Diarmaid no balaclavas but the burqa is alright though isn’t it.

It is not illegal to wear a balaclava.

You sound like you are new to the internet Diarmaid.

Can anyone try not to be patronising, in a way ye are kinda proving my point, trying not to mock and convincing me otherwise might be a better ploy and less ironic!

@steve where did I say the burqa was alright? Can you point that out to me? Emily throw a balaclava on there, and head into town, see how long you last!

I haven’t been patronising. It seems, as though, you favour a broad stroke approach and belittlement when met with conflicting viewpoints. How many ‘anonymous wafflers’ have you chosen to follow on twitter?

So you think burqas and pseudonyms are wrong, how very odd.

Diarmaid – You reckon I’d be arrested for wearing a balaclava? Don’t be daft. I might be refused service in the bank – they can set their own rules for their own business. And that’s the point, really. You don’t like pseudonymous posters? Just don’t read them. Journal doesn’t like them? Fine, have a real-names policy, and we’ll decide whether to keep commenting or not. But you don’t get to make up those rules, and nor should the government.

Steve just try not generalising yourself and try not putting words in my mouth. Give it a go!

I don’t get to make up the rules, but hey you do is it?

Its intetesting to note the “right wing V left wing wrbsites, if for you are seen to be of the extreme right wing Nazi view you are hounded ( rightly so in my opinion) by the media. Mainly because of the millions left dead aftet WW2.

But for some reason it seems to be ok to hold extreme left wing communist views and display the hammer and sickle, yet under the same banner at least as many people were butchered in the twentyeth centuary ( actually tens of millions more) if you take the USSR, China and Cambodia alone.

So National Socialism is evil!
Soviet Socialism is good!

You said not all anonymous posters are racists, of course they’re not, I never said they were!

Chill Diarmaid. Your first post was gobble-de-gook.

Come on, certain people would not be so ‘brave’ if they had to come out from behind their masks.

Lads can ye actually read what I said please!!!

It seems as though some people have taken offense to your comments.

What in the name of Christ has being a wooly liberal bot to do with anything, try to keep on point and stop ranting will ya!

Anonymous ppl are not classified as a race or minority group so I’d say I’m safe enough!

“Ban anonymous posting online and that’s a massive start IMO”

As Shanti said, it’s a big generalisation, tbh.
Not all anonymous accounts online are there to racially abuse people.

I’m trying to understand your point, but I’m struggling here? From what I gather, you’re saying to ban all accounts that don’t use their real name due to some people using anonymous accounts tio spread hate and abuse people?

I’m not sure that minority groups exist in a global venue.

Yes exactly, sorry lads that’s my view, there’s no censorship but taking cyber bullying into account and the devastation that has on young people and the crap that litters the Internet from anonymous trolls, ban anonymous accounts. People can write what they want as we live in a country of free speech but you’re not allowed have a balaclava on while using that free speech, simple as! The benefits would far outweigh the negatives!

Utter drivel being spoken on this topic as per usual. Everyone seems to be forgetting one thing – in order to “ban” anonymous accounts you would need to create a vast monitoring and censorship infrastructure way beyond the resources of this state.

This would be incredibly expensive and relatively easy to circumvent for anyone with a moderate technical understanding. Countries like China and Saudi Arabia have attempted it in the past with limited success.

So all the finger wagging nanny stater will just have to suck it up. Anonymous accounts are here to stay. If you’ve a problem with that then confine yourself to Facebook.

Why am I not surprised its all anonymous accounts are the ones protesting! I would take on board what someone with a face and name would say as a credible piece of info but I only view anonymous accounts as wafflers, sorry.

Are you really Diarmaid Twomey…?

Everyone had a face and a name, some people choose not to share them which doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be allowed share their thoughts and opinions.

Anybody that puts all their personal details on facebook or whatever, with photo and everything is looking for trouble. It is smart to be anonymous on the internet. Putting all your details up in public is the dumbest thing I can think of.

