Ban 'anonymous' speech online?
Idris
Posts: 2,317
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.
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.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Signed,
Maynard G. Krebs
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
"cut down on “mean-spirited and baseless political attacks”"...?
Although they're worse then rats, because at least rats know how to mind their own business.
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
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.
"With our thoughts we make the world"
***
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
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Also, Monster Rain made some damn good points up there.
because who cares about what you think of someone, right? Only you do.
Even here as a guideline ... no personal comments.
So you would not say someone was a liar but could point out an untruth
if indeed you have proof of that. You would be speaking of an action not the person.
And your name and address stands proudly next to your words.
And where bullying comes in...
it is personal attacks based in personal opinion not fact and it is hurtful.
It muddies the cyber world with negativity and hate and above all else
allows the bully to be anonymous which gives them strength.
As I said in the other thread every one has the right to live their lives
not as a victim.
I am all for the right to privacy and free speech.
I certainly don't think my privacy would be invaded
by standing up for the words I write. Not sure why yours would be....
perhaps you could explain.
So your privacy is an issue what about bullies and those that do hurt,
should they be allowed protection to continue making victims?
Or should they be held accountable for their actions?
Anytime there is a new technological advancement that allows for better distribution of information, Porno mongers and hate groups are always on the cutting edge. There are downsides to the interwebs, and the ease of spewing anonymous hate is one of them.
someone just thought of a way to a kinder gentler world
of course it is... it always is.
and what does 'anonymous' mean anyway? and what about thsoe idiots who call up the radio and say stupid shit.. should we make them fully disclose their identities too???
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Also, I'm tired of being penalized (for lack of a better word) because of idiots who don't know how to debate, drive, get along with others, etc. We should deal with them, not make everyone else have to sacrifice because of them.
This is a very slippery slope here.
I do
I agree. this law is unnecessary, as a person could already do this to their site if they wanted. I see it all over the internet...post deleted by admin
the bigger problem is the Morality police are at it again...I have no problem with someone calling me a liar...if I am being called that maybe I am lying...or maybe I got my shit wrong
This isn't about bullying, this is about a way to get in to the internet. Politicians keep dreaming up ways to get ip addresses of people...this will just further their attempts
If anyone thinks this will cut down on any mean spirited discussions they live in a fantasy world where legislation has the power to eliminate being an asshole. Don't like the tone don't go to the site. I pretty much hate all the posters who constantly talk about happy meal toys being completely inappropriate over on pissedconsumers.com but I am not going to use the government to intimidate them into shutting up. I will just sit back and think..."these are the people, these are the people who continue to make it so my friends cannot smoke a J"
oh...and you can ghost an IP address with a program that takes about 8 mins to download and install.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
anonymous = negative opinion
identified = positive opinion
I will always vote for more positivity in the world...
be proud enough of what you write to claim it.