Pandora’s responses [no disrespect intended] to this post is exactly what this Bill is suppose to invoke from the general public. The generalization of – sure let’s stop the bullying and being mean spirited. Stop for a moment and ask yourself – Do you need a Bill that infringes on your free speech right to force you be nice, or else - when having a discussion regarding a politician, news or events that impacts you or your country? Should there be a law that publically identifies you because you criticized a public figure; by doing such, doesn’t this Bill both criminalize you and bullying you into a submissive position.
I think the point that’s being missing in this Bill is this particular phrase “an act to amend the civil rights laws” This Bill may catch that occasional bully and give him 30 days. Hell it may even catch the next Congressman/Senator sending sexing pictures, small potatoes.
This Bill that says very little – has an even bigger impact. Remember that now forgotten Telecommunications Act that scared even Congress into making warrantless wiretapping for matters of National security and, entities like Verizon, Fox News, cable companies could not provide private information on its users? Now wireless capabilities and devices have exploded, and the information is coming from everywhere; with no easy way of collecting information on the users, especially, with disposable devices.
Well it seems like this Bill is trying to side step this issue by disguising itself as an anti-bullying legislation. Under this Bill, they don’t need a warrant, they don’t need definitive probable cause, they just need to determine that YOUR conversation COULD BE interpreted as representing some perceived form of public harassment to require your personal information
I am very much against more govt power, not a fan of govt much at all,
but I long for a world that is kinder and gentler if even by law.
So this drives my opinion on the proposal as it may many in the general public.
Again - should we be required to identify ourselves every time we open our mouths to strangers in public? There are safety issues with putting personal information online. It’s the first thing we teach our children about internet use. If I was voicing an opinion in a public forum (in person), I wouldn’t want everyone in the audience to be able to find out where I live…..and it has nothing to do with being ashamed of my stance. It has to do with potential nutjobs in the audience who disagree with me. It’s no different online.
Some of the same points I was (and others were) trying to make....but with more eloquence, and historical reference. It's worthwhile to post the text here:
Anonymity
Many people don't want the things they say online to be connected with their offline identities. They may be concerned about political or economic retribution harassment or even threats to their lives. Whistleblowers report news that companies and governments would prefer to suppress; human rights workers struggle against repressive governments; parents try to create a safe way for children to explore; victims of domestic violence attempt to rebuild their lives where abusers cannot follow.
Instead of using their true names to communicate these people choose to speak using pseudonyms (assumed names) or anonymously (no name at all). For these individuals and the organizations that support them secure anonymity is critical. It may literally save lives.
Anonymous communications have an important place in our political and social discourse. The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the right to anonymous free speech is protected by the First Amendment. A much-cited 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:
Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.
The tradition of anonymous speech is older than the United States. Founders Alexander Hamilton James Madison and John Jay wrote the Federalist Papers under the pseudonym "Publius " and "the Federal Farmer" spoke up in rebuttal. The US Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized rights to speak anonymously derived from the First Amendment.
The right to anonymous speech is also protected well beyond the printed page. Thus in 2002 the Supreme Court struck down a law requiring proselytizers to register their true names with the Mayor's office before going door-to-door.
These long-standing rights to anonymity and the protections it affords are critically important for the Internet. As the Supreme Court has recognized the Internet offers a new and powerful democratic forum in which anyone can become a "pamphleteer" or "a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox."
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has been involved in the fight to protect the rights of anonymous speakers online. As one court observed in a case handled by EFF along with the ACLU of Washington "[T]he free exchange of ideas on the Internet is driven in large part by the ability of Internet users to communicate anonymously."
We've challenged many efforts to impede anonymous communication both in the courts or the legislatures. We also previously provided financial support to the developers of Tor an anonymous Internet communications system. By combining legal and policy work with technical tools we hope to maintain the Internet's ability to serve as a vehicle for free expression.
Post edited by Drowned Out on
0
g under p
Surfing The far side of THE Sombrero Galaxy Posts: 18,200
Exactly, one of the main reasons I DON'T like to use my name in posts unlike when I first started here. I used my name in several my very first posts but with the political environment at the time thought twice about it and declined to use it since. This law to me is about control and nothing more than control. Just another way for our government to have a say in what one might have to say. Keep the government out of what is said on the internet it can and will be policed without victimazation to anyone by those who view your posts. I'm all for that, I've moderated and done so myself.
Peace.
*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
I am very much against more govt power, not a fan of govt much at all,
but I long for a world that is kinder and gentler if even by law.
So this drives my opinion on the proposal as it may many in the general public.
A kinder/gentler and good natured world due to law and/or regulation (like said bill), that is just not true good nature, or a positive world..It's simply an illusion of a kinder/gentler world/society.
When you scare people into not speaking from their hearts (hurtful speech or not, anonymously or not), what good is it? It's just no good, Pandora.
We don't want some bubble gum world, With bubble gum laws, because it creates nothing but bubble gum people.
No substance, just chew a bit and spit out.
Too sanitized, like someone with OCD washing their hands over and over, you get to a point where hands are not even 'clean' anymore, it in fact becomes very dirty, infected..Disgusting. The opposite of 'clean'.
You said: "I am very much against more govt power, not a fan of govt much at all" Then in the same breath talk about a "kinder" world "even if by law".
You spoke earlier about 'Personal responsibility'...'Personal responsibility' comes from the heart and mind, not by State laws (like this). If a bully fails to see that he/she is a bully, cruel, unjust, an ass or whatever else, then who's loss is it really? The victim? Or the Bully? Surely the loss is always with the 'bully', the 'unjust'.
