Ban 'anonymous' speech online?

Jeanwah

How about this - don't let people post at all. Turn off the option to comment. And that is all up to the individual websites. Forget mandating, allow individual webhosts to decide.

pandora

The internet makes us very brave

cincybearcat

pandora wrote:

The internet makes us very brave

No, it just gives an outlet. Sure some get more brave, but not all. Hey, if you want my info, pm me.

You do realize that some pretty bad people do some terrible things with other people's personal information right? That is a far worse problem then cyber-bullying.

redrock

Jeanwah wrote:

Forget mandating, allow individual webhosts to decide.

Which most do anyway - to fit in with their beliefs, political tendencies, morals, etc.

Monster Rain

pandora wrote:

I think you wouldn't post personal comments about someone else
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.

What if I point out a lie a politician told and that politician insists that he told the truth and calls my post a "mean-spirited and baseless political attack" because it calls his credibility into question? A good politician can spin just about anything he/she says and later claim that the words were taken out of context when called out on it. It happens in just about every election campaign no matter how big or small the office. So let's say that Mike Bloomberg says during his campaign that he opposes a certain bill and then supports it after winning re-election. Someone might post something callinghim out for his lie, but he could then spin it to say that the poster intentionally twisted his words to make him seem like a liar. What protects that poster's right to privacy at that point? This bill seems like a legislative scare tactic intended to prevent ordinary people from voicing their opinions because you never really know what someone will consider offensive, mean, or baseless. What if someone was offended by your assertion that anyone opposing this bill does so because they use their anonymity to hurt or deceive others online? You just gave your opinion but now someone could force you to give up your privacy because they feel it's mean-spirited and baseless (for the record, I don't think that at all). Now your name is out there for all to see. Suppose you went on a job interview after that happened and nailed it. The job's yours to take--but the person interviewing you also posts here and is one of the many liberal posters in this forum and sees your real name and username on that post and decides not to hire you because you've disagreed with each other on this forum (again, this is purely hypothetical and not a dig at you or anyone else). Is that just an unintended consequence of this bill or exactly what the sponsors are hoping for? It's censorship via a loophole.

Jeanwah

redrock wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

Forget mandating, allow individual webhosts to decide.

Which most do anyway - to fit in with their beliefs, political tendencies, morals, etc.

Eh, most don't! There's an easy way to solve this problem. Post your story / site / blog, with no comments. This isn't about needing to hear another side of the story, this is about hiding behind a screen and spewing hateful remarks. Which is the majority of anonymous comments online.

pandora

cincybearcat wrote:

pandora wrote:

The internet makes us very brave

No, it just gives an outlet. Sure some get more brave, but not all. Hey, if you want my info, pm me.

You do realize that some pretty bad people do some terrible things with other people's personal information right? That is a far worse problem then cyber-bullying.

I should have said some ... sorry,
actually I think of those who steal identities to be some of the biggest bullies of all
but this law would not effect that either way.

And again I think of the positive effects this law will bring.

Jeanwah

There is some basis to this, ya know. If you have nothing to hide, then stand up and be accountable for your written words. Anonymous speech begs for behavior that we would never do if we were held accountable. And you all know this.

Jeanwah

The accident I was in was publicized in many online sources. The sort of comments from people who don't know who the hell I am chose to throw insults and bashed those of us involved. Is this really necessary?? You guys really support this type of behavior?? Well, no wonder I don't hang around here anymore...

Monster Rain

Jeanwah wrote:

There is some basis to this, ya know. If you have nothing to hide, then stand up and be accountable for your written words. Anonymous speech begs for behavior that we would never do if we were held accountable. And you all know this.

Anonymous speech is also avoidable if you don't like what a person is saying. You can choose to not visit a forum you find offensive, you can block specific users if you find them to be an offensive member of an otherwise enjoyable site, and you can report abusive posts to moderators (and are free to stop visiting a site if the moderators have a different opinion about what is abusive/offensive). As many have asked, who decides what fits the definition of offensive, mean-spirited, baseless, etc.? Some things are clear-cut but many things is this world are shades of gray and what one person considers a valid political debate could be another person's idea of a hurtful post.

