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