Filtering the blacklist

As the Government's plans for Internet filtering move forward, the new details we learn do little to dampen concerns about the scheme. The technical issues remain as acute as ever, but to many of us the implications for Government control of speech on the Internet are just as significant. Yet the Government has consistently (some would say monotonously) referred to stamping out child pornography when defending its scheme to the public, and to the Parliament.

This is hardly a goal anyone could object to, but it has always been a disingenuous representation of a plan that has been sold as a cyber-safety measure. Nobody seriously suggested that children were looking at child porn. But could the Government be sincere when it says it only wants to "enforce existing laws?"

This intention has been belied by the Government's own rhetoric. As recently as this Tuesday, the 11th November, Senator Conroy said, in answer to a question from Greens Senator Scott Ludlam:

The pilot will test filtering specifically against the ACMA blacklist of prohibited internet content,
which is mostly child pornography, as well as filtering of other unwanted content.

Not a few eyebrows are raised by that phrase; not many Australians trust a Government department to decide what information is "wanted" and what is not.

The terms of the pilot itself refer many times to the ACMA blacklist. So what is this blacklist? Is it the ultimate child-porn fighting tool used by the Australian Federal Police?

The current censorship regime

The Australian Communications and Media Authority, ACMA, is the Government's media regulating body. They are separate from the Classification Board, which rates our movies, books and games, and not affiliated with a law enforcement agency. They aren't a censorship agency per se. They are however, charged, under the Broadcasting Services Act, with regulating prohibited online content using a complaints based mechanism. What is prohibited is defined as:

  • Any online content that is classified RC or X 18+ by the Classification Board. This includes child pornography, but also material that is X-rated pornography, violence, instruction in crime, drug use, or terrorism.
  • Content which is classified R 18+ and not subject to a restricted access system that prevents access by children.
  • Content which is classified MA 15+, provided by a mobile premium service or a service that provides audio or video content upon payment of a fee and that is not subject to a restricted access system.

As you can see, although child pornography would of course be prohibited, these criteria cover all pornography and very much more. (How many R18+ sites, especially those not dealing with sexuality, have an age-restriction mechanism in place?) When the ACMA receives a complaint from the public, they assess it against these criteria. If it matches, or they believe it probably would match if rated by the classification board, it goes on the blacklist. If the material is hosted in Australia, they can be sent a takedown notice. If the material is hosted overseas, it simply stays on the list, which is provided to commercial filter vendors.

Makeup of the blacklist

This is the tool that the Government plans to use as the basis of their mandatory, Internet-wide censorship scheme. The contents of the list are secret - it cannot even be obtained under Freedom of Information thanks to modifications to the FOI Act.

Although we don't know what's on it, the ACMA does publish some statistics on what is blocked and why. In the ACMA's last report, 781 overseas sites were added to the list. Of these, 3 were pedophilia related, and 410 fell under the heading "RC - Child - Depiction." The rest, 368 sites, were mostly X-rated (251) and other legal material, including some prohibited for nudity, violence, crime or even "sexual fantasy". Previous years showed similar statistics. We also know there are around 1300 URLs total on the blacklist at the moment.

Only 3 sites were blocked for "pedophilia - promotion/instruction". What constitutes a depiction of a child is not entirely clear. We can safely give the ACMA the benefit of the doubt that it is really child abuse material, but we know that in other circumstances, photographs of children that would be otherwise considered innocuous can be considered obscene when placed in a context where they may be viewed for unsavoury purposes.

As content becomes inaccessible, it is eventually removed from the list. Given that child pornography is illegal in every jurisdiction around the world, and is actively policed, it seems a logical assumption that these pages are far more likely to become inaccessible than the legal content on the list. Looking at the last 3 years worth of data, if we add the the last three year's blacklists together, then subtract the "child-depiction" sites from previous years, we get about 1200 sites, close to the current list's size. Under this assumption, the blacklist would be between a third and a half child-related material - certainly not the master list of child abuse it has been represented as.

