New Zealand Prime Minister Calls for a Global Censorship System

C-Span screengrab

New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern is the latest liberal leader to call for an international alliance to censor speech. Unsatisfied with the unprecedented corporate censorship of social media companies, leaders like Hillary Clinton have turned from private censorship to good old-fashioned state censorship. Speech regulation has become an article of faith on the left. Ardern used her speech this week to the United Nations General Assembly to call for censorship on a global scale.

Ardern lashed out at “disinformation” and called for a global coalition to control speech. After nodding toward free speech, she proceeded to lay out a plan for its demise through government regulation:

But what if that lie, told repeatedly, and across many platforms, prompts, inspires, or motivates others to take up arms. To threaten the security of others. To turn a blind eye to atrocities, or worse, to become complicit in them. What then?

This is no longer a hypothetical. The weapons of war have changed, they are upon us and require the same level of action and activity that we put into the weapons of old.

We recognized the threats that the old weapons created. We came together as communities to minimize these threats. We created international rules, norms and expectations. We never saw that as a threat to our individual liberties – rather, it was a preservation of them. The same must apply now as we take on these new challenges.

Ardern noted how extremists use speech to spread lies without noting that non-extremists use the same free speech to counter such views.   To answer her question on “how do you tackle climate change if people do not believe it exists” is that you convince people using the same free speech.  Instead, Ardern appears to want to silence those who have doubts.

While referring to a global censorship coalition as a “light-touch approach to disinformation,” Ardern revealed how sweeping such a system would likely be. She defended the need for such global censorship on having to combat those who question climate change and the need to stop “hateful and dangerous rhetoric and ideology.”

“After all, how do you successfully end a war if people are led to believe the reason for its existence is not only legal but noble? How do you tackle climate change if people do not believe it exists? How do you ensure the human rights of others are upheld, when they are subjected to hateful and dangerous rhetoric and ideology?”

That is the same rationale used by authoritarian countries like China, Iran, and Russia to censor dissidents, minority groups, and political rivals.  What is “hateful” and “dangerous” is a fluid concept that government have historically used to silence critics or dissenters.

Ardern is the smiling face of the new generation of censors. At least the old generation of censors like the Iranians do not pretend to support free speech and openly admit that they are crushing dissent. The point is that we need to be equally on guard when censorship is pushed from the left with the best of motivations and the worst of means.

As the great civil libertarian Justice Louis Brandeis once said, “the greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.”



226 thoughts on “New Zealand Prime Minister Calls for a Global Censorship System”

  1. Bill Clinton has met with Blackrock to promote “The great reset”. Can’t the Clintons just go away and leave us alone.

    1. The globalists will never leave us alone. Not until they have been litigated, prosecuted and incarcerated, and their vast wealth (the source off all their power) is confiscated and distributed to the people of the world. And we must educate future generations to be forever on the lookout for their reemergence!

  2. JT is arguing that Ardern is calling for censorship, but nothing he quoted from her called for censorship.

      1. Are you talking about the first line of the article, written by JT? The first line he quotes from Ardern? She isn’t calling for censorship.

        1. it does, but more proof resides in the first line of the 2nd paragraph:
          Ardern lashed out at “disinformation” and called for a global coalition to control speech.
          Govermment controlled speech is called censorship in the language I speak.

          1. Government has no business deciding for the public what is misinformation or disinformation.

            If you do not grasp how bad an idea that is just look at Covid.

            Government got pretty much everything wrong. and actively worked to supress noted experts who disagreed – anyone who disagreed, claiming misinformation and disinformation.

            The entire debate is nonsense.

            Free speech REQUIRES that all speech is permitted. Each of us decides for ourselves – individually what is disinformation or misinformation.
            That can not be determined collectively.

            Those advocating censorship should look to see how well it has worked ?

            We rant about the bitter political divides – a significant part of the growing polarization and bitterness is a consequence of only hearing one side.

            If you want to return to relative peace – that will only happen when ideas that those with power disfavor are not censored.

            Censorship does not bring stability. It brings instability.

            Whatever it is that you think is hate speech IS free speech. And if people hold those views – they must be allowed to express them.

            It is not until after we have heard those we hate make the best case for their arguments, that each of us individually can try to discern the truth.