Diarmaid, I agree with a lot of the stuff you say on here but certainly do not agree with this point. I’m not an anonymous account but I fully support anybody who wants to have an anonymous account.

What you are saying is just another form of the police state attitude of “only criminals want privacy”.

Have in mind that banning anonymous websites might be also the start for banning decent users who just express their opinions without spreading racism. Under the name of “extremism” you can lose all of your rights as you will be immediately targeted by authorities. It is the state of exception.

And btw I might start talking anonymously for a variety of other reasons. Will you ban me?

Racism is oppression which means you can’t fight it with oppression. Also racists have a close link with the state (which is no neutral/Weberian at all). Racism is always used as a tool for social conformity. This is why in most of the political correct countries anti-racism laws have utterly failed and racist groups are getting organized, recruiting etc. Racism is also enhanced by social antagonism as in times of crises people are battling over scare resources. At least free speech allows us to see that the problem exists. If you ban such users and force them to shut their mouth in public life then they will seek another means to do what they want to do, such like guns, firebombs etc

So you would lose nama wine lake to keep one special interest group happy? Bearing in mind that most of this speech is “send em back home” type nonsense you’re jumping on a slippery slope with a big set of skis on your feet. That would straight away ban Reddit for example, not to mention whistleblowers etc.

What if a gay person in kept their ID secret to blog about it without fear of meetin homophobia in real life? Who’s interest do you support then? Free speech has few limits on it for that reason, once you limit it for “bad people” its limited for everyone.

People read it, you either didn’t know what you wrote or didn’t write what you meant.

Oh “John” you dont do irony do you? Now youre telling me what I’m thinking is it?

No I’m saying you failed to communicate what you meant, the message sent didn’t.match the message received. As for you “diarmuid” how do I know you’re not Pat Spillane on a fake account?

I think what I said is fairly clear cut and precise, if people are going to deliberately misinterpret what I said I will correct them though, take Steve Hardy above for example, deliberately drawing contrived conclusions of which I never made, people on this comment twisting my words. It’s not my fault if people are either to stupid to understand my point or are twisting my words to make me out to say something I am not to suit their argument!

*too stupid

What you said was, but you forgot that everything done in such a broad stroke has implications. If you ban anons because some are racist you put into law the implication that all anons are made only for the purposes of spreading racist ideas. You’re also going into murky waters when it comes to net neutrality and encroaching on free speech and protest. You also have to put in some sort of online passport to make sure that the account matches real life. This is a huge amount of control to give a govt; esp one like ours that doesn’t understand the net. Steve has a point though: banning online anons would be similar to banning the burqa; they’re both examples of personal expression as covered under the US 1st amendment as well as our own free speech and expression laws. I notice you didn’t reply to any of the points I made further up? Normally I like what you post but on this I think you’re 100% wrong. If online bullying is a problem it’s up to parents and individual website mods to tackle it. It’s the online equivalent of banning cars due to drunk drivers. Imagine someone on the right complained about the ULA’s site for spreading communist dogma and wanted it banned; we’d rightly see through it and laugh at them. If a person’s first and only argument is the Maud Flanders “Won’t someone please think of the children” then you can safely ignore it

*what you said was clear cut even

Hi John, thanks for that reasoned argument! Firstly I am suggesting you ban sites, so the point about the right complaining about a ULA website is pretty much null and void. I understand what you are saying about handing control to the government but I dare to dream, this may sound naive I know, but what about if the regulatory body was completely independent. I again dare to dream and suggest if that body was independent, that anonymous accounts could be controlled rather than banned. For example, Namawinelake was an anonymous account with a very specific purpose which was working in the public interest, an independent regulator could judge that account to be ok whilst not allowing the thousands of other abusive, trolling crap merchants who serve no purpose other than to peddle some horse manure and get some insecurity anger off their chest? Again it may sound like a naive proposal but why can we not aspire to have an internet that functions for the greater good and thats not filled with shite?

