Kentucky Lawmaker Wants to Make Anonymous Internet Posting Illegal

We have the right to say whatever we want, and suffer no harm from exercising that right, but no right to do so anonymously.
Click to expand...
Actually, I think we do.If we were to meet in the street somewhere, and I start calling you names, I have NO obligation, leagally, to tell you my name or present ID for you,before, after or during my calling you names.Even if my name calling somehow got me arrested, I still dont have to tell you who I am.If you want to find out, you can look it up in the court/arrest records if thats legal in your state.Same with a computer,Want to know who I am? get the software and knowledge needed to find out.Its not hard.2 people from this site proved it a while back.

But, it really matters not.If someone feels they are being harrassed on some website, all they have to do, is......NOT GO TO THE WEBSITE ANYMORE.Problem solved, harrasment over.How hard was that? No different than If I kept going to a bar where people kept making fun of me.If I dont like it, then I just stop going there.Simple, and government intervention wasnt needed at all.People REALLY need to learn to think and act for themselves, instead of sitting there teary eyed and drooling waiting for the government to prtoect thier feeling, and/or tell them what to do.Is it really that hard to just avoid a website where you get teased?
 
When the heck did this country start becoming a bunch of whining sissys? (sounds like an interesting thread, hmmm)

Someone calls you names or repeately calls you names and that is harrasment. Killing my cat and turfing my lawn or spray painting my front door now that is harrasment.

If you allow an anoymus person to control your feelings that much by saying harsh things to you thru a computer screen and you need your big brother the goverment to protect you, well than you got bigger problems than being harrased via the internet.

(I know there are legitimate harrasment cases via the internet, but these typically take place between people that actually know each other outside of the electronic medium, mean high school girls picking on another student and then telling everyone at school to look on the website)
 
Second I think that in theory it has merit as you should be responsible for whatever you say.
Click to expand...

Sorry to disagree sharply, but it has no merit whatsoever. Let's consider:

(1) Those who will do evil things on the Internet will fabricate fake credentials
(2) Those who abide by the law will expose themselves to inordinate danger

Sound like a familiar argument?

Plus, Anonymity is a key fundamental right. Read up on some of the literature surrounding FreeNet or Tor. I sat through a 2-hour presentation by Mr. Dingledine (who runs the Tor project) about how anonymity is bringing real freedom to repressive nations around the world. Places like Thailand, Iran, China, etc., filter the Internet to keep "unpreferred" ideas out by blocking access and following up on violators. The more "nonymous" our society becomes, the greater our risk of exposure, with the result that freedom of information is squelched.

I was intrigued by Dingledine's presentation of actual conversations he's had with people to whom his project is bringing vital information about the world that is unedited by his government. Consider that those with minority interests are repressed by a "nonymous" society. I, myself, subscribe to many ideas that are "unpopular". I am not a fan of anything that will reduce my ability to communicate freely with others of my ilk in the name of easier law enforcement (that won't really help law enforcement anyway).

Fortunately, if worse comes to worst, the solution mentioned above will come to fruition -- all places of free information exchange on the public Internet will move overseas. Like the island of Tuvalu.

-Jephthai-
 
You guy's crack me up. They already know just who you are, and just where you're at.
Click to expand...

I work professionally in the information security industry, and have been through the corporate sector, non-profit, and educational environments. You'd be surprised (A) how little they actually do know, and (B) how easy it is to maintain anonymity if you really care.

-Jephthai-
 
As important as 2A is 6A which is the right to face your accusers. I know this only applies to trials but if someone is posting lies about you on the Internet shouldn't you have the right to know who it is? It is not as easy as CSI or L&O would make it seem.

I don't think the argument is about hiding behind a keyboard to report the overthrow of a government as much as hiding behind a keyboard to ruin the life of someone. Some posted to just not read the posts but that is not the problem. It is when your family, friends and employer reads them. If I post that someone is running around on their spouse and give names and dates that may be lies but cannot be proven false then it will take a very strong marriage to withstand that.

Anonymous postings in here are usually not a problem but if someone were posting that they had business dealings with you and you were a crook wouldn't you want to know who it was so you could straighten it out? Otherwise it could easily ruin your business.
 
PT111-

You are way off base. The 6A right to face your accuser only applies to criminal prosecution, not to speech. Read:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
Click to expand...

Think about this:

This bill is the equivalent of registration of speech. This will have the same effect as firearm registration- If some Bureaucrat doesn't like what you have to say, they will come and take your speech rights away. Being as how the Federalist papers were written under pseudonyms, how do you think THEY would have felt about this?

Make no mistake, such a speech registration scheme would have a chilling effect on political speech. Can you see a day where criticizing a President's policies will earn you a visit from DHS?


ETA: This situation has already been ruled unconstitutional by the California court of appeals. Some very astute arguments are to be found here:

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/H030767.PDF

The use of a pseudonymous screen name offers a safe outlet for the user to experiment with novel ideas, express unorthodox political views, or criticize corporate or individual behavior without fear of intimidation or reprisal. In addition, by concealing speakers' identities, the online forum allows individuals of any economic, political, or social status to be heard without suppression or other intervention by the media or more powerful figures in the field.
Click to expand...

this is also a gem:

Judicial recognition of the constitutional right to publish anonymously is a longstanding tradition. Most of the early decisions affirming this right concern political speech or artistic endeavors. "Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even bookshave played an important role in the progress of mankind. Persecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all." (Talley v. California (1960) 362 U.S. 60, 64 [80 S.Ct. 536] [ruling unconstitutional ordinance barring without limitation distribution of handbills that lacked identification of persons preparing or sponsoring them].)
Click to expand...