This is the nature of the world, that is the 'true' nature of 'Personal responsibility'.
Even the worst of bullies have a reason they do what they do, some insecurity, perhaps other pain. But then in turn to bully them into submission. That's just wrong. When people are 'good' because of 'laws', are they really good?
-
Anyway, I'm more worried about the people who are heavily political, many people as it is are already scared to speak publicly (or online) about politics, or the government. This will only make them more scared to express themselves or simply 'vent' a bit. 'Fear' and Punishment is the 'future' but don't worry cause 'Big Brother' will protect us. Follow 'Big Brother' and all will be fine.
Bully the outspoken into silence, for if they speak they will no doubt fear whatever repercussions they may incur for simply saying what's on ones mind or what is felt inside ones heart.
this bill and some of the opinions expressed in this thread are chilling...it amazes me that people are willing to give up more and more of their basic human rights
Would this proposed law make it so that a battered woman, or perhaps a teenager confused about his sexuality, couldn't seek advice from others on a message board without disclosing their real name?
A kinder/gentler and good natured world due to law and/or regulation (like said bill), that is just not true good nature, or a positive world..It's simply an illusion of a kinder/gentler world/society.
When you scare people into not speaking from their hearts (hurtful speech or not, anonymously or not), what good is it? It's just no good, Pandora.
We don't want some bubble gum world, With bubble gum laws, because it creates nothing but bubble gum people.
No substance, just chew a bit and spit out.
Too sanitized, like someone with OCD washing their hands over and over, you get to a point where hands are not even 'clean' anymore, it in fact becomes very dirty, infected..Disgusting. The opposite of 'clean'.
You said: "I am very much against more govt power, not a fan of govt much at all" Then in the same breath talk about a "kinder" world "even if by law".
You spoke earlier about 'Personal responsibility'...'Personal responsibility' comes from the heart and mind, not by State laws (like this). If a bully fails to see that he/she is a bully, cruel, unjust, an ass or whatever else, then who's loss is it really? The victim? Or the Bully? Surely the loss is always with the 'bully', the 'unjust'.
This is the nature of the world, that is the 'true' nature of 'Personal responsibility'.
Even the worst of bullies have a reason they do what they do, some insecurity, perhaps other pain. But then in turn to bully them into submission. That's just wrong. When people are 'good' because of 'laws', are they really good?
-
Anyway, I'm more worried about the people who are heavily political, many people as it is are already scared to speak publicly (or online) about politics, or the government. This will only make them more scared to express themselves or simply 'vent' a bit. 'Fear' and Punishment is the 'future' but don't worry cause 'Big Brother' will protect us. Follow 'Big Brother' and all will be fine.
Bully the outspoken into silence, for if they speak they will no doubt fear whatever repercussions they may incur for simply saying what's on ones mind or what is felt inside ones heart.
Very wise and well-put!
Joe also - I hadn't even thought of that aspect. Yet another reason this bill is dangerous.
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?
At the risk of encouraging you to continue treating this thread as your own personal soapbox, resulting in it being locked like so many others, I want to ask you a question:
What difference does it make if you know the identity of the person who's 'attacking' you? How would that change the 'victims' response?
If you're on a webpage that isn't moderated then you are free to respond in kind to the person 'attacking' you. Otherwise, as is the case here, you can run to the mods every time someone takes issue with your condescending preaching.
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.
Only a 3 year old, or a nun who's spent 50 years locked in a hermitage could be forgiven for expecting honesty and decency from all. The rest of humanity should know better.
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.
Alternatively, if somebody can't take criticism without feeling 'victimized', causing them to report other posters to the moderators every time they say something that that person doesn't like (causing thread after thread to get locked and people to get bans and warnings), then maybe that person shouldn't post in message board forums in the first place.
Nobody forces anyone else to post messages on the internet and engage in debates, or arguments, of any kind.
If someone is incapable of receiving the odd critical, or even abusive, comment, then they can simply choose an alternative way to spend their time.
Unless of course their intention isn't to engage in discussion in the first place, but simply to preach and condescend.
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.
Alternatively, if somebody can't take criticism without feeling 'victimized', causing them to report other posters to the moderators every time they say something that that person doesn't like (causing thread after thread to get locked and people to get bans and warnings), then maybe that person shouldn't post in message board forums in the first place.
Nobody forces anyone else to post messages on the internet and engage in debates, or arguments, of any kind.
If someone is incapable of receiving the odd critical, or even abusive, comment, then they can simply choose an alternative way to spend their time.
Unless of course their intention isn't to engage in discussion in the first place, but simply to preach and condescend.
Right.
There is a reason people don't often engage in discussions about politics and religion with complete strangers - because it is plain common sense that it can get heated. But if u can't take the heat...report to mod? Why? To me, as things play out, personal crticism is expected! Cause it boils down to personal beliefs..
I can see it in instances of blatant, intense abuse...but criticism? They want to.....what? arrest people for that now?
Is that what they plan to do with the info given? Track you down and lock you up for bein mean? You're screwed Byrnzie
Your wisdom shines through so clearly in your use of words. It reminds me of a wise sage I saw once in a movie. A diminutive character with big ears, If I'm not mistaken.
Being a misguided, lost soul, in search of salvation and a gentler, kinder world, I feel like prostrating myself before your feet.
But can I ask you a question first?: Are you really the Messiah, or just a very naughty boy?
From May 23 (Now they are catching some heat, and they have no idea 'why')
New York legislators involved with the proposed Internet Protection Act are getting a lot of calls today, and they’re not quite sure why. The bill was introduced weeks ago to a quiet reception but seems to have become controversial overnight.