Expanding the blacklist

Currently, the ACMA does not have a mandate to go searching for prohibited material. A site only comes to their notice when they receive a complaint. Given this fact, and the small size of the blacklist, it's hard to see how it would be a useful tool even were it technically feasible to block access to its contents. It seems safe to assume that the Government intends to expand the blacklist and make the search for prohibited content more proactive than waiting for complaints.

It's clear from above that if they did go looking for material, the overwhelming majority of it would be legal in the R18+ and X18+ range. Child pornography, because of its illegality around the world, is not even primarily distributed using the web and represents a miniscule fraction of total web content.

The Government is yet to explain under what terms the list will be expanded, who will decide what goes on it, and what mechanism will be available to correct errors. Unlike other forms of media, Internet censorship decisions are secret and not subject to review. Under these circumstances, we should urgently demand that the Government explain its reasons for introducing internet filtering. No compelling reason has so far been provided.

PDF version containing summary table (76kb)


  1. The Blacklist will be very political in nature IMHO. I'm confident in saying that certain types of sites that have nothing to do with porn or alleged illegal activities. I would put money on certain sites making the list eg.

    1) Criticism of the filter

    2) Criticism of zionists

    3) Criticism of the blacklist

    4) Criticism of Israel

    5) Drug law reform activist sites

    6) So called revionist history sites

    7) Criticism of Catholicism

    8) Criticism of Judaism

    9) Criticism of the homosexual lifestyle

    10) And for sure in the near future : Criticism of the Goverment of the day .

    And this list is just for starters

    Comment by WhiteLight on 16 November 2008 at 07:52
  2. I do not want the governemnt touching the net.
    its the only media left where you can find some alternative sources of news and information on just about anything you wish to seek.

    Comment by michael on 16 November 2008 at 21:13
  3. You can be assured, that most likely ALL safe natural remedies sites, compared to toxic artificial high profit drugs, which of course, generate huge $$$ profits, are gonna be suppressed, to prevent people from getting access to FACTS!!

    There will be many others like it...

    People aren't supposed to know about secret societies that are in operation out there, the secret government, which is working behind the scenes, these are the REAL reasons these entities are determined, to keep the sheeple in ignorance, on what is truly going on out there!!...

    Those who have the money $$$ have the power!

    Something to be aware of!

    Indeed this is deliberate Censorship presented under the guise/ smokescreen of 'protecting our children', which of course is the parents basic responsibility anyway!

    Be forewarned on this!!..

    Comment by Ponto on 16 November 2008 at 23:05
  4. Big brother is settling in down under.
    makes me feel warm and fuzzy.
    Comdemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance
    A. Einstein

    Comment by Jackson on 17 November 2008 at 18:16
  5. Surely there is something more worthy of all this money to be spent on.
    With the 'financial crisis' and a chunk of the budget being given back to Australians, seems highly stupid to tamper with something thats existed happily for 20+ years, and is a source of income & employment for an increasing number of people in Australia.
    ANY performance hit on Australian internet pushes us much much more further behind the current level for 'developed countries'.

    Commercial (paid for) Filtering Software (defeatable as below - afterall it was just rebadged super expensive tax payer paid software)
    $84 million Aus.Gov FREE Filtering Software (downloaded 144k times, installed 29k times, defeated by 16yr old in 30mins)

    Maybe the .gov didnt like being shown up by the 16yr old. But the fact is, if someones not willing to purchase a filter, are they really that concerned?
    Moreso, if they dont utilize a FREE filter (free as in $84million) you must question really, how concerned they are?

    Comment by Devz on 17 November 2008 at 23:37
  6. I could understand the proposed (censorship) filter if it were indeed being created for those 29k computers whose protection was potentially defeated. (However its safe to say a great number of those are still happily running their rebadged net nanny software, and, possibly don't want to pay for a clean feed because their $84mil filter is working fine for them).

