New York proposes banning anonymous online comments

Status
Not open for further replies.

ShareShiz

Banned
Banned
2,082
2010
1,202
0
New York proposes banning anonymous online comments
By Nathan Tsui

A bill proposed in both chambers of the New York State Legislature aims to target cyber-bullying by banning anonymous comments on websites, blogs, forums and social networks.

A New York bill, proposed Monday in both chambers of the New York State Legislature, would combat cyber-bullying by effectively banning comments from anonymous users on New York-based websites, blogs, forums, social networks, and pretty much any other form of online communication, reports Wired.

Specifically, the Internet Protection Act's goal would be "protecting a person's right to know who is behind an anonymous internet posting." If the bill (A.8688/S.6779) were to become law, website administrators would be obligated to "remove any comments posted on his or her website by an anonymous poster unless such anonymous poster agrees to attach his or her name to the post." All website administrators would also be required to provide a phone number or email address to receive such removal requests.

However, the measure seems unlikely to become law. No votes have yet been taken on the bill, and an attorney speaking to Wired seemed skeptical of its passage. "This statute would essentially destroy the ability to speak anonymously online on sites in New York," said Kevin Bankston, a staff attorney with the Center for Democracy and Technology. Bankston equated the bill to a "heckler's veto to anybody who disagrees with or doesn't like what an anonymous poster said."

The legislation is sponsored by Assemblyman Dean Murray and Senator Thomas O'Mara, both Republicans from New York. The bill intends to give power back to the cyber-bullied, because it "will offer them the opportunity to either confront the person making these comments by having that person identified, or have the comment removed all together in the case where this comment is false or slanderous," Murray said.

"The internet has been a great innovation for our time, it's brought forth a lot of advantages, but with that, there are abuses that come with it," O'Mara said. "This will help lend some accountability to the internet age."
 
12 comments
It will only increase in more drama and all that instead of people being anonymous they will start using fake names hence increasing more spam.

VPN industry is gonna boost coz of this. Why the hell dont they understand concept of free speech
 
First of all, I don't think this could possibly pass. Secondly, it's clearly unconstitutional, as the First Amendment protects the right to anonymous speech, so even if the law did pass, it wouldn't stand up to judicial review. Third, this can only be enforced on websites with NY jurisdiction attached to them, so basically don't call anyone a dirty cumdumpster on the NYTimes comments (or simply stop reading/using the site).
 
First of all, I don't think this could possibly pass. Secondly, it's clearly unconstitutional, as the First Amendment protects the right to anonymous speech, so even if the law did pass, it wouldn't stand up to judicial review. Third, this can only be enforced on websites with NY jurisdiction attached to them, so basically don't call anyone a dirty cumdumpster on the NYTimes comments (or simply stop reading/using the site).

It doesn't matter if it passes or not.
Suggesting bill, that is unconstitutional, in it's essence, means, that proposer of the bill isn't suitable for the seat in congress, he is filling.
Now, it's trendy to suggest bills that aren't constitutional, and are being adopted (NDAA is just one example), and even signed, and approved by Obama.
So, someone is doing that on purpose, for the benefit of the smaller group of lobbyist.
It's not a coincidence, it's deliberate, and malicious work. I've never seen more bills being written, and tried to be adopted, that are breaking 1st Amendment, than in last 2-4 years.
If anyone have better, non 'conspiracy' explanation, please, be my guest, explain it better.
 
It doesn't matter if it passes or not.
Suggesting bill, that is unconstitutional, in it's essence, means, that proposer of the bill isn't suitable for the seat in congress, he is filling.
Now, it's trendy to suggest bills that aren't constitutional, and are being adopted (NDAA is just one example), and even signed, and approved by Obama.
So, someone is doing that on purpose, for the benefit of the smaller group of lobbyist.
It's not a coincidence, it's deliberate, and malicious work. I've never seen more bills being written, and tried to be adopted, that are breaking 1st Amendment, than in last 2-4 years.
If anyone have better, non 'conspiracy' explanation, please, be my guest, explain it better.

I completely agree that the writer of the bill, the sponsors of the bill, and the people supporting the bill have no place in the government.

I also agree that there are serious threads to the First Amendment happening everyday in the US.

I don't think it's quite as back-door conspiracy, but I also do believe that it is a deliberate attempt. I think it's just the natural inclination of people to want to not have to deal with concepts, ideas, thoughts, or any kind of speech that they perceive as contrary to those concepts, ideas and thoughts they base their life around. I, for one, hate the Westboro Baptists, and it's not easy for me to really believe that they should be allowed to protest funerals they way they do. I can understand why people pale at the thought. But if you value free speech, you have to value and protect all speech, not just the speech that you agree with.

The problem is this "won't somebody please think of the children" refrain that is used to silence voices of dissent, to attempt to block free speech on the internet, and to try to pass legislature allowing the unconscionable collection of private information. It's an ongoing problem in the United States.

Where I really disagree with you, however, is the idea that whether or not is passes does not matter. Rather than this story inciting a ton of "LULZ AMURICA", we should try to use it to encourage American citizens to contact their representatives, to vote, to utilize what little voice they have. The goal should be to stop this bill from being passed. I know I'm facebooking all of my friends who live in New York state (where the law is pending) and asking them to call and complain to their representatives.
 
Oh, the part where I said it doesn't matter, wasn't supposed to be read alone, as a single thought.
Not sure how to better express that part, unfortunatelly...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top