe it's real names which should be banned rather than alias's. Personally I'd rather have both allowed and posters who use real names accept the risks that come with it.

Taryn, you have once again made a number of claims about my actions. My entire posting history is available at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=4980&show=history

Please find the places where I've made the actions you claim and supply links. I don't think my actions, posts etc had any role at all to play in your setting up your account.

Your first posts is at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=18#125 if that helps you find posts of mine from a similar period. That post was from August 2006 and your friend Wendy was still writing nice things about me in September 2006 http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=28#842

You might also see your post at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=64#1582 24 September 2006 which hardly gives the appearance that you blamed me for causing problems to your organisation. The point where you changed your views about me seems to be at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=64#2284 7 October 2006

R0bert

Unctuous bilge.

Lets have more freedom of thought.

I'm afraid R0bert's right. Unfortunately, PALE&IF demonstrates why OLO couldn't work the way it does now if people had to be identifiable. The typically garbled and completely hypocritical posts from them above and elsewhere indicate the dangers.

PALE&IF: "BTW Belly Apoligies= It was Morgan who called or organisation Racist Pigs." (sic)
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1502#28425

On that thread, if I understand her correctly (and that's not certain given the mangled language) PALE&IF accuses me of calling her organisation "Racist Pigs". I've asked for a retraction but none has been forthcoming.

Subsequently, she posts in this thread:

"PALE ~ You're a moron. Racist pig. Get back to saving cows. You've got ZERO idea, and if you're the quality of Hansons support, thank christ that scrag won't make it past the hick bandwagon.
Posted by StG, Monday, 27 August 2007 7:59:09 PM"
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1520#28674

Clearly, she was attributing someone else's offensive post to me. However, she won't acknowledge her error nor retract her false claim about me.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1520#28698

Now, given that we know each other's real identities, if I was of PALE&IF's unfortunate and hypocritical mindset, I could send around the lawyers (or at least threaten to).

Fortunately for me I'm not, and I wouldn't. But I have little confidence that some of our more unbalanced members wouldn't engage in some vexatious litigation - or threats thereof - given the opportunity.

I still like the idea of a forum where people have to take personal responsibility for what they write, but I think it should be complementary to this one, rather than instead of it.

Morgan
I thought we had apologized for that mistake. Yes you are correct it was STG. So we apologies to you for that.

However you ought to be able to see just by STGs comment alone that it is unreasonable for people using false names to attack any organization race group in a racist way.

We are not saying that STG should not be allowed to call anybody a racist pig cow.
That would be to interfere with freedom of speech which is the last thing we would want.

We are saying however nobody should be given protection from the law by using a false name. If STG wishes to own those comments then he needs to make him self or her self responsible and not hide behind poor Graham Young.

No organization or if you like aboriginal group or any other should be put to the trouble of having to engage lawyers to obtain information to then to seek orders etc


I put it to you they wouldn’t do it if they posted in their real names. OLO would be far more repected .GY I am sure would have more time for his family.

This type of behavior snubbing noses at he laws especially when aware it has brought on several issues regarding for example the fairness to Aboriginal People to respond to racist rants could be improved very simply.

Morgan we are simply saying organizations institutions and people using forums also need also need some protection from irresponsible people using OLO to create trouble like those racist remarks.

Anything else would be a gross miscarriage of justice.

Look serious posters get sick of clowns mucking around so would welcome an optional separate section it’s as simple as that.

I know Morgan you do use your real name. We respect you for that.

If people go onto a site where the users refuse to identify themselves then thats their look out.

We are simply requesting people have the choice of the two different methods of memnership

Hmm.

Firstly, if it was a forum with real names, I'd be counted out as well.
I deal with people with a very wide variety of strong views in a professional capacity and I'm pretty sure such a thing would risk making my position untenable, or at the very least, more difficult, were I to post views on anything controversial.

I can see the merit in such a forum, but ideally, as a complementary vehicle rather than instead of the current setup.

In regard to the earlier issues such as David Irving - I don't believe he should have been jailed.
On a similar vein, I recall hearing about a case in the US where a man wrote lurid thoughts about sexual fantasies with children in a diary.
As disgusting as I found it, I was very concerned that he received a conviction.
Regardless of what I thought of what he wrote, the only actual act he did was to write in a diary. I can understand a system where he was made to undergo treatment, but just writing in a diary - regardless of what you write - doesn't warrant a punishment for punishment's sake.

So if I'm willing to defend that guys freedom of speech, then yes, even David Irving.

But in doing so, it also means that those who attack people's opinions with strong criticism also have that right.

