No-Internet-Anonymity Bill in NY Senate

[3113]

From here:

Introduced by New York State Sen. Thomas F. O'Mara (R—Big Flats), S6779 would require that any anonymous post online is subject to removal if the poster refuses to post — and verify — their legal name, their IP address, and their home address. From the (likely well intentioned) bill:

"A web site administrator upon request shall remove any comments posted on his or her web site by an anonymous poster unless such anonymous poster agrees to attach his or her name to the post and confirms that his or her IP address, legal name, and home address are accurate. All web site administrators shall have a contact number or e-mail address posted for such removal requests, clearly visible in any sections where comments are posted."

Here's my question--if it's being introduced in the NY Senate, doesn't that mean it would only apply to those living--and those internet sites created--in NY?

 

[Safe_Bet]

From here:

Here's my question--if it's being introduced in the NY Senate, doesn't that mean it would only apply to those living--and those internet sites created--in NY?

Either that or they best get deleting, cuz the likelihood of me posting my home address so that every asshat in Iowa that feels like thumping a queer can find me is exactly nil!

I wonder if said douchebag Republican Senator has HIS home address posted all over the Internet. I somehow doubt it.

 

[Stella_Omega]

what a fucking joke. And another pain in the butt for the ACLU.

 

[3113]

what a fucking joke. And another pain in the butt for the ACLU.

Well, it has to pass first.

 

[sr71plt]

Here's my question--if it's being introduced in the NY Senate, doesn't that mean it would only apply to those living--and those internet sites created--in NY?

Yes, if passed, it could only be enforceable for Internet sites registered in New York and New York residents (if anyone could actually pin them down).

 

[topace]

Apparently all politicians are going wacko. Quebec's government passed a law stating that if you plan a public meeting with at least 50 people, you have to give the police 8 hours notice. All the legal people agree - the law is unconstitutional. Thank goodness I don't live in Quebec (or anywhere else for that matter) where they love to trample your rights!

 

[Boxlicker101]

Apparently all politicians are going wacko. Quebec's government passed a law stating that if you plan a public meeting with at least 50 people, you have to give the police 8 hours notice. All the legal people agree - the law is unconstitutional. Thank goodness I don't live in Quebec (or anywhere else for that matter) where they love to trample your rights!

Isn't it in Quebec that it's illegal to post signs in English?

 

[topace]

I believe so. Stupid f***ing Parti Quebecois!

 

[TE999]

From here:

Here's my question--if it's being introduced in the NY Senate, doesn't that mean it would only apply to those living--and those internet sites created--in NY?

Holy suffering Christ in a green hat! These fucking pol's can't stand the internet 'cause they can't control it and anyone can call them douchebags or whatever and they can't do a damn thing about it. Well, too fucking bad, you meddling snoops, leave the 'net alone. Have you ever heard of free speech? Ever read the Constitution? It's right in there.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Holy suffering Christ in a green hat! These fucking pol's can't stand the internet 'cause they can't control it and anyone can call them douchebags or whatever and they can't do a damn thing about it. Well, too fucking bad, you meddling snoops, leave the 'net alone. Have you ever heard of free speech? Ever read the Constitution? It's right in there.

Politicians, regardless of party, are always going to try to control as much as they can. It's one of the reasons they become pols instead of getting honest jobs.

 

[topace]

Politicians, regardless of party, are always going to try to control as much as they can. It's one of the reasons they become pols instead of getting honest jobs.

That and they are usually not totally honest people and know how to get away with it most of the time!

 

[3113]

These fucking pol's can't stand the internet 'cause they can't control it and anyone can call them douchebags or whatever and they can't do a damn thing about it. Well, too fucking bad, you meddling snoops, leave the 'net alone. Have you ever heard of free speech?

Now, now. Let's be fair here. The guy's not trying to regulate speech--i.e. that people can't post whatever they want to post on these websites--he's trying to regulate whether people can post anonymously. Which means they don't care if you call them douchebags, you just have to say it under your own name, not hide behind a pseudonym.

Different argument, and nothing in the constitution gives anyone the right to use a false name. That doesn't mean this is a good idea, or our right to stay anonymous on the internet should be taken away, but I'm afraid we can't rely on the Bill of Rights to help us out with this one--at least, not so far as I know. I'm not a constitutional law expert so I could be wrong.

