TRTL. I'm sure one day you will write something that I disagree with. But until that day arrives, I'll continue to suspect you have access to my brain and are stealing my thoughts.

I really don't get what all the fuss about real names is. Anonymity has a proud history in ideas and debate and literature, and certainly doesn't indicate cowardice. It's a choice, a style of debate. I publish under my real name, and am no more honest than I am here. Arguably the reverse. Which is anonymity's intent. Take secret ballots for example - designed to allow people to be true to themselves without cultural pressure. And literature - The Story of O, Primary Colours - many novels have been written anonymously or pseudonymously to capture controversial or unpalatable truths.

I am not a coward here or IRL, and am beginning to resent the suggestion I might be. What keeps me honest on OLO is not the use or otherwise of my real name but my own moral code. (In this respect, this argument reminds me of that old Christian chestnut that suggests it is fear of god that prevents anarchy. As though, if they discovered suddenly god didn't exist, Christians would take to the street, raping and pillaging. Meanwhile, us morally rudderless atheists would be checking our locks. Nervously.)

PALE, you are quick to talk defamation, but you also seem quick to criticise and be offended. I've only had one interaction with you - I started a thread about the sexual abuse of boys. You rather aggressively accused me of being R0bert. Then you said I was only pretending to care about sexual abuse because I had not logged on for 48 hours and missed a post of yours. I don't really care - sticks and stones and all that - but that's my lone experience of real unfairness on OLO and it stung. Defamation is expensive whether the culprit is anonymous or not. You seem very emotional - perhaps you need to study your own and others' comments more carefully before jumping to conclusions.

TammyJo- “I do object to posters using the name of an organization to spout their opinions when the organization’s manifesto has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.” True; posting under the name of an organisation puts other people/organisations involved at risk.

Robert I like your list of ‘reasons for not using identifying information on posts’. I had a similar idea: to make 2 lists of the pros and cons- but then I could only think of 1 pro. :) i.e. ‘people can be held responsible more easily for what they say or may refrain from offending others.’

PALE, Taryn, I have no problem with people using their own name; as I said, it’s a personal choice.
Secondly, I do recognise that your pro point is a very strong one.

People who make racist comments should be held responsible for what they said. Australia does have anti racial vilification laws for a good reason.
First of all, they should be permanently banned from posting. I remember that, a while ago, one poster was permanently banned for having made anti-Semitic posts.

Is there a way that people can be held responsible without the need for the openly use of real names?
Protection has to go both ways. People must be able to hold each other accountable but at the same time people must be able to secure their own ID if they so please.
What would happen if a victim of racial vilification would want to bring assault charges to the perpetrator but the perpetrator was using a moniker?
Would GY be obligated to supply that person’s details to the legal person handling this case?
If this is in fact the case, then the person using a moniker CAN be held responsible and the ‘pro real name’ argument would weaken.

Still, my family’s and our company’s security is my priority.
If I risk being called dishonest, a coward, unfair, or irresponsible by choosing to use a moniker, I rather take that risk than the risk associated with jeopardising my privacy.

TRTL "Strong criticism is not censorship."
Agree, top post.

Now we're getting somewhere. I agree completely with the last posts from Celivia, Vanilla and TRTL.

There are clearly very good reasons that people have for wanting to express their ideas anonymously. However, I think it's an abuse of that aspect of freedom of speech when people hide behind pseudonyms in order to promulgate hatred and division, or in order to defame others.

On balance, I think that while it's quite valid to express ideas and opinions anonymously, any such contributions would have to carry less weight than those from people who are willing to stand by their ideas publicly. We could all think of pseudonymous contributors to this forum whose bigoted and posts we automatically regard sceptically.

Ultimately, I think that debate about controversial topics tends to suffer because some of our most prolific members post comments here anonymously that they wouldn't dream of saying in real life. While that might be a valid function of this forum as far as they are concerned, it's pretty obvious that anonymity contributes to a lower standard of debate than we might otherwise have.

So like I said, I'd participate in a complementary forum where members have to be identifiable to each other, but I understand completely why anonymity (or rather pseudonymity) should prevail at OLO.

PALE&IF - apology accepted :)

palimpsest - who said anything about restrictions on thought?

