Ban 'anonymous' speech online?

Idris

http://rt.com/usa/news/new-york-anonymous-internet-020/

Lawmakers in New York State are proposing a new legislation that involves the Web, and no, it’s not SOPA-esque or another CISPA-like spy-bill. Politicians in the Empire State want to outlaw anonymous speech on the Internet.

Republican Assemblyman Jim Conte says that the legislation he co-sponsors, Bill no. S06779, would cut down on “mean-spirited and baseless political attacks” and “turns the spotlight on cyberbullies by forcing them to reveal their identity.”

The bill was proposed back in March and is described as “an act to amend the civil rights law, in relation to protecting a person's right to know who is behind an anonymous internet posting.”

According to the proposed legislation, the administrator of any website hosted in New York State shall, upon request, remove comments that were “posted on his or her website by an anonymous poster unless such anonymous poster agreed to attach his or her name to the post and confirm that his or her IP address, legal name and home address are accurate.

If passed, the act will “help lend some accountability to the internet age,” says co-sponsor Sen. Thomas O’Mara, a Republican, who has been elected to serve the citizens of the United States yet apparently has been completely misinformed about the liberties of Americans guaranteed in the US Bill of Rights. Although most major newspapers in the United States continue to publish op-ed pieces anonymously or in a voice representative of that periodicals’ editorial department, on the Internet — where anything goes — average Americans should not be allowed that right, apparently.

Even if a poster does confirm the authenticity of the IP address that their computer connects to the Web with, New York Eastern District federal court magistrate Judge Gary Brown ruled earlier this month that that data cannot be used solely to link a suspect to a crime, writing “a single IP address usually supports multiple computer devices – which unlike traditional telephones can be operated simultaneously by different individuals.”

Kevin Bankston, a staff attorney with the Center for Democracy and Technology, reveals that the legislation, if passed, would be damning to not just an open Internet but the First Amendment. In a statement, the CDT lawyer confirms that “This statute would essentially destroy the ability to speak anonymously online on sites in New York,” and provides a “heckler’s veto to anybody who disagrees with or doesn’t like what an anonymous poster said.”

Lawmakers in New York have yet to formally vote on the measure.

brianlux

Sounds like terrible legislation!

Signed,

Maynard G. Krebs

peacefrompaul

Frightening

Drowned Out

So I guess the next time I want to speak to strangers in public, I should be sure to state my full name, SIN, address, and birthdate before I begin. Makes perfect sense.


"cut down on “mean-spirited and baseless political attacks”"...? ....aw, the 'mean people suck' law.

Byrnzie

Control freaks are everywhere, like rats.


Although they're worse then rats, because at least rats know how to mind their own business.

BinauralJam

it never stops

puremagic

Hypothetically speaking - how would this impact you? You’ve seen a lot negative postings about politicians, Hollywood types, the billionaire backers, individuals; and, even the religious are not immune to conversations/discussions of public figures or media stories on this messageboard.

Under this Bill, it appears that YOU would be held liable for all comments, conversations or discussions made on this messageboard in response to already published material, if YOU failed to delete any negative comment of a named or implied person referenced in any such discussions. [This is something YOU do, very well, anyway.]

This Bill, however, takes it a step further [Sections 25, 26 & 27] seems mandate that YOU -even after the removal/locked of a negative post – have to attach the true identity of the poster who’s comment was Removed/Locked.

This Bill, as you’ve notice includes all internet devices, phone, smart TV, e-books, etc. to which a person accesses your Website.

S06779 Text:
http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?defaul ... y=Y&Text=Y

S T A T E O F N E W Y O R K
________________________________________________________________________

6779

I N S E N A T E

March 21, 2012
___________

Introduced by Sen. O'MARA -- read twice and ordered printed, and when
printed to be committed to the Committee on Codes

AN ACT to amend the civil rights law, in relation to protecting a
person's right to know who is behind an anonymous internet posting

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEM-
BLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

