You say that ending anonymity "... does not prevent anyone saying whatever they want to say within the bounds of what is legally acceptable."

Herein lies a big problem. What is legally acceptable varies wildly between jurisdictions. For example, it is illegal to criticise Islam in places such as Saudi Arabia; many things are caught in the web of Thailand's lese majeste laws; participating in discussions of queer issues in Russia can put one in gaol.

The internet is a tool, like knives, guns, biological engineering, or cars. It can be used for good or bad. Anonymity can be a good thing, too. It allows the vulnerable to speak. I have benefitted from the freedom of conversing with others via a pseudonym, for reasons I won't go into here. The ability to speak freely can be a lifeline.

Just how far do you propose to go? Encryption is a tool that provides some of anonymity's benefits. If something is encrypted (as is common), it is unreadable, and hence the content unknowable to the authorities. That can be useful if you're a criminal, and it can be a life-saver if you live under a criminal regime.

To even attempt to remove anonymity from the internet would require grotesque, heavy handed repression. It's unlikely to meet its objective, but the sort of measures that would have to be attempted by governments are not worth it.

I know that you mean well. Terrorism is a scourge, and the propagation of hate on the internet is a real problem. But recourse to this futile attempt at a solution is probably an even worse danger to us all.

Have to agree with mayan add can only add, the last time I looked the UN didn't make laws for sovereign nations!

Moreover, even if it could mayan makes an incontrovertible case for rejecting the proposal out of hand!
Alan B.

Being controlled by murderers and despots, the UN Security Council is more likely to be interested in identifying people who speak against the dictatorial United Nations itself. That this grubby, would-be world goverment suggests such an attack on everbody (not just terrorists who they have proven to be hoplessly inept at putting down), once again shows that it should be abolished; at least, Australia should sever all ties with it.

Anonymity should be a choice not a regulated dictated tool of any State, Government or other institution.

Everyday people use anonymity whilst transacting their way through life, you don't need to provide your name, address, phone number whilst going shopping, eating at a restaurant or attending a political or social demonstration in the public sphere, examples only. Thus, why should the Internet be any different. I agree people should be civil when using anonymity, but there are times, particularly when dealing with foreign political issues, posts regarding dissent etc where anonymity provides a basis for safety in this ever increasingly PC world.

As for quoting Sam Powers, well I would think again about taking any of her advice seriously, Powers was once one of those wonderful neocon ratbags in the US government advocating for more death, violence and hegemony, particularly the rape and pillage of the Middle East, and was one of the primary voices behind the destruction of Libya. We have seen the great result this foray into madness let loose, thanks to the likes of this woman.

Your entire article smacks of hypocrisy David noting your clandestine like support of Zionism, ethnic cleansing of Palestinian Arabs in Gaza and a continuous need to counter the mounting evidence of the current military, political, social and economic destruction of non Jewish people's residing in the broader ME arena.

As a lawyer I am sure you would like everyone's contact details, especially those on OLO who don't agree with your continual racist postings, for me, I will stick to the facts and enjoy my anonymity, the last thing I need is you calling to harass me or threaten me with legal action you have conjured up in your own mind.

Cheers Geoff (or maybe I am Sam or Bob or someone else completely)

Geoff: When you write "clandestine like support of Zionism, ethnic cleansing of Palestinian Arabs in Gaza" you really do betray yourself.

Zionism is nothing more than the belief that the Jewish people have a right to live in the land from which they were mostly ejected, namely Israel. It's not a secret agenda. For two thousand years, generations around the world declared "next year in Jerusalem", and now it is a reality. It's no more sinister than support for Aboriginal or Native American tribes to be restored to the lands from which they were expelled, or had otherwise were alienated from.

As for cleansing, given that the Arab population of Israel has increased year after year, either the Israelis are gratuitously incompetent or they simply do not have an agenda of ethnic cleansing.

It's interesting to note that the Palestinian Authority's leadership is on record as desiring a Jew-free state. Now that is a policy of ethnic cleansing, and when combined with declaration of a state from 'river to sea' is a policy of wiping out Israel and getting rid of all Jews from the area.

This article has nothing to do with stopping terrorism.
Its well within the US powers to shut down the ISP's that are known to be used by terrorists, but they don't even try to stop use of those apps.
David even quoted Steven Crown of Microsoft himself as saying "there is no silver bullet that will stop terrorist use of the Internet".

David do you really think the people here are that stupid that we can't see your true intentions?

The description of this article referred to 'hate and incitement' not terrorism, and David's just using terrorism as a point to legitimise his argument.
This article has everything to do with using a fear of persecution and legal proceedings to silence any political dissent against Israel.
I can provide examples where Israel already does this in some countries.

David...
Why are you here? Why don't you go back and live in Israel?
I don't mean it in an offensive way, but if your whole life revolves around it as your constant stream of articles suggest then why don't you go live there?
Why do you push a foreign agenda onto the Australian public when you could just go and be in the very place that consumes your thoughts and writings?

How about this instead -
If you don't want to hear other peoples opinions to your bias articles, then YOU shouldn't publish them.

Note for others:
Microsoft is giving away Windows 10 for free because its built with all kinds of spyware to gather data which Microsoft then sells to corporations.
I would not recommend upgrading to windows 10.
Existing paid programs may not be compatible on your new operating system.
If you haven't done so already, turn off your automatic updates otherwise you will be forced onto Windows 10 and you may also lose all your data when the upgrade occurs.

"Geoff: When you write "clandestine like support of Zionism, ethnic cleansing of Palestinian Arabs in Gaza" you really do betray yourself."

Betray myself as what? If you are going to drag out the old tired Anti-Semitic label, forget it. It is beyond true use and as such I would be proud to be called an Anti-Semite given I despise Zionistic ethnic cleansing.

Glad you raised the first peoples of the US, I am sure, like the Palestinian Arabs, they love the invasion results they live within.

Cheers
Abraham

Labor and the Greens will get right on that after getting rid of the plague of free speech.

David:

One supposes Mossad would be interested in silencing comment critical of the current Israeli leadership?

Particularly that protected by current anonymity. I for one have been undeniably critical of a state hardly any better in my view than the Nazis with their less disingenuous version of ethnic cleansing?

Now I know that Mossad has some interesting talent in its ranks which include some remarkably beautiful women. And given mature men can and do die of cardiac arrest during "horizontal recreation". they could send a couple over to me. A suitably large fee would probably produce my address?

And I promise as a complete hetero male, to cooperate fully and frequently with their "extraction method" even if it results in the premature demise from "natural causes" of one of the "ladies."
Cheers, Alan B.

These proposals are nothing but excuses suppressing and shutting free speech. Free speech is just to important to be comprimised to any extent for any reason.

Bombs and guns are not the only form of warfare on freedom.

Tyranny often masquerades as our protector

The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way people will not see these rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed. – Adolf Hitler

Individual rights are not subject to a public vote. Ayn Rand

The road to tyranny, we must remembers, begins with the destruction of the truth. Bill Clinton

# To all the anonymous posters

I would not have expected anything else from anonymous responders to my article.

Interesting that no one has responded with their full name.

What then is your view regarding the following:

Would you still post anonymously if OLO imposed the following conditions:

""Comments received without a full name and verifiable address and phone number will not be considered for publication. Email addresses are NEVER published!"

Just a "yes" or "no" thanks.

Oh, absolutely not.

But only because between you and me, the guy who runs this site is a bit of a $%^&.

If you want to remove anonymity on the internet, then you had better be prepared for what will inevitably replace it.

David,
Quote>>Would you still post anonymously if OLO imposed the following conditions:
""Comments received without a full name and verifiable address and phone number will not be considered for publication. Email addresses are NEVER published!"<<

I feel sorry for any person who spent money on your legal services...
Your great at twisting the truth to support your argument but I think you might be a few beers short of a carton.

Obviously you simpleton, if you take steps to prevent people posting anonymously then people would not be able to post anonymously.
(You cannot hear me right now, but I'm mocking you with the sound of someone who is mentally retarded.)

In exactly what fairytale dreamland would you 'the purveyor of a bias foreign agenda' assume to think its ok to even suggest that changes should be made to infringe upon the rights of fellow Australians to speak freely?

Obviously you do not support the rights of the Australian people.
You make the suggestion that people posting anonymously on this very thread have said things which go beyond what is accepted and you make it quite obvious that you seek the power to silence, vilify or drag people through a legal progress in a simple strategy to invoke fear and/or retribution to silence the voice of acceptable dissent in relation to reasonable criticism of a foreign nations social and political agendas.

Quote "Just a "yes" or "no" thanks."
FYI, I don't have to comment in a way that you suggest I should.
I'm not your little lap dog, and this is neither Canada or North Korea.

My grandfather didn't lead men into battle at Gallipoli so that I would be forced to bow or put my tail between my legs to people the likes of you and your foreign agenda, and your attempt to subvert and impose upon the Australian people.

When anyone wants to remove anonymity from any forum or public discussion, we should question what the real reason is behind this action?

We have been seeing many, many public demonstrations from Westerners, railing against the influx of Muslims into their countries. These same "objectors" are speaking out because they have the intellectual ability to recognize the problems that are being created within these affected communities.

Here in Australia we have recently witnessed the arrogant and disgusting attitude of young Muslim men facing the courts, refusing to stand to face the magistrate when ordered to do so, spitting at the cameras, and so it goes!

We must recognize that the Quran contains many verses encouraging the use of violence against the Infidel, and regardless of what the many
deniers say, this is being played out across the world in many European and Pacific Rim countries as the radical majority create unstable situations everywhere they put down their feet.

It amazes me that the many "downtrodden" so-called victims of the Muslim faith, stating that they hate it, but having to accept it or suffer the radical retribution that is handed out to anyone offending the faith, but when allowed or forcibly entering another Western country, these same "victims" continue to practice their faith and barbaric acts of retribution, rather than leaving the "Faith" and integrating into their new society, which would then be more beneficial for the host country, and at the same time reducing a lot of violence.

We have been hearing of the handouts and benefits to the Asylum Seekers held in off-shore accommodation, down to free cigarettes, while they await "inevitable" settlement in the host country, a country whose population is denied these same benefits, and has to self-fund these luxuries of life, which is quite rightfully so!

We have to recognize the real facts behind this UN act to deny Anonymity, which is to stop us from speaking out against something that is damaging our country, our family and our futures.

We have to have FREEDOM OF SPEECH, which is the last remaining vestige of our DEMOCRACY!

#Bugsy, #Armchair critic and # Crackup

Me thinketh you protesteth too much

You could all still post anonymously provided you supply OLO with a verifiable identity , address and phone number.

Would you be prepared to continue posting anonymously if OLO were to require verification of your identity.

Come on anonymous guys or girls - just a "yes" or "no".

Honestly David,

As much as I would be tempted to continue commenting given that I believe you shouldn't be posting your bias articles unchallenged, and that I also believe I haven't actually crossed the line as far as speech is concerned I'd probably stop posting here altogether because I'm not sure it would be worth the trouble.

There's really too much scope for you to vilify and take people to court even if you know they are within their rights and to mess with their lives anyway.

You've already shown your true colours to me with threats and false accusations and I don't trust you for one second, and under the conditions you propose I wouldn't feel like I could speak my opinions freely.

I'd see it as giving you the power to intimidate and persecute those who do not agree with you, so the answers NO.
I'd leave the forum entirely.

I only post my genuine opinions to YOUR articles.
You don't open a business and then criticise the type of people your business attracts.
If you wish to post bias articles is support of a foreign nations agenda and then have such audacity to propose to change the laws to benefit said foreign agenda, then criticism and pushback are to be expected, and rightly deserved.

If you don't think what you are suggesting is morally wrong and treasonous towards the Australian people when your loyalties clearly lie elsewhere then there's nothing more I can tell you.

You are a disgrace to this country.

No David, FOI laws would then allow you to obtain said particulars.

Sneaky little bigger aren't you.

Benjamin

#Armchair critic

Thanks for your honesty.

Keeping your comments within the legally permitted limits would allow you to still anonymously comment fairly and as critically as you wish on my published articles.