“Assemblyman Jim Conte is just a co-sponsor on the bill,” an exasperated aide answered when Betabeat called for a quote about the proposed law, which would require online publishers to remove anonymous comments upon request.”I don’t know why today’s the day, but today’s the day that everyone is calling on this,” Republican Tom O’Mara, who introduced the bill in the senate, told Betabeat. “Something was posted somewhere, I guess.”
"Something was posted somewhere, I guess." (I love that part, cause you just know, he want's to know who posted it, and what that persons name and addy is ) He knocks on the guy's door, "how dare you say my bill is against the First Amendment.! You cyber-bully!
When reading this thread I thought about our founding fathers and what if they had to sign their anonymous writings? Would this country even exist? I cannot fathom how people are so willing to give up every right they have for the sake of safety. We spend so much time giving away our freedoms to the government then we complain when the government doesn't do right by us. What do people expect? I don't expect business or government to "care" about me. They don't care about my safety, they don't care about protecting our freedoms, instead they SAY they care so they can continue to take more and more control over our lives all in the name of "caring" for us. How is forcing our government to take care of our feelings helping us?
Some of the same points I was (and others were) trying to make....but with more eloquence, and historical reference. It's worthwhile to post the text here:
Anonymity
Many people don't want the things they say online to be connected with their offline identities. They may be concerned about political or economic retribution harassment or even threats to their lives. Whistleblowers report news that companies and governments would prefer to suppress; human rights workers struggle against repressive governments; parents try to create a safe way for children to explore; victims of domestic violence attempt to rebuild their lives where abusers cannot follow.
Instead of using their true names to communicate these people choose to speak using pseudonyms (assumed names) or anonymously (no name at all). For these individuals and the organizations that support them secure anonymity is critical. It may literally save lives.
Anonymous communications have an important place in our political and social discourse. The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the right to anonymous free speech is protected by the First Amendment. A much-cited 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:
Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.
The tradition of anonymous speech is older than the United States. Founders Alexander Hamilton James Madison and John Jay wrote the Federalist Papers under the pseudonym "Publius " and "the Federal Farmer" spoke up in rebuttal. The US Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized rights to speak anonymously derived from the First Amendment.
The right to anonymous speech is also protected well beyond the printed page. Thus in 2002 the Supreme Court struck down a law requiring proselytizers to register their true names with the Mayor's office before going door-to-door.
These long-standing rights to anonymity and the protections it affords are critically important for the Internet. As the Supreme Court has recognized the Internet offers a new and powerful democratic forum in which anyone can become a "pamphleteer" or "a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox."
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has been involved in the fight to protect the rights of anonymous speakers online. As one court observed in a case handled by EFF along with the ACLU of Washington "[T]he free exchange of ideas on the Internet is driven in large part by the ability of Internet users to communicate anonymously."
We've challenged many efforts to impede anonymous communication both in the courts or the legislatures. We also previously provided financial support to the developers of Tor an anonymous Internet communications system. By combining legal and policy work with technical tools we hope to maintain the Internet's ability to serve as a vehicle for free expression.
Are we getting something out of this all-encompassing trip?
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
I am very much against more govt power, not a fan of govt much at all,
but I long for a world that is kinder and gentler if even by law.
So this drives my opinion on the proposal as it may many in the general public.
A kinder/gentler and good natured world due to law and/or regulation (like said bill), that is just not true good nature, or a positive world..It's simply an illusion of a kinder/gentler world/society.
When you scare people into not speaking from their hearts (hurtful speech or not, anonymously or not), what good is it? It's just no good, Pandora.
We don't want some bubble gum world, With bubble gum laws, because it creates nothing but bubble gum people.
No substance, just chew a bit and spit out.
Too sanitized, like someone with OCD washing their hands over and over, you get to a point where hands are not even 'clean' anymore, it in fact becomes very dirty, infected..Disgusting. The opposite of 'clean'.
You said: "I am very much against more govt power, not a fan of govt much at all" Then in the same breath talk about a "kinder" world "even if by law".
You spoke earlier about 'Personal responsibility'...'Personal responsibility' comes from the heart and mind, not by State laws (like this). If a bully fails to see that he/she is a bully, cruel, unjust, an ass or whatever else, then who's loss is it really? The victim? Or the Bully? Surely the loss is always with the 'bully', the 'unjust'.
This is the nature of the world, that is the 'true' nature of 'Personal responsibility'.
Even the worst of bullies have a reason they do what they do, some insecurity, perhaps other pain. But then in turn to bully them into submission. That's just wrong. When people are 'good' because of 'laws', are they really good?
-
Anyway, I'm more worried about the people who are heavily political, many people as it is are already scared to speak publicly (or online) about politics, or the government. This will only make them more scared to express themselves or simply 'vent' a bit. 'Fear' and Punishment is the 'future' but don't worry cause 'Big Brother' will protect us. Follow 'Big Brother' and all will be fine.
Bully the outspoken into silence, for if they speak they will no doubt fear whatever repercussions they may incur for simply saying what's on ones mind or what is felt inside ones heart.
Do you consider hate crime legislation to be bubble gum?
Do you think we need it in place to correct the ignorant
who are unable to be respectful to others unless they are shown by a law.
This is similar legislation with a similar positive outcome.
I would love to think people will be kind and accepting on their own but as we see
with the cyber bullies that is just not happening.
Being anonymous is creating these bullies because there is no personal
accountability. They do not have to be kind so they can victimize with their words,
we see this regularly.
"turns the spotlight on cyberbullies by forcing them to reveal their identity”
This says it all to me, no right to speech lost only the right to make victims.
If one wants to criticize or accuse another, the law does not stop that,
no freedom of speech lost, one always has a choice.