    The fact that this effort is aimed to push its censorship over 100% of the internet users of Australia, is simply a mis-comprehension of the governments service to its people. Or a very elaborate and hugely expensive exercise to fulfill a promise, most experienced internet users exclaimed "thats not possible" when he made the promise to become Prime Minister.

    Bottom line, we will be made to pay for it, whether it works or it doesn't. Whether we want it, or we don't. Is it really in the people of Australian's interests or one very powerful political persuader?

    Comment by Devz on 17 November 2008 at 23:44
  7. I am a adult webmaster that build and promote LEGAL adult websites I have been doing so since 1996. I am also a copyright agent for a adult copyright content company in the USA, I remove pirated adult content, Now if this filter is put into place I will not be able to work anymore, because I have to access forums and newsgroups that host and link to pirated adult content, also I will not be able to continue to work in the Adult webmaster industry, And there are 1000's of other Australian adult webmasters that depend on the internet to make a living. So by this filter being put into place the Government will be putting myself and 1000's of people out of business.
    I am all for getting rid of child porn from the net, but shouldn't we be stopping all the priests and religious groups that abuse children in our own country? they are the ones that want this law and they are also the ones committing these crimes against our kids.

    I guess I will have to become a drug dealer now to make money

    Comment by Aussie Adult Webmast on 18 November 2008 at 02:01
  8. And the blacklist can be circumvented using one of many subscription VPN services around the world, some as cheap as 30 AUD per month (at current exchange rates). Bcuase VPNs are used by buusinesses for secure remote access to their networks, government would not DARE restrict or ban VPN.

    Comment by Jimmy Ribbitt on 18 November 2008 at 03:01
  9. At least ACMA won't have to add "criticism of Islam" to the list. Muslim scholars have shied away from half decent exegesis work for years. The rest of us have been intimidated by the threat of mob violence!

    Comment by Mark on 18 November 2008 at 06:22
  10. I think this is a terrible plan. Ok filtering child porn is an admirable goal, although they have shown they do not understand the Internet or crime in general. Are they going to stop people flying to Thailand etc as well?

    Filtering adult content is unacceptable. Adults need to be responsible for their children's safety and content filtering.

    We are all responsible for our own actions and the Government needs to get off my Internet connection.

    Comment by Colin on 18 November 2008 at 21:42
  11. In response to Aussie Adult Webmaster. You could still do your work, all you will need to do is to use a subcription VPN outside of Australia which will encrypt your traffic. These services cost about 30 AUD at currrent exchange rates. Barring that, get your boss to set up a VPN on his server, so that you can make an encrypted connecttion that authorites will not be able to monitor.

    Comment by Jimmy Ribbitt on 19 November 2008 at 03:55
  12. What happens to sites expressing people's opinions on controversial government policy, eg those of us are pro-euthanasia (if I'm terminally ill and want it to end, I should be allowed that right)? It doesn't seem right they can block sites that present opposing political viewpoints to the current government. In the future, how will people be able to find like minded people to lobby for change, if the very system (the internet) that is accessible to everyone is censored?
    If the governments excuse is to reduce the exposure of children to inappropriate content, they'd be better off spending the funds on educating the parents on using computers, using "freely" available filters, and since it appears some parents can't supervise their children, maybe on parenting in general.
    And my last grievance, how can two senators, who represent such a small percantage of the population, hold so much sway over our government? Maybe we should divert funds to fix the whole sytem.

    Comment by Dan on 19 November 2008 at 07:17
  13. Considering child porn is illegal anyway policing it needs for the perp to access the site to create a trail.
    This filter is not about child porn just as the working with children is not mainly about protecting children from pedophiles. The govt use that system to deny anyone with a criminal record the right to work or volunteer with children, just as it will use the filter to deny anyone that disagrees with their perception the right of an opinion or free speech.

    This is about to make Australian a true totalitarian state, controlled by the religious minority.