I must however take exception to your following statement:
" I also believe I haven't actually crossed the line as far as speech is concerned "

In just one post you made what I consider to be the following defamatory remarks:

1. I feel sorry for any person who spent money on your legal services...

2. Your great at twisting the truth to support your argument but I think you might be a few beers short of a carton.

3. Obviously you simpleton,

4. the purveyor of a bias foreign agenda'

5. Obviously you do not support the rights of the Australian people.

6. you seek the power to silence, vilify or drag people through a legal progress in a simple strategy to invoke fear and/or retribution to silence the voice of acceptable dissent in relation to reasonable criticism of a foreign nations social and political agendas

7. your attempt to subvert and impose upon the Australian people.

With the greatest respect I think your grandfather would turn in his grave if he were ever able to identify his grandson as the author of these remarks.

Is that what he would term as "giving a guy a fair go"?

I would ask you to apologise and withdraw the above remarks.

#Geoff of Perth

If providing your name, address and telephone number makes you think twice before posting your anonymous comments then it is an innovation well worth introducing.

I have had to cop it sweet from you too on many occasions when you sought to attack me personally to avoid discussing the content of my articles.

I could have complained to OLO to delete your comments but chose to let them stand to reveal the depth of personal attacks that can be made under the cover of anonymity.

The Security Council is obviously on the right track in wanting to end anonymity on the internet

Dear David,

First, it is refreshing to see you write on a different topic - even when I disagree, this is better than your repeated incitement to ruin the good people of Jordan and Israel by dumping those cursed 1967 territories on them (far worse than the nuclear dump which South Australia is about to get).

Now I do oppose defamation and I agree that some of Armchair Critic's comments were distasteful.

However, your introduction of Australian laws into the discussion exemplifies the danger of the denial of anonymity.

Here is OLO: this domain belongs to our sovereign: Graham Young, none other!

It is not essential to be here. People do not need OLO to get food, water or shelter. People do not need OLO to protect themselves, their families and their property from robbers and other crime. People who come here do so with absolutely full consent and may freely leave at any time they wish.

Here the sole lawmaker, governor and judge is our sovereign. Should you have complaints about the behaviour of others, then his is the address to complain. Sadly you haven't done so. We want no dictates from Canberra... or would it rather be the security council, which is not even elected?

So long as there are people like you here who seem to be willing to betray the security of this place and spy on us for the Australian authorities, so long as we have Shtinkers (the Yiddish meaning of the word: stool pigeons who inform the Goyim) among us, we are justified in taking the necessary precautions, anonymity included.

David,
I'm always honest in my opinions on this forum.
Sometimes people agree with me, often they don't.
Likewise I may sometimes agree with others, but also I often don't.
Sometimes people agree with me on some topis but not on others...

I understand you may feel frustrated by my comments given that they frequently nullify and play down your arguments.
I also understand I've held opinions that you personally find objectionable and offensive.
But that in itself doesn't mean I've broken the rules.

Regarding the comments you objected to:

Firstly, you defamed yourself with the foolish comment you made asking if people would post anonymously if they were forced to give their full name, verifiable address and phone number.
The question contradicts itself and doesn't make sense, I merely pointed out the foolishness of what you presented.

Regarding the other comments, I personally believe that 'the truth' rates higher on a scale than 'political correctness'.
If we allow political correctness to be more important than the truth then its the end of any reasonable and rational discussion.
In this way, as long as there is a measure of truth in my statements and it represents my true opinion, then they are to be considered reasonable and fair comment.

The question as to whether others are offended by said statements and the way in which they're put forward is a secondary (but still valid) issue.

Regarding your request for me to apologise and withdraw the above remarks.
I want you to know that I'm not going to take something back simply because I'm forced to, but I will apologise if I feel that I've acted unreasonably.

So, in the spirit of giving you a fair go, I'm sorry for the comment regarding your profession.
It was below the belt for me to attack your bread and butter, but not entirely out of line considering I feel you use your profession as a sword that seeks to impose a bias foreign point of view onto the Australian public, rather than being a shield to protect them.

David,
Another commenter recently shared her forum ideology.

1. Know your facts.
2. Be ready to see the other person's perspective.
3. If you can't be open-minded, at least seem that way.
4. Keep your emotions under control.
5. Do not insult or degrade your opponent.
6. It is important to show you meant nothing personal.

Simply put, If I've broken rules 4, 5 and 6, its because I'm reacting to you breaking rules 2, 3 and 4.

- You're not open minded and do not see or respect anyone else's perspective.
- You only argue a point if you can win it, but you stay silent if someone else puts forward a valid comment that doesn't suit your narrative.
- Then if other push the issue of your bias one-sidedness you attack and seek to defame others by calling them anti-Semite or Hitlerite because they do not hold the same opinion as you.

What you need to understand is that what you 'get back' from commenters is directly related to what you 'put out'.

If you were posting articles that were less bias and more thought-provoking you'd get more respect and consideration.

The question for me (Israel) has very much been one of character.
The way the pro Israel side make their argument and how well it actually stands up, under criticism.

For my mind the arguments frequently don't stand up and the pro Israel side resort to attacking and intimidating the opposing view.
This further enforces my belief that the arguments don't stand up and that your side acts irrational.

If you were able to put your arguments across in a less bias and more open manner you might find people more open and willing to consider your point of view.
We may also be more respectful, if you were to firstly show the people of this country the same respect.
You can't expect to get it if you don't give it, respect is earned.

#Armchair critic

Why would you not have just said what you have said before:

"I like to use my so called free speech but occasionally I do go a little to far."
Saturday, 7 May 2016 8:54:48 AM

Would have been far more meaningful than your two lengthy posts.

I intend to keep submitting my articles to OLO for publication.

You should direct your comments to pointing out any matters in my articles with which you disagree and giving reasons to substantiate your claims.

This will ensure we have a constructive dialogue which does not involve personal denigration and vilification.

Shooting the messenger and ignoring the message is a waste of everyone's time.

#Yuyutsu

In one breath you agree some of Armchair Critic's were distasteful.

In the next breath you have the hide to make this unsubstantiated comment:
"So long as there are people like you here who seem to be willing to betray the security of this place and spy on us for the Australian authorities, so long as we have Shtinkers (the Yiddish meaning of the word: stool pigeons who inform the Goyim) among us, we are justified in taking the necessary precautions, anonymity included."

I would ask you to acknowledge this remark was extremely distasteful, offensive and defamatory and to withdraw it and unreservedly apologise.

Comments such as this only serve to prove that they should be accompanied by a name, address and phone number before they are published.

Bet you would then think a second time before descending to this disgraceful level of personal vilification.

Dear David,

My comment was not personal: I wrote "so long as there are people like you here who SEEM to be willing to betray...": this does not mean that you actually ARE willing to betray us, the citizens of OLO, but there could be others that are, so that danger exists and we cannot be too careful.

Wouldn't you agree with me that you SEEM to be on the regime's side?
You may personally be completely innocent, but after presenting an article like this, calling us to strip ourselves of one the few protections still left for us, you cannot accuse us of suspecting that you might be working for the Canberra regime, if not even for the United-Nations which tries to control and oppress this whole planet and which you often ascribe authority to in both this and your other articles.

It is common knowledge that lawyers tend to respect the regime and its laws - after all they make a living out of it and one who does not agree with the regime would find it very distressing to spend years going through law-school to learn about their rubbish. There could of course be exceptions, there are lawyers who fight for human rights and even risk their life or personal freedom to defend others against the regime - but they are few and far between. My apologies if you are one of them.

//Surely the first step in any move by the Security Council to combat this "Internet Intifada" is to insist that all member States impose laws in their jurisdictions compelling all Internet providers to insist on the names , addresses and contact phone numbers being provided by all registered users of their websites - including those seeking to post comments.//

What an appallingly stupid suggestion. I suggest you stick to the law, Dave, because your understanding of IT is obviously even more woeful than mine.

It's clear that you haven't thought about all the consequences of your ridiculous idea. Data security is a big enough problem without forcing people to divulge extremely sensitive personal information all over the interweb. Yes, might make it easier for that invasive pest species, the Thin-Skinned Litigious Toad, to sue for defamation (I'm not really sure this can be regarded as a pro). But it is too easy and too tempting a target for hackers and identity thieves, which is sufficient con to outweigh any benefits for the litigious toads.

//Ending anonymity on the Internet is not a threat to free speech. It does not prevent anyone saying whatever they want to say within the bounds of what is legally acceptable.//

I agree. But it is an unacceptably significant threat to data security and privacy, and they are more important than putting legal bounds on what people can say on the internet.

//Anonymity has been widely rejected by most newsprint around the world.//

If I get a letter in the paper they'll publish my name and my suburb. If they published my name, phone number and street address I wouldn't write them letters. What is to stop somebody misusing that information?

What is to stop hackers obtaining and misusing information provided to websites like this? Good internet security? It doesn't come cheap - a one-horse website like this wouldn't be able to afford it. Dave, would you really want some hacker to obtain your home address and pass it on to a pro-Palestinian extremist? Maybe now you're beginning to see the gaping holes in your cunning plan.

//Popular talk back radio shows have a seven second delete button to filter calls deemed to be outside what is legally permitted.//

Web forums have rules of conduct and moderators to filter posts deemed to be outside what it is permissible. This website states explicitly in its rules (I'm surprised you never bothered to read them) that contributors must "Observe Australian copyright and DEFAMATION LAWS and all other laws relating to acceptable speech." (emphasis added). So if you see something defamatory you can have a whinge to Graham and he'll press the delete button.

But frankly, Dave, if you're the sort to get your frilly panties in a bunch and launch frivolous lawsuits over the postings of the trolls, lunatics, halfwits and other human detritus that are so prevalent on internet forums, then maybe internet forums aren't the place for somebody as petty-minded as yourself? Maybe you'd be happier sticking to the print media, so that when you read something that upsets you you can make yourself feel better by wasting precious court time with pointless defamation actions.

#Yuyutsu

Attempting to defend your defamatory comment is disgusting. If you are so sure it is not defamatory why are you not prepared to identify yourself and stand behind it?

Yes - Crawling back under your rock guarantees you will escape being picked up by the Canberra regime or is it "the Australian authorities"?

Wow - "the danger exists and we cannot be too careful."

Watch out Australia and heed Yuyutsu's warning.

Makes as much sense as his or her claim that 3 million Chinese should occupy the West Bank.

#Toni

I don't think you have endeared yourself to anonymous posters by describing them as "the trolls, lunatics, halfwits and other human detritus that are so prevalent on internet forums".

Many are certainly not.

As I have stated previously - those wishing to post anonymously can continue to do so providing they have first supplied their verifiable names and addresses and phone numbers.

I know what Graham can do - but as I have stated on many occasions I am happy to leave the growing number of defamatory comments on-line to establish the level of hatred and personal denigration of myself that is being made under the cover of anonymity. It is increasing in its virulence - probably in frustration by those engaging in it being unable to find anything in my articles which is inaccurate or not factual.

So they shoot the messenger and ignore the message.

They seek to make wild and unsubstantiated claims that have nothing to do with my articles in order to divert attention from those articles.

Their anguish is a sure sign that my articles are hitting the mark. All they have in reply is personal vilification.

Upwards and onwards ... You don't agree with my suggestion. That is fine. That is your perfect entitlement and you have put your views cogently without resorting to insulting me personally - although launching frivolous law suits is not the kind of action I would advise anyone to undertake.

My frilly panties are not bunched. Maybe your's will be when the Security Council decisions are made known.

Dear David,

You have not answered my question, which was:

Wouldn't you agree with me that you SEEM to be on the regime's side?

Your last post only seems to strengthen that impression, as you refer to them by the legal term, the way that gang likes to call themselves... "the Australian authorities".

But still I may be wrong and given you still consider my earlier observation defamatory, thus untrue, then please inform us to the contrary, whether my impression of you being on the "Australian authorities"' side is mistaken. If I have mistaken you to be on their side while you are not, then I give you my full, humble and unreserved apologies.

I think all in all these plans by the UN are concerning.
Obviously if they make new laws then someone will have to police these laws, (another expense to the taxpayer) and who says whats accepted speech in one country is going to be accepted speech another, and where does it go from there?
Another kind of regulation upon the people, we'll have cops knocking down doors over internet comments to confiscate computers as evidence and all because some people are big cry babies and haven't developed a thick enough skin to cope with life.