            The left claims to be democratic, but it does not trust people to sort the truth from lies on their own.

            The left is fascist, not democratic

  3. I can’t stress this enough: at its core, Democratic politics is about criminalizing opposition to their party and ideology.

    Dissenting ideas are “disinformation” and must be censored by Big Tech. Trump voters are inherently criminal (“insurrectionists”) and should be imprisoned.

    -Glenn Greenwald

    1. Let us be clear: Democrat politics, not Democratic politics! There is nothing Democratic about the Democrat party. Be nice if this was the norm in discourse about the non-democratic Democrat party. Spread the word.

      1. I’m in! Democrat party. Democrat politicians. Democrat corruption. Democrat disaster. Nothing democratic about the Democrat Party.

  4. Who appointed “Anonymous” to troll through these comments every day and “correct” others’ opinions?
    He/she is like a small puppy in an empty room that is barking at you. You try to narrow/nail down its path to a corner, but the puppy responds with a different/totally irrelevant behavior, -then runs along the wall to the next corner, then along the wall to the next corner, etc., -each corner a newly attempted tactic. It’s quite amusing.

      1. OOPs, here is Anonymous the Stupid blaming S. Meyer for the anonymous postings while he posts as Jonathan.


  5. The part of this new rampage against the freedom of the speech is that it is coming from outside America, but using that which was developed inside the United States to achieve this mission.

    Almost everyone knows that the internet, and the widespread communications it allowed, was developed in the United States. However, sometime druing the later years of President Obama’s second term in office, he turned over the control keys for the internet to some amorphous international organization which was under the control of the United Nations. This allowed every godawful political leader around the world to have some input into destroying the promised freedom of the internet that was developed here, and using out development against us. This had a stronger negative effect on the freedom of the speech that the internet allowed than the Communications Decency Act, Section 230 ever did.

  6. Very few deny that “climate change” exists. There is continuing debate about many issues related to climate change, however. These include:

    1. How extensive has temperature change actually been?

    2. How much of that has been caused by increased emissions of greenhouse gasses?

    3. What impact on the environment has it had thus far?

    4. What is the expected trajectory of temperature change in the future?

    5. What environmental impact will that have in the future?

    6. What economic and welfare impact will that have in the future?

    7. What mix of policies (mitigation/adaptation), if any, is appropriate, and at what cost and for what benefit and to/for whom, and over what time frame.

    Based on Koonin, Shellenberger and Lomberg, I would say the economic and welfare risks of climate change are low, that the current policies being pursued by leftist governments in the west have very high costs and virtually no benefits and that the neglect of fossil fuel development will do great harm, to both developed and developing countries, and, from a US perspective, will weaken us and strengthen China, which is going all out on coal and other fossil fuels, while dominating the market for products that deliver renewable energy.

    I suppose the NewZealand PM would like all this shut down.

    1. When you say “I suppose the NewZealand PM would like all this shut down,” what does “all this” refer to?

      If you’re referring to discussion of your questions, she has not suggested that discussion of your questions be shut down.

      1. Daniel, why then did your favorite president buy houses on both COASTS? It is a damn scam. Temps may be rising, the way they have fluctuated forever. Notice the most radical fools on this issue, AOC, Markey, Kerry, Biden et al NEVER call for China to stop building COAL plants, only for AMERICA to take the economic hit.

        The left wants to harm America, always have and always will. They fought against nukes in the 80s including DEMANDING that Reagan UNILATERALLY disarm while never, not once, calling for the USSR to do the same. They now want to ban fossil fuels in our land and the western allies land, but not China, our biggest enemy today. Why do you suppose that is?

        If the world is ending why not demand that China stop what they are doing? If the world is ending we should be boycotting China until they repent. Nope, the left only wants to boycott Israel, one of our allies.

        1. I think it was big pharma that woke up many folks to how easy it is to buy whatever “science” you need to propagandize the American people with.

      2. Funny World leaders have massive ocean front properties. Like, Joe Biden and Barack Obama. If they truly believe that the oceans are rising why did they buy multi million dollar ocean front mansions?

        1. I don’t think this is the reason, but they could lie to get a better price. The elites have loads of the people’s money so they can afford homes above $10 million.