    Comment by Jason on 19 November 2008 at 13:50
  14. There is no blacklist, and before you all call me wrong etc I have a reason.
    The Black list is actually a white lsit (and no I'm not trying to make a pun). The list will consist of safe sites rather than bad ones. Really think about this a white list that could be plausible. If you have any idea of how many sites are actually on the net you'd under me when I say we are becoming the next Russia.

    Comment by Whit3_Crow on 19 November 2008 at 22:47
  15. Boy, that latest letter from Mark Newton was well written! I vote he be the next Comms. minister. He is surely up to the task in technical knowledge. And, I also support him in his call for Mr. Conroy's resignation! I think we should all be asking for this as it will send a clear message that Australians will not put up with a dictator in parliament.

    Comment by James on 20 November 2008 at 04:30
  16. One good question is whether this would be unconsitituaional under a proposed Australia constitution I saw some years ago on the Net.
    One proposed constitution for when Australia becomes a Republic would include protections for free speech. It would be interesting to see how the High Court would view the filtering regime if the proposed constitution I once saw ever came into force in Australia. With the possibility of Australia becoming a Republic in a few years, Parliament needs to consider whether the filtering regime would possible violate any futre constitution.

    Comment by Jimmy Ribbitt on 22 November 2008 at 09:58
  17. What are we going to do about this? I am surprised at the lack of protest from Australians over this issue. We need to get out there, and show the government how many people are against this totalitarian policy. Who's with me?

    Comment by Katie on 22 November 2008 at 22:09
  18. Australiens should be fearfull look at china and the Tibetan Buddhist monks is this australia. under king communist Rudd Government:

    Comment by bill of n.s.w on 28 November 2008 at 23:42
  19. Hey WhiteLight.. Number 6 - you mean holocaust denial websites? you can say it don't hide behind vagueness..

    Comment by Michael on 29 November 2008 at 00:06
  20. Comment by 100%dirtyfeed on 29 November 2008 at 16:27
  21. Thats exactly what I meant Michael , it was nothing more than a hastily composed comment typo, I can assure you it was NOT intentional, you can't edit these comments and I assumed most would know what I meant .
    I again reaffirm my comment , IMHO the sites I originally named in my list of 10 are at risk of being blocked further I would add .....

    11) History of usury banking

    12) The fiat money system

    13) Alternative therapies that bypass BIG Pharma

    14) Euthanasia

    15) Chairman Ruddski & comrade Senator Conjobski

    Comment by WhiteLight on 30 November 2008 at 22:39
  22. this link contains images that may be offensive to some people. it also contains an accurate description of stephen conroy.
    we do acknowledge that poor stevie is just playing the party game, whether he agrees or not however in saying that if the policies of the party you represent are shite and you continue to represent them rather than oppose them then transitively you too become shite and end up being the focus for all my hate....

    Comment by 100%dirtyfeed on 3 December 2008 at 10:51
  23. I think it's about time this debate was opened out to encompass the entire issue.

    Google these terms

    afact australia copyright

    and look for a .pdf on the ACMA site called "Afact RAS submission".

    If that document does not refocus the debate, I gidve up!

    Comment by Bill on 4 December 2008 at 08:14
  24. I hope they don't implement a filter because of the decreased speeds.

    WhiteLight: If you really care about the filtering of the sites you just listed then you sound like an anti-Semitic homophobe, are you? Don't worry, I'm sure your neo-nazi, "Jewish banking conspiracy theory", and fundamentalist Christian "Family values" sites are, unfortunately, safe for now.

    I think that its people like you WhiteLite that are going to garner SUPPORT for filtering rather then any opposition. Most people (including myself) would not care about the censoring of moronic and illogical hate-speech sites like the ones that you have just listed.

    Comment by FiltersSuck on 4 December 2008 at 20:56
  25. I see FiltersSuck , you can believe what ever you want to believe funny thing though every ridiculous assumption you made is so far off the mark it beggars belief.

    I'm an Atheist just for starters and I believe that all censorship is insidious.

    I know this about you though , you are a pro-filter proponent , why ? You believe its OK to censor sites that you find disagreeable or moronic or (this one is really funny) "illogical" .