Also, the next step will be to tax the internet.

I didn't find your comment offensive Yuyutsu.

I don't post much on OLO these days. I've always posted anonymously however Graham has a valid email address for me. The nature of Graham's moderation has left me with a high level of trust that he would not misuse that. Other sites a little less open to dissenting views don't leave that same degree of trust.

Posting under an alias allowed me to comment from first hand experience on topics where posting under my own name would have by default identified other parties (if I talk about my experience of DV then it pretty easily leads to the abuser which would have complicated our troubled attempts to work together raising our son at the time). It would have left me even more exposed to the generally hard to combat discretion the CSA has in some of it's judgements than I already was.

It has allowed me to comment on contentious topics with only a minimal risk of those comments hurting me in the workplace if a manager holds a strongly different view.

I know of at least one former poster who had someone turn up at their door to sort an issue out after being identified online.

I've not over my years on OLO seen any indication that posters using an alias act any more dishonestly or abusively than those posting under what appear to be real names. I suspect that for the most part it's about character rather than identification.

Some have reasons to use an alias, others don't see those issues in the same light.

R0bert

//those wishing to post anonymously can continue to do so providing they have first supplied their verifiable names and addresses and phone numbers.//

Oxymoron. If you've supplied your name, address and phone number then you are, by definition, not anonymous.

//as I have stated on many occasions I am happy to leave the growing number of defamatory comments on-line to establish the level of hatred and personal denigration of myself that is being made under the cover of anonymity.//

To what end? Personal denigration of yourself is of most concern to yourself - very few people are likely to care much at all about personal attacks directed at you, and nobody is going to be as bothered by them as yourself. Exactly what are you trying to prove here? That there are trolls on the internet? Dude, we know.* It seems about as productive as proving that water is wet. There is no Nobel for demonstrating the bloody obvious.

If the comments upset you ask Graham to delete them, because the only person who really gives a fig about their continued existence is you. Nobody else is that bothered about them, and the fact that you haven't suggests either:
1) You think somebody else cares. We so don't.
2) You aren't really that bothered by them at all, and that your ersatz anguish is a smokescreen for your irrational and unfathomable desire to severely compromise the privacy and security of everyone who uses the internet.

Are you, by any chance, a hacker? Or an employee of intelligence organisation? Because they're about the only intelligent people who have fully considered the potential consequences of such a reckless and foolhardy proposal actually supporting it. Or have you just failed to consider the potential consequences of your reckless and foolhardy proposal? Probably the latter.

* The internet is the natural habitat of the troll, and if they're eradicated it will upset the delicate balance of the ecosystem.

#Toni

No oxymoron at all. Your name or address is not published and your anonymous post is published.

To what end do I leave expressions of Jew-hatred - not merely personal denigration of abuse of myself - online? If I were to have these defamatory posts deleted by Graham then the Jew-hatred portions would also be deleted.

I can cop the personal abuse and prefer decent minded people to actually read and understand the Jew-hatred rife in the community that expresses itself anonymously without end with the object of denigrating Jews and their Jewish State.

The world managed without the Internet for centuries.

You state:" The internet is the natural habitat of the troll, and if they're eradicated it will upset the delicate balance of the ecosystem."

When your house is being invaded by white ants - you call in the pest exterminator.

That internet ecosystem sure needs a clean out. The Security Council seems to be coming slowly to the same conclusion.

Would you object if the following condition of publication was imposed by all web sites:

"We unfortunately receive abusive, offensive and racist messages on a routine basis. We want it to be clear that we reserve the right to reject them in our absolute discretion. Hate sites abound on the web. So not being allowed to play in our sandbox can hardly be called a hardship. Anonymous postings or messages where email address of the poster is hidden from us will generally not be accepted."

You're a sneaky bugger David,
Rather than say you want to impose these new regulations on the forum members speech which they would almost certainly object to, you put forward a question that 99% of people would not object to, thereby creating a consensus on the issue.
Once you have that consensus all you have to do is take steps to put forward an agreed method for which to police such behavior.

Boy, you must really think people are dumb.

The problem with all of this, is that you haven't proven in any way that anyone has broken the law in regards to the limits on their speech.
All you have done is made claims, as you always do, and none of your claims ever actually stands up.

You haven't proven beyond any level of doubt that anyone's comment is unreasonable or having no basis or that they are genuinely put forward in a hateful or inciteful manner, and it also seems as though you have not contacted the forum administrator to discuss your concerns.

Show me the posts where you claim that my comments are NOT genuine criticism (that I usually back up with references), and where I have shown open hatred for Jews and Israelis or where I have made a comment that condoned or incited violence against them.

Show me this racist and inciteful hate speech David??
Please list the comments that fall into this very specific category.

And then list all the ones you object to and you seek to regulate the speech of Australians simply because you don't like them.

If you can't list the actual comments that are deliberately hateful towards Jews, then its reasonable for members of this forum to suspect that your intention is to subvert with propaganda and regulate the behavior of Australians in regards to support of a foreign nations agenda.

I'm allowed to criticise that's part of accepted speech.
It's no-one else's fault if you get offended by accepted speech.

Dear Critic,

<<The problem with all of this, is that you haven't proven in any way that anyone has broken the law in regards to the limits on their speech.>>

I think that you missed the point: the laws of this place are those set by our sovereign leader, Graham Young and he is the only one to determine the limits of our speech. It seems that David is unwilling to accept this and would rather want to enforce on us the laws of the Canberra regime, if not even the "international law" of the United-Nations and its "security-council".

Had it been Graham who issued the "We unfortunately receive abusive..." notice at his own initiative, then surely I would abide, but what David is trying to do here is to override Graham's decisions by the coercive violence of the Canberra regime and the security-council. This we should not accept.

#Armchair critic

I repeat my request that you have so far refused to comply with:

"If you had the guts to post your real name and address I would be more than happy to forward your comments to the Race Discrimination Commissioner to investigate and also to the police to consider action against you under the Crimes Act Amendment (Incitement to violence) Bill 2005.

Name and address please.."

Why are you so scared of your comments being examined by the authorities set up to deal with complaints of racism and incitement to violence under the laws of this country?

Given your own opinion that you have done nothing wrong - I would have thought you would jump at the opportunity to vindicate your comments.

Interesting also to note that you think 99% of the public would agree with my suggested statement of policy on publication of comments.

#Yuyutsu

Glad to see you would also have no objection to Graham stipulating the policy guidelines on publication of comments as suggested by me.

Over to you Graham for your consideration and comments.

//I can cop the personal abuse and prefer decent minded people to actually read and understand the Jew-hatred rife in the community that expresses itself anonymously without end with the object of denigrating Jews and their Jewish State.//

Oh. So you're trying to prove there are anti-semitic turds on the internet. Once again: we know, dude. What's with this obsession with demonstrating the bloody obvious?

//The world managed without the Internet for centuries.//

Wow, great argument Dave (sarcasm). We also managed for centuries without electricity or refrigerators or antibiotics. Should we just wind the clock back on all of those because we don't really need them either?

We have lived without the internet and can do so again, but why would we want to? Just because life is possible with the absence of x, it does not follow that life is not vastly improved by the presence of x.

However, I'm sure you managed without the internet for decades and that there is nothing preventing you from doing so again. If you don't like the internet and it isn't necessary, why do you bother with it? There are lots of good books to read which are completely free of anti-semitism. Or maybe you could learn to play an instrument or something.

//When your house is being invaded by white ants - you call in the pest exterminator.//

Well that is a very interesting choice of analogy, Dave. Are you aware that termites are classified as type of cockroach? Now, where else have I seen analogies comparing people to cockroaches? Oh yeah, it was here:

http://antisemitism.org.il/article/103506/article-referred-concentration-camp-inmates-cockroaches

and here

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/the-uns-statement-on-katie-hopkins-cockroaches-column-about-immigrations-full-text-10202351.html

Nice one, Dave.

The internet is not my house, Dave. It's not your house either. It's everybody's house and they've as much right to be there as you. But the nice thing about it is that it's a really big house, so if you find the jerks in one room too unpleasant, you can go to a different room where you don't have to listen to them.

Now, you might be tempted to argue 'couldn't we just evict the jerks so I don't have to change rooms?' but the problem with that is defining who the jerks are: there's probably somebody who thinks you're a jerk, so we'd have to evict you too. In fact, if we evict everybody that somebody thinks is a jerk then we'll have no humans left at all using the internet, which is probably when Skynet will take over.

//That internet ecosystem sure needs a clean out.//

Of species that are nearly as old as the internet itself, that have grown and involved with their natural environs over time, that thrive and multiply here? Or of invasive pest species that want to radically alter their environment to suit their needs instead of adapting to it, despite the effects this will have on the thriving and vibrant ecosystem which already exists? Because I have to say I'm with the trolls on this one.

They've been here longer than you and are more at home here. And then you sweep in and demand that the existing environment be razed because you think it's messy and you'd prefer a nice park with proper topiary and cute red squirrels and ducks, not just a bunch of flora and fauna scattered haphazardly about the place. Why should the Internet revolve around you, Dave? And why sweep in in the first place?

//Would you object if the following condition of publication was imposed by all web sites etc.//

By all web sites? My oath I would. I don't mind if some websites do it, I can just avoid those websites. But if they are all forced to do it then I will have to avoid them all, and that will make my life less enjoyable. Why would I support a proposal that decreases my utility just to satisfy your fascistic desire that everybody should be made to behave in the manner you deem appropriate, and sod what works for them? What's in it for me? What's in it for anyone except you?

How would you feel if the following condition of publication was imposed by all websites:

"We unfortunately receive abusive, offensive and racist messages on a routine basis. What can we say? There are a lot of jerks out there. We'll reject any offensive posts we receive but in this crazy new world of the internet, requiring everyone who posts on our website to entrust us with sensitive personal details presents such a manifest risk to their privacy and security that we cannot, in good conscience, condone it. So if you're the sort of person who is likely to be deeply upset by reading the posts of people who like to maintain their privacy we suggest you go elsewhere since not being allowed to play in our sandbox can hardly be called a hardship."

Not too thrilled, Dave? Treat other people the way you'd like to be treated, Dave: if you wouldn't want the pro-privacy people forcing you to use the internet their way then it's not reasonable to force them to use the internet your way, is it?

Dear David,

<<Glad to see you would also have no objection to Graham stipulating the policy guidelines on publication of comments as suggested by me.>>

Provided of course that this is indeed Graham's own initiative which he considers to be good, but not if Graham does so under duress only because he has a gun pointed at him by the Canberra/United-Nations thugs.

<<If you had the guts to post your real name and address I would be more than happy to forward your comments to the Race Discrimination Commissioner to investigate and also to the police to consider action against you under the Crimes Act Amendment (Incitement to violence) Bill 2005.>>

I previously gave you the benefit of the doubt, saying that you only SEEM to be a shtinker who sides with the oppressive foreign regime - but here, these are your own words!

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish/features/word-of-the-day-shtinker.premium-1.523988

#Toni Lavis

Those frilly panties of yours are well and truly brunched.

Amidst all your three rants it is nice to know however that you take this view about my suggested conditions of publication:
"I don't mind if some websites do it, I can just avoid those websites."

Spot on.

As to your suggested clause I would heartily agree with your first four sentences:

"We unfortunately receive abusive, offensive and racist messages on a routine basis. What can we say? There are a lot of jerks out there. We'll reject any offensive posts we receive"

Spot on again.

That too would hopefully deter many of the comments now being posted by the "trolls", "jerks" and "turds" (your words) on websites not being made or if made being rejected before they are published.

The rest of your suggestion is mischievous because there is no requirement at present that people post their names and addresses on every internet site.

On balance we seem to be reaching some form of agreement here with you, #armchair critic and #Yuyutsu all not objecting to some kind of restriction empowering any web site to not publish abusive, racist and offensive comments.

Thanks for your input.

David,

Regards your persistent and continued demands for both my name and my address.

What if I was an author who submitted articles and also took offense at a persons comments, but couldn't show where a law had been clearly broken.
(As a lawyer it should not be unreasonable to expect you to put forward a valid case for complaint.)
Here's the law btw:
http://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/race-discrimination/publications/know-your-rights-racial-discrimination-and-vilification

Lets say I showed a dislike to a persons comments, (also taking into account that I'm a lawyer had not detailed specific instances demonstrating where the law had clearly been broken) and I also bypassed the forums complaint rules and continually demanded that a commenter provided me with their home address.