    2. Vladimir Putin and the Iranian leadership, plus Kim Jung Un possibly, have the immediate cure for increasing global temperatures: it’s called ‘nuclear winter.’ And now that mutually assured destruction is no longer the international standard with regard to the use, or non-use, of nuclear bombs……whether one believes that ‘climate change’ is a real threat to mankind or one believes it’s a hoax generating Trillions of wealth to those positioning themselves to benefit from it…….doesn’t matter if Putin honestly isn’t bluffing, or if the Ayatollahs believe incinerating the planet is Allah’s will, or if Kim wakes up on the wrong side of the bed one day and is in a mood……go research nuclear winter…then tell me again that climate change is this vast existential threat to the human race.

      1. Richard Lowe —- (1) the Iranians don’t have nuclear bombs. The Indians and Pakistanis do, as do the Chinese, British and French. Oh yes, the Americans, up the kazoo.
        (2) After a nuclear winter, it is back to global warming, which has just gotten started. You should learn about it.

        1. Current projections are that should the Ukraine war trigger a nuclear conflict 300M people will be killed in a few days, and 1-3 Billion within a year. That the most developed portions of the planet will be utterly destroyed, leaving the least developed. That humanity will be set back 1-2 centuries and that progress will be reduced to a crawl.

          And in that environment you jump to the conclusion that global warming will resume quickly ?

          The closest thing to good news is that the vast majority of fallout will likely be contained to the norther hemisphere, because the people who die immediately may be the lucky ones.

          It is very odd, the massive impact of a nuclear conflict should bring with it the realization of how inconsequential the fears of warmists are.
          Yet, your responses is to jump to after billions of people have died – global warming will resume forthwith.

          You are so religiously indoctrinated that you are incapable of seeing the world through any other lens.

          If you time traveled back to the court of King Arthur – you would immediately resume your battle against Global warming.

    3. Not a single person can prove climate change is man-made. “Climate” has changed throughout recorded history and scientific extrapolation. There were no combustion engines prior to 1900. Meanwhile plant life is loving it.

  7. Here is a fact that this green lover wants you not to never know. People in Sri Lanka are now lucky to feed one meal per day to there children. This women wants us to believe in her heart felt compassion. If she had her way you would never know about the people starving in Sri Lanka caused by her beloved green agenda. Frankly Ms. Prime Minister you really don’t give a damn because you just want to stay in power. Covid is not the only plague created by totalitarians.

    1. You are lying about her. Nothing she said in her speech implies “If she had her way you would never know about the people starving in Sri Lanka caused by her beloved green agenda.”

  8. “Ardern noted how extremists use speech to spread lies without noting that non-extremists use the same free speech to counter such views.”

    That’s false. She did note that people use free speech to counter extremism. For example, she said “Upholding these values in a modern environment translates into protecting a free, secure and open internet. … we once again come back to the primary tool we have. Diplomacy, dialogue, working together on solutions that do not undermine human rights, but enhance them”). Here’s the transcript for those who don’t want to take the time to listen to the speech:

    Once again, Turley cherrypicks while ignoring evidence that counters his false description.

    1. In the speech, she refers to the Christchurch Call to Eliminate Terrorist and Violent Extremist Content Online.

      “Supporters of the Christchurch Call have made 24 commitments, which they commit to deliver transparently and in a way that respects and promotes human rights and a free, open, secure internet. The Call supporters work closely with civil society and partner organisations to do so. Commitments are wide ranging, covering everything from applying appropriate laws and regulation to specific technical measures, to efforts to address the underlying drivers of terrorism. ”

      The full text of the Call is here:

    2. Anonymous supported the 51 EXPERTS that said the Laptop was Russian disinformation and therefore the banning of it’s free dissemination. Anonymous supports leftists deciding what is misinformation, never a conservative making such determinations.

      People like Anonymous are truly a threat to our way of life which is why the bully comments here 1000 times a day. HE ha a myriad of liberal sites to comment on but he attacks daily the most fair minded and open legal/political site we have. Ask yourself why someone who hates Turley, hates everything Turley stands for (which is very odd in and of itself) and yet comments on every story 100 times a day?? Is he a paid partisan? We hear that they are out there and if so who would be a better candidate for being a Democrat toadie than someone who tries to take over a site run by a LAW PROFESSOR THAT VOTED AGAINST TRUMP in 2016, a guy that argues cogently for freedom of speech and expression? Why would someone battle free speech which such adamancy?