    You think because I'm willing to defend the right to free speech for sites that for what ever reason you find offensive ,then this makes me in your words a "homophobe, anti-semitic(whatever that means) neo-nazi,Christian Family Value(I suppose you mean fundamentalist), conspiracy theorist" Gee pal why didn't you ad puppy murderer as well ?

    You can't have an each way bet , its all or none , you can't cherry pick what you find offensive and blacklist that and allow sites that you believe to be acceptable thats what Conroy & Fielding types want ,wake up

    Comment by WhiteLight on 6 December 2008 at 10:41
  26. I want child protection - who does not, that is what they use to get the law to pass, they use our emotions that want to protect. But the real reason becomes clearer later on, when it's to late. The real reason is to censor people so that the only news, information that we are feed is what they want us to hear. Does sound like China and the like.

    As with all things people will break the law, people will abuse freedoms no matter how we try to protect. Look at road laws, look at the internet, look at TV, look down the road, look at walls and fences. All around us people will do these things. We the people must be vigilant, but we want to be lazy and let the government and others do it for us. Parents must protect their children with the assistance of teachers (when in their care), families, friends, neighbours. - maybe be a bit old fashion, but look out for each other, that is the best protection, not internet filtering in which the real agenda only becomes clear later on.

    Comment by Zero on 8 December 2008 at 18:22
  27. contin. Look at IVF. They passed the law to assist those couples that could not have children due to low sperm count or some other problem. They passed the law based on our emotion to want to help others. Now they have passed the law for what they really wanted single women who do not want a commitment to a man and lesbians. If you want to live a certain lifestyle - that is your right - no problem, but to bypass the natural law to have what you want and not consider the child in this is wrong. They now say the law is fair, well I'm a single male, I do not have access to IVF so how is it really fair. The same logic need to be applied to the Internet Filtering system. The real reason is hidden and it must not take place. Do not let them pass it.

    Comment by Zero on 8 December 2008 at 18:29
  28. a brief history of clean feed in australia is given in this weeks stephen conroy corner @ (not safe for work)... here it is

    Comment by 100%dirtyfeed on 9 December 2008 at 15:01
  29. This is a really cool idea maybe they should filter it even some more no contect over Gy, and also have a forced religon, and forced ...... where do you stop,

    Comment by geof on 10 December 2008 at 10:15
  30. The real question here is why should the Government bother? If people look for the nasty stuff they get caught by the cybercops. Cybercops even prowl sites looking for child sex groomers by inviting them out for an ambush by the sex police. Pump $50 million into that and give these sex crooks a real jail sentence and problem solved. Worried about your kid learning how to skin people alive, make methamphetamine? Then bloody well parent properly. Sheesh. What about adults looking up these things? Well once again this is the job for the cybercops, and the real cops, not this filtering nonsense.

    The focus is a wrong and token effort. If the internet turned off tomorrow, sex offenders will always get banned material, psychos will always learn silent killing techniques, terrorists will always make bombs and crime syndicates will always make meth.

    Knowledge and exposure is a weapon of destruction in the hands of the few and a weapon of power and governance in the hands of the many.

    Comment by Paulo on 10 December 2008 at 21:59
  31. Information on internet censorship, it seems to be happening everywhere,

    Is this global agenda?

    Comment by Jesus on 15 December 2008 at 20:52
  32. hehehe and then EFA goes and removes my last post - internet censorship by the kids trying to stop it...thanks team

    Comment by 100%dirtyfeed on 16 December 2008 at 12:52
  33. 100%dirtyfeed: moderation != censorship. Your last post did not add anything to the debate, and appears to be a crass attempt at humour or shock that isn't appropriate for our site. I don't mind if you post that on your own site, but it's not censorship for us to refuse to republish your comments on ours.



    Comment by Nic on 16 December 2008 at 18:47
  34. Removing goatse-style images seems good housekeeping on a professional site.

    Rickrolls are fair game, however.