What is lost is the ability to hide from the person you are criticizing or accusing.
If you say something, stand strong and behind your words, speak the truth,
have proof to back it up. Take personal responsibility and accountability.
If you attack know that your victim can and will attack back, will defend themselves.
As they have the right to do.
I often wondered where slander fits into the exchange on the internet...
we my soon find out.
Slander already has a legal definition. There's no need for a law like this to exist to protect people from slander. If something fits the legal definition of slanderous, there are already legal channels to allow you to try to find out who said it (and it's possible to fake an IP address and it's possible for your IP address to change, so this bill wouldn't provide any more protection from mean words if ther person typing them is computer-savvy). Free speech is only restricted if it causes or promotes a public saefty hazard or fits the definition of libel or slander. This is absolutely a restriciton of both free speech and privacy. The Constitution doesn't mention any exclusions for mean words that hurt people's feelings--especially when it involves protecting politicians from the public's throughts.
What sly little rats NY politicians are. This has been going on for weeks and just now citizens are finding out about it. With all the real problems we are having - economy, jobs, education cuts, disaster relief from last years hurricane (still!), they have the balls to place precedence to this garbage.
"turns the spotlight on cyberbullies by forcing them to reveal their identity”
This says it all to me, no right to speech lost only the right to make victims.
If one wants to criticize or accuse another, the law does not stop that,
no freedom of speech lost, one always has a choice.
What is lost is the ability to hide from the person you are criticizing or accusing.
If you say something, stand strong and behind your words, speak the truth,
have proof to back it up. Take personal responsibility and accountability.
If you attack know that your victim can and will attack back, will defend themselves.
As they have the right to do.
I often wondered where slander fits into the exchange on the internet...
we my soon find out.
Slander already has a legal definition. There's no need for a law like this to exist to protect people from slander. If something fits the legal definition of slanderous, there are already legal channels to allow you to try to find out who said it (and it's possible to fake an IP address and it's possible for your IP address to change, so this bill wouldn't provide any more protection from mean words if ther person typing them is computer-savvy). Free speech is only restricted if it causes or promotes a public saefty hazard or fits the definition of libel or slander. This is absolutely a restriciton of both free speech and privacy. The Constitution doesn't mention any exclusions for mean words that hurt people's feelings--especially when it involves protecting politicians from the public's throughts.
It is protecting people from hate and untruths, same as our hate crime legislation.
Some people are ignorant and want to victimize others this will hinder them because
people will no longer be anonymous in their bullying.
Do you consider hate crime legislation to be bubble gum?
Do you think we need it in place to correct the ignorant
who are unable to be respectful to others unless they are shown by a law.
This is similar legislation with a similar positive outcome.
Yes, in fact, I find those types of laws to be the cheapest kind of 'Bubble Gum', like the kind you can only chew a few times before the piece get's stale.
You can't fight hate with those laws. It's the illusion again, it does just about nothing to solve the underlying issue of the 'Hate'. Now something else, 'Hate' is very broad, and the laws vary greatly (even the definition of 'hate' varies). So I'm just giving my general view on the issue and not get into the greater details or philosophy of it etc. (A bit busy right now)
If someone has hate in their heart, say they don't like Blacks, Asians, Arabs, Smurfs or whatever else...and the reason these 'haters' don't openly preach that hate is because of the laws, well to my mind, I find that to be most unfortunate, because it just keeps the hate bottled inside,they are worried about 'punishment' for their view. Now I know, and probably most people here may know or feel that the best way to deal with the 'ignorant' is to 'try' and educate, understand, reason. Not just flash the 'law' in front of them and then claim ' positive outcome. It's the illusion of a positive outcome. Because we did nothing to 'truly' address the hate. We just flashed the 'law' then smile to ourselves or one another claiming 'all is well' in our world.
I would love to think people will be kind and accepting on their own but as we see
with the cyber bullies that is just not happening.
Being anonymous is creating these bullies because there is no personal
accountability. They do not have to be kind so they can victimize with their words,
we see this regularly.
So bully them into liking everyone? No thanks. Some people are kind and accepting, some are not. People have a right not to be kind and not to be accepting, people should have a right to speak the most vile racist words that they can think of.
-
(I gotta bounce, so I'm cutting it here, I'll try and finish this off later if I get around to it, I hope my post is not too all over the place, I'm rushing a bit)
Do you consider hate crime legislation to be bubble gum?
Do you think we need it in place to correct the ignorant
who are unable to be respectful to others unless they are shown by a law.
This is similar legislation with a similar positive outcome.
Yes, in fact, I find those types of laws to be the cheapest kind of 'Bubble Gum', like the kind you can only chew a few times before the piece get's stale.
You can't fight hate with those laws. It's the illusion again, it does just about nothing to solve the underlying issue of the 'Hate'. Now something else, 'Hate' is very broad, and the laws vary greatly (even the definition of 'hate' varies). So I'm just giving my general view on the issue and not get into the greater details or philosophy of it etc. (A bit busy right now)
If someone has hate in their heart, say they don't like Blacks, Asians, Arabs, Smurfs or whatever else...and the reason these 'haters' don't openly preach that hate is because of the laws, well to my mind, I find that to be most unfortunate, because it just keeps the hate bottled inside,they are worried about 'punishment' for their view. Now I know, and probably most people here may know or feel that the best way to deal with the 'ignorant' is to 'try' and educate, understand, reason. Not just flash the 'law' in front of them and then claim ' positive outcome. It's the illusion of a positive outcome. Because we did nothing to 'truly' address the hate. We just flashed the 'law' then smile to ourselves or one another claiming 'all is well' in our world.