I do not think such a law passes constitutional muster.
 
whose is he trying to please

I suppose one of the issues that never seemed to actually come up was knowing who he was trying to please with his proposal. Originally it was presumed it might have been some remarks posted about him. But that was an opinion. Politicians come up with a lot of this crap based on trying to please some constituants. Perhaps he just does not like the commentary about his party. In any case he is off base and needs a good judicial slap with freedom of speech.
 
So you are saying that I can say/post/print anything I want to about you and you have no right to know who I am. That is even if it causes you to lose your wife, family, job, home, guns and everything else you have worked for. Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing. Remember that in a libel suit you must prove that the person said it.
 
As a member or the law enforcement community, when we get allegations from anymous sources we are very hesistant to take action.

We second guess the information, asking the who, what and where from a variety of angles. Plus if it invovles a search or something than we also have to present that information to a judge, who will question that information even further.


If I say "Redworm couldnt hit the side of a barn with shotgun even if he was standing within three feet of it." would anyone believe it.
I have never met Redworm in person, dont know anything about the person except what he posts here, and dont even know if owns a shotgun.

A part of me curses the internet, It is allowing people fast information but with no real way to check it out, they just accept it, and I wonder if it will be the Internet in addition to TV that finally destroys 95% of Americans free and critical thought process.

(TO: Redworm, sorry to use you pal, but you seem to be a understanding and upright individual and I wanted to make a point people might understand around here)
 
hakuna matata ^_^

I've always wondered what folks have against the broad side of barns...what'd they ever do to them?!?
 
He was probably under pressure related to this story:

A call for new legislation is being made after the suicide of a young girl as a result of Internet bullying.

A Missouri couple is grieving after their daughter committed suicide because of a failed relationship on the Internet. Neighbors in their St. Louis suburb are coming together, passing a law to make on-line harassment a crime. Last year, the Meiers' daughter, Megan, who had struggled with depression, became friends with a boy named Josh Evans on the website myspace.com. But after Evans ended the relationship, the rejection became to much for Megan Meier, who took her life the day after the relationship ended. Her parents then learned that Josh was really a screen name used by a nearby woman, who was upset after he daughter and Megan had a fight.

Statistics show that more than one-third of teenagers undergo Internet bullying, and often emotionally vulnerable teens become targets of Internet predators. Many are calling for changes to current laws dealing with Internet bullying. While sending someone harassing email is a crime, posting that same information on a website or a blog is not.

The Meiers want the federal government to adopt legislation that their community passed to prevent further cases similar to Megan's
Click to expand...

These are all the people who got smacked too often playing grade school dodgeball. Now, by gosh they're gonna get even.
 
So you are saying that I can say/post/print anything I want to about you and you have no right to know who I am. That is even if it causes you to lose your wife, family, job, home, guns and everything else you have worked for. Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing. Remember that in a libel suit you must prove that the person said it.
Click to expand...

That is exactly what I am saying. If I stood in the street and called you fat and ugly, you do not have a right to know my name. Why is the written word or internet any different?

Libel is a civil matter, not a criminal one.

I love to see people support parts of the BOR and not others. For libel/defamation suits, you have to prove the following:

1 That the statements made were known to be false by the speaker
2 That the statement was meant with malice (intent)
3 That you suffered FINANCIAL harm as a result (just feeling insulted is not sufficient)
4 There are exemptions from this for public figures, the bar for them is higher

I find it hard to believe that you are going to lose everything you worked for as a result of a blog post about you.
 
I find it hard to believe that you are going to lose everything you worked for as a result of a blog post about you.
Click to expand...

Ever see the movie "Absence of Malice". maybe a little over the top but not very much. Actually it would be quite easy for someone especially a public figure to be brought down by rumors. I knew a man (it was many years ago) that his boss called him in and said that he had heard that he was letting his wife run around on him and if he continued to allow it he would be fired. A few weeks later he was fired and the reason was that if he couldn't control his wife then he didn't need to be working for that company. No one ever proved that his wife was doing anything but the rumors cost him his job. This may seem strange today but I know people who have been fired for less.
 
IMO, if you are a good employee, rumors don't matter. That sounds like an employer looking for a reason.

Anyway, that is still no reason to deny someone his rights. Or is the 2A the only amendment supported here?
 
try this

during elections as the voting day gets closer you find vehicles with loud speaker riding around towns. Over those speakers you hear comments about candidates. Some might be true and other comments might be false. But in no case do you hear them identifying themselves as who is the actual person on the microphone. They are in essence anonymous.

I'd relate the issue of the Internet like this: you are driving down a freeway and someone has spray painted "Gun Owners are Gay" on the walls of the underpass. Gun owners are probably not happy but its free speech. There might be a crime with the painting on the walls but the speech is not the crime.
 
I would relate it more to the spray paint saying "toybox99615 has been having sex with little boys. If you don't believe it ask his 4 year-old nephew about the candy he gave him last Thursday night." And under that painting the names of your nephew and four of his friends from daycare.

Maybe also calling up the police and providing some times and locations that you couldn't explain away but on an anonymous tip.
 
Just think about what that law would mean. This website would have to find a way to confirm everyone's identity, and then make sure it was available to everyone.

Say bye-bye to bloggers, internet news, and any other form of internet communication. Think internet posters are useless? Remember that they are the ones that proved the Killian documents were forgeries. The internet is responsible for more information changing hands than ever.

There is a good reason that we have 1A rights enumerated in CONUS. We use the 2A to protect our rights, but without our other rights, there is no need for arms to protect them.

"Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny." - Robert A Heinlein
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top