Would or would these demands not be reasonably considered to be a threat upon that person?

Lets say the forum administrator had my name and address on file.
Should YOU be given those details simply because you don't like my comments?
That's like me saying that because I don't like Toni Lavis's comments, I have the right to demand her home address.
How should a normal person consider those demands?

Here's where your argument really doesn't stand up.

If you were to contact police and make an official complaint THEY would investigate NOT YOU.
There would be no reason for you to obtain my home address at any time during this process.
Even if I was charged, I'm not sure you could expect the police to handover my home address.

If I was assaulted in the street, would I have the right to demand police give me the perpetrators home address, and what should one make of that request?
If a crime has been committed then it's Police's job to place charges if they believe the law has been broken, and the courts job to decide upon an appropriate punishment, if guilt is determined?
So there's no reasonable need for you to have a home address whatsoever, therefore one may reasonably assume that your demand to obtain it is threatening, and that you seek to do harm.

Is this or is this not reasonable?

[cont']
Earlier I said that for me its very much a question of character, and I'd like to be more specific in what I meant by that.

I have to sometimes take a step back and have a look at the big picture and ask myself what's missing.
What's missing is that what you DON'T say and the way you DON'T say it.
You don't say "These are the facts and you don't know what you are talking about".

Rather than engaging in discussion when others bring up different arguments to that which you put forward and of winning the argument on its merits, you resort to claiming anti-Semitism and Hitlerite etc.

To me, and any reasonable thinking person it's obvious you're basically admitting you don't hold the high ground in the actual argument being discussed and are resorting to changing the narrative by instead attacking the person who made the comment.

So you're actually demonstrating to everyone that your own arguments do not stand up under criticism when you act this way.
What this means is that ultimately your own actions and behavior completely betray the substance of your articles, and therefore its nobody else that truly ruins the message or substance of your articles, your actually doing all the heavy lifting yourself.

I'd like to know if theres an Official Australian Accepted Criticism of Israel list.
If accusations of unlawful behavior are to be made in regards to accepted speech and governments laws are being used against their own citizens on issues that relating to a foreign nation then its only reasonable to ask for a complete clarification of accepted speech.
I can only use the law as a guide, and I would much prefer complete certainty on this issue.
When I have time I'll give examples for discussion.

[cont']
You won't take the time to identify or demonstrate where specific instances of comments you claim to be unlawful ARE actually unlawful, and yet you're a lawyer.
How should one view these actions?

You seek to make a complaint and simply expect others to spend hours sifting through my comments in an attempt to FIND something unlawful.
Tell me should those actions not be reasonably considered to be malicious?
Also is it not disrespectful to the Australian taxpayer that they should foot the expense for this witch-hunt when you (as a lawyer) can't even demonstrate that the law has clearly been broken yourself?

Finally, you frequently post articles that only ever discuss Israel.
May I ask if you have either a contract of any kind or receive remuneration of any kind?
The reason I ask this question is because if you are receiving remuneration then it may be expected that you have an financial interest in putting your message across, and if so this may explain your aggressive behavior in attempting to restrict others speech.

You're contradicting yourself, Dave. On Monday it was ALL websites that you wanted to adopt your anti-privacy measures:

//Would you object if the following condition of publication was imposed by all web sites//

But on Tuesday, I am 'spot on' when I say that it would be acceptable if only some websites choose to do it:

//"I don't mind if some websites do it, I can just avoid those websites."

Spot on.//

So which do you really support, Dave? Some websites adopting your idea if they choose to, or all websites being required to adopt your idea whether they like it or not? You can't have it both ways - and only one of those ways is acceptable to people blessed with more common sense than righteous indignation.

//That too would hopefully deter many of the comments now being posted by the "trolls", "jerks" and "turds" (your words) on websites not being made or if made being rejected before they are published.//

Wait a second... it's okay if websites reject posts before they're published, but if they publish it and then reject (delete) it, that's not okay? Why is the order of such importance to you? If they delete the comment doesn't that send a clear message that offensive posts are unacceptable as well as removing them from the public domain? Sounds like it achieves the same goals regardless which order of publication and rejection come in. And since most websites (including this one) already have policies to delete offensive posts, it sounds like we don't need to change anything: the offensive comments of jerks will be rejected under the current system. It's just that for some perverse reason you don't want them to be. You wouldn't be one of these self-hating Jews we hear about would you Dave?

//The rest of your suggestion is mischievous because there is no requirement at present that people post their names and addresses on every internet site.//

But that's not what I said, was it Dave? What I said was:

//requiring everyone who posts on our website to entrust us with sensitive personal details presents such a manifest risk to their privacy and security that we cannot, in good conscience, condone it.//

I'm beginning to suspect you are being deliberately obtuse when it comes to your apparent inability to comprehend the difference between websites publishing personal information, and websites obtaining said information and then having it nicked by hackers because it's not adequately secured.

I didn't say that people were required to POST their names and addresses. I pointed out that in order to post, people will be required to take the enormous risk of entrusting all websites they would like to use with sensitive personal data. Which the websites would naturally make every reasonable attempt to safeguard from ne'er-do-wells (e.g. not publishing it), but as I've already pointed out that's not an easy thing to do. Hackers live to get their hands on data they shouldn't have and which people have tried to safeguard from them. Often they succeed.

Since their data can't be safeguarded sensible people will do the sensible thing and avoid websites that have these requirements - which in your authoritarian fantasy is all of them. The internet will become a lifeless, empty place. A ghost internet. Do you think you'll enjoy it as much when it's just you and the tumbleweeds for company, Dave? What will you bitch and moan about then?

Put it this way, Dave: would you be happy to tell me your address and phone number? I promise not to misuse it or give it to anybody else or anything. Well, why not?

//On balance we seem to be reaching some form of agreement here with you, #armchair critic and #Yuyutsu all not objecting to some kind of restriction empowering any web site to not publish abusive, racist and offensive comments.//

Once again you appear to be being deliberately obtuse. Yuyutsu probably objects to restrictions just on general principles, and I object strongly to your idiotic blanket restrictions being opposed to all websites. Any perceived agreement is in your imagination. Your idea is appallingly stupid and no reasonable person would ever support it.

Here's a suggestion, Dave: why don't you start your own website that imposes the very restriction you described? There's no law against that. You could make your own website just like OLO, only better, and with the restriction that participants have to give their details and hope you know enough about IT security to keep it safe (don't worry, you can hire a nerd to look after all the technical stuff - and hope that he knows his stuff well enough to keep out the hackers). Everyone who wants to play by your rules can go to your website, and the rest of us can keep doing things the sensible way. I suspect that you would have zero traffic, and that you'd probably really enjoy that - just imagine, Dave: a website of your very own where you can write whatever you want and there'll be nobody there to disagree with you. And if they do disagree with you you're in charge so you can evict them. Wouldn't that be nice for you?

Hey Toni,

Making a comment like that I'm going to have to request your personal address sorry...
I can assure you I don't mean any harm.

David's got the title wrong, this article should've actually been called 'Israel Moves To End Anonymity On The Internet'.

http://newobserveronline.com/israel-demands-world-internet-censorship/

http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-eyes-world-coalition-to-force-social-media-platforms-to-block-incitement/

Also its a effort to stop Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/minister-boycott-movement-a-threat-to-the-whole-world/

I've decided that I will reduce my own comments on Davids threads and try not to inflame things with him as much these are the forum rules (plus he is a bit of a cry-baby anyway) and instead post quotes that others have said and link to those quotes.
This will make it a lot harder for David to intimidate and make threats the way he does.

Regarding BDS, this is a legitimate non-violent protest movement and its hypocritical for them to scream anti-Semitic hate speech when Jews themselves used and provoked Hitler with prior to WWII.

There's your first example I mentioned earlier too, David.
Its not anti-Semitic to point out real facts.

Did you all pay attention to what David did earlier?
He tried to trick everyone by creating a consensus on an issue most of you would agree with on face value, but which ultimately worked to limit everyone's speech under threat of prosecution, and that includes the owner of this site.

"The Israeli Public Security Minister Gilard Erdan is out there saying that the world must censor the internet to block any criticisms of the actions of the government of Israel; because its just hate speech an its anti-Semitic because nobody would complain about anything Israel's doing if it were anybody but Jews doing it. They have bneen hammering that card so long it's wearing out, and that's why they are getting desperate."
"The first ammendment is there to recognises the right to criticise the government without fear of repercussion. And that means ANY GOVERNMENT ANYWHERE ON EARTH. That is our right, to criticise any government when they are wrong.
And they are trying to find some way they can trick the public into going along with this idea that instead of having freedom of speech we're going to have permitted speech.
We're only allowed to say positive things; and happy thoughts; and thats absolutely ridiculous."
"When you look at what's going on around the world, there's ample justification for criticising governments whether that of the United States, Great Britain, Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia; If we take away the ability to hold these governments to account for their actions they're only going to get worse, and more abusive."

Listen to the whole interview here at the What Really Happened radio show with Michael Rivero.

http://youtu.be/AhimCpF1FYs?t=1h2s

#Armchair critic

Nice to know you are now going to post links to articles supporting your opinions.

About time.

I do exactly that in my articles. Glad to know you are now onboard as well in wanting to do that.

Would that others follow your example.

Israel's action to try to stamp out incitement to violence on the internet has obviously resonated with the Security Council.

That in itself is groundbreaking. The Security Council usually doesn't have much time for listening to anything Israel says. Perhaps if it did the Middle East would not be enveloped in conflict and carnage as is presently occurring in Syria,Iraq, Libya,Lebanon and Yemen and millions of their hapless citizens would not be landing on Europe's beaches seeking asylum from the horrors visited on their countries.

You should contact the Security Council to demand the status quo on the internet be maintained. I obviously do not.

You might also like to direct me to any posts made by you anywhere in relation to any of the above conflicts

Pity you have immediately blotted your copybook with this throwaway unsubstantiated statement:
"Regarding BDS, this is a legitimate non-violent protest movement and its hypocritical for them to scream anti-Semitic hate speech when Jews themselves used and provoked Hitler with prior to WWII."

Can you direct me to any links to support this statement.

Seems it didn't take you five seconds to depart from your own welcome statement:

"I've decided that I will reduce my own comments on Davids threads and try not to inflame things with him as much these are the forum rules (plus he is a bit of a cry-baby anyway) and instead post quotes that others have said and link to those quotes.
This will make it a lot harder for David to intimidate and make threats the way he does."

The link or links please.

Well, why not, Dave?

Dear Critic,

Thank you for the references: I didn't previously make any connection between this discussion and Israel, after all "Israel" was never mentioned in this article.

Now I am in a conflict: I hate the United-Nations, but I love Israel.

Israel was traditionally at odds with the United-Nations, which Ben-Gurion famously coined "Oom Shmoom" - http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com.au/2010/03/oom-shmoom.html

Now it seems that Israel will do anything, including by cooperating with the good-for-nothing UN, to try preventing the world from using the necessary medicine to cure it and exorcise the bad spirit that took over it in 1967.

I am encouraged from yesterday's vote in the German parliament to recognise the Armenian holocaust: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36433114

I hope that the world will not back off being too afraid to continue helping Israel to correct its ways and renew itself. Israel needs us to become well again!

I do support international sanctions: not against Israel but only against its 1967 occupation. I consider these sanctions PRO-Israel, but this has now become illegal in Israel in the same manner that it is illegal in Turkey to mention the Armenian genocide - and here is another reason why I should not provide my personal details: if I did, then I would face difficulties and prosecution when I visit my family in Israel.

In a second thought, having written what I just did, if my personal details were published then I could also be arrested as a result by the Turkish authorities on my way to/from Israel through the Istanbul airport.

Hi David,
All of the things I put forward have a basis, I don't just make things up, it would be foolish for me to do so given you're a lawyer.