I would love to think people will be kind and accepting on their own but as we see
with the cyber bullies that is just not happening.
Being anonymous is creating these bullies because there is no personal
accountability. They do not have to be kind so they can victimize with their words,
we see this regularly.
So bully them into liking everyone? No thanks. Some people are kind and accepting, some are not. People have a right not to be kind and not to be accepting, people should have a right to speak the most vile racist words that they can think of.
-
(I gotta bounce, so I'm cutting it here, I'll try and finish this off later if I get around to it, I hope my post is not too all over the place, I'm rushing a bit)
I agree in general terms but definitely not one on one.
Laws are to protect the innocent from the not so.
If it's not a crime to insult someone, the Constitution promises us a right to privacy, and the Constitution also promises us free speech then how is it OK for the government to put restrictions on free speech when the speech in question is not a crime? YOu might not think it's violating our free speech but how is forcing someone to say something any better than preventing you from saying something--especially when what you're being forced to say is intended to deter you from saying something else? On top of that, it is incredibly disturbing that a government official can order you to publicly identify yourself if you say something he/she doesn't like. Why should that person have forced access to your name and address just because you said something that may or may not be offensive? Also, if this type of speech on the Internet is so horrible, why is it not a crime for politicians to make such attacks against their opponents during campaigns? Why is it not part of the law that PACs that run attack ads have to include the names of the people who created the ad in big letters in every ad rather than just identifying the PAC? What I'm taking from this bill is that politicians don't want ordinary citizens slinging mud at them unless the government can identify them (and then what happens after they know your name and address?), but they can do all the mudslinging they want because it's somehow not hurtful when they do it. I don't think this board has a font size big enough to illustrate how big and bright the word "hypocrisy" should be when discussing this bill.
I think the proposal is directed at everyone and that cyber bullying is an across the board
problem, why I think ridding the anonymousness of the internet a very good idea.
To make everyone accountable for their words, that is not too much to ask,
in my opinion.
Why I like the proposal.
It would curtail the problem children are having with cyber bullies
that are even resulting in suicides. I have been researching many articles,
it is heartbreaking what some of our kids are going through. It is a real danger
that is escalating. Bullies are hiding in wait to torment.
Hopefully a proposal can come about that makes everyone feel comfortable, one that addresses
the crime of cyber bullying and also does not allow those who are truthful to be penalized.
I would think we could agree less name calling, mud slinging, branding,
and humiliation would be good thing. Some people may thrive on this but it is
not good for society and especially not good for the children.
I think the proposal is directed at everyone and that cyber bullying is an across the board
problem, why I think ridding the anonymousness of the internet a very good idea.
To make everyone accountable for their words, that is not too much to ask,
in my opinion.
Why I like the proposal.
It would curtail the problem children are having with cyber bullies
that are even resulting in suicides. I have been researching many articles,
it is heartbreaking what some of our kids are going through. It is a real danger
that is escalating. Bullies are hiding in wait to torment.
Hopefully a proposal can come about that makes everyone feel comfortable, one that addresses
the crime of cyber bullying and also does not allow those who are truthful to be penalized.
I would think we could agree less name calling, mud slinging, branding,
and humiliation would be good thing. Some people may thrive on this but it is
not good for society and especially not good for the children.
When kids are bullied online it tends to be from people they already know so forcing some kid to reveal his name isn't going to end the bullying. At best, it will just make the bullying take place somewhere else (the bus stop, recess, the locker room during gym class, etc.).
Also, just because something is true doesn't automatically make it nice, so even if the law was just aiming to prevent false statements, it wouldn't prevent someone from bullying someone else. If there's a gay kid in high school who doesn't want his classmates to know his sexual orientation and a classmate outs him and says things that are true but mean-spirited, what would happen? And what if the person who outed the kid truly believes that homosexuality is a sin and says so? It may not be a popular opinion and it may be hurtful, but if he gives his honest opinion can you really say he said something untrue? So it's not a baseless accusation because it's true (the part about the student being gay) and the rest of it is an opinion. Would that be allowed under this bill? On the flip side, it seems pretty obvious to me that saying something like, "Senator So-and-so is a lying piece of garbage" would absolutely be targeted under this bill and the poster would likely lose any argument because the politician would use that vague, this-is-plausible-if I-word-it-just-right language that politicians are so good at to argue that he is not a liar. One of these examples is much worse than the other, but there's a way for the jerk in each case to win the argument. In one case, the jerk told the truth even if it was none of his business and in the other case the jerk used creative wording to bully a private citizen into putting his name out there for everyone to see.
If you want to legislate manners and kindness, why don't we go ahead and pass a bill that says it's illegal for parents to get in line at the grocery store while sending their kids running around to get "just 1 more thing on the list" while you stand behind them and wait because they can't finish checking out until their kid brings back the milk, OJ, 6 apples, Colgate, Fruity Pebbles, and some Fig Newtons? We should also make a law that you can't call those parents jackasses even though that's what they're being, but if you do call them a jackass you have to first introduce yourself. That would go over well, right? "Hi, I'm Monster Rain. Yes, that's my real name. This is my wife Cindy. I just wanted to let you know that you're a jackass for making us wait in line behind you while your kid gets the half-dozen things you claim you forgot when you really just wanted to avoid waiting in line behind other people who finished their shopping before going to the cashier."
I think the proposal is directed at everyone and that cyber bullying is an across the board
problem, why I think ridding the anonymousness of the internet a very good idea.
To make everyone accountable for their words, that is not too much to ask,
in my opinion.
Why I like the proposal.