      The argument against free speech by the left in indicative of how wrong they are on the issues. If the people agreed with the left there would be no need to silence anyone. If the people agreed with the left on the issues we would not have many, many Democrats fighting against debating their opponents. Fetterman, Hochul, Marks Kelly, Hassan, and many other Dems will not agree to debate because they can’t defend the end of cash bail, the open border, the Biden economy, the end of fossil fuels or the amount sent to Ukraine. It is as obvious as the nose on your face, the people hate liberal ideas and policies.

      1. I can’t speak for others, but I don’t comment anywhere close to 100 times/day. John Say comments more than I do.

        If you read Ardern’s actual speech, she isn’t trying to silence people. Unfortunately, it seems that Turley wants to mislead, and you want to be misled.

        You’re lying about people. For example, Fetterman and Oz are scheduled to debate on Oct. 25.

        1. How can we tell how often you comment ?

          There is no means of telling that all anonymous posts come from one person or each from a different person.

  9. This speech by the NZ PM shows how important the “climate change” hoax is to the world-wide Left. Since it concerns the “future of the planet”, it has a call upon all of our resources and can justify pilloring those who shout: “The Emperor has no clothes.” On the other hand, it is so vague that no one say what it is, so it is a problem that can never be “solved.” And youi can easity find political adademics who will back up any assertion politcians make. It is open check upon our national wealth.

      1. David – An assertion is not scientific fact. You may want to check out Mann vs. Ball, where Michael Mann (the creater of the notorious hockey stick graph) sued a Canadian resercher who accused him of fraud, The suit dragged on for years. Mann refused to provide Ball with the data behind the hockey stick graph. Having been challenged on the sciece, Mann dragged his feet for six years. Finally the libel action was dismissed with prejudice and an award of costs was made to Bell. [20190822_Court-No.-VLC-S-S-111913_judgment.pdf] I could also refer you to “Climategate”, and the writings of Bjorn Lomborg.

          1. David: Barack Obama just spent over $11 million dollars buying property on Martha’s Vineyard, which at last report was located at sea level. [] Is he stupid? Does he want to put his family at risk of drowning, or to lose his investment due to the submergence of his property? No, he knows that MMGW is all a scam, although, for Socialists, it is a very good scam.

          2. The hockey stick is a hoax

            The first huge issue which you ignore is that the original – and pretty much all subsequent hockey sticks rest on proxies that are failed.

            The “Hide the decline” “Nature Trick” refers to Mann’s advice to Biffra to truncate or obscure the fact that the temperature proxies that are used to establish past global temperatures all are declining rapidly in the late 20th century. In real science that requires discarding them. The attribute of something that establishes that it is a proxy for another thing is a very high correlation to that other thing in the reference frame that we have accurate measures of that other thing. In this case arctic tree rings and other measures aspiring to be long term global temperature proxy’s must accurately track global temperatures in the modern era when we have good direct measures of global temperatures.
            But they do not. Biffra’s Arctic Tree rings as well as several other purported proxies have temperatures declining since the early 60’s.

            “Hide the decline” was a means of lying scientifically. If the proxy’s are not valid over the last 60 years, they are not valid at all.

            There is no hockey stick – because there is no shaft.

            Nor is the late 20th century divergence the only problem. Nearly every proxy is effected by multiple factors besides temperature.
            Arctic Tree rings are used as a proxy specifically because we ASSUME that other conditions – such as humidity, amount of sunlight, nutrition are all constant over the past 2000+ years. That Temperature is the only independent variable. Tree rings are far more sensitive to other factors than they are temperature, so we either need data from places where we assume the other variables are constant, or where we can mathematically adjust for those other factors. The separate problem that Biffra/Mann’s hockey stick data had was that the statistical processes that they used to control for other independent variables have been mathematically demonstrated to produce hockey stick’s from any red noise input data.

            Ultimately you can draw all the hockey sticks you want, until you can confirm that your proxy works correctly on the last 100 years during which we have accurate direct measures, and you can prove that the statistical processes that you use to regress out the effects of other independent variables, then you have nothing.

