Aslan says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

January 28, 2010 at 1:46 AM
Richard there is no evidence for the Facebook claim, only allegations and repeating allegations do not make them fact! Weissman did not take the identity of Mossad it was also a false accusation made by Sizer based on what an ex-Royal Marine he asked to help him track the blogger had told him. This is all clear on the interaction with the ex-Marine on the Seismicshock blog.

Weissman has not broken laws, he has, as you do, vigourously argued against those ideas he disagrees with.

Maybe if you lived in the UK Weissman could call the cops on you for making false claims that he pretended to be a Mossad agent and labeling him a bully, but then he is only a student and not an influential establishment vicar who has high ranking cops as friends!

As to his identity, he explains all here: http://www.hurryupharry.org/2010/01/26/introducing-myself-2/

http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2010/01/26/english-pro-israel-cyberbullying-alive-and-well/comment-page-1/#comment-119787
English Pro-Israel Cyberbullying Alive and Well

joe says:
January 27, 2010 at 12:49 PM
Seems like there are only a handful of important facts here:

1. Sizer is targeted by someone who writes a blog.
2. Said someone apparently find’s the facebook page for Sizer’s church and posts a few choice idiotic comments.
3. Said someone also writes to complain about the attendance of Sizer at various events.

Now, I am as pro-Palestinian as they come. I detest the attitude of the Zionist shit-stirrers and would not put it past them to make a mountain out of a molehill.

But.. but… what it actually boils down to is that someone wrote a blog someone else didn’t like and found a facebook page which was publicly accessible – and for the privilege had the Plod come to visit.

Hell, I’ve done a lot more than that during various Palestinian campaigns. I don’t know the truth, but it doesn’t actually appear that this guy threatened to burn Sizer’s house down or anything does it? (I could be proven wrong here, of course)

Richard Silverstein blogowner’s laughable reply -

Richard Silverstein says:
January 27, 2010 at 2:16 PM
No, he didn’t post comments. From what I understand he actually sent individual messages to the members of the Facebook page. That’s diff. & much more like stalking. And he didn’t write to “complain” about Sizer’s “attendance” at events. He demanded that the sponsors cancel his speaking engagement. Since there are usually speaking fees involved in such matters this is a direct economic harm caused to Sizer potentially & therefore a tort.

There’s little that Sizer can do about Wiseman’s taunts & abuse in the context of the blog itself. But when you try to take things to the next level as Wiseman did then things get dodgy if you can’t control your venom as Wiseman clearly can’t.

Joe’s Reply -

joe says:
January 28, 2010 at 12:34 AM

What do you mean ‘he demanded that the sponsors cancel his speaking engagement.’ though? Presumably unless he is actually paying for the event, he has no more power than anyone else who writes to an event organiser. I think he has the write to complain to event organisers if he choses – and they have the right to totally ignore him. Not really much difference there to what we’ve done several times.

And if he has abused the facebook system, then it is up to facebook to sort it out – the police involvement appears to be as a result of a complaint by Sizer about someone calling him an anti-semite rather than stalking.

Again, probably worth reiterating that it is hard to get all the information about what happened.

My reply which won’t be up at all of for long you can be sure -

Dicky V says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
January 28, 2010 at 12:35 AM

Joe makes an excellent point which is 100% on and the blog owner here left it up – who then follows up with this reply -

He demanded that the sponsors cancel his speaking engagement. Since there are usually speaking fees involved in such matters this is a direct economic harm caused to Sizer potentially & therefore a tort.

This is absolute nonsense, or perhaps more aptly rubbish. He can “demand” whatever he likes. Just like students can protest a University for hosting a pro Israel or anti Israel speaker… it is still up to the host and/or sponsors to ignore such a request… he didn’t threaten the sponsors with violence so he can demand or request whatever he likes based on whatever reason he has… that is called F R E E D O M. and there is NO tort involved whatsoever with that..

What’s amazing is that boycott Israel movement does damage to store’s businesses by “harassing” or protesting outside of stores that sell products they “don’t approve of”… The hypocrisy is SO RICH it’s tantalizing…

If you stand on your head or hang upside down you could then see how Richard S trying to construe how this is somehow “different” and not just a potentially civil matter but yet a “criminal” one justifying police involvement?

Laughable and embarrassing to even try and posit such innanity.

I live in America where we understand the concept of free speech, which apparently Europeans and Canadian’s don’t. We don’t have laws about Holocaust denial and you can say about anything you want. Incitement? Incitement is such a load word open to wide interpretation. Thank G-d we take freedom speech seriously in the US. An idea that seems to be lost in this conversation…

A man got a visit from the police because of his political views!

There is a serious problem going on in the UK, this isn’t the first instance I have heard of police intimidation. I hear from friends that photographers are being harassed and having their images deleted all the time. I will say this again, the UK is on it’s way to becoming a police state where individual rights are being eroded in the name of “security”

http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-spine/nidal-malik-hasan-and-baruch-goldstein

The second part of your comment is interesting. Just the other day, in a discussion about democracy as imperialism, one participant said something along the lines that Bush went to war in Iraq in order to spread democracy, something she saw as imperialistic and basically unjust (or whatever). I had to remind the nodding heads in the group that the anti-war protests always maintained that the democratizing factor was just a pretext for the real reason: oil.

I am now left in a state of confusion since I really don’t know what to make of it. Which reason served as a cover for what? It would appear that the democratizing ideology is no longer regarded as a glittering mask that covers a hideously looking face underneath. It has become that hideous face, while the oil factor has been discarded altogether.

In my confusion I am beginning to be vaguely aware that there is never a good enough cause to remove a genocidal regime. Neither interest nor morality can be appealed to.

This is not dissimilar from those who always want to impute any Western actions to being All about Oil, where often yes, it may, inter alia, be about oil, or any other national interest, but so what. This does not mean it cannot ALSO be about other more idealistic or altruistic motives.

I often wonder why there is a certain perception floating about that support Israel has to be pristine and “correct”, in accordance with the most strident principles of disinterested universalism. I once asked this question on a TNR blog, and one poster whose creative intellect is very scholarly, offered the following satire:

“The Man Who Sought a Good Reason to Support the Jews”

It could be a tale of a man who walked for six days and each day he was given the opportunity to help Jews, but always wanted a purely good reason to do so. Therefore he never did support them. Then on the seventh day . . . ”

(http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-spine/nidal-malik-hasan-and-baruch-goldstein)

Seismic is a mensch, that is for certain.