Politicians, regardless of party, are always going to try to control as much as they can. It's one of the reasons they become pols instead of getting honest jobs.

Again, let's be fair. I know plenty of Pols who get the job in order to protect people rather than trying to control. For example, those who voted in regulations on food so that you aren't eating sausages stuffed with dead rats and cockroaches and other poisons. Those who are trying to keep arsenic out of the water you drink, or keep the air your grandkids breathe breathable.

In other words, Box, there are those who become Pols to control, that's true, but there are those who become Pols to make sure that those with a great deal of power and money don't fuck us over. And I would say that those Pols are doing an honest job. Besides, would you really condemn every person who has ever been in public office from the Founding Fathers on? They were, after all, Politicians too, each and every one of them.

 

[sr71plt]

This scapegoating of political representatives does get old hat quickly, and pretty much identifies a shallow thinker and someone prone to always look for someone else to blame for everything.

On the proposed legislation, it's hardly something to hyperventilate over--at least not until it's worked its way through a mountain of barriers. It's still very much in the "isn't this amusing and whacky?" vein.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
Politicians, regardless of party, are always going to try to control as much as they can. It's one of the reasons they become pols instead of getting honest jobs.

Again, let's be fair. I know plenty of Pols who get the job in order to protect people rather than trying to control. For example, those who voted in regulations on food so that you aren't eating sausages stuffed with dead rats and cockroaches and other poisons. Those who are trying to keep arsenic out of the water you drink, or keep the air your grandkids breathe breathable.

In other words, Box, there are those who become Pols to control, that's true, but there are those who become Pols to make sure that those with a great deal of power and money don't fuck us over. And I would say that those Pols are doing an honest job. Besides, would you really condemn every person who has ever been in public office from the Founding Fathers on? They were, after all, Politicians too, each and every one of them.

When I refer to a politician, I mean somebody who has made a life's career out of politics. Such people as JFK and Nixon and Obama and many others. I believe such people are out to gain control over their fellow citizens or to line their own pockets.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

what a fucking joke. And another pain in the butt for the ACLU.

Fuckin' Nimrods. Grand Ostrich Party, they should call it. Fuck the bastards. I've had it with the lot of 'em.

For once, I actually agree with SB about something, which is saying a lot. What's next?

I still hate both parties, but this level of asshattery makes the GOP the most recent ones to piss me off.

And, for the record, I went back through the "gang-rape" thread and want to sincerely apologize to any I upset by unintentionally trivializing that issue. That wasn't my intent at all, but I can see where it came off that way. Three years late, of course. But apologies for what they're worth. I had my point to make, and I can sometimes get tunnel vision when making my points, which are sometimes tangential to the main topic.

 

[3113]

When I refer to a politician, I mean somebody who has made a life's career out of politics. Such people as JFK and Nixon and Obama and many others. I believe such people are out to gain control over their fellow citizens or to line their own pockets.

And, once again, are you planning on adding George Washington to that? He was a career politician (started as a surveyor and in the army for a brief while, but went right into local politics the second he had enough land and status to do so--he was quite young, something like 27 when he started--that's only three years older than Obama who became a community organizer at 24). He spent fifteen years in politics before the war made him into a general, and, of course, eight years after the war as President.

George Washington was a career politician, and arguably, wanted that job as head of the army as much to further his political career as a desire to fight for his country.

I'll grant that there are plenty of shady politicians who just want to get paid off for doing this or that, or to help make their business buddies rich like George W. made all his buddies rich with our money during the Iraq War. But--and I know this seems like believing in Santa Claus to you--there have been and still are politicians, including career politicians who become politicians out of patriotism and/or to make a difference, not to line their pockets or help out their friends.

And there are many who aren't career politicians--who have been business men or soldiers or whatever first and then gone into politics, who are just as shady if not more shady then those who made a career of politics. It is foolish to paint all career politicians as shady or imply that those who have not made a career in politics are somehow more trustworthy.