1 Section 1. The civil rights law, is amended by adding a new section
2 79-o to read as follows:
3 S 79-O. ANONYMOUS INTERNET POSTER; RIGHT TO KNOW. 1. DEFINITIONS. AS
4 USED IN THIS SECTION, THE FOLLOWING WORDS AND TERMS SHALL HAVE THE
5 FOLLOWING MEANINGS:
6 (A) ANONYMOUS POSTER IS ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO POSTS A MESSAGE ON A WEB
7 SITE INCLUDING SOCIAL NETWORKS, BLOGS FORUMS, MESSAGE BOARDS OR ANY
8 OTHER DISCUSSION SITE WHERE PEOPLE CAN HOLD CONVERSATIONS IN THE FORM OF
9 POSTED MESSAGES.
10 (B) "WEB SITE ADMINISTRATOR" MEANS ANY PERSON OR ENTITY THAT IS
11 RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING A WEB SITE OR MANAGING THE CONTENT OR DEVEL-
12 OPMENT OF INFORMATION PROVIDED ON A WEB SITE INCLUDING SOCIAL NETWORKS,
13 BLOGS FORUMS, MESSAGE BOARDS OR ANY OTHER DISCUSSION SITE WHERE PEOPLE
14 CAN HOLD CONVERSATIONS IN THE FORM OF POSTED MESSAGES, ACCESSIBLE VIA A
15 NETWORK SUCH AS THE INTERNET OR A PRIVATE LOCAL AREA NETWORK.
16 (C) "INTERNET" MEANS THE GLOBAL SYSTEM OF INTERCONNECTED COMPUTER
17 NETWORKS THAT USE THE INTERNET PROTOCOL.
18 (D) "INTERNET PROTOCOL ADDRESS" OR "IP ADDRESS" MEANS A NUMERICAL
19 LABEL ASSIGNED TO EACH COMPUTER OR DEVICE PARTICIPATING IN A COMPUTER
20 NETWORK THAT USES THE INTERNET PROTOCOL FOR COMMUNICATION.
21 2. A WEB SITE ADMINISTRATOR UPON REQUEST SHALL REMOVE ANY COMMENTS
22 POSTED ON HIS OR HER WEB SITE BY AN ANONYMOUS POSTER UNLESS SUCH ANONY-
23 MOUS POSTER AGREES TO ATTACH HIS OR HER NAME TO THE POST AND CONFIRMS
24 THAT HIS OR HER IP ADDRESS, LEGAL NAME, AND HOME ADDRESS ARE ACCURATE.
25 ALL WEB SITE ADMINISTRATORS SHALL HAVE A CONTACT NUMBER OR E-MAIL
26 ADDRESS POSTED FOR SUCH REMOVAL REQUESTS, CLEARLY VISIBLE IN ANY
27 SECTIONS WHERE COMMENTS ARE POSTED.
28 S 2. This act shall take effect on the ninetieth day after it shall
29 have become a law.

EXPLANATION--Matter in ITALICS (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
[ ] is old law to be omitted.
LBD13459-02-1

UpSideDown

puremagic wrote:

Hypothetically speaking - how would this impact you?

It would no longer allow me to laugh my ass to all of the hilarious comments on Yahoo articles and Youtube videos.......

Nothing is funnier than anonymous comments on the internet......nothing I tell ya!

Godfather.

they'll have a hay-day on this forum :shock:

Godfather.

markin ball

Very troubling.

mikepegg44

I guess the State of New York wants no websites hosted within their borders

***

bigger question: why couldn't anyone hosting a website already attach comments to an ip address as part of signing up to post.

secondly, this doesn't mean they have to, just that they can.

If a state wants to rellocate certain websites from within its borders there are easier ways...

pretty soon they are going to tax internet posts

pandora

Lawmakers in Albany are promoting a bill to combat cyber-bullying by trying to force anonymous posters off the Web.
Under the proposed “Internet Protection Act,” Web-site administrators would have to provide posters’ contact information.
If the victim of an offending post complains, the site would be required to delete it or have the poster reveal his or her identity.
State Sen. Thomas O’Mara (R-Big Flats) introduced the bill earlier this month, calling cyber-bullying “one of the great tragedies of the Internet age.”
He said the legislation would help prevent “anonymous criminals from hiding behind modern technology and using the Internet to bully, defame and harass their victims.”

O’Mara cited surveys finding that about 40 percent of students have been victims of cyber-bullying.


"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."



Do people not think they should be held accountable for what they say?

That people should not take responsibility for their opinions?

That if one attacks another, should the victim of the attack not have the
right to know who is attacking? or have it removed.

Anonymous allows people to hide and actually be quite ugly even untruthful
in a world where we should be expecting honesty and decency from all
not some.

Stop the Hate!

Godfather.

I don't know if this was said..but wouldn't this be a free speach issue ? I mean even posting on the web is an expression of free speach isn't it ? now the deal of giving up the verbal attackers name should be o.k...I think.

Godfather.

hedonist

pandora wrote:

Do people not think they should be held accountable for what they say?

That people should not take responsibility for their opinions?

That if one attacks another, should the victim of the attack not have the
right to know who is attacking?

Anonymous allows people to hide and actually be quite ugly even untruthful
in a world where we should be expecting honesty and decency from all
not some.

I think they should be, absolutely. However, aside from a couple of people on this forum, no one knows my identity. Yet, I will always take responsibility for my actions and words, whether online or inline, so to speak.

That, to me, is decency. Doing the right thing - trying to, anyway - even when anonymous.

As was said - the "mean people suck" law. This proposal smacks of that.

Monster Rain

The biggest problem with this bill is that its stated goal is to "cut down on mean-spirited and baseless political attacks." So if you make mean comments about a politician on some forum the state wants to force you to reveal your identity? Nope, nothing scary about that. :roll:

pandora

hedonist wrote:

pandora wrote:

Do people not think they should be held accountable for what they say?

That people should not take responsibility for their opinions?

That if one attacks another, should the victim of the attack not have the
right to know who is attacking?

Anonymous allows people to hide and actually be quite ugly even untruthful
in a world where we should be expecting honesty and decency from all
not some.

I think they should be, absolutely. However, aside from a couple of people on this forum, no one knows my identity. Yet, I will always take responsibility for my actions and words, whether online or inline, so to speak.