Strong criticism is not censorship. I've noticed many people crying foul when they express an ugly view and are called out on it. That isn't censorship, that's also freedom of speech. They go hand in hand.

By the way people- on my last post I was not referring to the forum as

being like a pesky ole mozzie- but rather a poster who certainly fits

the buzz. This is so sad- I don't even want to specifically say the

posters name for fear of being threatened with defamation. Shame on me.

And I say I believe in freedom of speech- my goodness- one little

annoying mozzie scares me off. This is not good.

TRTL. I'm sure one day you will write something that I disagree with. But until that day arrives, I'll continue to suspect you have access to my brain and are stealing my thoughts.

I really don't get what all the fuss about real names is. Anonymity has a proud history in ideas and debate and literature, and certainly doesn't indicate cowardice. It's a choice, a style of debate. I publish under my real name, and am no more honest than I am here. Arguably the reverse. Which is anonymity's intent. Take secret ballots for example - designed to allow people to be true to themselves without cultural pressure. And literature - The Story of O, Primary Colours - many novels have been written anonymously or pseudonymously to capture controversial or unpalatable truths.

I am not a coward here or IRL, and am beginning to resent the suggestion I might be. What keeps me honest on OLO is not the use or otherwise of my real name but my own moral code. (In this respect, this argument reminds me of that old Christian chestnut that suggests it is fear of god that prevents anarchy. As though, if they discovered suddenly god didn't exist, Christians would take to the street, raping and pillaging. Meanwhile, us morally rudderless atheists would be checking our locks. Nervously.)

PALE, you are quick to talk defamation, but you also seem quick to criticise and be offended. I've only had one interaction with you - I started a thread about the sexual abuse of boys. You rather aggressively accused me of being R0bert. Then you said I was only pretending to care about sexual abuse because I had not logged on for 48 hours and missed a post of yours. I don't really care - sticks and stones and all that - but that's my lone experience of real unfairness on OLO and it stung. Defamation is expensive whether the culprit is anonymous or not. You seem very emotional - perhaps you need to study your own and others' comments more carefully before jumping to conclusions.

TammyJo- “I do object to posters using the name of an organization to spout their opinions when the organization’s manifesto has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.” True; posting under the name of an organisation puts other people/organisations involved at risk.

Robert I like your list of ‘reasons for not using identifying information on posts’. I had a similar idea: to make 2 lists of the pros and cons- but then I could only think of 1 pro. :) i.e. ‘people can be held responsible more easily for what they say or may refrain from offending others.’

PALE, Taryn, I have no problem with people using their own name; as I said, it’s a personal choice.
Secondly, I do recognise that your pro point is a very strong one.

People who make racist comments should be held responsible for what they said. Australia does have anti racial vilification laws for a good reason.
First of all, they should be permanently banned from posting. I remember that, a while ago, one poster was permanently banned for having made anti-Semitic posts.

Is there a way that people can be held responsible without the need for the openly use of real names?
Protection has to go both ways. People must be able to hold each other accountable but at the same time people must be able to secure their own ID if they so please.
What would happen if a victim of racial vilification would want to bring assault charges to the perpetrator but the perpetrator was using a moniker?
Would GY be obligated to supply that person’s details to the legal person handling this case?
If this is in fact the case, then the person using a moniker CAN be held responsible and the ‘pro real name’ argument would weaken.

Still, my family’s and our company’s security is my priority.
If I risk being called dishonest, a coward, unfair, or irresponsible by choosing to use a moniker, I rather take that risk than the risk associated with jeopardising my privacy.

TRTL "Strong criticism is not censorship."
Agree, top post.

Now we're getting somewhere. I agree completely with the last posts from Celivia, Vanilla and TRTL.

There are clearly very good reasons that people have for wanting to express their ideas anonymously. However, I think it's an abuse of that aspect of freedom of speech when people hide behind pseudonyms in order to promulgate hatred and division, or in order to defame others.

On balance, I think that while it's quite valid to express ideas and opinions anonymously, any such contributions would have to carry less weight than those from people who are willing to stand by their ideas publicly. We could all think of pseudonymous contributors to this forum whose bigoted and posts we automatically regard sceptically.

Ultimately, I think that debate about controversial topics tends to suffer because some of our most prolific members post comments here anonymously that they wouldn't dream of saying in real life. While that might be a valid function of this forum as far as they are concerned, it's pretty obvious that anonymity contributes to a lower standard of debate than we might otherwise have.

So like I said, I'd participate in a complementary forum where members have to be identifiable to each other, but I understand completely why anonymity (or rather pseudonymity) should prevail at OLO.