 

[TheeGoatPig]

I am so glad I live in New Jersey. We allow cage fighting, our sales tax is lower, and if anyone tries to pass a bill like that we have a few families that would like to have a chat with them

 

[jomar]

I happen to know that Sen. O'Mara frequently submits stories to LW. I think this is a brilliant attempt to thwart the trolls there.

 

[TxRad]

I happen to know that Sen. O'Mara frequently submits stories to LW. I think this is a brilliant attempt to thwart the trolls there.

If only....

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
When I refer to a politician, I mean somebody who has made a life's career out of politics. Such people as JFK and Nixon and Obama and many others. I believe such people are out to gain control over their fellow citizens or to line their own pockets.

And, once again, are you planning on adding George Washington to that? He was a career politician (started as a surveyor and in the army for a brief while, but went right into local politics the second he had enough land and status to do so--he was quite young, something like 27 when he started--that's only three years older than Obama who became a community organizer at 24). He spent fifteen years in politics before the war made him into a general, and, of course, eight years after the war as President.

George Washington was a career politician, and arguably, wanted that job as head of the army as much to further his political career as a desire to fight for his country.

I'll grant that there are plenty of shady politicians who just want to get paid off for doing this or that, or to help make their business buddies rich like George W. made all his buddies rich with our money during the Iraq War. But--and I know this seems like believing in Santa Claus to you--there have been and still are politicians, including career politicians who become politicians out of patriotism and/or to make a difference, not to line their pockets or help out their friends.

And there are many who aren't career politicians--who have been business men or soldiers or whatever first and then gone into politics, who are just as shady if not more shady then those who made a career of politics. It is foolish to paint all career politicians as shady or imply that those who have not made a career in politics are somehow more trustworthy.

Perhaps I should have mentioned I was referring to the United States, not Virginia Colony over 200 years ago.

In any event, the Virginia House of Burgesses back then was mainly an advisory group, with little actual power to make any changes. GW became a member largely as a matter of noblesse oblige as one of the richest men in Virginia, rather as a desire for a career in politics. What he really wanted was a commission in the British regular army.

I describe politicians as those who make a career of it - studying Law and Poli Sci in college, but not becoming practicing attorneys, and attaching themselves to successful pols until they can get more involved and in on the gravy train. There may actually be some politicians who are honest and decent persons, but they are mostly just people looking for wealth and/or power.

And, of course, there are some crooks who are not career politicians.

 

[estragon]

Given that the Demos control the NYS Senate, and the Assembly, and the Gov is a Demo, this bill is DOA. The honorable Sen is talking for Elmira and Corning, the metropoli of his district (No. 53, for those of you who feel like emulating Lewis and Clark), most of which is apple orchard and cow pasture.

 

[njlauren]

Now, now. Let's be fair here. The guy's not trying to regulate speech--i.e. that people can't post whatever they want to post on these websites--he's trying to regulate whether people can post anonymously. Which means they don't care if you call them douchebags, you just have to say it under your own name, not hide behind a pseudonym.

Different argument, and nothing in the constitution gives anyone the right to use a false name. That doesn't mean this is a good idea, or our right to stay anonymous on the internet should be taken away, but I'm afraid we can't rely on the Bill of Rights to help us out with this one--at least, not so far as I know. I'm not a constitutional law expert so I could be wrong.

Again, let's be fair. I know plenty of Pols who get the job in order to protect people rather than trying to control. For example, those who voted in regulations on food so that you aren't eating sausages stuffed with dead rats and cockroaches and other poisons. Those who are trying to keep arsenic out of the water you drink, or keep the air your grandkids breathe breathable.

In other words, Box, there are those who become Pols to control, that's true, but there are those who become Pols to make sure that those with a great deal of power and money don't fuck us over. And I would say that those Pols are doing an honest job. Besides, would you really condemn every person who has ever been in public office from the Founding Fathers on? They were, after all, Politicians too, each and every one of them.