    Comment by Colin on 16 December 2008 at 18:58
  35. Quite frankly, I think this is stupid. Yes get rid of child porn as it is disgusting and I don't know how anyone could do shit like that to a child. But don't do it this way. It won't work. There is an international task force hunting down child pornographers. The Australian Government would be a whole lot more successful if they helped the international task force, rather than putting up a compulsory internet filter that will slow down our already crap internet, piss the whole Australian Internet Community off and be easily circumvented by people who really want to get through it.

    Comment by Team Fortress 2 Cann on 19 December 2008 at 01:48
  36. as a parent i am confused by what is going on here. everyone seems to be talking about protecting the children and filtering child pornography. i have no objection to my 10 yeaar old daughter looking at child porn. where is the harm there? children are curious and need to learn about the human condition the same way we did. similarly if she wants to have consensual sex with another minor how can i object? we raise our children to be able to make their own judgments on such matters in the hope they grow to be independant well developed human beings.

    Comment by concerned parent on 21 December 2008 at 12:03
  37. ..cont'd..
    its adults looking at pornography containing minors i find disturbing. although one must ask how you can say a picture of a consensual minor a day away from 18 is illegal but a picture of the same person in the same context a day later is legal. how can we put a fixed age on when one is educated and mature enough to make their own decisions without pressure or influence from outside? for everyone this is different. i know adults who are easily led and unable to make choices for themselves. not everything in life is so clearly black and white that you can just say yes or no, right or wrong.

    Comment by concerned parent on 21 December 2008 at 12:03
  38. ..cont'd..
    we put near naked teenage singers on our tv every sunday morning for us all to watch, from the day our children were born we force upon them horrific gender stereotypes that should have been left in the 1950's and yet somehow an expensive and annoying filter that everyone knows how to bypass is going to save our children? i'm more worried about what might happen if a paedophile can't get their fix from images on the internet. where will they look next i wonder. our schools and playgrounds? wouldn't putting an extra $44mil into finding the adults who create these images or actually sleep with minors be a better way to help our children?

    Comment by concerned parent on 21 December 2008 at 12:04
  39. If an $84 million filter was installed 29k times that's $2,896 tax dollars wasted per installtion.

    Comment by Cost of free filter on 26 December 2008 at 22:12
  40. It is simply unjust. If I wish to expose myself to various sites regarding acts of violence, criticism regarding things that WhiteLight has said - it is simply that. MY choice. If they were to censor such materials, these things will still exists and I in turn become less informed regarding the various issues.

    It doesn't sound right to me, when they constantly say that their motive behind this whole act is to remove child pornography - which can't be argued with. And then - as if it were a side note, state that other sites will also be censored.

    Comment by Felicia on 2 January 2009 at 01:24
  41. The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.
    -- Adolf Hitler
    Sums this situation up in a nutshell.

    Comment by Liberator on 19 January 2009 at 04:11
  42. Wow, look at the time.
    1984 already?

    Comment by AileenWuornos on 28 January 2009 at 04:59
  43. As usual the fraud of all religions try to take over every discussion with their bullshit.If you want to believe in fairy tales fine but keep your religion out of my politics.
    Neither side of islam v judaism is right , all religion is fraud pepetuated by man to control other men. Be free think outside the box of conformity religion imposes on you.
    Believe what you will just stop trying to impose it on everyone.

    Comment by grow up on 1 September 2009 at 01:34
  44. grow up - your comment is SPOT ON!
    7 months after this thread died (9 months after the original post) it got resurrected by some religious rubbish. I recieve follow-up comments via email because i'm interested in comments relating directly to the blacklist, not some religious waffle.

