riccoaster Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 Kentucky Representative Tim Couch filed a bill this week to make anonymous posting online illegal. The bill would require anyone who contributes to a website to register their real name, address and e-mail address with that site. Their full name would be used anytime a comment is posted. If the bill becomes law, the website operator would have to pay if someone was allowed to post anonymously on their site. The fine would be five-hundred dollars for a first offense and one-thousand dollars for each offense after that. http://www.wtvq.com/content/midatlantic/tvq/video.apx.-content-articles-TVQ-2008-03-05-0011.html That sucks we'll all have to use our own names if it passes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steel Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 How might a person enforce such a law? It seems like WAY too much work. Honestly, there's not really any easy solution here. If the poster is anonymous, there's not exactly a way for him or her to be tracked down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larrygator Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 ^Please read posts in their totality before responding. The original post is 5 sentences long and easy to comprehend. The website where the anonymous post appears would be fined not the poster. For example: if an anonymous poster posts on TPR, Robb would be fined not the poster. For the record, I think it makes perfect sense for people to not hide their real identities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebl Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 I'm not sure I understand how this benefits anyone. To me, it'd be like having to put your name on your ballot for an election. Eric Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
natatomic Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 The website where the anonymous post appears would be fined not the poster. For example: if an anonymous poster posts on TPR, Robb would be fined not the poster. Um...What if someone has a grudge against a site owner? He can just go post a million anonymous posts on the poor guy's site, and it's the LATTER guy who has to pay for it? That doesn't make sense at all. Mind you, I'm basing this off of your comment - I didn't read the actual article, so maybe I'm missing something... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XII Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 That is a stupid idea and isn't going to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 It won't pass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the sound Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 This reminds me of the guys who wanted to put ratings on roller coasters (Pg 13, etc) after someones kid drowned. Sounds really stupid to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
generaleclectic Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 The rest of the article reads as follows: Representative Couch says he filed the bill in hopes of cutting down on online bullying. He says that has especially been a problem in his Eastern Kentucky district. Action News 36 asked people what they thought about the bill. Some said they felt it was a violation of First Amendment rights. Others say it is a good tool toward eliminating online harassment. Represntative Couch says enforcing this bill if it became law would be a challenge. Sounds to me like Mr. Couch is filing this because either a family member or a major campaign contributor has a hand up his ass. Get a life! If someone is being harassed online, most reputable sites have reputable admins to shut them up. Otherwise, unplug your computer! Besides... Thanks to the US Patriot Act, posts to sites like TPR, if anyone REALLY wants to know, can be easily traced already. I bet this idiot plays golf with Paul Sarbanes and Mike Oxley. OH... BTW Mr. Couch... I already post my name in my signature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steel Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 ^Please read posts in their totality before responding. The original post is 5 sentences long and easy to comprehend. The website where the anonymous post appears would be fined not the poster. For example: if an anonymous poster posts on TPR, Robb would be fined not the poster. For the record, I think it makes perfect sense for people to not hide their real identities. I did read the entire post, and I read the entire article. There's an obvious problem with the law there. The whole thing lacks a lot of logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hercules Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 I guess the proposed law makes some sense, but it is not going to pass. A lot of chumps just hide behind a screenname, go on a website and bully, harass, bash and flame people because they are too big of wusses to do it for real. Then after they are done, they just go back to their regular pathetic lives. People don't see the internet as real interaction, when it actually is, with real people and real situations. I can see that people might not do things likes harass, or make threats if their name is attached to their words, but how will this really be enforced? Would we have to scan photo identification with our site registrations? I can see a lot of people just making up fake names. I just don't see this working. Besides, on a site like this, a lot of the core members already know each other and call each other by name all the time. If there is a troll of some sort, Robb, Elissa and the rest of the ASSistants are very good at disposing of them and their posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coasterlvr_nc Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 The concept makes sense, but it will never work. If someone really needs to know who is posting certain information, they should stop posting on that site, or contact an admin. Charging the site owner is not going to solve any problems Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larrygator Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 ^^Jay your thinking is the same as mine. I think the other area where this plays out is spam. Yes, we have great mods here who make it disappear, but posting some of the x-rated spam here is actually a criminal offense (by the posters) in some states/municipalities. I probably should not have used TPR as an example because I think Robb captures user info in the registration process. The website where the anonymous post appears would be fined not the poster. For example: if an anonymous poster posts on TPR, Robb would be fined not the poster. Um...What if someone has a grudge against a site owner? He can just go post a million anonymous posts on the poor guy's site, and it's the LATTER guy who has to pay for it? That doesn't make sense at all. Mind you, I'm basing this off of your comment - I didn't read the actual article, so maybe I'm missing something... If the site implements a polcy that you can not post unless you are registered the problem is solved. Part of the registratin process is providing the proper information. The bigger problem is how to stop people from registering fake "real" names. I agree that there needs to be more transparency in who is posting, but also don't see how anyone can be forced to register with their real name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teacups Make Me Sick Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 This guy must not be friends with (ex) governor Spitzer...or as he likes to anonymously call him self client #9. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfotkid Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 That sucks we'll all have to use our own names if it passes. Or just have to include your name in the sign up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larrygator Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 It's called accountability, an ethos that great societies and institutions are built upon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ginzo Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 It's called accountability, an ethos that great societies and institutions are built upon. This bill is illegal. Nothing more really need to be said about it. http://www.dailytech.com/Kentucky+Lawmaker+Attempts+Criminalization+of+Internet+Anonymity/article11038.htm Couch admits that the bill is unlikely to get passed and is unconstitutional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllenA07 Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 It violates the 1st amendment? That's a little bit surprising and I'm curious why they say that it does. I think if you really want to push things a little bit, you could also make an argument (granted a rather poor one) that this violates the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. I'm for one not going to stay up at night worrying about this bill passing. Even if it did pass, it's not like you all can't figure out my first name already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ginzo Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 It violates the 1st amendment? That's a little bit surprising and I'm curious why they say that it does. I think if you really want to push things a little bit, you could also make an argument (granted a rather poor one) that this violates the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. I'm for one not going to stay up at night worrying about this bill passing. Even if it did pass, it's not like you all can't figure out my first name already. http://volokh.com/posts/1205170371.shtml WTVQ reports (thanks to Andy Banducci for the pointer); the bill text is here. Pretty clearly unconstitutional, see McIntyre v. Ohio Elec. Comm'n (1995) and the cases on which it relies. I assume you can go look that case up if you want. It's over my head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 It's called accountability, an ethos that great societies and institutions are built upon. The right to anonymous speech is part of any great society as well. Look at the Federalist Papers, written by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison under the pseudonym name Publius. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larrygator Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 ^True - this is not a simple issue and I should not have tried to express it in simplistic terms. You are 100% correct, Wes. Also, this is a much better argument than "they can't do this". However, harassment and bullying are not protected forms of speech. And that was the genesis for the formation of this ill conceived attempt at legislature. Throw in states rights along each nation's sovereignty and any legislation of the internet (which is not only national but international) practice becomes grey area. (gambling, pornography, overseas scams) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllenA07 Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 ^While bullying isn't protected I think a court would find this speech to be overbroad. There are likely more narrow ways in which law makers could seek to get some control over online bullying. As Wes said, this country has a long a rich tradition of people writing under false names. The guy who proposed the law said he knows that it is unconstitutional, which means that likely he only put it out there to make a point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ginzo Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 ^True - this is not a simple issue and I should not have tried to express it in simplistic terms. You are 100% correct, Wes. Also, this is a much better argument than "they can't do this". However, harassment and bullying are not protected forms of speech. And that was the genesis for the formation of this ill conceived attempt at legislature. Throw in states rights along each nation's sovereignty and any legislation of the internet (which is not only national but international) practice becomes grey area. (gambling, pornography, overseas scams) Anonymous posting on the Interweb is so essential to how we operate as a society today. For better or worse, a good portion of our national political conversation takes place anonymously on blogs and what not. There has to be a better way to handle the online harassment problem than this. I imagine this congressman was just trying to attract attention to the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebl Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 How do you guys know my first name isn't really "Dave?" Eric Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllenA07 Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 Thanks for the cases, you saved me time from being nerdy and looking them up myself. WTVQ reports (thanks to Andy Banducci for the pointer); the bill text is here. Pretty clearly unconstitutional, see McIntyre v. Ohio Elec. Comm'n (1995) and the cases on which it relies. Alright so I went and skimmed over this case, and sure enough the court says that "Under our Constitution, anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent. Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority." As other posters have said as well the court paid a lot of attention to the history of anonymous writings, in particular the federalist papers and great works of literature by authors such as Mark Twain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now