PALE&IF - apology accepted :)

palimpsest - who said anything about restrictions on thought?

Extracts from the site rules are shown below

The last item I've included covers cooperation with authorities. The idea that those of us using alias's are somehow protected from legitimate legal consequences is incorrect. What we gain some protection from is bluff letters from solicitors. The ones that can cause a lot of heartache and expense while we find out where we stand. We gain some protection from intimidation tactics.

I'd certainly consider the publication of details sufficient to identify me as a breach of my privacy and the use of threats of law suits for what appear to be routine disagreements clearly "restricts or inhibits any other user from using or enjoying this site".

--

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/display.asp?page=legal

General prohibitions
You must not up-load, post, transmit or otherwise make available through this site any material which:
- violates or infringes the rights of others (including their privacy and publicity rights).
- is unlawful, threatening, abusive, defamatory, invasive of privacy, vulgar, obscene, profane or which may harass or cause distress or inconvenience to, or incite hatred of, any person.
- encourages conduct that would constitute a criminal offence, give rise to civil liability or otherwise violate any law.
- restricts or inhibits any other user from using or enjoying this site.
- affects the functionality or operation of this site or its servers or the functionality or operation of any users' computer systems (for example, by transmitting a computer virus or other harmful component, whether or not knowingly).
- breaches any standards, content requirements or codes promulgated by any relevant authority, including authorities which require us to take remedial action under any applicable industry code.

Co-operation with authorities
We reserve the right to co-operate fully with any law enforcement authority in any jurisdiction in respect of a lawful direction or request to disclose the identity or other information about anyone posting materials which the authority claims violates any applicable law.

--

R0bert

TarynW “not too scared to put MY real name up and I assure you I get far more hate mail then you do.“

I would note, “tarynW” does not carry an address and “Winter” is not an un-common family name

However, do not presume I am scared of anyone or anything.

I have, on occasions, repainted my front wall 3 times in a month. At the moment I seem to have found how to defeat the indiscriminant graffiti morons (although they do seem to come along in cycles and I might be in a lull) but do not wish to attract more.

Macropod Whisperer “I believe that by using your real name you are more accountable for the information you provide to others. I am not saying that some information given might not be true,”

Not necessarily, “truth” is often biased by the author in an “opinion” only absolute truths are verifiable, like the elements on a periodic table but even factual history depends on individual perspective as they say “history is written by the victor”.

Doubtless a history written by the vanquished, as we might see in the current “sorry” debate, differs from what those who were employed to extricate the supposed “stolen generation” might write and they will both be truthful from the values which dominate their individual perspectives.

And I bet I will not find “Macropod Whisperer” listed in the white pages :-)

CJ Morgan “While I'm sure that would be a tragic outcome, I think OLO would survive without "Col Rouge".”

I am sure it would. Further, I think you would be safe to continue with your own anonymous name, keeping us up to date on the development of the philosophic debate being engaged in by pond life.

And if you were not here, I would have to find someone else to dumb-down to your level before playing slap-the-dullard.

CJ Morgan, I disagree with you over the legitimacy of our most prolific poster being able to post without being identified with her views in the real world.

As you have avoided naming the poster I'll refer to her as "B" for convenience and change some other identifying information to protect the guilty.

Whilst I strongly disagree with most of what "B" posts it would be pointless to deny that some muslims are more than willing to resort to violence to attend to insults to their faith and or prophet. They are not unique in that, people in modern times have died because some christains take a dislike of abortion to an extreme.

"B" probably thinks the proportion of muslims willing to do violence is much higher than I think it would be but then it only takes one willing to do violence for that to be an issue.

If "B" breaches any of this countries laws then she should (and can) be held accountable for that. Given that "B" lives in Victoria I've often wondered how her posts go against that states anti-vilification laws.

Any other reasons for "B" not being game to speak her piece under her real name are to do with risks outside the legal system, perceived or otherwise. Should "B" have to place herself in harms way to raise an issue that obviously concerns her greatly?

If we go down that track then those most willing to act outside the legal system have an effective mechanism to silence their critics.

History gives us too many examples of groups who reacted with violence to criticism for me to ever be comfortable with people being forced to identify themselves to say controversial things.

If we silence "B" we may also silence those who have a message that we need to hear but which others don't want us to hear. If we want the good we have to accept some of the bad.

R0bert

Is GI_Jane prepared to submit her/his real name?