    Comment by Devz on 1 September 2009 at 01:44
  45. thats how they operate Devz, gives an idea to how they became so established within our communities doesn't it?

    there is not one iota of truth in any of it yet our foolish society grants them credibility based on their own say so and no more.
    The fact they operate in a tax free environment, while suggesting "sin" taxes to our government is reprehensible. Its about time society put all religion back where it belongs, in the personal thoughts of the individual rather than attempting to impose their perverse morality upon us all.

    rant over

    Comment by grow up on 1 September 2009 at 03:11
  46. Reply no- a20001, Comments posted by 'Faruque hunter — February 6, 2010 @ 8:35 am" are

    Biased and do not have enough substance, whereas Faruque Ahmed’ Comments are supported by videos on you tube and the Victims of Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan And Current Anti Iran propaganda.

    To be Honest 12 Zionist families in NY own the USA.( THIS IS TRUTH ,IT CANNOT BE DENIED)
    And the rest of the allies of USA plus the USA itself has a very negative future.
    Why Because it Is owned and run by Zionists who pump 14 cents of every dollar paid by Taxpayers to Fascist Israel.

    The Check Points , The preplanned murder s of 4 year old children’s, Then Selling their body parts to US, May be line eats the flesh as well
    The Israelis have crossed every limit which Hitler Had.

    Why not see the achieves Professor of Political Science

    Faruque hunter you provocateur me to do the same what you have done to Palestinians.

    Please don’t force me, to do that, To those little Zionist .....

    Comment by Anti JJX on 6 February 2010 at 22:42
  47. "Faruque hunter you provocateur me to do the same what you have done to Palestinians."

    Anti JJX (Faruque Ahmed), you are a moron.

    I, you moron, have done nothing to Palestinians other than support their struggle for self-determination. What I oppose is morons like you who spread stupid hate-speech about Jews and Israel. If Palestinians ever get their independence it'll be with the support of sympathetic Jewish elements in Israel, of which there are many. Your moronic Jew-hatred does nothing but contribute towards alienating these elements.

    The last thing Palestinians need is a moron like you speaking on their behalf.

    Comment by Faruque hunter on 7 February 2010 at 01:03
  48. hunting Faruque Hunter is my Job, I am Just doing my Job.
    The Bounty is Satisfaction while protecting Humanity from Zionist Israelis.

    Comment by Anti JJX on 7 February 2010 at 01:18
  49. Hunting Faruque Hunter,

    Is very easy! People like him think they have got license to insult and abuse people. Generally speaking, they don’t have an iota of evidence. They can not present any evidence. Yet, they think they are correct and they have some kinds of right to insult and abuse other people.

    Last sixty years history of Israel and Faruque Hunter’s debate (or insult) style, strategy and tactics are good enough for this time.
    Faruqe Hunter has failed to answer six points of mine in my link ( Yet, he is giving me lecture! Do you call it promiscuity for virginity?
    Nazi Zionist groups have managed to enslave USA, Yahoo Q and A! As a result, no one is even allowed to debate or discuss any and all issues we are discussing here!! They would like run the world with manipulation and deception.
    I hope you got the picture and that’s why I am in this Electronic Frontier. I support the notion of free internet because I don’t like to be controlled by those Megabyte Nazis as their records are very bad. I also can see from a safe distance that the intent and purpose of these Megabyte Nazis are worse.

    Why Are The Americans Suffering From Incapacitation Of Free Speech?;_ylt=Aoxo...

    Where is the free speech in USA? Why can’t they debate and discuss the actual issue?;_ylt=Akuu...

    Why did Yahoo remove the question below? Are they afraid of the truth or enslaved by the Zionists?;_ylt=Asfk...

    Do You Like To Know Faruque Hunter of Electronic Frontier?

    Faruque Hunter of Electronic Frontier

    Comment by Faruque Ahmed on 7 February 2010 at 03:32
  50. Hunting Faruque Hunter said...

    Dear JJx

    Hunting Faruque Hunter is my Job.
    Just Take It Easy. Everything will be Allright.
    I Think I Know Who you Are .
    A Coward and and a Genetically Defective Sub Humanoid Foetus , Harbouring Gonorrohea.

    It is better for you to be isolated and broken into Carbon and dirty air.
    February 6, 2010 12:21 AM

    Comment by Anti JJX on 7 February 2010 at 04:28