            Contra warmists, global temps have been rising since the end of the younger dryass and most of the holocene has been warmer than the present.

            I would note you can claim I am wrong. Go at it. but the statistical odds that earth’s temperatures have fluctuated constantly throughout the past billion plus years and then suddenly in the past 2000 years perfectly stabalized to some purportedly perfect optimum is scientific nonsense.

            The hockey stick is self refuting. Nature is a system in dynamic equilibrium – not static.

    1. ““climate change” … is so vague that no one say what it is”

      That’s false.

      “What Is Climate Change?
      “Climate change refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns. These shifts may be natural, such as through variations in the solar cycle. But since the 1800s, human activities have been the main driver of climate change, primarily due to burning fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas. …”

      “What is Climate Change?
      “Climate change is a long-term change in the average weather patterns that have come to define Earth’s local, regional and global climates. These changes have a broad range of observed effects that are synonymous with the term. Changes observed in Earth’s climate since the mid-20th century are driven by human activities, particularly fossil fuel burning, which increases heat-trapping greenhouse gas levels in Earth’s atmosphere, raising Earth’s average surface temperature. Natural processes, which have been overwhelmed by human activities, can also contribute to climate change, including internal variability (e.g., cyclical ocean patterns like El Niño, La Niña and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation) and external forcings (e.g., volcanic activity, changes in the Sun’s energy output, variations in Earth’s orbit).”

      It’s easy to find plenty of scientific sources describing what climate change is.

      1. Fair enough. Please quantify with reasonably accurate precision, the degree (no pun) to which Global Warming (not merely “carbon”) will be reduced once the government has run through the $369 billion it has dedicated to the exercise. Should you define global warming in terms of a single “carbon” variable, however, please then quantify the extent that, say, each gigaton of carbon reduction will in fact achieve in degrees Celsius.

          1. Thanks, David. Now, keeping a Global perspective, tell us specifically who will ensure the task is completed, at what total cost (including opportunity costs), who will pay, by what date certain it will have been completed to avert the tipping point and, having accomplished all of the foregoing, to what reasonably precise degree will Warming, Globally, case to be a problem. Not to pile on, but please also explain how the world transitions from our polluting present to a green future without causing crises–well, it’s already too late for that. Many thanks.

          2. Are we still shilling this nonsense ?

            BTW no one disputes that there is a weak correlation between CO2 and temperature.

            What is self evident is that warmist predictions of catastrophe have not ever come true.
            The Aug 2022 Temperature anomaly is +0.28C

            Nowhere near predictions.

            We are 2.5std dev’s BELOW the averate predictions of the GCM’s.
            We are blow the lowest of 95 GSM’s

            DB you have been pretty much wrong about absolutely everything.

            CAGW is much like the last 2 years of Covid idiocy.

            Only the public heatlh community is has fewer ideological idiots than the climate community.
            Yet on Every single consequential COVID related matter the “experts” got it wrong.

            When those like you quit making the same mistakes the public health experts made.
            And actually allow real debate, and engage in REAL science.

            We might get somewhere.

            The good news is that though you idiots are intent on blowing a small fortune.

            The planet does not give a schiff about you and we will all be fine regardless.
            Poorer because of your stupidity, but fine.

            I would note that as the war in Ukraine rages on Europe is rapidly returning to energy sanity and drop kicking lots of your climate lunacy.

            Warmist energy policy make the world a far more dangerous place and serves the interests of tyrants.

        1. If you want that quantified, do it for yourself or hire a researcher to do it for you.

          edwardmahl made a false claim. I noted that it was false and provided evidence of that. That does not create an onus for me to look up answers to your personal questions.

  10. The Framers of the American Constitution believed that rights and freedoms were natural and God-given, and that they existed before government was even conceived.

    Nature and God are universal.

    The People of the world and New Zealand are part of nature and the universe.

    This person should be thrown in prison for crimes against humanity.

    1st Amendment

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

      1. Her crimes are the denial of natural and God-given rights and freedoms, which existed before “government” was conceived, to New Zealanders.


