Actually, I agree with you in one sense. If it became easy for the Government to portray members of the anti-clean feed campaign as people who hold non-maintsream views on other topics, that would be a problem.

But is it likely? My minor contributions to the campaign are eclipsed by the long-standing contributions of people like Mike Malone and Dale Clapperton – and many, many others more technologically knowledgable than I am.

I seek no media attention. If film crews ever turn up at my gate, God forbid, I may unleash my pet pythons (only joking).

The only person who uses the strnnge term ‘exalt’, James, is you.

If linking to my website is ‘exaltation’, even though it contains some material that’s clearly relevant to topics dicussed here, then presumably the same applies to every link. Does this website exalt Rupert Murdoch every time it includes a link to a News Ltd report? I don’t think so.

You accuse me of having a ‘hidden agenda’. Actiually, what you see is what you get. I write what I believe is true and defensible. I’m not playing games.

One might almost infer you have a hidden agenda’, in that you wish to censor contributions you don’t like. But that can’t be true – after all, you’re an opponent of internet censorship!

If you wish to debate this further, I re-iterate my offer to move the discussion elsewhere. I shall not reply again here without the explicit agreement of our host.

The differentiation between the internet and books/TV/movies/etc. is important, and a point well made, but I do not condone much of the rest of the piece.

The anti-censorship lobby has enough issues with image, especially given the ease at which denouncing us as paedophiles and perverts seems to tar our argument in the eyes of the populace. To be seen as exalting a holocaust-denier and a conspiracy-theorist is only going to make the image-problem more difficult to surmount.

You hold incredibly fringe opinions, and it makes it very easy for the pro-censorship lobby to clasp onto your writings and paint the entire anti-censorship side as hopelessly paranoid and, most probably, racist. For similar reasons, most of the anti-censorship groups try to avoid the Socialist Alliance.

You’re obviously clever enough to avoid explicitly stating that the holocaust is a Jewish hoax (though it’s a fairly blatent subtext), so it would seriously surprise me if you didn’t realise that this sort of fear-mongering does not help the cause, regardless of how seriously you take the threat of ‘Zionist forces.’

James, I think this is not the place for exchanges that might become heated, or for seriously debating some of the concerns you’ve raised. So I won’t attempt a reply here. If you’d like to email me or post comments on my blog I’ll be happy to respond.

“Some rather important topics, such as the real truth about 9-11 [link to 9-11 conspiracy site] and some of the events that took place during World War Two, are never subjected to genuine, open, balanced scrutiny in the western mass media or within the mainstream publishing industry.”

“the Iraq invasion – and the entire, bogus ‘War on Terror’ – was primarily orchestrated by Zionist (pro-Israel) interests.” [link to http://800poundgorilla.100webspace.net/geeklog// -- a site self-described as "[aiming to] contribute to the growing body of research/evidence implicating an international Zionist network of criminal conspiracy against humanity”]

Anti-censorship is a noble cause, but I cannot condone very much of this article. He speaks in coded language, but a history of dealing with crazy suggests that “some of the events that took place during World War Two” is a reference to Holocaust denial and “the real truth about 9-11″ a transparent reference to government involvment in 9-11. He writes of ‘open’ discussion, but this is classic conspiricist evasion. A familiarity with adherents of these conspiracies assents to the ubiquity of these poorly-veiled accusations. Sufficiently clever not to say ‘the Jews did it’ (‘it’ being faking the Holocaust/staging 9-11/so on) but, rather, ‘we need an open debate as to Zionist involvement,’ as though this version of history was just as relvant as mainstream inquiry (and I’m certain this will be twisted as a call for censorship, but it’s nothing of the sort: a right to speech is a right to speech, but no ‘right to be taken seriously’ need exist).

Syd Walker should not be exalted as a spokesman for the anti-filter debate.

Look at his other blog entires:

“These days, we don’t debate or dispute with ‘flat-earthers’. There’s no need. Everyone knows they are wrong, so what’s the use?

[...]

It’s much the same with The Holocaust.” [http://sydwalker.info/blog/2008/11/18/no-debate-no-dispute/]

“Why would an insipid and gutless ABC (or SBS, or BBC) cover a politician whose discourse lies outside their cosy, conspiracy-denying, egregiously pro-Zionist and essentially pro-war consensus?” [http://sydwalker.info/blog/2008/03/31/cynthia-who/]

He even goes so far as to pin internet censorship on the Jews: http://sydwalker.info/images/wrapped.jpg [the ADL is a Jewish anti-defamation group]

If it barks like a dog…

In this shorter article, I’ve tried to focus specifically on the issue of “Why The Web is NOT Like TV”

See it at: http://sydwalker.info/blog/2008/11/27/why-the-web-is-not-like-tv/

It weighs in at around 1,000 words.