Being a jerk on the Internet isn't a public safety risk, so what good comes from this bill? If we let the government start regulating hurt feelings, then we might as well let them regulate what we wear in public, too, because I've been much more offended by the way I've seen some people dressed in Walmart than anything I've ever read online. One exposed hairy beerbelly in a crowded aisle can do more harm than someone comparing Bush to Hitler or calling Obama a Communist.

Also, why do people need to held accountable for their words unless they are slanderous or libelous? If I'm not causing some sort of legitimate hardship to someone with my words, then why should anyone have the right to violate my rights for it?

mikepegg44

Jeanwah wrote:

There is some basis to this, ya know. If you have nothing to hide, then stand up and be accountable for your written words. Anonymous speech begs for behavior that we would never do if we were held accountable. And you all know this.

there are people who are able to hack into secret government emails for god's sake...what kind of security do you think pissedconsumers.com has?

Does this mean I have to post my name and address on a protest sign as well?

Jeanwah wrote:

The accident I was in was publicized in many online sources. The sort of comments from people who don't know who the hell I am chose to throw insults and bashed those of us involved. Is this really necessary?? You guys really support this type of behavior?? Well, no wonder I don't hang around here anymore...

why does not thinking the government should do this mean I support it? explain that to me please

Monster Rain

Jeanwah wrote:

The accident I was in was publicized in many online sources. The sort of comments from people who don't know who the hell I am chose to throw insults and bashed those of us involved. Is this really necessary?? You guys really support this type of behavior?? Well, no wonder I don't hang around here anymore...

I don't condone people being jerks to total strangers and I don't know what your specific situation was, but what good would it have done if you saw people's real names next to the comments? Maybe some of those people wouldn't have made the nasty comments, but there are still people out there who really don't care if they hurt someone's feelings and would still comment because they don't know you even if you did know their names. I also wonder what would happen if someone made nasty comments about someone who isn't as nice as you or had friends or relatives with short tempers and bad judgment. What kind of outrage would there be the first time someone was beaten or killed because they made some stupid hurtful comments online and someone saw his real name and decided to get revenge?

puremagic

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

pandora

Monster Rain wrote:

pandora wrote:

I think you wouldn't post personal comments about someone else
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.

What if I point out a lie a politician told and that politician insists that he told the truth and calls my post a "mean-spirited and baseless political attack" because it calls his credibility into question? A good politician can spin just about anything he/she says and later claim that the words were taken out of context when called out on it. It happens in just about every election campaign no matter how big or small the office. So let's say that Mike Bloomberg says during his campaign that he opposes a certain bill and then supports it after winning re-election. Someone might post something callinghim out for his lie, but he could then spin it to say that the poster intentionally twisted his words to make him seem like a liar. What protects that poster's right to privacy at that point? This bill seems like a legislative scare tactic intended to prevent ordinary people from voicing their opinions because you never really know what someone will consider offensive, mean, or baseless. What if someone was offended by your assertion that anyone opposing this bill does so because they use their anonymity to hurt or deceive others online? You just gave your opinion but now someone could force you to give up your privacy because they feel it's mean-spirited and baseless (for the record, I don't think that at all). Now your name is out there for all to see. Suppose you went on a job interview after that happened and nailed it. The job's yours to take--but the person interviewing you also posts here and is one of the many liberal posters in this forum and sees your real name and username on that post and decides not to hire you because you've disagreed with each other on this forum (again, this is purely hypothetical and not a dig at you or anyone else). Is that just an unintended consequence of this bill or exactly what the sponsors are hoping for? It's censorship via a loophole.

Pandora is my real name, I am very transparent and easily found
perhaps why I hold the view I do on this. I have also experienced bullying first hand.
I also would like the veil lifted and have people be accountable for what they say and do
in life and on the internet.

So I feel in your scenario our legal rights would protect us both from further penalty.
I would hope you would think before you hit submit and make sure
the lie was documented on film or in a public newspaper etc, that is was valid.
Then go for it!
Pretty sure as far as the job went that would be discrimination. But it might work in
my favor to not get the job anyways because I wouldn't want to work
with others who don't like me. Better to find out before I am invested.
I have never worked anywhere like that, this late in life it would be very stressful.