The article does refer to demands to ban sites, I think the two issues go hand in hand. Well the first thing is that no one is completely independent and unbiased. The second is that even the perfect regulator is still regulating speech. You can’t have a republic with regulated speech. It’s a contradiction in terms. How does the regulator decide what’s okay and what’s not? It gets all Focault and Orwell very quickly.

The other thing is who is “we?” When people use collectives such as “we” and “society” they usually mean society should want what they want. It’s a rhetorical trick to compel agreement. “We” all want a better world for everyone but the usual follow on to such an argument is that freedom needs to be restricted for the public good. If you change the terms of your argument for a sec, drop out “internet” and put in “women’s bodies.” Using the same logic you’re making an extremely conservative anti choice argument that you would naturally disagree with.

The final point is that the line between satire, jokes, drivel, nonsense and abuse is blurry and subjective. If an anon is trolling in the proper sense, let’s say winding up a politician to get them to spout their real views or admit to something, should that be banned in the public interest?

That’s all well and good and parts of your argument have me convinced, but let me put this point to you, if your child was being told online by an older man or woman that they wanted meet them, that they described in the most grotesque detail what they wanted to do to them, that’s free speech is it? If a religious fundamentalist described how they viewed the infidels and what they would like to happen to them and your children thats free speech is it?

What you wrote is completely unworkable. Any web developer can write software which allows anonymous contributions in a matter of minutes. So, as soon as you “ban” it, how do you enforce it? Are we expecting the Gardai to search out website which might permit this, and block them? What a great use of resources that would be.

As for far right websites, I’m unclear what the article author suggests be done. IMHO, banning far right material merely feeds into their agenda. Most far right politics comes from the starting point of a sense of persecution – whether it’s the American Nazi party or the BNP, they feed their followers a diet of how they are being persecuted.

So, by banning, not only are you feeding that, but you’re also making stopping it completely unenforceable. That is not a solution.

Internet anonymity and Internet loons are both here to stay, and we have to deal with that reality.

Dairmuid, even if 100% of people agreed with your proposals they are technically impossible without building out own mini-NSA.

Utterly ridiculous proposal. Have you any idea of the sheer size and dynamic nature of the Internet? And that’s before you get into all the legal stuff about privacy, heavy resistance from users and block-circumventing technology.

Really. Luckily there are more pressing problems in Ireland so your dream of thousands of civil servants checking and approving web sites will remain a Stalinist fantasy for the foreseeable future.

Well sexual comments to a minor and direct threats to a person are already covered under sexual harrassment and assault laws. They should be treated online as though they were made on the street. I imagine the laws against speaking filth to kids are more severe and restrictive; there are already multiple ways of punishing someone for that behaviour without new online laws. When it comes to kill the infidels kind of stuff I think it is protected speech. The KKK in the US for example are allowed to put forward their views. Inter group hatred has been there since the Greeks invented the word “barbarian.” A new law now will not stop it, and social movements have brought us a long way, these kinds of views are pretty much on the fringes as it is, so laws to tackle them shouldn’t affect the mainstream.

The difference between speech and threats is when they’re directed at a specific person rather than kill em all political rhetoric. That’s my understanding of the US situation, again our laws are even tighter than that. We already have the legal tools to challenge threats to society, banning anon accounts isn’t needed. My twitter is linked to my email, which is linked to my IP address and thence me. Anon accounts aren’t that anon if you really want to find the owner.

You’ve just done exactly what I said above: used an extreme example to justify something that will affect loads of people like me who want to protect their image from being too visible online, in the name of children’s safety. Not even 1% of online anons engage in the activity you want to ban them for. If proper use was made of available powers many of these issues could be addressed. I would be more worried for my kids to grow up in a world where they can’t speak their mind.

There’s also the power of boycott. If a racist shouts abuse in a forest, does anyone hear him? That’s a basic movement of free people to deny a pulpit to a dangerous element. Free societies challenge these people and show them up for what they are, the answer to a demonstration by a racist group is a counter demonstration, not a ban on one group which will lead to a ban on all demonstrations.

Encroachments on freedom start with the easy targets, for now it’ll be porn and racism… Then mission creep will set in and governments will try to control and limit political thought as being dangerous.