            It seems you’re referring to the immigration laws of the Founders which were in full force and effect on January 1, 1863, during Lincoln’s wholly unconstitutional and still legally illegitimate “Reign of Terror,” including three improperly ratified and totally corrupt “Reconstruction Amendments,” dictated by Karl Marx and rammed through by Lincoln’s successors, under the duress of brutal, post-war, military occupation and oppression, when it was/is virtually impossible to ratify one.

            It doesn’t sound as if you like America, its Founders, their Constitution and Bill of Rights, their immigration laws or the fact that everything Lincoln did was unconstitutional starting with his denial of fully constitutional secession.

            Chief Justice Roger B. Taney didn’t like “Crazy Abe” either:

            To wit,

            “The clause in the Constitution which authorizes the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is in the ninth section of the first article. This article is devoted to the Legislative Department of the United States, and has not the slightest reference to the Executive Department.”

            “I can see no ground whatever for supposing that the President in any emergency or in any state of things can authorize the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or arrest a citizen except in aid of the judicial power.”

            “I have exercised all the power which the Constitution and laws confer on me, but that power has been resisted by a force too strong for me to overcome.”

            – Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, May 28, 1861

            Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798 and 1802

            United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof…

  11. Just who is qualified to determine what comprises unassailable truth and what does not? Or as somebody observed a long, long time ago, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

  12. The problem with ‘disinformation’ is it is often subjective and actually just the truth premature. Remember “two weeks to flatten the curve?” That was official disinformation. What about the COVID vaccine will stop infection and transmission? The official “truth” that turned out to be 100% wrong. Remember “inflation is transitory” or “if we spend $370 billion it will cause inflation to fall?” These were all disinformation propagated (and propagandized) by the very people who want to censor disinformation! Excuse me if I’m not eager to hand these people the ‘mute’ button.

  13. The Left has proven that all truths are debatable. But when the facts/evidence undermine their best argument, then they endeavor to shutdown debate.

    Anyone seeking actions that infringe our natural rights, should immediately be subject to the actions they’re seeking.

    1. There are infinitely many truths that the left does not debate (an example: 2 is an even number), so “The Left has proven that all truths are debatable” is bunk.

      It’s more common for people to debate opinions than to debate truths.

  14. This ‘disinformation’ movement did not exist in this form ten years ago. I do not know what to say to people that keep voting for this. The concept of fascism has become so lo-fo and twisted at this point people are *begging* for chains. But only for others.

    I still believe the relation to the mentality of the 35 and below in the Western world cannot be underestimated. Rampant fragility and its resulting ignorance and insularity is a real, destructive force, and not addressing it ends only in subservience, IMO. We all need to find our spines if we don’t want another *global* conflict. These conversations about law will cease to matter.

  15. “The same must apply now as we take on these new challenges.”

    Translated into plain, totalitarian language: “I need wider powers, to crush dissenters.”

    When one abandons reason as the means of settling disputes, there is only one option left: Physical force — clubs, guns, a midnight call from the secret police.

    1. “I wonder whether . . .”

      I wonder whether you intentionally or unintentionally switch the context, in order to deceive others and to apologize for authoritarians.

      If the former, you’re evil. If the latter, merely intellectually sloppy.

      1. There was no deception or apology there. Turley is writing about freedom of speech, which he frequently points out is distinct from the First Amendment. I’m curious whether he thinks all speech should be legal or if he instead believes that some speech should be illegal, and why he draws the boundaries that he draws.

        1. When one looks at your deleted responses, most were likely intentional on your part by your use of a banned email address. Some involve a problem we all face from WordPress, error.

          Left with one rationale for your censorship, one has to determine if they are proper on this blog. You libel your host continuously and even use a banned email account wrongfully trying to prove censorship.

          If this is a cause of you being banned, the host has three choices. 1. a libel suit 2. removal of the libelous post or offender 2. do nothing. I prefer #1 or the complete removal of all identities of the one posting the libel. The host is overly generous, so most of us suffer from your rantings.

          Who knows, maybe a case involving sites such as this will come up, and the host will want to prove his point by suing you. One never knows.

            1. Rarely do I confuse the two of you. Stop trying to build a case that doesn’t exist. However, if Bug wishes to act like Anonymous the Stupid and succeeds he is no different from you Bug sometimes comments in a story-telling way. Are you going to try and copy him.?

Leave a Reply