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

Key reasons for not using identifying information on posts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

R0bert

Unctuous bilge.

Lets have more freedom of thought.

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

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

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

Subsequently, she posts in this thread:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Anything else would be a gross miscarriage of justice.

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

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

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

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

Hmm.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

annoying mozzie scares me off. This is not good.