The law is unconstitutional, and here is why. The law as proposed requires that your name, your IP address and your home address be posted with any online comments. While the good senator might think he is protecting people from bullies and libel (all very real issues with the net), what he is de facto doing is using posting that to shut down speech, for the very real reason whoever posts a message like that is opening themselves up to all kinds of abuse, including whack jobs coming after them. I have real experience with that, I once wrote an op ed for a local paper rebutting what some stupid ass so called Christian wrote about how 'homosexuality needs to be contained', that 'if the state doesn't discourage it men and women will choose in droves to be gay, because of course a man can please another man better then a woman could, and vice versa' (I am not kidding about that, and this wasn't some backwater down south, this was suburban NJ. I got all kinds of things from that, my young son picked up the phone one day and some moron was yelling at my son, telling him his 'fucking parents are going to burn in hell' and other such Christian appropriations, someone else sent a book showing pictures of aborted fetuses (like, I wrote a piece about gays, not about abortion), I got several books purporting to show that science had 'proved' that being gay was an abnormality, some other fucker thought it was funny to run his pickup truck over my mailbox, though in his case the stupid catholic schmuck didn't know my neighbor across the street was putting his garbage cans out, he got the plate, and the SOB ended up with a slew of charges against him, including DUI (he was drunk, of course), resisting arrest, harassment, vandalism, reckless driving.

A law like this would not pass constitutional muster because whatever the guy's intentions were, the end result is reducing freedom of speech by using the threat of retaliation. And there is quite a bit of historical precedent to this, in colonial times anonymous writings in the paper were used to advocate the position of the ones pushing for independence, and anonymous pamphlets were published all the time. After the founding of the US Jefferson and other wrote anonymous broadsides (in the case of Jefferson, agains the administration of Washington, which he was in!) and in politics anonymous pamphlets and articles published under a pseudonym were part of the fabric of this country.

Among other things, threats of intimidation can be used to shut down anonymous posts on blogs is especially troubling with political speech. By forcing people to post their names and/or addresses, it can lead to all kinds of retaliation, including being fired from ones job, if ones views don't agree with that of the boss. The very fact that politicians put forth a law like this is troubling, because it is self serving, it helps take out opposing viewpoints. It would be like telling callers into radio talk programs they had to give their full name and address, I wonder how long those programs would last?

There also may be another constitutional issue, if not a logistics one. The internet is fundamentally interstate in nature, and a state trying to regulate it is difficult.For example, a NY state resident posting on a server in another state would be exempt from the law, that is obvious; what isn't so obvious is a resident of let's say NJ posting on a NY site could not be forced to identify themselves on that board, because NY has no right to make laws like that for a NJ citizen posting from NJ (I am pretty certain of this one, there was an analogous case involving I believe ordering something where the age in the state of NY to buy the product was 21 but in another state was 19, and they ruled the local law held, not the NY one, that those laws only applied to NY state residents for a NY based operation I believe). I suspect you could make a strong argument that because the internet is interstate in nature, that only the congress could issue such regulations under the interstate commerce clause; and if not, that logistically it is such a can of worms it couldn't be enforced.

I suspect that not a lot of members of the NY State legislature will vote for this, besides the legal challenges (that I suspect most of them would know would be deemed unconstitutional), politicians (right or left) are not going to give up something that is often used for political speech that benefits them and their side of things.

I would like to think the Senator's intent had its heart in the right place, that he saw the kind of bullying and such that can go on in cyberspace and thought this was the answer. When it comes to things like this, it generally comes down to what some have come to call the Brandeis rule, after the SCOTUS member who said the original words. Brandeis was talking about a law that basically censored free speech with the goal in mind of protecting children (I believe it had something to do with denying certain books could be sent through the mail or some such), and Brandeis made the point that while protecting children was a worthy goal that few would argue against, that bringing discourse down to the level of children did not benefit children or society (Antonin Scalia, who these days is to the right of Attila the Hun in many ways, in his majority ruling throwing out the computer decency act passed back on the 1990's, cited these words in his ruling, that the law had good intentions but it was so broad based and nebulous its outcome would be to censor free speech to a level that was illegal).

Put it this way, would you want your real name and address posted on messages on here or other adult oriented sites?

 

[sr71plt]

It's not a law, which sort of means you wasted a lot of time and effort. (Did I mention not hyperventilating about this?)

 

[estragon]

And as I posted earlier, do not make any large wagers that such a law will pass even the Senate, to say nothing of the Assembly. Consider it DOA. And of course it's unconstitutional.