Regarding the BDS comment I'll provide the links for you, but I must say I've posted the links to this topic in your articles before.
I didn't think I needed to post the links every time I mentioned a particular topic, if I'd already substantiated my position by posting them previously.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Nazi_boycott_of_1933

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=judea+declares+war+on+germany+boycott&biw=2048&bih=1041&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiQusXj44zNAhUhMaYKHcSwDVkQ_AUIBigB#imgrc=_

In my opinion, Israel's caught in a corner on BDS, and I wouldn't blame them for wanting the whole argument to just go away quietly, before the world really sees it for what it is.

The longer it continues, the more people will become aware that Jews did it to Germany prior to WWII.
The more Israel bangs on about it being anti-Semitic, the more it gives substance to Germany defending herself in that war, reducing the effectiveness of the Holocaust narrative, and which also brings into the mainstream the question of whether Jews brought their problems on themselves in that war.

Alternatively if it does nothing, the movement will get stronger.

So in my opinion Israel has been checkmated, and the only thing it can do to counter this is to censor the internet under the premise 'Anti-Semitic' and 'Hate Speech'.

It doesn't end there either.
Why is it wrong for people to use BDS, when the worlds governments routinely use sanctions as a financial weapon against other countries?
If governments do it, it's a little hypocritical to say people can't.

Regarding contacting the Security Council, that's not something I'd necessarily want to take part in.
I'm not an activist, nor the leader of any human rights organisation, nor a person who claims in any way to represent others.
I'm just an regular person expressing an opinion on an online forum.

I've made comments on Syria, not sure about the others, you'd have to go through my comments to find them.
My thoughts closely align with that of the X22 report, a youtube channel.

Sorry to be the bringer of bad news Yuyutsu...
Its a funny position you're in opposing nationalism but supporting Israel, they seem to be at opposite ends of the spectrum.
I don't really know much about the Armenian Holocaust so I'm going to have to find a documentary when I have time.

Dear Critic,

Sigh, yes, nationalism is a disease and Israel is badly afflicted with it. Israel cannot heal itself until it gets rid of the poisonous territories that it took in 1967. I do love Israel and my family lives there: all I can do is pray for its healing and peace.

#Armchair critic

The links you provided contain nothing to support your statement:
""Regarding BDS, this is a legitimate non-violent protest movement and its hypocritical for them to scream anti-Semitic hate speech when Jews themselves used and provoked Hitler with prior to WWII."

David,
Usually I'd just let it go at this point, with an expectation that you most likely will no longer reply.
But I'm tired of your attempts to threaten and intimidate, and of making unfounded allegations towards me.

So was my statement substantiated enough for you?
Or was what I said considered to be 'anti-Semitic' and 'hate-speech'?
Because I thought it was fair and reasonable comment.
( http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18242&page=0#324510 )

And I know that the next time I say it without providing a link you'll just say the same thing.
- Allege that my comment is unfounded, offensive, hateful etc...

What say you?
Let me ask the others - Was that a fair comment?
What if I make 100 comments just like that on each of Davids articles?

Am I considered 'anti-Semitic'? or to be engaging in 'hate speech'? or 'inciting hate speech'? by simply being able to balance David's arguments and paint a more realistic picture?

David might argue the previous comments are 'anti-Semitic' and 'hate speech' and that he was personally offended by them.
He may very well have been offended, who's to say?

David might argue that despite my arguments being reasonable that I'm still inciting a culture of hate by making the comments I do and providing others with the arguments with which to criticise Jews and Israel.

He might argue that because I know many of the facts about Israel that Israel would prefer others didn't know that I must've spent time looking into the subject and I must be anti-Semitic to have looked into these things.

He might argue that because I frequently comment on his articles that I'm stalking or consistently attacking him unfairly and that therefore I must be an anti-Semite.

(I criticise government all the time on this forum. Would Australians buy into the argument that because I do this I'm anti-Australian or a self hater?)

It's all up to you David.
Please tell us all how it works, I don't want to even be accused of racial discrimination, hate speech or inciting violence.
I get offended when falsely accused of it.

#Armchair critic

You apparently continue to claim the 1933 international boycott of German goods provoked Hitler to kill six million Jews.

This is the timeline of what happened:

"On April 1, 1933, a week after Hitler became dictator of Germany, he ordered a boycott of Jewish shops, banks, offices and department stores. But the boycott was mostly ignored by German shoppers and was called off after three days. However, the unsuccessful boycott was followed by a rapid series of laws which robbed the Jews of many rights.

On April 7, "The Law of the Restoration of the Civil Service" was introduced which made 'Aryanism' a necessary requirement in order to hold a civil service position. All Jews holding such positions were dismissed or forced into retirement.

On April 22, Jews were prohibited from serving as patent lawyers and from serving as doctors in state-run insurance institutions.

On April 25, a law against the overcrowding of German schools placed severe limits on the number of young Jews allowed to enroll in public schools.

On June 2, a law prohibited Jewish dentists and dental technicians from working with state-run insurance institutions.

On May 6, the Civil Service law was amended to close loopholes in order to keep out honorary university professors, lecturers and notaries.

On September 28, all non-Aryans and their spouses were prohibited from government employment.

On September 29, Jews were banned from all cultural and entertainment activities including literature, art, film and theater.

In early October 1933, Jews were prohibited from being journalists and all newspapers were placed under Nazi control."
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/boycott.htm

Get it - this was State-sponsored anti-Semitism against a large segment of its own population.

Apparently the world in your opinion should have just sat quietly by and done nothing to express its abhorrence.

Your shameful attempt to blame the Jews for what happened to them subsequently as a result of the international boycott exposes you as a hard line Jew hater .

It would be nice to think you would have the integrity and decency to apologise and retract your offensive statement - but you have neither.

//It would be nice to think you would have the integrity and decency to apologise and retract your offensive statement - but you have neither.//

Well that's the pot calling the kettle black, Dave.

David,
Quote 'You apparently continue to claim the 1933 international boycott of German goods provoked Hitler to kill six million Jews'.

I think I've suggested that before, and you accused me of 'anti-Semiticism' and 'hate speech' etc then too but you're not telling the full story and I invite you to correct me if I've got it wrong.

I'll repeat what I said in case you misunderstood me.

In my opinion, Israel's caught in a corner on BDS, and I wouldn't blame them for wanting the whole argument to just go away quietly, before the world really sees it for what it is.
The longer it continues, the more people will become aware that Jews did it to Germany prior to WWII.
The more Israel bangs on about it being anti-Semitic, the more it gives substance to Germany defending herself in that war, reducing the effectiveness of the Holocaust narrative, and which also brings into the mainstream the question of whether Jews brought their problems on themselves in that war.
Alternatively if it does nothing, the movement will get stronger.

Quote "April 1, 1933, a week after Hitler became dictator of Germany, he ordered a boycott of Jewish shops, banks, offices and department stores..."

Hilter became Chancellor on January 30 1933.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler

It was the Enabling Act which was passed on March 24 1933.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933

But March 24 1933 was also the day in which the Jews declared war against the German people.
"Jews of the world unite. Boycott German Goods"

I already posted the link before but I'll post it again.
What date does it say on that newspaper?

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=judea+declares+war+on+germany+boycott&biw=2048&bih=1041&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiQusXj44zNAhUhMaYKHcSwDVkQ_AUIBigB&gws_rd=ssl#imgrc=_

So if you take this into account, then the actions and timeline you present are not the full story nor a accurate representation of true events, are they not?

#armchair critic

Your Jew-hating credentials are being well and truly exposed as you attempt to re-write history.

You do not dispute anti-Semitism in Germany was state sponsored.

Instead you try to discredit the timeline I provided by stating Hitler was elected Chancellor on 31 January 1933 - which is totally irrelevant.

When Hitler became dictator is what is relevant - which occurred with the passing of the Enabling Act on 24 March 1933.

If you read your own link - it states:

"The Enabling Act (German: Ermächtigungsgesetz) was a 1933 Weimar Constitution amendment that gave the German Cabinet – in effect, Chancellor Adolf Hitler – the power to enact laws without the involvement of the Reichstag. It passed in both the Reichstag and Reichsrat on 24 March 1933, and was signed by President Paul von Hindenburg later that day. The act stated that it was to last four years unless renewed by the Reichstag, which occurred twice. The Enabling Act gave Hitler plenary powers. It followed on the heels of the Reichstag Fire Decree, which abolished most civil liberties and transferred state powers to the Reich government. The combined effect of the two laws was to transform Hitler's government into a de facto legal dictatorship."

Weren't the Jews remarkably prescient in voicing their opposition to Germany's slide into dictatorship? For that they deserved to be slaughtered because they provoked Hitler according to you.

The world paid a huge price for not listening to the Jews right then.

By the way - I note the newspaper headlines refer to "Judea" in the link you provided.

Wasn't that the name of a substantial part of the West Bank for 3000 years before the Arabs changed it to "West Bank" in 1950? It has now become "Occupied Palestinian Territory" where Jews cannot live and the European Union requires products made by Jews to be specially labelled.

Yes - Jew-hatred is alive and kicking today.

Keep trying to justify your Jew-hatred stance - if you dare - with more lies, half-truths and distortions linked to articles that only totally discredit you when read.

Hi David,
I think its really wrong to try to defame me when I am simply bringing up facts.

I have not commented disrespectfully, non-genuinely, untruthfully, shown hatred or sought to incite it and the substance of the conversation is directly related to the topic given we've already ascertained Israel is actively trying to restrict speech and the content here is obviously an example of what you are suggesting is an example of 'Anti-Semiticism' or 'hate speech'.

I've made clear already that I'm asking you to help me understand how all this works as it doesn't seem to make clear sense to me.
If I am within the law then I should be free to hold an opinion without your continued accusations, intimidation and aggression should I not?

You've been ignoring many of my questions and I can't know what you think I have done wrong if you don't provide me with a clear understanding of how anything I've said on this thread is wrong.

[cont]
Quote "Weren't the Jews remarkably prescient in voicing their opposition to Germany's slide into dictatorship?"
Yes they were. So I don't understand how this is any different to Palestinians objecting to their occupation; and using boycotts just as the (people representing Judea) did?
How is an occupation different to a dictatorship?
At least with a dictatorship the dictator might do good things for his own people.
Under an occupation theres not even much chance of that.

And so if Jews conducted boycotts against others why is it unfair for others to bring boycot against Jews?
If Jews think BDS is Anti-Semitic and requires a response then how shouldn't some of Germany's actions which you mentioned be considered unreasonable after Jews (or people representing Judea) not only declared a boycott on Germany, but openly declared war upon them?
Please explain.

Also my position on the 'Holocaust' just so you know.
This can be considered example number 2 of 100

I object to the use of the word 'holocaust' in connection to WWII on the grounds of the defamatory use of the term 'holocaust denier' which is associated with it.
My core objection to the use of the word is 'my right the question the official story of that war', a war my forebearers fought in.
Nothing more, Nothing less.
One either accepts 'the official story', or one is labelled a 'holocaust denier', and there is no free area in which to question events without persecution.

I object to being defamed and your discrimination simply by exercising my right to question the events of a war my family took part in.

Dear Critic,

<<Let me ask the others - Was that a fair comment?>>

That would depend on your sincerity, on what is your intention in your heart of hearts. I cannot tell.

Are you anguished by the suffering of others?
Or are you desirous of more suffering?

I can listen to the facts, the similarities and the dissimilarities: both are present, but why, what drivers you to write what you write, is not for me to tell.

I think that the line is crossed when you say "The Jews".
There are good people and there are bad people. The fact that one happens to be born Jewish does not change these basics.
You may legitimately say "there are Jews", or "some Jews", but generalising by saying "The Jews", I think is anti-Semitic and Hitler did just that.

The following person was a Jew, in fact a religious orthodox Jew. He was speaking out of pain, not out of glee, seeing the reality around him, in Israel. So do I. I care not for the Palestinians as such - I care for the spirit of the people of Israel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zM2fXTkjU2E

I believe in liberty and freedom for all people Yuyutsu.
(But I don't believe that one persons liberty and freedom should be infringed upon so that another person can have theirs.)
I don't take any pleasure in seeing people suffer regardless of their nationality or religious beliefs but I do believe in putting my own countries interests first.

You said "I think that the line is crossed when you say "The Jews"."

It's hard to sometimes get the terminology right.
As you can see I did firstly try to replace that word with (people who represent Judea) but got sloppy in further instances; and David himself did use the term, so it can be hard to navigate.
Arguments can ensue regarding terminology Jews / Israeli's / Zionists...

