//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.