It would curtail the problem children are having with cyber bullies
that are even resulting in suicides. I have been researching many articles,
it is heartbreaking what some of our kids are going through. It is a real danger
that is escalating. Bullies are hiding in wait to torment.
Hopefully a proposal can come about that makes everyone feel comfortable, one that addresses
the crime of cyber bullying and also does not allow those who are truthful to be penalized.
I would think we could agree less name calling, mud slinging, branding,
and humiliation would be good thing. Some people may thrive on this but it is
not good for society and especially not good for the children.
When kids are bullied online it tends to be from people they already know so forcing some kid to reveal his name isn't going to end the bullying. At best, it will just make the bullying take place somewhere else (the bus stop, recess, the locker room during gym class, etc.).
Also, just because something is true doesn't automatically make it nice, so even if the law was just aiming to prevent false statements, it wouldn't prevent someone from bullying someone else. If there's a gay kid in high school who doesn't want his classmates to know his sexual orientation and a classmate outs him and says things that are true but mean-spirited, what would happen? And what if the person who outed the kid truly believes that homosexuality is a sin and says so? It may not be a popular opinion and it may be hurtful, but if he gives his honest opinion can you really say he said something untrue? So it's not a baseless accusation because it's true (the part about the student being gay) and the rest of it is an opinion. Would that be allowed under this bill? On the flip side, it seems pretty obvious to me that saying something like, "Senator So-and-so is a lying piece of garbage" would absolutely be targeted under this bill and the poster would likely lose any argument because the politician would use that vague, this-is-plausible-if I-word-it-just-right language that politicians are so good at to argue that he is not a liar. One of these examples is much worse than the other, but there's a way for the jerk in each case to win the argument. In one case, the jerk told the truth even if it was none of his business and in the other case the jerk used creative wording to bully a private citizen into putting his name out there for everyone to see.
If you want to legislate manners and kindness, why don't we go ahead and pass a bill that says it's illegal for parents to get in line at the grocery store while sending their kids running around to get "just 1 more thing on the list" while you stand behind them and wait because they can't finish checking out until their kid brings back the milk, OJ, 6 apples, Colgate, Fruity Pebbles, and some Fig Newtons? We should also make a law that you can't call those parents jackasses even though that's what they're being, but if you do call them a jackass you have to first introduce yourself. That would go over well, right? "Hi, I'm Monster Rain. Yes, that's my real name. This is my wife Cindy. I just wanted to let you know that you're a jackass for making us wait in line behind you while your kid gets the half-dozen things you claim you forgot when you really just wanted to avoid waiting in line behind other people who finished their shopping before going to the cashier."
All I can say is your example "Senator So-and-so is a lying piece of garbage" this poster
should lose the argument. It is insulting, rash, rude, without proof and sounds extremely bias.
In fact could it be libel or slander if no proof was offered? Should be. And what if this
Senator is a great person doing great things and someone is just bashing?
The way I see the proposal is people will be very sure of facts, they won't go off half cocked,
they will think about what they say for the value that it is because they must own it.
I also see it protecting children because no one will be anonymous.
Again I see great benefit and the positives that will come. You see the negatives.
We won't agree but maybe we can both hope a proposal to be found that better suits everyone.
Comments
but I long for a world that is kinder and gentler if even by law.
So this drives my opinion on the proposal as it may many in the general public.
Anonymity
Many people don't want the things they say online to be connected with their offline identities. They may be concerned about political or economic retribution harassment or even threats to their lives. Whistleblowers report news that companies and governments would prefer to suppress; human rights workers struggle against repressive governments; parents try to create a safe way for children to explore; victims of domestic violence attempt to rebuild their lives where abusers cannot follow.
Instead of using their true names to communicate these people choose to speak using pseudonyms (assumed names) or anonymously (no name at all). For these individuals and the organizations that support them secure anonymity is critical. It may literally save lives.
Anonymous communications have an important place in our political and social discourse. The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the right to anonymous free speech is protected by the First Amendment. A much-cited 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:
The tradition of anonymous speech is older than the United States. Founders Alexander Hamilton James Madison and John Jay wrote the Federalist Papers under the pseudonym "Publius " and "the Federal Farmer" spoke up in rebuttal. The US Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized rights to speak anonymously derived from the First Amendment.
The right to anonymous speech is also protected well beyond the printed page. Thus in 2002 the Supreme Court struck down a law requiring proselytizers to register their true names with the Mayor's office before going door-to-door.
These long-standing rights to anonymity and the protections it affords are critically important for the Internet. As the Supreme Court has recognized the Internet offers a new and powerful democratic forum in which anyone can become a "pamphleteer" or "a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox."
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has been involved in the fight to protect the rights of anonymous speakers online. As one court observed in a case handled by EFF along with the ACLU of Washington "[T]he free exchange of ideas on the Internet is driven in large part by the ability of Internet users to communicate anonymously."
We've challenged many efforts to impede anonymous communication both in the courts or the legislatures. We also previously provided financial support to the developers of Tor an anonymous Internet communications system. By combining legal and policy work with technical tools we hope to maintain the Internet's ability to serve as a vehicle for free expression.
Exactly, one of the main reasons I DON'T like to use my name in posts unlike when I first started here. I used my name in several my very first posts but with the political environment at the time thought twice about it and declined to use it since. This law to me is about control and nothing more than control. Just another way for our government to have a say in what one might have to say. Keep the government out of what is said on the internet it can and will be policed without victimazation to anyone by those who view your posts. I'm all for that, I've moderated and done so myself.
Peace.
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
A kinder/gentler and good natured world due to law and/or regulation (like said bill), that is just not true good nature, or a positive world..It's simply an illusion of a kinder/gentler world/society.