So they’re covered but a verbal assault from abusive troll isn’t is it? That’s ok, that someone can falsely accuse, harass, intimidate and abuse under the auspice of Internet freedom?

How dare you Diarmuid call for the banning of my CHOICE to post anom.

Where did I say that? And like the guys above said, controlling it simply wouldn’t work. You’d need a system bigger than the internet itself to control it, and it would always have to keep expanding. Like I said, websites where kids are getting bullied can moderate and remove abusers. If you’re on a site where you get abuse, block and leave. If you get shouted at on a night out do you run to find a guard or do you find another bar? Not that you should have to but most people simply walk away from annoying people. You can do that online too.

Daniel, don’t be getting sidetracked and your innuendo is nothing short of farcical! I believe in choice for a woman, i don’t believe women should be allowed be reckless with that choice! But for God sake lets have one conversation not centred on the government or abortion!

John, I have no issue with people being annoying, can no one honestly see the comparable difference between someone threatening or insulting you to your face or the same thing happening to a person when the abuser has a balaclava on? Honestly can none of ye see how they differ???

What is so bloody wrong with wanting the net to be less full of shite and abuse and more tolerable for everyone! I repeat this is NOT ABOUT CENSORING ANYONE, you can say what you want, when you want to who you want, just be willing to reveal your identity!

Can’t we get a hand from the NSA?

You clearly haven’t listened to the points that anyone made. People have said above that what you want is impossible to do. The practicalities are in your way from the off. There is no internet bouncer to check if you are the real Diarmaid Twomey. I could get a random pic and say my name is Tom Hayes, doesn’t make me Tom Hayes.

Then there is the ethics of it. Plenty of sensible people have very good reasons for posting anonymously. Most of them don’t troll or abuse anyone. Examples include whistleblowers, namawinelake, gay people in heavily religious/ intolerant families, someone recently wrote an article about her abortion anonymously on this site, people can be worried about identity theft, some people may not want their employer or colleague to know personal details and opinions.

Forcing people to ID themselves online would affect all the above and many more people with legit reasons for their anonymity. That is why you are wrong.

John, please drop the self righteousness, I was warming to your argument and then you have to ruin it with your last line! Everything is opinion here, there is no black and white, you’d do well to remember that! I could talk about recent “free speech” instances in Italy with the election of the first black woman minister but there is no point in talking with someone who is so self righteous!

In my opinion, I think you’re mistaken despite having good intentions. Is that a better tone to put it in?

If you can come up with a realistic alternative to anonymity online that protects the people I mentioned and keeps the net neutral I’ll admit to being self righteous. If not I stand by what I said.

If you wanna talk about Italy then, a blanket ban on mp’s talking would not work, they should punish the one guy who was insulting. I think what you put forward is a group punishment on everyone who keeps their name off the internet.

A lot of the points I would have made have already been made, but to turn this on its head.
I don’t think kids should use their real names online.
Why?
1. It offers a layer of protection against predators and bullies. Only their friends need know their true identity, the pedophiles and bullies would find it harder to pick on them if they had full control over what information they revealed about themselves.
2. It means that all the silly things that they put up that seemed so cool at the time but may be embarrassing later, don’t haunt them forever. We didn’t have the Internet and Facebook in our teens, we get to look back and blot out all the stupid things we did – today’s teens are leaving a digital record of all their most embarrassing things for all to see – including future colleges / employers..

There’s pros as well as cons Diarmaid. Truth be told, we have trolls out on the street too, the ones who pass comment on others as they walk by, the ones who like to pick fights with strangers.. We can’t ban them. The problem is the action, not the medium, or the identification. Each of us has the right to privacy, to have that stripped from us for the sake of some people that clearly have issues seems a step too far. The problem is with the users who choose to behave in such a way – if you want this ideal world it’s better to attack the cause rather than the symptoms.

Jeez What is this ! The fcuking Diarmaid and John show ?