This was a question asked by Graham Young as to who would like to provide proper Id. I have said yes.
It was raised 'by me' over a racist post. I know several people were arrested and charged few months ago for doing to very same as this hatred spreader.

My point is if people refuse to put their name to a comment then its not fair that I cant or my people cant trace them to make them answerable if they have broken the law.
This then denies my people myself or anybody else in that postion natural justice.

Celivia I too wish to protect my family from racial hatred such as I saw here.
In contrast to my family and peoper judging by the comments being sent SMS around need that safety net even more.. I am not gambling person but I would think that makes my family far more at risk than yours. Either way I agreed it was a good idea to give people a choice.

As as a member of pale I say to you Pale is their membership name. If you dont like it ignore it just a I ignore some posts. Do not dicate to others. I am sure they wont loose any sleeep over it.

I thought that was a very sensible and fair comment which I think was first suggested by pale but maybe not, maybe they just agreed with somebody elsethat both you and I can have a choice.
Oh and in case anybody *cares I have made enquires and we do have a case against the offender to my people, problem is Id.

I do not see why I* and my people should be disadvantaged again for something that wasnt our peoples fault.

Lawyers are expensive enough without having to pay for them to act for us applying through GY and Why should it be HIS problem.

Whats He get out of all this trouble.

TarynW,

I absolutely detest racists - they are the most despicable of all. They are always cowards, and they always "hit" on someone or some group they deem vulnerable. As to not signing their name ... of course, not ... they don't want to be held accountable.

I have received unsigned hate-mail, which was rather a costly task for those involved. As the individual/s had my name, surname and suburb, they sent copies of the same garbage to everyone with my initital and surname to the suburb in which I live; presumably going through the phone book.

I don't know how this forum is monitored as submissions appear immediately on site as they are written - at least by me. I assumed that the monitor was, in fact, a program which detects certain words and deletes the entire message. Is there a human monitor? If so, they must speed read.

Whilst racist name calling is abhorent, there are also those who never use such language, but by using sophistry are actually more malicious and vindictive than those who do sink to racist abuse.

In response to CJMorgan

“However, I think it's an abuse of that aspect of freedom of speech when people hide behind pseudonyms in order to promulgate hatred and division, or in order to defame others.”

Surely the key point is “promulgate hatred and division, or in order to defame others” (regardless of anonymity). Agree, that is an abuse of freedom of speech (which is separate from the issue of whether it should be banned or not). And what one person defines as “bigoted” & “promulgating hatred & division” is often exactly the way those of opposing viewpoints see that person’s point of view, eg the frequent inaccurate use of the term “racist” and “bigot”.

“I think that debate about controversial topics tends to suffer because some….post (comments here) they wouldn't dream of saying in real life.”

And the reason many wouldn’t is they’d be unfairly labeled bigoted & racist.

I hope that CJMorgan is not implying he is lilly-white here? Some of his contributions on such topics do nothing but demean unless he sees that as adding to the debate?

“We could all think of pseudonymous contributors to this forum whose bigoted posts we automatically regard sceptically.”

We can indeed, and we can also think of named contributors as well.

“on controversial topics….it's pretty obvious that anonymity contributes to a lower standard of debate than we might otherwise have.”

Or a higher one, unless your definition of quality is mono-opinion, variety within a very tight band, or simply spouting the PC line.

PALEIF – in reply to your post a while back – “is it fair?” as others have said, I don’t think its fair that your’e posting under that name. As soon as someone has a go at you, you sometimes presume or construe, that they are having a go at your organization. You could use your own name or moniker & still push their agenda when it’s relevant, instead of the free publicity you bring to that organization by posting under that name every time you post on a totally unrelated topic.

Ultimately, whatever the rules are, let’s stick to them. There is already a 'recommend this comment for deletion’ button. It’s then up to the moderators to act on that. If the moderators find you guilty, either a 3 strikes policy or immediate dismissal, at the moderator’s discretion. As an absolute start, foul ad-homs could be the first to go. These people add nothing & only detract from the debate. That would force people to actually think & formulate an argument rather than personally attack. This system seems to work quite well on other sites. In the short time I’ve been here, I can think of some of the “I’m holier than thou” brigade (& I’m not talking about the “B” who Robert mentions – who is the frequent recipient of much unjustified hatred – pathetic really) who would have had deleted posts / been banned just as surely as some of the people they decry.

Finally, if people don’t like the system, there's certainly no shortage of altenative sites where they can go which cater to their PC-friendly world view. What I like about OLO (as in the operators) is that it is relatively unique in that, apart from being apolitical, it tolerates a wide variety of opinion, as evidenced by the articles it provides.

