Kentucky Lawmaker Wants to Make Anonymous Internet Posting Illegal
- Thread starter bugaboo
- Start date
As I have posted earlier I am totally against the law, there is no way to enforce it and is about as dumb as anything I have heard. Do not take my comments as being for such drivel.
My point is that 1A does not give you the right to say anything you want to about anyone you want to without any kind of responsibility. After all that is what libel laws are all about. If you can hide behind a keyboard or whatever then libel laws are of no use. My biggest objection to such a law is that it differentiates between the Internet and other forms of communication. A law that separates the Internet from telephone, newspaper, books etc. are wrong. I got very involved a good while back with the proposal to collect sales taxes on Internet purchases but ignored the exact same purchase via telephone or mail. There is not difference.
If they can figure out a way to identify the caller at 3am that wants to know if your refrigerator is running then we may have a case for the Internet. Until then then keep investigating steroids.
My point is that 1A does not give you the right to say anything you want to about anyone you want to without any kind of responsibility. After all that is what libel laws are all about. If you can hide behind a keyboard or whatever then libel laws are of no use. My biggest objection to such a law is that it differentiates between the Internet and other forms of communication. A law that separates the Internet from telephone, newspaper, books etc. are wrong. I got very involved a good while back with the proposal to collect sales taxes on Internet purchases but ignored the exact same purchase via telephone or mail. There is not difference.
If they can figure out a way to identify the caller at 3am that wants to know if your refrigerator is running then we may have a case for the Internet. Until then then keep investigating steroids.
Why is it that if an elected leader blatantly violates the Constitution and attempts to subvert my rights nothing happens to them but if I am even suspected to have a bent piece of metal and a spring that I haven't filled out forms for because of an obscure subsection of a trivial law with no useful purpose I can be jailed instantly almost without cause and forced to pay tens of thousands of dollars to defend myself and/or be labelled a felon and my life ruined forever?
Because you and I are not one of the special people, if you're not one of the special people, you have no special rights, if you have no special rights, you really just have privlidges, privlidges unlike rights can easily be given, or easily taken!
The American bill of rights circa 2008, are really just a list of privlidges that can be easily given, or easily taken, all at the discretion of the special people!
The American bill of rights circa 2008, are really just a list of privlidges that can be easily given, or easily taken, all at the discretion of the special people!
Sticks and stones....
But words will never hurt me. Many of us were taught this little rhyme as children, but apparently a significant portion of the nation either never heard it, or never believed it.
Everyone seems to focus on the supposed reason, that people say bad things anonymously, so we should not let them do that. There should be "accountability". All I can say to that is Bullshat!
And before you get too worked up, remember that first of all, one would have to register EVERYONE IN THE WORLD and be able to verify their ID (something all the powers of governments are not able to do) and the proposed bill would hold third parties (site operators) responsible. Does that seem fair to you?
Consider if the internet was printed material, such as an underground newspaper (or, as noted, the Federalist Papers) Do we really think it is a good idea that the writers must provide their names & addresses? Our Founding Fathers and those that inspired them wrote under pseudonyms. Indeed, the "pen name" is a long established literary tradition, particularly whenever there is any risk of offending powerful people or organizations.
How could anyone consider the Internet any different. Speech, oral or written is protected to a high degree in this country, and for good reason.
Libel and slander laws have specific definitions that must be met, otherwise there is no case. You can say bad things about someone. Someone can say bad or untrue things about you, but unless you can proove that harm is done, directly as a result there is no case.
It is a sad fact that many people will act based on unfounded rumor. When they do, THEY are at fault.
And speaking of at fault, how about the idiot (and I say this with no malice, just simple observation, as after all, "stupid is as stupid does") who proposed the bill in the first place? Barely a single moment of intelligent reflection on this subject would have shown how unworkable, and unconstitutional this is likely to be. It appears the individual has so little knowledge of both the Internet and the law as to be in questionable touch with reality. Too many elected officials seem to think that simply by passing a law they can alter reality to suit their adgendas. Sure, it may have the best of intentions, but the unintended consequences are potentially horrendous. Something akin to decapitation to cure a hangnail.
But words will never hurt me. Many of us were taught this little rhyme as children, but apparently a significant portion of the nation either never heard it, or never believed it.
Everyone seems to focus on the supposed reason, that people say bad things anonymously, so we should not let them do that. There should be "accountability". All I can say to that is Bullshat!
And before you get too worked up, remember that first of all, one would have to register EVERYONE IN THE WORLD and be able to verify their ID (something all the powers of governments are not able to do) and the proposed bill would hold third parties (site operators) responsible. Does that seem fair to you?
Consider if the internet was printed material, such as an underground newspaper (or, as noted, the Federalist Papers) Do we really think it is a good idea that the writers must provide their names & addresses? Our Founding Fathers and those that inspired them wrote under pseudonyms. Indeed, the "pen name" is a long established literary tradition, particularly whenever there is any risk of offending powerful people or organizations.
How could anyone consider the Internet any different. Speech, oral or written is protected to a high degree in this country, and for good reason.
Libel and slander laws have specific definitions that must be met, otherwise there is no case. You can say bad things about someone. Someone can say bad or untrue things about you, but unless you can proove that harm is done, directly as a result there is no case.
It is a sad fact that many people will act based on unfounded rumor. When they do, THEY are at fault.
And speaking of at fault, how about the idiot (and I say this with no malice, just simple observation, as after all, "stupid is as stupid does") who proposed the bill in the first place? Barely a single moment of intelligent reflection on this subject would have shown how unworkable, and unconstitutional this is likely to be. It appears the individual has so little knowledge of both the Internet and the law as to be in questionable touch with reality. Too many elected officials seem to think that simply by passing a law they can alter reality to suit their adgendas. Sure, it may have the best of intentions, but the unintended consequences are potentially horrendous. Something akin to decapitation to cure a hangnail.
Wasn't it the Kentucky Legislature
That had a bill making pi equal to three? I recall it didn't pass, but still...
In Pasadena, CA, it was (may still be) illegal to swim on dry land.
do a google for "dumb laws"... there's a website dedicated to them, organized by state.
Dumb stuff like this doesn't surprise me.
--Shannon
That had a bill making pi equal to three? I recall it didn't pass, but still...
In Pasadena, CA, it was (may still be) illegal to swim on dry land.
do a google for "dumb laws"... there's a website dedicated to them, organized by state.
Dumb stuff like this doesn't surprise me.
--Shannon