Yeah we’re taking over from Marian on rte

Diarmaid, scaremongering to persuade… Are these the very tactics you so strongly apposed? I’ve had enough of your hypocrisy driven by vanity.

That would be grooming, Diarmuid. Which is illegal. When a guy walks into a bank, free speech does not cover him saying “hand over the money”. The freedom to speak is very different from the concept of having complete immunity from the consequences of that speech. You don’t appear to have a good grasp of this free speech thing.

So where does free speech start and end so? An abusive troll is a form of assault, I’m interested to hear your own pretty unique views on free speech as the holes are beginning to appear!

Diarmaid – it’s incredibly poor etiquette to take an important topic and railroad it to the emotional and extreme. You’ve said:

“Yes exactly, sorry lads that’s my view, there’s no censorship but taking cyber bullying into account and the devastation that has on young people and the crap that litters the Internet from anonymous trolls, ban anonymous accounts.”

Note: “bank anonymous accounts.”

Unless you want to elaborate more on this, what you’re referring to here is a blanket ban on all anonymous accounts regardless of what their used for.

Also, to take you up on your point about old men, children and infidels, the extreme likelihood is that these “old men” and “fundamentalists” will be following the young and infidelic around on websites owned by private companies with terms and conditions that prohibit such behaviour. As a result, a functioning system would quickly act to prevent such abuse.

Furthermore, I acknowledge there is a point where speech becomes harassment but those incidences should be taken on a case-by-case basis. A blanket ban is, more or less, always a short-sighted solution to a much deeper problem – as illustrated by drug prohibition.

“if you can’t derive the difference between being allowed free speech as an individual and as some anonymous racist abusive troll thats your problem!”

No, it’s everyone’s problem if what you’re advocating effects the lives of others, as is the case here. You don’t seem to be able to differentiate (and it’s a big difference) between a blanket ban on a very important form of speech – that which is anonymous – and the criminalisation of certain forms of speech (that which may constitute harassment).

As for hate speech, I’m personally against banning a lot of you may consider to be hate speech. Harassment of an individual is one thing, but anonymous racist speech on a website (Stormfront for example) should not be criminalised. If two racists are standing on the street talking to each other about the latest gossip and ideas in the racist community should they be arrested? No. For me, the same applies online. Unless you can prove there is a genuine victim I don’t think anyone should be making a case for preventing such speech.

Your hysterics over children and fundamentalists is not a sound basis for any argument.

If you think an abusive troll is a form of assault, then my advice to you would be to unplug your modem now.

“Where does free speech start and end”?

Who knows. It’s clearly not a black and white issue. I think the key difference here is that you’re suggesting something which covers all speech across the whole white-grey-black spectrum in theory but completely unworkable in practice.

Most balanced views would suggest that we should err on the side of free speech and allow existing laws to cover the areas of grooming and threatening behaviour.

By the way, anyone who thinks that they are truly anonymous online should wise up.

Colin if you can’t see the multiple ironies in “If you think an abusive troll is a form of assault, then my advice to you would be to unplug your modem now” you are beyond help my friend!

Incitement to hatred and defamation are not free speech.

An important note to add: I mentioned that there is a point when free speech may cross the line to harassment. Having thought about this a bit more I think that point is reached when speech is combined with another action, such as stalking. If you follow someone around all day and are generally intimidating, you’ve got a pretty good case for harassment. In this case, free speech is a constituent of the problem but not the problem itself.

Diarmaid, seriously if you think trolling is in some way equivalent to assault, the you’re either way over sensitive or have never been actually assaulted. There is a huge difference. If you react to trolling as anyone else would act to an assault, then it is dangerous for you to be online at all. Just like if you don’t like some crazy in the street shouting nonsense, then don’t do out on the street, or stay indoors. Otherwise learn to ignore it unless it becomes actually illegal.

Btw, disagreeing with someone, or even using exaggeration as way to illustrate a point is not trolling. Maybe you don’t understand what trolling is. I’m not sure, but there is enough on this comments section to suggest that maybe you don’t. Just an observation. Not trolling.