You've got some nerve, I'll give you that!!

That you KGB stand as some sort of arbiter of ethical values if nothing else shows you have a cynical sense of humour!

Col Rouge: "..I think you would be safe to continue with your own anonymous name..)

Er, it's the name under which I trade and pay taxes, and also by which I'm well-known in my local community. I bet you can't say the same about "Col Rouge".

R0bert: "If we silence "B" we may also silence those who have a message that we need to hear but which others don't want us to hear. If we want the good we have to accept some of the bad."

As I've explained, I'm not advocating silencing anybody. But you have to admit that some people hide behind legitimate anonymity in order to post vituperous and egregiously hateful ideas that they wouldn't if they could be identified with them?

KGB: " hope that CJMorgan is not implying he is lilly-white here? "

Not for a second. However, unlike you, I'm identifiable with my comments here and I'm prepared to affirm them in real life.

CJ Morgan “Er, it's the name under which I trade and pay taxes, and also by which I'm well-known in my local community. I bet you can't say the same about "Col Rouge".”

I looked up “Morgan” in Victoria white pages. I found 94 listings.

I looked up my own surname,

Iisted for Victoria are

my ex-wife,
my brother,
my elder daughter and
myself.

As I said previously, “Morgan” affords you a degree of anonymity which I cannot rely upon.

As for “Col Rouge”, many of my friends know the non-de-plume I use and where I use it.

However, since I do not know you and since I doubt your motives, you will remain in that state of blissful ignorance which so becomes you.

The other point is purely commercial,

Just as I observe the small minded and petulant nature of some posters and can see how they would seek to weasel their way into the secure environs of so called “public service”, I can presume that the government sector is not free of such small minds who, by disagreeing with my identifiable political view, would take vindictive opportunity against me in my application for government contract work.

My individual view to freedom of speech would extend to supporting David Irvings (or Pol Pot for that matter) right to express their heart felt views on anything.

I know David Irving was denied entry to Australia because of his views. I think such denial was wrong.

David Irving, whilst his views are abhorrent to me, can best display the dangers of his holocaust revisionist thinking by speaking about it and being challenged about it.

Denying him entry elevates him to cult status and adds to his mystery. Permitting him to speak gives him opportunity to show himself up as a fool.

That is why, despite rainier insisting I be banned from posting, I have never ever proposed anyone be banned from expressing their view nor insisted they reveal their own name if they choose to use a non-de-plume.

Dear Taryn,
Glad we agree that it is a good idea to give people a choice and I can see your point about lawyers’ costs.
I’m not sure how to answer your question about why this should be GY’s problem.
Perhaps it should be part of his job, for which he gets paid, that he sometimes has to fill in a lawyers request form. If I was running a forum I would be happy to help reduce racism on my forum.
I don’t see a problem with a system where OLO contributors would have to provide verified IDs to GY which are kept confident except in cases where a lawyer requests them for a genuine case, such as assault charges.

Just about your comment, “… Pale is their membership name. If you dont like it ignore it just a I ignore some posts. Do not dicate to others.”
It’s not about not liking PALE as an animal organisation; I do admire the work PALE does as I am an animal lover also.
Neither am I trying to dictate; I either haven’t expressed myself clearly enough or you have misunderstood my point.

The point I tried to make is that although I don’t necessarily have issues with the opinions of the persons who post under PALE. My problem lies in the fact that when PALE members choose to post about unrelated topics and then feel offended by people who disagree with them (as frequently happens in a debate), PALE then accuses these people for attacking their organisation, or for creating potential problems with RSPCA QLD.

To be continued

PALE should not expect special consideration or special treatment just because certain criticism might harm this organisation. Other debaters are just being themselves, behaving in a way they would behave if they were debating anyone else.

If PALE members choose to post about unrelated topics, then PALE should accept criticism like all debaters should.
PALE has made the choice to put their org and RSPCA QLD at risk of criticism and must accept consequences for that choice.
If they do not want that risk, then they should either not make unrelated posts in PALE’s name, or write posts only about animal welfare related topics.

That’s about all I was trying to convey; and others ( like have said it also

Now that PALE members have most likely to come to understand what I (and several others) are saying, do you agree that posting about unrelated topics in PALE's name can cause problems?
Why or why not (I really want to understand) and do you see a solution?

CElivia
Yes Sir! GY told Robert there is "NO restrictions on his posts so why should there be ours?IYOP- As you Well know!
Who runs OLO?
END Of Topic.

Danielle said.

I don't know how this forum is monitored...
'Thanks' for speaking to Taryn.
GY ‘please inform the posters how we joined.