What this proposal is asking for, is attempting to stop is the basic fact
that because people are anonymous they can hurt others, it attempts to take this
away to make us all more transparent so respect will be more forthcoming.

This is the positive side I see to this and I very much support that.

sachtriv

Here is a great explanation as to why anonymous speech is important and protected by the 1st amendment:

https://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity

Godfather.

pandora wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

pandora wrote:

I think you wouldn't post personal comments about someone else
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.

What if I point out a lie a politician told and that politician insists that he told the truth and calls my post a "mean-spirited and baseless political attack" because it calls his credibility into question? A good politician can spin just about anything he/she says and later claim that the words were taken out of context when called out on it. It happens in just about every election campaign no matter how big or small the office. So let's say that Mike Bloomberg says during his campaign that he opposes a certain bill and then supports it after winning re-election. Someone might post something callinghim out for his lie, but he could then spin it to say that the poster intentionally twisted his words to make him seem like a liar. What protects that poster's right to privacy at that point? This bill seems like a legislative scare tactic intended to prevent ordinary people from voicing their opinions because you never really know what someone will consider offensive, mean, or baseless. What if someone was offended by your assertion that anyone opposing this bill does so because they use their anonymity to hurt or deceive others online? You just gave your opinion but now someone could force you to give up your privacy because they feel it's mean-spirited and baseless (for the record, I don't think that at all). Now your name is out there for all to see. Suppose you went on a job interview after that happened and nailed it. The job's yours to take--but the person interviewing you also posts here and is one of the many liberal posters in this forum and sees your real name and username on that post and decides not to hire you because you've disagreed with each other on this forum (again, this is purely hypothetical and not a dig at you or anyone else). Is that just an unintended consequence of this bill or exactly what the sponsors are hoping for? It's censorship via a loophole.

Pandora is my real name, I am very transparent and easily found
perhaps why I hold the view I do on this. I have also experienced bullying first hand.
I also would like the veil lifted and have people be accountable for what they say and do
in life and on the internet.

So I feel in your scenario our legal rights would protect us both from further penalty.
I would hope you would think before you hit submit and make sure
the lie was documented on film or in a public newspaper etc, that is was valid.
Then go for it!
Pretty sure as far as the job went that would be discrimination. But it might work in
my favor to not get the job anyways because I wouldn't want to work
with others who don't like me. Better to find out before I am invested.
I have never worked anywhere like that, this late in life it would be very stressful.

What this proposal is asking for, is attempting to stop is the basic fact
that because people are anonymous they can hurt others, it attempts to take this
away to make us all more transparent so respect will be more forthcoming.

This is the positive side I see to this and I very much support that.

awesome post Pandi !

Godfather.

cincybearcat

No one, except bullies, likes bullying. But, I'm still confused as to how this actually helps (since the most serious cases of bullying on the internet that end in suicide are from KNOWN bullies) and I'm flabbergasted that people want the government to get into our daily personal lives any more than they already are.

cincybearcat

pandora wrote:

that because people are anonymous they can hurt others,

Sticks and stones....

Monster Rain

pandora wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

pandora wrote:

I think you wouldn't post personal comments about someone else
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.

What if I point out a lie a politician told and that politician insists that he told the truth and calls my post a "mean-spirited and baseless political attack" because it calls his credibility into question? A good politician can spin just about anything he/she says and later claim that the words were taken out of context when called out on it. It happens in just about every election campaign no matter how big or small the office. So let's say that Mike Bloomberg says during his campaign that he opposes a certain bill and then supports it after winning re-election. Someone might post something callinghim out for his lie, but he could then spin it to say that the poster intentionally twisted his words to make him seem like a liar. What protects that poster's right to privacy at that point? This bill seems like a legislative scare tactic intended to prevent ordinary people from voicing their opinions because you never really know what someone will consider offensive, mean, or baseless. What if someone was offended by your assertion that anyone opposing this bill does so because they use their anonymity to hurt or deceive others online? You just gave your opinion but now someone could force you to give up your privacy because they feel it's mean-spirited and baseless (for the record, I don't think that at all). Now your name is out there for all to see. Suppose you went on a job interview after that happened and nailed it. The job's yours to take--but the person interviewing you also posts here and is one of the many liberal posters in this forum and sees your real name and username on that post and decides not to hire you because you've disagreed with each other on this forum (again, this is purely hypothetical and not a dig at you or anyone else). Is that just an unintended consequence of this bill or exactly what the sponsors are hoping for? It's censorship via a loophole.