When you scare people into not speaking from their hearts (hurtful speech or not, anonymously or not), what good is it? It's just no good, Pandora.
We don't want some bubble gum world, With bubble gum laws, because it creates nothing but bubble gum people.
No substance, just chew a bit and spit out.
Too sanitized, like someone with OCD washing their hands over and over, you get to a point where hands are not even 'clean' anymore, it in fact becomes very dirty, infected..Disgusting. The opposite of 'clean'.
You said: "I am very much against more govt power, not a fan of govt much at all" Then in the same breath talk about a "kinder" world "even if by law".
You spoke earlier about 'Personal responsibility'...'Personal responsibility' comes from the heart and mind, not by State laws (like this). If a bully fails to see that he/she is a bully, cruel, unjust, an ass or whatever else, then who's loss is it really? The victim? Or the Bully? Surely the loss is always with the 'bully', the 'unjust'.
This is the nature of the world, that is the 'true' nature of 'Personal responsibility'.
Even the worst of bullies have a reason they do what they do, some insecurity, perhaps other pain. But then in turn to bully them into submission. That's just wrong. When people are 'good' because of 'laws', are they really good?
-
Anyway, I'm more worried about the people who are heavily political, many people as it is are already scared to speak publicly (or online) about politics, or the government. This will only make them more scared to express themselves or simply 'vent' a bit. 'Fear' and Punishment is the 'future' but don't worry cause 'Big Brother' will protect us. Follow 'Big Brother' and all will be fine.
Bully the outspoken into silence, for if they speak they will no doubt fear whatever repercussions they may incur for simply saying what's on ones mind or what is felt inside ones heart.
Joe also - I hadn't even thought of that aspect. Yet another reason this bill is dangerous.
it's another example of government (over) control.
Godfather.
At the risk of encouraging you to continue treating this thread as your own personal soapbox, resulting in it being locked like so many others, I want to ask you a question:
What difference does it make if you know the identity of the person who's 'attacking' you? How would that change the 'victims' response?
If you're on a webpage that isn't moderated then you are free to respond in kind to the person 'attacking' you. Otherwise, as is the case here, you can run to the mods every time someone takes issue with your condescending preaching.
Only a 3 year old, or a nun who's spent 50 years locked in a hermitage could be forgiven for expecting honesty and decency from all. The rest of humanity should know better.
Alternatively, if somebody can't take criticism without feeling 'victimized', causing them to report other posters to the moderators every time they say something that that person doesn't like (causing thread after thread to get locked and people to get bans and warnings), then maybe that person shouldn't post in message board forums in the first place.
Nobody forces anyone else to post messages on the internet and engage in debates, or arguments, of any kind.
If someone is incapable of receiving the odd critical, or even abusive, comment, then they can simply choose an alternative way to spend their time.
Unless of course their intention isn't to engage in discussion in the first place, but simply to preach and condescend.
There is a reason people don't often engage in discussions about politics and religion with complete strangers - because it is plain common sense that it can get heated. But if u can't take the heat...report to mod? Why? To me, as things play out, personal crticism is expected! Cause it boils down to personal beliefs..
I can see it in instances of blatant, intense abuse...but criticism? They want to.....what? arrest people for that now?
Is that what they plan to do with the info given? Track you down and lock you up for bein mean? You're screwed Byrnzie
this my opinon
Your wisdom shines through so clearly in your use of words. It reminds me of a wise sage I saw once in a movie. A diminutive character with big ears, If I'm not mistaken.
Being a misguided, lost soul, in search of salvation and a gentler, kinder world, I feel like prostrating myself before your feet.
But can I ask you a question first?: Are you really the Messiah, or just a very naughty boy?
:P
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwAMSNSB-Pw
(From May 3)
----
From May 23 (Now they are catching some heat, and they have no idea 'why')
New York legislators involved with the proposed Internet Protection Act are getting a lot of calls today, and they’re not quite sure why. The bill was introduced weeks ago to a quiet reception but seems to have become controversial overnight.
“Assemblyman Jim Conte is just a co-sponsor on the bill,” an exasperated aide answered when Betabeat called for a quote about the proposed law, which would require online publishers to remove anonymous comments upon request.”I don’t know why today’s the day, but today’s the day that everyone is calling on this,” Republican Tom O’Mara, who introduced the bill in the senate, told Betabeat. “Something was posted somewhere, I guess.”
"Something was posted somewhere, I guess." (I love that part, cause you just know, he want's to know who posted it, and what that persons name and addy is
(Few more articles about the act)
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-57440895-501465/new-york-lawmakers-propose-ban-on-anonymous-online-comments/
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57439715-93/whats-behind-the-ny-bills-to-ban-anonymous-online-comments/?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20
http://betabeat.com/2012/05/new-york-lawmakers-surprised-at-blowback-over-proposed-anonymous-comment-ban/
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
I AM MINE
This says it all to me, no right to speech lost only the right to make victims.
If one wants to criticize or accuse another, the law does not stop that,
no freedom of speech lost, one always has a choice.
What is lost is the ability to hide from the person you are criticizing or accusing.
If you say something, stand strong and behind your words, speak the truth,
have proof to back it up. Take personal responsibility and accountability.
If you attack know that your victim can and will attack back, will defend themselves.
As they have the right to do.
I often wondered where slander fits into the exchange on the internet...
we my soon find out.
Do you think we need it in place to correct the ignorant
who are unable to be respectful to others unless they are shown by a law.
This is similar legislation with a similar positive outcome.
I would love to think people will be kind and accepting on their own but as we see
with the cyber bullies that is just not happening.
