The way I see it you have absolutely no right whatsoever to whinge about free speech.
I don't even care what the maps say and what they don't and what it all means.

You should be ashamed even mentioning free speech.

Here's why, this is what his lot - the control freaks of other peoples nations - would do if they had their way.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/criticism-of-israel-not-allowed-in-canada-hate-crime-laws-to-be-used-against-boycott-divestment-and-sanctions-bds-supporters/5449416

Israel would be using the free trips to Israel for our pollies to buy them off and then pass laws that restrict our speech so that Australian citizens with opinions like me would be locked up just for having a say and you'd be free to spurt your one sided crap to the blind masses.

I don't tell you what you can and can't do in Israel, you wouldn't listen anyway - evidenced by the fact you won't obey anything the UN says.
You didn't even honour the basic terms of your entry into the UN.

So don't attempt to tell us what we can and can't do in our countries, especially in light of the fact that if you had it all your way you people would act to restrict our free speech yourselves..

And that's why I think you whinging about free speech is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black.

All the Jewish owned and run mainstream newspapers do exactly the same thing as well.
They sensor comments they don't like.
Sometimes they will spew their agenda without even putting a name to whoever the person was who wrote it.
And they deliberately do not have comments on articles where the public opinion might go against their pc agenda.

And finally, did you read the sites privacy policy at all?

"If our server then determines that the content of your message is of insufficient quality..."

Well that's your problem right there.

Lots of people will agree with me about the low quality of your work.
You'll never have any real credibility as long as you're bias and only tell a one-sided story.
Seriously...

There's mention of the McGraw-Hill controversy in a section of this article, from yesterday if your interested.
In Paul Craig Roberts' (United States Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy under President Reagan) article entitled 'For Israel’s Sake The Israel Lobby Must Be Held To Account' he says the maps are accurate, and plenty more too.

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/04/01/for-israels-sake-the-israel-lobby-must-be-held-to-account-paul-craig-roberts

Armchair critic says it all, and can find nothing worthwhile to add.
Rhrosty.

#armchair critic and #Rhrosty

Perhaps you might care to consider the email sent to persons by McGraw Hill following complaints received from persons like your pathetic Jew-hating selves:

"Thank you for your email. When we learned about the concerns with a map in “Global Politics: Engaging a Complex World,” we placed sales of the book on hold and immediately initiated an academic review with several independent historians who have expertise in Middle East history and geography. Given the information we received from the review, we determined that the map did not meet our academic standards. We informed the authors and are no longer selling the book.

We believe that the action we took was warranted by the academic standards we have in place and the responses we received from the independent sources with whom we consulted."

Pretty condemning about the accuracy of these maps - don't you think?

Paul Craig Roberts does indeed maintain the maps are accurate - but gives no reasons.

I maintain the maps are inaccurate and give you my reasons to justify my conclusion..

I defy Paul Craig Roberts or anyone else to prove my claims are wrong.

I imagine the academic review with several independent historians who have expertise in Middle East history and geography would have raised the same objections as myself.

I also imagine the web site that refused to post my complaints fully understood my objections to the maps and declined to make them public - a perfect example of how free speech can be prevented.

McGraw Hill made the right decision without a shadow of doubt.

I'm sure the publisher did their due diligence on at least some level before they first published it, and I'm pretty sure its obvious to any reasonable informed person that they were pressured into making that decision.

I pinch of dirt here, a handful there.
You are always criticizing everyone else, if the issue truly means that much to you why don't YOU commission a set of maps that you believe accurately demonstrate your representation of Israels land grab, post those maps and we'll go from there.

David,
Professor Lawrence Davidson, an expert on Middle Eastern history has stated the following:

"The maps in question are not new or novel. Nor are they historically inaccurate, despite Zionists’ claims to the contrary. They can be seen individually and in different forms on websites of the BBC and Mondoweiss and are published in a number of history books, such as Mark Tessler’s well-received A History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Perhaps what the Zionists can’t abide is lining up the maps together in chronological order.

In truth, the objections reported to have been used by those who pressured McGraw-Hill are historically perverse – the sort of grasping at straws that reflects a biased and strained rewriting of history. For instance, an objection was made to the labeling of public land in pre-1948 Palestine as “Palestinian.” Why? Because the Zionist claim is that Palestine before 1948 was a British mandate and so the land was British and not Palestinian. As their argument goes, “no one called the Arabs [of this area] Palestinians.” Of course, prior to 1948, no one called the East European Jews pouring in at this time “Israelis.” Further, according to those taking these maps to task, the West Bank at this time was controlled by Jordan and so it too was not Palestinian. Obviously, no one brought up the fact that in September of 1922 the British had divided Palestine in two in order to artificially create what is now Jordan. The period after World War I was one of territorial transition, however, in Palestine, the one constant was the persistent presence of the Arab Palestinians.

The Zionists offered many other dubious objections to the maps, which seem to have sent the publisher into something of a panic. It would certainly appear that no one at McGraw-Hill knew enough relevant history to make an accurate judgment on the complaints."

In this case I will take the word of a History Professors rather than a lawyer!