Pandora is my real name, I am very transparent and easily found
perhaps why I hold the view I do on this. I have also experienced bullying first hand.
I also would like the veil lifted and have people be accountable for what they say and do
in life and on the internet.

So I feel in your scenario our legal rights would protect us both from further penalty.
I would hope you would think before you hit submit and make sure
the lie was documented on film or in a public newspaper etc, that is was valid.
Then go for it!
Pretty sure as far as the job went that would be discrimination. But it might work in
my favor to not get the job anyways because I wouldn't want to work
with others who don't like me. Better to find out before I am invested.
I have never worked anywhere like that, this late in life it would be very stressful.

What this proposal is asking for, is attempting to stop is the basic fact
that because people are anonymous they can hurt others, it attempts to take this
away to make us all more transparent so respect will be more forthcoming.

This is the positive side I see to this and I very much support that.

But you would never know that you didn't get the job because of this board. The other person isn't going to tell you, "I don't hire people with your beliefs." Also, you wouldn't be working with people who don't like you because if your new boss never knew you posted here he/she would have no reason to dislike you based on your posts here. Instead of being denied a job by someone who hates you, youd have a job working with someone who knows nothing of your political views and judges you based on the quality of your work.

Also, what happens when the retaliation to a "mean-spirited" post ventures into physical harm to the poster?

I don't see the government legislating hurt feelings as a good thing at all. That's not freedom, that's oppression.

pandora

Monster Rain wrote:

pandora wrote:

Pandora is my real name, I am very transparent and easily found
perhaps why I hold the view I do on this. I have also experienced bullying first hand.
I also would like the veil lifted and have people be accountable for what they say and do
in life and on the internet.

So I feel in your scenario our legal rights would protect us both from further penalty.
I would hope you would think before you hit submit and make sure
the lie was documented on film or in a public newspaper etc, that is was valid.
Then go for it!
Pretty sure as far as the job went that would be discrimination. But it might work in
my favor to not get the job anyways because I wouldn't want to work
with others who don't like me. Better to find out before I am invested.
I have never worked anywhere like that, this late in life it would be very stressful.

What this proposal is asking for, is attempting to stop is the basic fact
that because people are anonymous they can hurt others, it attempts to take this
away to make us all more transparent so respect will be more forthcoming.

This is the positive side I see to this and I very much support that.

But you would never know that you didn't get the job because of this board. The other person isn't going to tell you, "I don't hire people with your beliefs." Also, you wouldn't be working with people who don't like you because if your new boss never knew you posted here he/she would have no reason to dislike you based on your posts here. Instead of being denied a job by someone who hates you, youd have a job working with someone who knows nothing of your political views and judges you based on the quality of your work.

Also, what happens when the retaliation to a "mean-spirited" post ventures into physical harm to the poster?

I don't see the government legislating hurt feelings as a good thing at all. That's not freedom, that's oppression.

In my opinion the law would be teaching ignorant people to learn respect,
as we have many laws protecting people just for that already....
hate crime legislature.

We are employers, we are very careful not to discriminate in any way.
I feel I would not be discriminated in the first place in your scenario
but if I was it would be for the best as I wouldn't want to work
for someone who does that.
Employers pick their employees based on many factors and if someone feels
it is discrimination they need to file a suit.

Again I don't see rights being oppressed here
I see common decency and honesty being required.
I see victims rights protected.

We have a different view on this proposal...
you see the negative results, I see the positive.

Who I am what I have experienced is dictating that so we will probably not see eye to eye.

I understand your points you raise as to the dangers.
I hope you can see some of the positive results I speak of as well.