Being anonymous is creating these bullies because there is no personal
accountability. They do not have to be kind so they can victimize with their words,
we see this regularly.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Slander already has a legal definition. There's no need for a law like this to exist to protect people from slander. If something fits the legal definition of slanderous, there are already legal channels to allow you to try to find out who said it (and it's possible to fake an IP address and it's possible for your IP address to change, so this bill wouldn't provide any more protection from mean words if ther person typing them is computer-savvy). Free speech is only restricted if it causes or promotes a public saefty hazard or fits the definition of libel or slander. This is absolutely a restriciton of both free speech and privacy. The Constitution doesn't mention any exclusions for mean words that hurt people's feelings--especially when it involves protecting politicians from the public's throughts.
Some people are ignorant and want to victimize others this will hinder them because
people will no longer be anonymous in their bullying.
Godfather.
Yes, in fact, I find those types of laws to be the cheapest kind of 'Bubble Gum', like the kind you can only chew a few times before the piece get's stale.
You can't fight hate with those laws. It's the illusion again, it does just about nothing to solve the underlying issue of the 'Hate'. Now something else, 'Hate' is very broad, and the laws vary greatly (even the definition of 'hate' varies). So I'm just giving my general view on the issue and not get into the greater details or philosophy of it etc. (A bit busy right now)
If someone has hate in their heart, say they don't like Blacks, Asians, Arabs, Smurfs or whatever else...and the reason these 'haters' don't openly preach that hate is because of the laws, well to my mind, I find that to be most unfortunate, because it just keeps the hate bottled inside,they are worried about 'punishment' for their view. Now I know, and probably most people here may know or feel that the best way to deal with the 'ignorant' is to 'try' and educate, understand, reason. Not just flash the 'law' in front of them and then claim ' positive outcome. It's the illusion of a positive outcome. Because we did nothing to 'truly' address the hate. We just flashed the 'law' then smile to ourselves or one another claiming 'all is well' in our world.
So bully them into liking everyone? No thanks. Some people are kind and accepting, some are not. People have a right not to be kind and not to be accepting, people should have a right to speak the most vile racist words that they can think of.
-
(I gotta bounce, so I'm cutting it here, I'll try and finish this off later if I get around to it, I hope my post is not too all over the place, I'm rushing a bit)
Laws are to protect the innocent from the not so.
problem, why I think ridding the anonymousness of the internet a very good idea.
To make everyone accountable for their words, that is not too much to ask,
in my opinion.
Why I like the proposal.
It would curtail the problem children are having with cyber bullies
that are even resulting in suicides. I have been researching many articles,
it is heartbreaking what some of our kids are going through. It is a real danger
that is escalating. Bullies are hiding in wait to torment.
Hopefully a proposal can come about that makes everyone feel comfortable, one that addresses
the crime of cyber bullying and also does not allow those who are truthful to be penalized.
I would think we could agree less name calling, mud slinging, branding,
and humiliation would be good thing. Some people may thrive on this but it is
not good for society and especially not good for the children.
When kids are bullied online it tends to be from people they already know so forcing some kid to reveal his name isn't going to end the bullying. At best, it will just make the bullying take place somewhere else (the bus stop, recess, the locker room during gym class, etc.).
Also, just because something is true doesn't automatically make it nice, so even if the law was just aiming to prevent false statements, it wouldn't prevent someone from bullying someone else. If there's a gay kid in high school who doesn't want his classmates to know his sexual orientation and a classmate outs him and says things that are true but mean-spirited, what would happen? And what if the person who outed the kid truly believes that homosexuality is a sin and says so? It may not be a popular opinion and it may be hurtful, but if he gives his honest opinion can you really say he said something untrue? So it's not a baseless accusation because it's true (the part about the student being gay) and the rest of it is an opinion. Would that be allowed under this bill? On the flip side, it seems pretty obvious to me that saying something like, "Senator So-and-so is a lying piece of garbage" would absolutely be targeted under this bill and the poster would likely lose any argument because the politician would use that vague, this-is-plausible-if I-word-it-just-right language that politicians are so good at to argue that he is not a liar. One of these examples is much worse than the other, but there's a way for the jerk in each case to win the argument. In one case, the jerk told the truth even if it was none of his business and in the other case the jerk used creative wording to bully a private citizen into putting his name out there for everyone to see.
If you want to legislate manners and kindness, why don't we go ahead and pass a bill that says it's illegal for parents to get in line at the grocery store while sending their kids running around to get "just 1 more thing on the list" while you stand behind them and wait because they can't finish checking out until their kid brings back the milk, OJ, 6 apples, Colgate, Fruity Pebbles, and some Fig Newtons? We should also make a law that you can't call those parents jackasses even though that's what they're being, but if you do call them a jackass you have to first introduce yourself. That would go over well, right? "Hi, I'm Monster Rain. Yes, that's my real name. This is my wife Cindy. I just wanted to let you know that you're a jackass for making us wait in line behind you while your kid gets the half-dozen things you claim you forgot when you really just wanted to avoid waiting in line behind other people who finished their shopping before going to the cashier."
should lose the argument. It is insulting, rash, rude, without proof and sounds extremely bias.
In fact could it be libel or slander if no proof was offered? Should be. And what if this
Senator is a great person doing great things and someone is just bashing?
The way I see the proposal is people will be very sure of facts, they won't go off half cocked,
they will think about what they say for the value that it is because they must own it.
I also see it protecting children because no one will be anonymous.
Again I see great benefit and the positives that will come. You see the negatives.
We won't agree but maybe we can both hope a proposal to be found that better suits everyone.