That, to me, is decency. Doing the right thing - trying to, anyway - even when anonymous.

As was said - the "mean people suck" law. This proposal smacks of that.

Just like we have other laws for ignorant people
we need those to command common courtesy, honesty and decency and rid
the internet of cyber bullies.

By removing anonymous, making people accountable for the damage their words cause,
they will be less likely to hurt others.

If you can not own your words and stand behind them with your identity...
don't say them.

pandora

Monster Rain wrote:

The biggest problem with this bill is that its stated goal is to "cut down on mean-spirited and baseless political attacks." So if you make mean comments about a politician on some forum the state wants to force you to reveal your identity? Nope, nothing scary about that. :roll:

actually I am all for less mean spirited and baseless attacks
political or otherwise.

Who wouldn't be?

That is not founded criticism based in fact and action, it is not the right to speak
it just means that words will be much more likely to be civil, truthful, and fair minded
as it should be ... like when everyone can see your face.

Doesn't scare me in the least, what is much scarier is the uncontrolled who are ignorant
to inflicting pain on others....
the bullies.

cincybearcat

Can't people avoid these bullies by closing their web-browser?

And in reality, is it really random meanness and bullying that has really hurt people in real life? I think not, I think they know who there bully is on facebook, etc when it ends up in suicide, etc.

pandora

cincybearcat wrote:

Can't people avoid these bullies by closing their web-browser?

And in reality, is it really random meanness and bullying that has really hurt people in real life? I think not, I think they know who there bully is on facebook, etc when it ends up in suicide, etc.

I think the proposal is attempting to have personal accountability for our words
as we do our actions in real life.

Which I am all for.

As we have been told here many times ...
there is a real person on the other end of our words, this often forgotten.
If this happens we would know exactly who we were talking to and it would
make for a much more honest exchange.

It would also make for a safer environment for our children.

Why would anyone oppose this unless they in fact use their anonymousness to hurt others
or to should we say ... pull the wool over.

Perhaps I am missing why someone would not want to stand next to their words.

I can only think many on the social networks, forums, blogs
might be very surprised as to who exactly they have been talking to
and how many personas people actually have, that is, pretending to be
for whatever reason.

Cowards hide and bully, who needs them? Honesty and decency is where it's at,
where we want to be.

Monster Rain

pandora wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

The biggest problem with this bill is that its stated goal is to "cut down on mean-spirited and baseless political attacks." So if you make mean comments about a politician on some forum the state wants to force you to reveal your identity? Nope, nothing scary about that. :roll:

actually I am all for less mean spirited and baseless attacks
political or otherwise.

Who wouldn't be?

That is not founded criticism based in fact and action, it is not the right to speak
it just means that words will be much more likely to be civil, truthful, and fair minded
as it should be ... like when everyone can see your face.

Doesn't scare me in the least, what is much scarier is the uncontrolled who are ignorant
to inflicting pain on others....
the bullies.

My problem is this: someone goes on a message board and makes a comment about a NY politician that someone deems "mean-spirited." Now the state decides to force the poster to post his/her real name with that comment so the state knows who said it. Doesn't that seems a little extreme? What's to stop that politician from making that person a target for state tax audits, "speeding" tickets on the state highway when the person is going with the flow of traffic, and things like that? What if my boss reads my post and disagrees with me and retaliates against me for my political beliefs (and I'd never know since he could be posting anonymously as long as his posts don't offend any politicians in power or even just lurking on the site without posting)?

Also, who determines what is mean-spirited? If I call someone a liar, is that mean-spirited enough to require my name being posted next to my comment? It seems like the government is trying to protect itself from bullying by passing a law that allows the state to bully others. I also don't see how the NY state government thinks it has the power to force people in other states to reveal their identities just because a website they use happens to be based out of NY.

Monster Rain

pandora wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

Can't people avoid these bullies by closing their web-browser?

And in reality, is it really random meanness and bullying that has really hurt people in real life? I think not, I think they know who there bully is on facebook, etc when it ends up in suicide, etc.

I think the proposal is attempting to have personal accountability for our words
as we do our actions in real life.

Which I am all for.

As we have been told here many times ...
there is a real person on the other end of our words, this often forgotten.
If this happens we would know exactly who we were talking to and it would
make for a much more honest exchange.

It would also make for a safer environment for our children.

Why would anyone oppose this unless they in fact use their anonymousness to hurt others
or to should we say ... pull the wool over.

Perhaps I am missing why someone would not want to stand next to their words.

I can only think many on the social networks, forums, blogs
might be very surprised as to who exactly they have been talking to
and how many personas people actually have, that is, pretending to be
for whatever reason.

Cowards hide and bully, who needs them? Honesty and decency is where it's at,
where we want to be.

Maybe people don't want strangers on a web site knowing who they are, regardless of whether they post something "mean-spirited" or not. How many people on this board use their real names? There are genuine creeps in the world and some people would rather not tell 1,000 normal people their real name because person #1,001 might be the weirdo who becomes a crazy stalker or the guy who works at the deli who now wants to debate politics every time you try to get some roast beef. Besides, maybe Monster Rain is my real name.