Extracts from the site rules are shown below

The last item I've included covers cooperation with authorities. The idea that those of us using alias's are somehow protected from legitimate legal consequences is incorrect. What we gain some protection from is bluff letters from solicitors. The ones that can cause a lot of heartache and expense while we find out where we stand. We gain some protection from intimidation tactics.

I'd certainly consider the publication of details sufficient to identify me as a breach of my privacy and the use of threats of law suits for what appear to be routine disagreements clearly "restricts or inhibits any other user from using or enjoying this site".

--

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/display.asp?page=legal

General prohibitions
You must not up-load, post, transmit or otherwise make available through this site any material which:
- violates or infringes the rights of others (including their privacy and publicity rights).
- is unlawful, threatening, abusive, defamatory, invasive of privacy, vulgar, obscene, profane or which may harass or cause distress or inconvenience to, or incite hatred of, any person.
- encourages conduct that would constitute a criminal offence, give rise to civil liability or otherwise violate any law.
- restricts or inhibits any other user from using or enjoying this site.
- affects the functionality or operation of this site or its servers or the functionality or operation of any users' computer systems (for example, by transmitting a computer virus or other harmful component, whether or not knowingly).
- breaches any standards, content requirements or codes promulgated by any relevant authority, including authorities which require us to take remedial action under any applicable industry code.

Co-operation with authorities
We reserve the right to co-operate fully with any law enforcement authority in any jurisdiction in respect of a lawful direction or request to disclose the identity or other information about anyone posting materials which the authority claims violates any applicable law.

--

R0bert

TarynW “not too scared to put MY real name up and I assure you I get far more hate mail then you do.“

I would note, “tarynW” does not carry an address and “Winter” is not an un-common family name

However, do not presume I am scared of anyone or anything.

I have, on occasions, repainted my front wall 3 times in a month. At the moment I seem to have found how to defeat the indiscriminant graffiti morons (although they do seem to come along in cycles and I might be in a lull) but do not wish to attract more.

Macropod Whisperer “I believe that by using your real name you are more accountable for the information you provide to others. I am not saying that some information given might not be true,”

Not necessarily, “truth” is often biased by the author in an “opinion” only absolute truths are verifiable, like the elements on a periodic table but even factual history depends on individual perspective as they say “history is written by the victor”.

Doubtless a history written by the vanquished, as we might see in the current “sorry” debate, differs from what those who were employed to extricate the supposed “stolen generation” might write and they will both be truthful from the values which dominate their individual perspectives.

And I bet I will not find “Macropod Whisperer” listed in the white pages :-)

CJ Morgan “While I'm sure that would be a tragic outcome, I think OLO would survive without "Col Rouge".”

I am sure it would. Further, I think you would be safe to continue with your own anonymous name, keeping us up to date on the development of the philosophic debate being engaged in by pond life.

And if you were not here, I would have to find someone else to dumb-down to your level before playing slap-the-dullard.

CJ Morgan, I disagree with you over the legitimacy of our most prolific poster being able to post without being identified with her views in the real world.

As you have avoided naming the poster I'll refer to her as "B" for convenience and change some other identifying information to protect the guilty.

Whilst I strongly disagree with most of what "B" posts it would be pointless to deny that some muslims are more than willing to resort to violence to attend to insults to their faith and or prophet. They are not unique in that, people in modern times have died because some christains take a dislike of abortion to an extreme.

"B" probably thinks the proportion of muslims willing to do violence is much higher than I think it would be but then it only takes one willing to do violence for that to be an issue.

If "B" breaches any of this countries laws then she should (and can) be held accountable for that. Given that "B" lives in Victoria I've often wondered how her posts go against that states anti-vilification laws.

Any other reasons for "B" not being game to speak her piece under her real name are to do with risks outside the legal system, perceived or otherwise. Should "B" have to place herself in harms way to raise an issue that obviously concerns her greatly?

If we go down that track then those most willing to act outside the legal system have an effective mechanism to silence their critics.

History gives us too many examples of groups who reacted with violence to criticism for me to ever be comfortable with people being forced to identify themselves to say controversial things.

If we silence "B" we may also silence those who have a message that we need to hear but which others don't want us to hear. If we want the good we have to accept some of the bad.

R0bert