KGB If you’re interested in fairness check out the Animal Welfare threads going right back... ‘Look ' at the different names with the same comments mostly attacking pale.

We joined OLO in an effort ‘not to be involved with extreme people. They followed. Simply as that. Are you aware of the ABC Program on a while back? Probably not. Its was called a blind eye followed very shortly by a five page full spread in the Australian. Anti RSPCA.

For Years they have been enormous effort made by some to dismantle RSPCA and take over. You have no idea of the viciousness of these people. Calling us animal killers because we are trying to reopen plants to divert from live animal trade to chilled. Bad Stuff. – Threatening volunteer’s kids calling their mum etc animal’s killers. …

People like Morgan we respect although argue . It’s simply! the ID issue.
LOVE to to get my hands on many of the ID tags on Animal Welfare threads over the years.

Celivia mostly the problem is that people fail to see what live exports has to do with a thread out of ignorance like poor @@who was highly offended entered the Kevin Rudd , China thread.
(ER, trade- live exports.?)

Your next comment is interesting>

True; posting under the name of an organization puts “other people/organizations” involved at risk.”
Both sides of Federal Government are aware of this. RSPCA are ‘still’ the legal body...

- Tell err, ‘“others people organizations” If they want us to give evidence in court on behalf of Peter McGauran just keep it up!

Any libber attacks use your own thread please

We respect that many don’t wish to use their own iD... Please respect we prefer to.
Good night everybody.

Posted by Col Rouge, Sunday, 24 February 2008 4:57:40 PM

Macropod Whisperer “I believe that by using your real name you are more accountable for the information you provide to others. I am not saying that some information given might not be true,”

And I bet I will not find “Macropod Whisperer” listed in the white pages :-)
Sorry, I accidentally hit the post button.
Now you can find me in the phone book!

Antje Struthmann

CJ said:

"However, I think it's an abuse of that aspect of freedom of speech when people hide behind pseudonyms in order to promulgate hatred and division, or in order to defame others."

CJ.. character assasination is 'defaming'....if you look at Ginx, Bugsy, Fractelle and Foxy's posts in this and other threads.. and yours in many.. you will look into the mirror of 'defaming'

On the day when you raise your contribution level from the cesspool of adhominems and personal abuse, to actually critically evaluating material presented, then on that day you will have a tiny bit of respect from me. (not that the absense of it matters to you :)

In my case, the nature of material presented is at times 'divisive' and at times it is even 'hate filled' but the hate.. is not for individuals it is for beliefs.

For the record:... I hate:

-Doctrinally based domestic violence
-Doctrinally permitted child abuse.
-Doctrinally supported sexual abuse of captive women.
-Men who use supposed revelation to provide themselves with abundant sexual privilege they deny to their followers.
-Men who gather a band of thugs and beseige cities (Ta'if) while calling them to embrace a faith which means believing in the man beseiging them.
-Doctrinally based eternal violent war against non 'them'.

And.. I also hate:

Drug barrons who murder people who oppose them.(Even though these barrons build hospitals, churches and other 'humanitarian' stuff)

Most of what I present is along those lines..and I feel I have 'right' on my side....even God... yes.. now.. there are only 2 ways you can respond to this:

1/ Your conclusions are wrong based on the evidence you claim.
2/ I (CJ) support all those things listed, and thats why I attack you for raising them.

There is no in between CJ. You either support those things, or.. you must take issue with the evidence on which my efforts are based.

IF...."I'm wrong" then.. we can have a 'burn BD at the stake' day.

Dear BOAZ_David
You know that I disagree with your ideas but I fully support your right to express and promote your ideas. On this thread we do not speak for your ideas or my ideas but for your right, for my right, for our rights to express freely our ideas, opinions, dreams. We make a big mistake when instead to try to protect the freedom of speech we find the opportunity to attack individuals because we disagree we their ideas. We must separate the ideas of each person from his right to express them.
The truth is that I found my self many times to make big mistakes and make times I called my self --Idiot Antonios what did you say?--
We need to show a little bit understanding and forgiveness if we want to create a better world. There are few limits in the freedom of speech which we must respect.
BOAZ_David
I use your name because I want to sent the message that we can be friends even when we have totally different ideas.
If we can not separate a person from his ideas then the freedom of speech is fake, then we can understand why so many people avoid and do not use their real name in the forum.But if really happened this our civilization, our democratic system is not enough mature to accept the freedom of speech. The best way to train our society to respect the freedom of speech is if every one from us use his/her real name in the forum and if we support any person who has problems because it expressed his ideas.
If many people do it soon, very soon our society will accept it. It is a shame when people avoid to use their real name because our society is not enough mature to accept different ideas. The shame is not for the persons who avoid to use their name but for our society, for our civilization which is champion one more time in hypocrisy.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelade

At the end of the day?