You also said the determination of whether my comment was fair '...would depend on my sincerity, on what is your intention in my heart of hearts.'
So is it a question of content, or delivery?
These are the important questions.

Also there's a question of truth.
How can telling the truth in a discussion be considered racism or hate speech?
I don't get that, though I can imagine it could be used to induce someone to self harm.

An important aspect of this whole saga is that if speech is limited so that one cannot criticise the government of one particular nation, then how long until one cannot criticise the government of our own nation?

And what of policing these proposed new laws?
What do you want to impose fines, put me in jail and/or send me to a re-education camp for simply telling the truth?

Dear Critic,

Please calm down, I don't want to impose fines and certainly not to put you or anyone else in jail or a re-education camp. You should also know well by now that I do not believe in human-imposed laws.

The only reason I replied was that you explicitly asked for other members' judgement. I didn't find this easy.

The instruction in Hinduism is clear:
The first Yama, or restraint, is Ahimsa (non-violence) - the second is Satyam (truth-telling). Hence, if telling the truth conflicts with non-violence, then non-violence prevails and one should remain silent. Hopefully one can then wait for another opportunity, for a different situation where the truth can be told without hurting others.

Regarding terminology, Jews/Israeli's/Zionists refer to three different groups of people. Sure there is some overlap between those groups, but you should be as clear as you can. These three classes of people form 8 different combinations and one can find examples of all 8!

This becomes even more complicated because different people use different terminology, so you need to tread carefully. In Israel for example, Zionism is a common synonym for good citizenship: if you help an old lady to cross the street or if you smile and greet others with "Good morning", then many consider your act as "Zionist", even if the old lady is an Arab.

Prof. Leibowitz was a Jew, an Israeli and a Zionist, yet I think that you would agree with his words and ideas. Perhaps a criteria you may want to use before posting could be: "does what I am about to write include Prof. Leibowitz?".

So yes, correct delivery is at least as important as the contents.

Sorry Yuyutsu,
That last comment wasn't directed at you.
And I do appreciate you responding on such a sensitive issue.

Different cultures have different ways of seeing things, therefore a 'one size fits all' approach to censoring the internet may not be a good idea.
(I'm not advocating any violence by discussing any topic by the way)

Other people have given reasons why they oppose ending anonymity on the internet.
Jay of Melboure wrote of the Coburg protests that some people track others down in their homes to harass them.
So for me personally, I worry that this will tie our own hands in our own ability to share stories or deal with issues of importance in our own country.
If these Australians who wish to tell a story cannot do so because they become targets in their own homes then that's a problem to me.

There's 2 sides to every story.
Free speech can be used to offend others, but it can also be used to inform others.

I see this proposal essentially as an attack on our nation by a foreign country.

There's no way to touch on many of the Israel facts without being intimidated, threatened and persecuted for simply telling the truth and David has demonstrated this time and time again.
To me it's completely insane.

#Yuyutsu

You posted the following video of an interview with Professor Leibowitz:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zM2fXTkjU2E"

You advised #armchair critic:
" Prof. Leibowitz was a Jew, an Israeli and a Zionist, yet I think that you would agree with his words and ideas. Perhaps a criteria you may want to use before posting could be: "does what I am about to write include Prof. Leibowitz?".

However you misrepresent Leibowitz's "words and ideas" by omitting these relevant facts:

1. The video was posted 8 January 2014

2. Leibowitz died on 18 August 1994 - so the reality Leibowitz saw around him was the reality in 1993 - not 2014.

3. Leibowitz expanded on this reality on 1 February 1993:
"'The direction of Israeli politics is changing, which means there is a chance for a voluntary agreement between the state of Israel and the PLO. That is a possibility.

'What is more probable is that the partition will be effected not by voluntary agreement but by pressure of the United Nations - which means the US. There is this chance now. Five years ago there was no chance for an agreement at all.'
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/an-israeli-prophet-sees-signs-of-hope-yeshayahu-leibowitz-tells-sarah-helm-in-jerusalem-why-he-1470235.html

Leibowitz's assessment proved correct.

Negotiations between Israel and the PLO - starting in 1993 - led to offers by Israel in 2000/1 and 2008 to cede its claims in more than 90% of the West Bank which were rejected by the PLO.

Israel's total withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 has brought thousands of rockets and dozens of attack tunnels into Israel.

The Independent article above also contains the following statement:
"Until 1967 the fault was all on the other side, he says: it was the Arabs who prevented the 1948 partition and then invaded Israel. It is only since 1967 that Israel has become the oppressor."

The direction of Israel politics has indeed changed since 1993 but not that of the PLO and Hamas.

Arab rejectionism in 1948 is matched by Arab rejectionism in 2016.

Were you merely ignorant in not knowing about Leibowitz's "words and ideas" expressed in the above interview or was it deliberately concealed on your part?

Were you born in Australia David?
I imagine life is pretty complicated for you in Australia.
What do you do if a fly lands on you?
Launch legal proceedings?
Start typing up letters of objection for referral to higher authorities in response to the fly's alleged infringements of your rights?
- Of causing fear or discriminating against you personally or of unlawfully trespassing or some other half-baked or contrived offense?

This country really is going down the toilet...

Dear David,

As I was discussing anti-Semitism with Armchair Critic, I presented this clip with the intention that s/he learns to distinguish between "The Jews" and "Some Jews" or "There are Jews who". May I mention that I agree with Critic's remark in his reply that you too often use the expression "The Jews".

One short video clip cannot express all the views of Prof. Leibowitz: in fact there are volumes of books, still being written today about him and his views.

I do not automatically agree with anything Prof. Leibowitz ever said (in fact I once had a disagreement with him that turned into a shouting-match), but I do fully agree on the parts you quoted.

There was indeed some euphoria in the 1990's regarding the prospects of peace between Israel and the [so-called] Palestinians and obviously that was not lost on Prof. Leibowitz.

Indeed, "the direction of Israel politics has indeed changed since 1993", but in recent years it unfortunately changed again for the worse.

Indeed, Palestinian rejectionism remains the same, although the attitude of other Arab states towards Israel has improved.

However, even an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement, no doubt a great thing on its own, could not solve the main issue that Leibowitz noted:

"And he stresses that his motivation is to save Israel, to restore the state to the moral high ground by ending its corrupting occupation. He is not primarily interested in campaigning for Palestinian rights. 'It is not a question of liberating Palestinians but of liberating the state. That is important.'"

Peace and security for Israel are very important, but the moral character of the Jewish state is no less important (and even if you are not an Israeli, it should be especially important for you, being a Jew who is concerned with anti-Semitism). A peace agreement that allows Israel to keep even one millimetre of the area it took in 1967 is more dangerous than war because it would prevent Israel from healing its wounds within.

#Yuyutsu

You have not answered my question:
"Were you merely ignorant in not knowing about Leibowitz's "words and ideas" expressed in the above interview [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/an-israeli-prophet-sees-signs-of-hope-yeshayahu-leibowitz-tells-sarah-helm-in-jerusalem-why-he-1470235.html0]
- or was it deliberately concealed on your part?"

I would hope it was a case of ignorance rather that deliberate concealment.

Please enlighten me with your response.

While I have your attention - can you please amplify your following statement:
"I do not automatically agree with anything Prof. Leibowitz ever said (in fact I once had a disagreement with him that turned into a shouting-match), but I do fully agree on the parts you quoted."

What was your disagreement about? Can you post a link to your comments - and his that you objected to?

Dear David,

I was aware that Prof. Leibowitz was actively involved in Israel's peace movement, but not of this specific "prophecy" (which I'm still perplexed why you consider it relevant to my discussion with Armchair Critic).

My disagreement with Prof. Leibowitz was completely unrelated, it was about some scientific issue and it was never recorded. It seems that you are trying to dig my identity, perhaps in order to harass me either here in Australia or to take me to court in Israel on one of my family-visits. I am not an idiot!

C'mon David,

You do exactly the same thing you're accusing Yuyutsu of.
You neglect to insert facts when it doesn't suit your narrative.
How could one forget to mention "Judea Declares War On Germany"?

Give the guy a break, I know all about your intimidating stance towards people that don't tow 'the official line" because I've put up with it as long as I've commented on your articles.
Go have a glass of coke and a couple of tim-tims and chill the hell out.
You're a thug and a bully and even my opinionated stance doesn't come close to the way you think you can treat people.

//You're a thug and a bully and even my opinionated stance doesn't come close to the way you think you can treat people.//

He's got a fair point there Dave - you are an utter c%#t. You're also a halfwit and a coward to boot. How many days is it now that you've avoided responding to my arguments because you know you can't refute them by just crying 'Anti-Semite!' and you lack the intellect to otherwise refute them? Or just had the common decency to answer the questions I asked you?

What a sad, pathetic little man you are. You do far more damage to the reputation of your Jewish brothers than any of Armchair Critic's wacky theories ever could. Why don't you just crawl back under your rock and cease and desist from your objectionable practice of uncritically accepting any and all policies proposed by the Israeli government no matter how shite they are, and from attempting to defend the indefensible. And then scurrying off and hiding when people bring up reasonable objections to it. Did it occur to you, Dave, that if you can only defend a policy in the face of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories but not against reasonable objections then it might be a rubbish policy?

You don't have to agree with every Israeli government policy just because you're Jewish, Dave. That's not in Tanakh, and disagreeing with terrible policy does not make you a bad Jew.

#Yuyutsu

Thank you for clarifying you were unaware of Leibowitz's 1993 interview in the Independent.

Whoever posted that tape twenty years after Leibowitz's death probably did so intending to denigrate Israel and hoodwink people like yourself.

Would love to give that person the opportunity to answer the same question.

#armchair critic

You state:
"You do exactly the same thing you're accusing Yuyutsu of.
You neglect to insert facts when it doesn't suit your narrative.
How could one forget to mention "Judea Declares War On Germany"?"

More distortions and lies by you:

1. I didn't accuse #Yuyutsu of anything. I asked him whether his failure to refer to the Leibowitz interview was due to ignorance or deliberate concealment.

He has responded by acknowledging he was not aware of the interview.

2. In the same vein I asked you the following question:
"Pity you have immediately blotted your copybook with this throwaway unsubstantiated statement:
"Regarding BDS, this is a legitimate non-violent protest movement and its hypocritical for them to scream anti-Semitic hate speech when Jews themselves used and provoked Hitler with prior to WWII."

Can you direct me to any links to support this statement"

You responded in part by providing the link to headlines reading "Judea declares war on Germany"

I responded:
"The links you provided contain nothing to support your statement"

I did however ask you the following further question:

"By the way - I note the newspaper headlines refer to "Judea" in the link you provided.

Wasn't that the name of a substantial part of the West Bank for 3000 years before the Arabs changed it to "West Bank" in 1950? It has now become "Occupied Palestinian Territory" where Jews cannot live and the European Union requires products made by Jews to be specially labelled."

That is another question you left unanswered.

Goebbels would be really proud of you. Twisting something you raised into something I had forgotten to mention is quite extraordinary.

It would be nice to think you would have the integrity and decency to apologise and retract your latest comments - but you have neither.

#Toni Lavis

Thanks for dumping that bucket of pure hatred and invective on me.

Why should I respond to you - especially in relation to your general and unsubstantiated allegations?

Take this doozy:
"your objectionable practice of uncritically accepting any and all policies proposed by the Israeli government no matter how shite they are"

Strange that I have been advocating for Israel and Jordan to negotiate Jewish and Arab claims to sovereignty in Judea and Samaria (West Bank) and Gaza for the last 40 years to "end the occupation".

Is "ending the occupation" the Arabs' real aim or is "ending Israel's existence as the Jewish National Home of the Jewish people" the real aim?

If the former - this conflict could have been resolved in 1922, 1937, 1947, between 1948 and 1967, in 2000/1 and 2008.

No doubt the European Union, Facebook, Twitter YouTube and Microsoft had hate-filled people like you in mind with this press release:

"European Commission - Press release
European Commission and IT Companies announce Code of Conduct on illegal online hate speech

Brussels, 31 May 2016

The Commission together with Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft (“the IT companies”) today unveil a code of conduct that includes a series of commitments to combat the spread of illegal hate speech online in Europe.

