Ban 'anonymous' speech online?

pandora

puremagic wrote:

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.

Kat

sachtriv wrote:

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

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

:thumbup:

Drowned Out

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.

Drowned Out

Kat wrote:

sachtriv wrote:

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

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

:thumbup:

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.

g under p

Kat wrote:

sachtriv wrote:

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

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

:thumbup:

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.

Idris

pandora wrote:

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.

norm

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

JOEJOEJOE

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?

hedonist

Idris wrote:

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.

Godfather.

another right being shot out the window, this is more than just keeping your name anonymous
it's another example of government (over) control.

Godfather.

Byrnzie

pandora wrote:

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

That people should not take responsibility for their opinions?

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

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.

pandora wrote:

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.

Byrnzie

pandora wrote:

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.

Drowned Out

Byrnzie wrote:

pandora wrote:

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

this my opinon

Byrnzie

Drowned Out wrote:

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

Idris

Below is a video of —New York State Senator Tom O'Mara discussing the 'Internet Protection Act'

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 ) He knocks on the guy's door, "how dare you say my bill is against the First Amendment.! You cyber-bully!

(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/

riotgrl

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?

Drowned Out wrote:

Kat wrote:

sachtriv wrote:

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

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

:thumbup:

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.

pandora

"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.

pandora

Idris wrote:

pandora wrote:

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.

know1

Maybe we should all wear nametags as well.

pandora

know1 wrote:

Maybe we should all wear nametags as well.

I prefer a smile