Everybody here's expressing their opinions. Nobody has been silenced - if they have, they've been in breach of the forum rules, which I think have quiet a lot of leeway and are pretty damn reasonable.

When people call for people to be silenced, it can be ignored. Nobody here except Mr Young can silence a poster, and as I said, he's got a pretty light touch.
I disagree with many posters on a frequent basis, but like Col Rouge, I believe the best way to show up an argument is to refute it, instead of silencing it.

I don't see many examples of censorship. I do see a variety of people exercising freedom of speech - and plenty of disagreement, which actually stands as evidence that we do have quite a lot of freedom of speech here.

Boazy: "CJ.. character assasination is 'defaming'....if you look at Ginx, Bugsy, Fractelle and Foxy's posts in this and other threads.. and yours in many.. you will look into the mirror of 'defaming'"

"Character assassination" is a little bit melodramatic and just a tad hypocritical, don't you think? I mean, in the context of Boazy's endless posts that vilify followers of Islam, homosexuals, Greens etc etc.

Something about people who live in glass houses comes to mind. If you think that anything I've written here is personally defamatory to whoever BOAZ_David is in real life, you are perfectly at liberty to take action. But we all know you wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

Now I'm confused. I'd been under the impression that the PALEIF account was operated primarily by Antje but now it appears that Antje is using the Macropod Whisperer account (or did I misread that).

PALEIF has refused previous requests that some kind of alias be used by those operating that account so that the rest of us had some kind of idea who was addressing us. As I've stated previously no need for real names, just some way of telling one user from another.

For someone who is so adamant that ID be provided to other users whoever is currently operating the PALEIF account is somewhat elusive about their own identity on this thread so far (unless I've missed a post).

R0bert

Robert,

As far as I am aware Antje is not using the PALE account anymore. It is my understanding that Wendy is using PALE and no-one else.

Can we all move on?

PALE:
OK I get what you mean that sometimes people fail to see that live exports/animal welfare does have a connection with certain other topics.
There must be a misunderstanding that made you think that RObert has the special privilege of unrestricted posts… I think we all have the same rights as OLO users.

BD
I’ll pour some water on the burning stake by saying that I support the list of things you hate but to be able to fully support it, I’ll have to make a slight change: I’d replace the words ‘doctrinally based’, with ‘all’.
And yes, anyone should have the right to criticise and question (a) religion.
Many beliefs that people hold are ‘brainwashed’ such as racism, sexism, homophobia, religion, and should be open to criticism.
I wholeheartedly agree with CR when he said, “…speaking about it and being challenged about it.” And yes permitting people to speak will expose wrong ideas.

Having said that, I am glad that Australia has Racial Vilification Laws. I believe that having these laws will elevate free speech because making horrible, racist comments will contribute to oppression of certain races/ethnicities. All races should have equal free speech.

I was quite annoyed when I read that the United Nations Secretary-General said that free speech should respect religious sensitivities.
I don’t agree, why should religion be singled out as something so special that it is granted respect more than other irrational beliefs such as homophobia or racism?
If someone would say: “Free speech should respect racist’s sensitivities” there would be outrage!

Celivia, babe,

You go girl!

Of all beliefs, we are expected to be "oh so polite" around religion - people scrutiny astrologers, wiccans and other believers in the supernatural, so why not religion?

And, don't they get into a right old tizzy when non-religious point out the irrationalities in the bible. BD et al love to dish it out, but they sure as hell can't take it.

Love

JR

Celivia,
I quite agree with you when you say if PALE wants to use its name on posts here, or anywhere, it should expect critisism from those who disagree with the stated views.

The only reason PALE would allow its members to communicate their personal views on various subjects is because they think PALE benefits from having their name spread around.

I wonder if they have considered the risk of litigation if someone takes offense at something stated in PALE's name.

No matter how much I may agree with what they do, I would have no part of an organization that allowed members to use that name to air personal views. All members assetts are at risk and I have worked too damn hard to put my assetts in such risk. I also do not see how critisism of PALE could impact on the RSPCA as that is a separate organization.

Incorporation may give protection to members assetts. When last I had much to do with an organizations administration, we had to ensure that INC was used after our name. Now things may have changed but I haven't noticed INC in anything to do with PALE. So maybe it's members assetts are vulnerable if litigation was successful.