The IT Companies support the European Commission and EU Member States in the effort to respond to the challenge of ensuring that online platforms do not offer opportunities for illegal online hate speech to spread virally. They share, together with other platforms and social media companies, a collective responsibility and pride in promoting and facilitating freedom of expression throughout the online world. However, the Commission and the IT Companies recognise that the spread of illegal hate speech online not only negatively affects the groups or individuals that it targets, it also negatively impacts those who speak out for freedom, tolerance and non-discrimination in our open societies and has a chilling effect on the democratic discourse on online platforms."

Read more at:
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1937_en.htm

This is great news following the Security Council decision discussed in my article.

Dear David,

<<Whoever posted that tape twenty years after Leibowitz's death probably did so intending to denigrate Israel and hoodwink people like yourself.>>

This is a possibility, among others, which I wouldn't discard.

<<Would love to give that person the opportunity to answer the same question.>>

The poster could well be a miscreant, but [unless you believe that Leibowitz's interview was faked] it makes no difference as to Leibowitz's claims that there are Jewish Nazis in existence.

Unless your claim is that "Yes, there were indeed Jewish Nazis in 1982 (when Leibowitz first made this claim), but by 1993 and ever since they all disappeared and none were left".

Can you tell us where they are now? Have they all just turned into Arab-loving peacenicks perchance? Are you saying that today there are no longer any Jews who would, if they could get away with it, torture and exterminate all Arabs, men women and children?

In my view, some of them not only still exist, but are even members of the present Israeli government. No I'm not referring to Mr. Netanyahu himself as there is a fine line between genuine concern for Israel's security and hatred for its own sake, but to some of his colleagues on the far right.

We regret the anti-Semitic education in Palestinian schools, the derogatory songs and ugly pictures of Jews, but we often forget that some sectors of the Israeli society teach Jewish children similar things about Arabs: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ynet.co.il%2Farticles%2F0%2C7340%2CL-1877130%2C00.html

//Thanks for dumping that bucket of pure hatred and invective on me.//

Well don't be a c$#t then Dave.

//Strange that I have been advocating for Israel and Jordan to negotiate Jewish and Arab claims to sovereignty in Judea and Samaria (West Bank) and Gaza for the last 40 years to "end the occupation".//

That's nice Dave.

When did I say anything 'Arabs' or 'the occupation'? Do you have any more red herrings you'd like to (unsuccessfully) attempt to use to distract from the discussion at hand? Might as well get them out of your system now.

I think you'll find I'm not so easily distracted as Armchair Critic. This may come as a shock to you Dave, but I don't care about some stupid squabble half a world away over who owns which bit of land. I don't have a dog in that fight.

This is not about what Israelis do on their patch of turf/other people's patch of turf (circle as appropriate).

This is about your support for an internet censorship regime which is downright dangerous. As far as you're concerned, data security and privacy are of absolutely no consequence as long as it achieves the goal of censoring the internet to your satisfaction. The ends do not always justify the means, Dave.

But rather than address any of the hard questions about why your right not to be offended trumps my right to privacy and security you simply trivialised them as being 'mischievous' and ignored them, and sought to weasel your way out of a discussion THAT YOU STARTED by turning it into yet another discussion about anti-Semitism where you are on firmer ground because no reasonable person supports anti-Semitism.

Try to forget about your persecution complex for the five minutes it will take to explain to me why I - and everybody else - should have to sacrifice our security and privacy to censor online hate speech the way you want it censored, when there already exist perfectly adequate methods to deal with online hate speech. Please note that just because these existing measures don't facilitate you getting cheap thrills by suing people, it does not follow that they are inadequate.

//No doubt the European Union, Facebook, Twitter YouTube and Microsoft had hate-filled people like you in mind with this press release://

That seems unlikely, Dave. The EU and companies as big as the ones listed can presumably hire lawyers sufficiently competent to know that calling a c$%t a c&%t does not constitute illegal hate speech. It's not even defamatory speech, just 'vulgar abuse'. Even if you could get your way people will still be able to call a c#$t a c^&t online and nothing could be done about it. The best way to avoid being called a c#$t is, as it always has been, to not be a c%&t.

#Toni Lavis

Tut,tut,tut Toni

Toni - version 1
"Why don't you just crawl back under your rock and cease and desist from your objectionable practice of uncritically accepting any and all policies proposed by the Israeli government no matter how shite they are, and from attempting to defend"

Toni version 2
"When did I say anything 'Arabs' or 'the occupation'? Do you have any more red herrings you'd like to (unsuccessfully) attempt to use to distract from the discussion at hand? Might as well get them out of your system now."

Toni version 3
"This may come as a shock to you Dave, but I don't care about some stupid squabble half a world away over who owns which bit of land. I don't have a dog in that fight.

This is not about what Israelis do on their patch of turf/other people's patch of turf (circle as appropriate)."

Will the real Toni on matters Israel stand up?

On freedom of speech - I have my opinion - you have yours.

I thought we had reached a reasonable compromise when you agreed you could live with some (but not all) web sites containing the following statement:
"We unfortunately receive abusive, offensive and racist messages on a routine basis. What can we say? There are a lot of jerks out there. We'll reject any offensive posts we receive but in this crazy new world of the internet, requiring everyone who posts on our website to entrust us with sensitive personal details presents such a manifest risk to their privacy and security that we cannot, in good conscience, condone it. So if you're the sort of person who is likely to be deeply upset by reading the posts of people who like to maintain their privacy we suggest you go elsewhere since not being allowed to play in our sandbox can hardly be called a hardship."

You subsequently backtracked claiming:
"Any perceived agreement is in your imagination." - notwithstanding you had clearly stated:
"I don't mind if some websites do it, I can just avoid those websites."

Tut,tut,tut again Toni

#Yuyutsu

You ask:
" Are you saying that today there are no longer any Jews who would, if they could get away with it, torture and exterminate all Arabs, men women and children?"

No I am not. Arab-hatred by some Jews does exist and needs to be stamped out - as does Jew-hatred among Arabs.

You distort this evident truth when stating:
"We regret the anti-Semitic education in Palestinian schools, the derogatory songs and ugly pictures of Jews, but we often forget that some sectors of the Israeli society teach Jewish children similar things about Arabs: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ynet.co.il%2Farticles%2F0%2C7340%2CL-1877130%2C00.html

You ignore the following statements in your linked article:
"The director of the public department at the Jewish Action Center for Pluralism, Gilad Karib, sent a letter to the Education Minister demanding she investigate the situation and curb "trends towards radicalization." The head of the Centre, Anat Hoffmann, says that it was pity that a third of the children chose to express patriotism by expressions of hatred towards the hatred. She regarded it as an educational and moral failure.

The head of the Education Committee in the Knesset, MK Zvulun Orlav (National Religious Party MAFDAL) said that the letters reflect an educational failure despite being written in a climate of terrorists attacks. "There is no reason for the Religous-Zionist pupils to express themselves that way" he said.

The Ministry of Education forbade the Heads of the two Schools to comment on the issue. The Ministry commented that the system educated the children to be tolerant. The Head of the Ministry was stunned by the letters. The Ministry promised to investigate the issue and to take steps for better guidance to pupils."
http://cosmos.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/php/art.php?aid=21353

There was an immediate response in Israel of condemnation and revulsion - which you just somehow failed to mention.

Was this an oversight on your part in failing to read the contents of your own link or deliberate concealment?

Which was it #Yuyutsu?

The PLO and Hamas however never condemn the teaching of Jew-hatred in Palestinian schools since it complements the Jew-hatred provisions of their respective Charters.

I was already getting over this thread a few days back, I started to feel like it had run its course.
I still had a few valid points to make but it felt like it would be a effort to try to argue them out and I was going to let it all go.
But David, your comment referring to valid facts I made as 'more distortions and lies' has annoyed me on a level that I am now going to make all of these points... and more.

Firstly my right to speak freely is protected.
If you don't like it take it up with the Australian Government.
I'm tired of you trying to use the law against me when obviously you dont know it.

Making a fair comment, if the comment is an expression of a person’s genuine belief is not against the law if “done reasonably and in good faith”.

http://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/race-discrimination/publications/know-your-rights-racial-discrimination-and-vilification

Also, since this article discusses ending anonymity on the internet and policing (and therefore prosecuting) Australian citizens for infringements of unfavorable speech, and that we've already established that Israel is behind the push for these new laws then that means that ANY AND ALL criticisms of Israel are now fair game on this thread, in an effort to find out what does and does not constitute 'Anti-Semitism' and 'Hate Speech', and how these laws once introduced would create a precedent for more laws that would restrict Australians freedom of speech.

Get it? You can't touch me. So lay off the bs for once.
You dont even take part in the website in the spirit its supposed to be done in.
You don't post articles for reasonable discussion, more often than not you post propaganda which you back up with accusations of 'Anti-Semitism' and 'Hate Speech'.

[cont]
If I want to bring up Leon Bronstein, Jewish Bolshevism and the NKVD (I could relate some sickening stories there), I could. If I want to bring up Johnathon Pollard, or the bombing of the USS Liberty, the Jewish involvement in US immigration laws or the fact Israel profits off the occupation I could. If I want to bring up the nuclear bomb factory under Dimona thats never been acknowledged or the control of western Banking and Media I can. If I want to bring up the Clean Break document, the Zionist Plan for the Middle East document and western involvement in M/E wars backed by Pro-Israel Neocons I can. If I want to state that its my opinion that Israel capitalises more politically off the stabbing of its own people than it would capitalise off genuinely making peace I can. If I want to link to facts in David Duke videos or David Icke videos on Rothschild Zionism I can. If I want to complete all those 1 to 100 examples of genuine Jewish hypocrisy like I started to, I can.

It's all fair comment.
I'm going to finish the first half dozen examples that I started earlier because it creates a context for how these proposed laws might affect Australians.

For all the readers who do identify as Israeli, Jewish or Zionist I want to apologise in advance if I have the terminology wrong when referencing each demographic and I also want to relate that I do not wish to come across as being racist or discriminatory in any way when presenting my arguments, which are my genuine thoughts and I'll try my best to put them forward in a fair and reasonable manner.

I'm going to try to reasonably argue out this whole 'Anti-Semitic' and 'Hate Speech' thing.

Example 1 BDS.
I've already substantiated my argument that the people (representing Judea) did indeed place a boycott upon Germany on 24 March 1933 prior to David's timeline and prior to WWII.

(David could just as fairly be accused of deliberate concealment.)

If Israel claims BDS is Anti-Semitic and a crime against Israel, then by extension should Israel not also accept that (people respresenting Judea) committed a similar crime against Germany and together with a Declaration of War must take some responsibility for provoking Hitler and of the events of WWII, in so much as the way they were ultimately singled out and persecuted?

If Israel refuses to accept BDS as a legitimate non-violent form of protest and considers it a provocation and a form of racial discrimination then it should also accept that their own boycott of Germany was also a provocation and a form of racial discrimination against Germans; which ultimately lead to Jews being singled out and persecuted by Germans during WWII.

If it claims BDS is provocative NOW, it must accept it provoked Germany THEN.
It can't have its cake and eat it too.

Example 2 Holocaust.
Firstly I want to respectfully make a comparison about another event, 9/11 and question why we don't seek to outlaw speech and prosecute people who question that official story?
Why is it that the Holocaust is off limits if other events in which the official story could be questioned are not?
So this is another example of hypocrisy.

I'd like to know how many people read my previous comment and have had their finger half-cocked for several days waiting to discriminate against me with the thought 'holocaust-denier' when I'd not actually said anything controversial?
You we're already discriminating against me and I hadn't even done anything wrong.
I doub't those of you that did would admit it, but you'll have to admit it to yourselves.

I don't even necessarily have to give credit to your intended claims, I don't need to.

I could simply present a factual list of the facilities at Auschwitz and question whether it was intentionally built as a death camp.

I don't need to 'go to the we find this stuff offensive and distasteful' area of questioning the amount of deaths (in connection to purported numbers in Europe at the time), whether deaths were from typhus, or starvation (due to supply lines cut nearing the end of the war) or gas chambers, for which there seems to be no residue of Zyclon B detected on the walls (please don't tell me to drink acid again Toni).