RE: PALE's posting practices-

I agree totally that the username should only post on issues of Live Exports and that this would make their message stronger and far more professional, but frankly, we've been down this road on another long winded thread.
For reasons myself and others found somewhat spurious, the people behind PALE decided that they wanted to continue posting in this manner.

It would appear they are not to be deterred and I think PALE and most of the rest of us are pretty sick of the whole issue.

Though yes. They've got to wear any consequences that may flow from their decision. Again, we're aware of that, but I think it really is time to move on.

And back in regard to the issues of free speech - I think the discussion would be more productive if it was focused on issues outside of posters here in the forum.
As I put forward in the last post, nobody is actually being censored here unless they breach the forum rules, which have a great deal of leeway. Thus, the only thing which tends to occur is a point of view is put across, and is often strongly criticised - which is as it should be.

So what are the wider issues of free speech we face in Australia?

Taboo subjects - should they be taboo? Sometimes, I think, if it's racial vilification, then yes. Religious vilification is a grey area. I think it depends on urgings of violence.

As an example I wouldn't object to boaz's right to post on the violent nature of extremist Islam, though I damn well refute him, especially when he draws the whole religion under that brush and calls Islam 'evil.'

What I'd be interested in hearing from posters is not when they need to have the right to free speech - that's often easy.

What I'd like to know is at what stage each of you thinks the authorities should silence people's free speech - is it just on urging violence, or would Nazi propaganda be included as well?

Graham, thanks for clearing that up.

TurnRightThenLeft, I can't answer your question but I would like to discuss some of my thinking on this.

In part any answer to your question depends on how you define violence. The definition would need to include more than physical violence. The post and corresponding SMS that PALEIF and others have discussed elsewhere is one that does not appear to encourage future acts of physical violence but it is clearly an act of emotional violence against aboriginal people.

It appears to encourage hatred for a group of people and specifically a group of people where what defines the group is racial characteristics rather than a set of attitudes, beliefs etc.

I find myself with mixed views regarding having those views silenced. On the one hand as was pointed out elsewhere sometimes that stuff needs to be there so we can all see it as an object lesson.

On the other hand it is clearly and quite reasonably hurtful to those it targets. It's not a matter of put on sensitivities to silence critics, it is by any reasonable measure offensive. It's ongoing presence may provide opportunity for those who would mimic it or reproduce it elsewhere.

Mostly I think that stuff is better faced out in the open, rebutted and exposed for what it is.

Driving it underground does not necessarily make it go away but then it was not my racial group targetted so I can't really relate to the pain it causes. I've seen plenty of nasty things written about white Australians but they have rarely impacted directly on my life so again it's difficult for me to weigh up the balance and the pain the presence of that material causes aboriginal Australians.

The question is a difficult one and I've not found a satisfactory answer.

R0bert

Robert, TRTL

I have been doing some thinking on free speech but I’m constantly frustrated by my own mixed feelings and lack of knowledge/insight on these matters.
Please understand that my opinion may be temporary for that reason.

Free speech should be silenced when it becomes racial hate speech. I can’t see a valid reason for allowing speech that oppresses and deeply hurts others and/or contributes to discrimination of certain groups. With freedom of speech comes responsibility; when people utter hate speech, they should be held responsible for it.
Where free speech limits other people’s freedom and equality, then this could be the cut-off limit.

I feel the same about religion: there should be freedom of (and from) religion but if there’s a point at which a religion imposes on other people’s freedom, then this should be the cut-off point of their freedom of religion. In cases like this, freedom of speech would have to be utilised to make sure that any oppression would be exposed and criticised, hopefully leading to consequences for the imposers/oppressors.

On the other hand, limiting freedom of speech does not at all guarantee that certain issues which are on the mind of people, will disappear, and isn't it better to be aware what’s on the mind of people than not- discussion on issues may resolve them.

Our previous government banned “The Peaceful Pill” by Dr Philip Nitschke which I thought was an abhorrent attack on freedom of speech/print as well as humanity. Does the need for euthanasia evaporate with the banning of this book? Will the banning of this book prevent suicides? Not likely. Much discussion on euthanasia is still needed.

If free speech would possibly urge violence then I am inclined to think that the speaker/artist isn’t responsible for the violent actions of opponents.
Violence as a reaction is a primitive attack on free speech. Having to limit our free speech for the fear of violence is a very anti-democratic way of limiting each other’s speech.
Nobody HAS to resort to violence; there are superior ways to respond to hearing something we don't like.