I don't even need to question these other things I just mentioned above, as simply presenting a list of the facilities at Auschwitz would be enough in itself to create doubt to the question of whether the place was built as a death camp, and it surely invoke an 'Anti-Semitic' and 'Hate Speech' response, even though they're simply facts.

I'll continue with this tomorrow...

//On freedom of speech - I have my opinion - you have yours.//

That's nice Dave.

But I asked for your opinions on security and privacy. You're not the sharpest pencil in the box are you Dave?

//I thought we had reached a reasonable compromise when you agreed you could live with some (but not all) web sites containing the following statement//

I didn't 'agree' I 'could live with' some (but not all) web sites containing the following statement. I suggested it. When I asked you to clarify your position:

//You're contradicting yourself, Dave. On Monday it was ALL websites that you wanted to adopt your anti-privacy measures:

//Would you object if the following condition of publication was imposed by all web sites//

But on Tuesday, I am 'spot on' when I say that it would be acceptable if only some websites choose to do it:

//"I don't mind if some websites do it, I can just avoid those websites."

Spot on.//

So which do you really support, Dave? Some websites adopting your idea if they choose to, or all websites being required to adopt your idea whether they like it or not?//

You dodged the question. Which I took to mean that you supported ALL websites requiring your anti-privacy measures, given that that was your initial position.

Would have been easier just to answer the question, wouldn't it Dave?

//whether deaths were from typhus, or starvation (due to supply lines cut nearing the end of the war) or gas chambers//

They were from all three causes, but the majority were from the gas chambers.

In his affidavit made at Nuremberg on 5 April 1946, Rudolf Höss, commandant of Auschwitz betwwn 4 May 1940 and 1 December 1943, and again from 8 May 1944 to 18 January 1945 stated:

"I commanded Auschwitz until 1 December 1943, and estimate that at least 2,500,000 victims were executed and exterminated there by gassing and burning, and at least another half million succumbed to starvation and disease, making a total of about 3,000,000 dead....when I set up the extermination building at Auschwitz, I used Zyklon B, which was a crystallized prussic acid which we dropped into the death chamber from a small opening. It took from 3-15 minutes to kill the people in the death chamber, depending upon climatic conditions. We knew when the people were dead because their screaming stopped."

Höss was there, running the place. I think he'd probably have a better idea of what took place than some nutty conspiracy theorists who weren't even alive at the time.

//for which there seems to be no residue of Zyclon B detected on the walls//

Do you have a reliable source for this claim, or is it just some hearsay you picked up somewhere and didn't apply critical analysis to? Is this claim going to turn out to be another Aaron Russo interview? Have you not learnt your lesson about believing hearsay from unreliable sources?

//I don't even need to question these other things I just mentioned above, as simply presenting a list of the facilities at Auschwitz would be enough in itself to create doubt to the question of whether the place was built as a death camp//

No, it really wouldn't.

If you are interested in looking further into these matters, I'd suggest you try and track down a copy of Höss's autobiography, written while he was awaiting execution. You might also like to check out 'Auschwitz: Technique and operation of the gas chambers' by Jean-Claude Pressac. That second one might not be as easy to find, but you shouldn't have too much trouble getting hold of Höss's autobiography.

Dear David,

I am glad that we agree that "Arab-hatred by some Jews does exist and needs to be stamped out - as does Jew-hatred among Arabs."

I have read the article I quoted in full and clearly it is not an official Israeli policy to incite blind hatred of Arabs.

In practice, however, we cannot say that these are just a few bad apples because it is too common within the "national-religious" education system and some influential Rabbis even advocate killing Arabs. While the state of Israel cannot officially and openly allow this, it often overtly allows it to continue: http://www.jpost.com/National-News/A-G-Torat-Hamelech-authors-will-not-be-indicted

For the contents of the book "Torat Hamelech", see http://maxblumenthal.com/2011/07/inside-torat-hamelech-the-jewish-extremist-terror-tract

A quote from that book:
"When discussing the killing of babies and children - why on the one hand, we see them as complete innocents, as they have no knowledge, and therefore are not to be sentenced for having violated the Seven Laws, and they are not to be ascribed evil intent. But on the other side, there is great fear of their actions when they grow up… in any event, we learn that there is an opinion that it is right to hurt infants if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us, and in such a situation the damage will be directed specifically at them."

---

Dear Critic,

You can state whatever views you have, but it is unreasonable that the Jewish boycott of Germany contributed in any way to Hitler's persecution of the Jews. More likely, without the boycott, Hitler would have accelerated and brought forward the schedule of persecution and extermination of Jews. Like other bullies, Hitler was known for admiring strength and had more respect for an opponent who resists than for one who doesn't. As an indication, contemporary Dutch neo-Nazis like and admire Jews because they consider them to have passed the test of survival, concluding that their race, following their victory in WWII and the formation of Israel, is "even superior to the Aryans".

Hey Toni,
I don't want to make the mistake of taking my discussion in a direction I don't want it to go.

What I want to say in regards my last comment about the Holocaust is that I'm not specifically arguing for the right to criticise Jewish people based upon war crimes committed against them in WWII.
For all the criticisms of Israel I could lay out this would be the last thing I'd be interested in.
The only reason I brought it up because it sets a precedent of what is and isn't acceptable speech.
I'll return to this topic after I finish laying out what I originally started.

Example 3 Right to Exist
I deny your 'right to exist' on planet earth... I deny your 'right to exist' in my backyard...
Two very different statements.

If someone said they deny my 'right to exist' on planet earth that might be a little bit discriminatory and unfair.
But if they said they deny my 'right to exist' in their backyard it might be a fair and reasonable statement.
So saying that you deny someone the 'right to exist' doesn't necessary mean you want them all dead.

From a legal perspective I can see how Israel's failure to state its borders is an issue.
If Palestinians say 'We accept your right to exist. What are your borders?
Then of course Israel can say its borders are whatever it wants.
It's like those disclaimers when you download software. "You agreed."

So until Israel states it's borders, all Palestinians can do is deny Israel's 'right to exist' on land it considers it's backyard which is what the whole argument is about.
Seems all fair and above board to me.
What about the Palestinians 'right to exist'?

Israel plays upon the idea of genocide and the Holocaust to constantly reinforce the idea that it's the victim.

David argues Jordon is Palestine and that Palestinians should go back there so is he not in the very same way denying Palestinians right to exist on the land previously known prior to 1947 as Palestine?

Example 4 Criticism of Israeli Government

Are you saying this is not a reasonable example of when a government should be criticised?
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/11/israel-clears-military-gaza-beach-children
Is mentioning this 'Anti-Semitic' or 'Hate Speech' or is it fair criticism?
How does a country exonerate itself of deliberately blowing kids up on a beach?
Was it the rockets fault? Did it launch itself?

What about this?
http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2016/05/18/466163/Israel-West-Bank-Ettinger-Palestinians-Christians
Is this not worthy of criticism?
What if North Korea or Russia or Iran or even Australia did this?
Should we not talk about it because it might be Anti-North Korean, Anti-Russian, Anti-Iranian or Anti-Australian?
It's unrealistic.

Example 5 Criticism of Jewish religion

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish/adl-slams-shas-spiritual-leader-for-saying-non-jews-were-born-to-serve-jews-1.320235

Is posting that link or criticising this religious leaders views considered 'Anti-Semitic' or 'Hate Speech'? If so why?
We have the right to question and criticise Islam don't we?
Their treatment of gays and inequality to women are obvious examples.
Why should one be 'permitted speech' and the other 'hate speech'?

Example 6 Opinions and Arguments

I've made the comment before that Israel brings its problems on itself.
David claims that this comment is 'Anti-Semitic' and 'Hate Speech', but is it an unfair statement?

I have already substantiated my argument that Jews/Zionists provoked Hitler prior to WWII and for this they were singled out.
I can substantiate the argument that Israel provoked the native Palestinians in 1947 based on the story of Naeim Gilardi.
http://www.bintjbeil.com/E/occupation/ameu_iraqjews.html
So it's a fair statement to hold an opinion that Jews/Zionists/Israel has indeed brought their/it's problems on itself.

Summary:
Now we can now put all this into a context.
What happens if we agree to laws that make it illegal to support non-violent forms of protest?
'Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.' JFK

What happens if we agree to laws that make it illegal to discuss conspiracy theories or theories of events other than 'the official story'?
Are we going to lock up people that question 911? (which lead to the War on Terror and millions more killed)
Are we going to lock up people that question the stolen generation too?

What happens if we twist the truth and make the act of challenging false narratives illegal?
Are we going to put all our own politicians in jail for lying and misleading us?

What happens if we agree to laws that make it illegal to criticise governments?
How many people on this forum question and criticise OUR government?

What happens if we agree to laws that make it illegal to criticise religion?
Should we just let Islamic State create caliphates wherever it likes under the idea that criticism is 'Hate Speech'?

Under these conditions, based on Israel's idea of what is and isn't acceptable, every single person on this forum is likely guilty of committing an offense.

Why should foreign entities decide on laws that affect Australians anyway?
Its actually insulting to simply assume that we should not have the right to decide for ourselves what laws we deem reasonable in our own country.

Hey Yuyutsu,
I watched a couple of videos on the Armenian Holocaust as well as the earlier video by Prof. Leibowitz.

http://youtu.be/cXHea26RDAY

I'm not sure if the above video is unbiased or slightly slanted towards a Turkish point of view.
It seemed reasonable what was put forward, but what I found out is that there's more than one side to this story too, and the argument isn't exactly cut and dry.

I learned that Armenian Hnchak and Dashnak parties were deliberately carrying out a campaign of terror against the Turkish and Kurdish people of Eastern Anatolia.
They apparently did so for the specific purpose of causing reprisal attacks which they hoped would result in major powers (Russia, France, Britain) coming to their defense.

What I got from the Prof. Leibowitz video was that he opposed the occupation, and also said that a lot of IDF personnel were concerned about serving in the occupied territories.

You spoke about Israels morality.
I kind of believe that if Israel tries to take that land from the Palestinians by means of oppression and military conquest, then you don't morally deserve one square inch of it.

As a side note, or a kind of observation:
It seems to me that in Israel everything is defined in and around an underlying ideology or doctrine that revolves around 'Hate'.
Anyone that criticises Israel is involved in 'Hate Speech'.
Even a Jew that criticises Israel is a 'Self-Hater'.
I've got to honestly say it really seems like such a messed up way to view the world, and I wonder why it's that way, though I have my theories.
It's as though Jews define the world through 'hate-coloured' glasses.
Whats with that?

Haven't forgotten about you Toni,
I'll try to check out your links and respond tomorrow.

Dear Critic,

Thank you for the information about the Armenians, I will study it.

Were you aware that there is an Armenian quarter in Jerusalem's old city? The Armenians there dread the day Israel withdraws, knowing that their Muslim neighbours wouldn't allow them to see the next.
(but I don't advocate that Israel should stay there to save the Armenians, rather it should absorb them as refugees).

If you are looking for hate, go no further: you can find plenty in Australia and even on OLO, even more among Russian and British football fans.

As you said, "It's AS THOUGH Jews define the world through 'hate-coloured' glasses."
Yes, there are SOME Jews who define the world through hate-coloured glasses.
It's the media that accentuates this phenomena.
There are also many Jews and Israelis who live their own lives peacefully and do not hate anyone.
But the media is not interested in those - there's no sensation there, no fame, no profits.

Ask someone overseas, say in Israel, what's the first thing that comes to mind when they think of 'Australia'.

- for many, it would be "bushfires".

You know very well that bushfires do not define life in Australia: they exist, but are far from what Australians have for breakfast.

You can tell this because you experience the Australian life first-hand, yet regarding life in Israel, your only experience comes through the media. Having first-hand experience of life in Israel, I can tell you that while hatred and terrorism and wars all exist, life in Israel is far from being about those.

<<I kind of believe that if Israel tries to take that land from the Palestinians by means of oppression and military conquest, then you don't morally deserve one square inch of it.>>

Hopefully by "you" you mean Israel, not myself... Having even one square inch of that cursed place is indeed a great punishment. What have Israel done to deserve that terrible predicament of occupying it? I don't think that taking the land from Palestinians is a sufficient explanation for their wretched state.