Share post
Debt Consolidation Forums Pub, feedback and announcements forums

State looking to ban Anonymous Forum Postings

member profile picture
Posts: 2071
Credits: 151454.35
[Donate]

Source: http://www.wtvq.com/

Quote:

If the bill becomes law, the website operator would have to pay if someone was allowed to post anonymously on their site. The fine would be five-hundred dollars for a first offense and one-thousand dollars for each offense after that.


Whats your opinion about it? How is one going to validate a user who really wants to be anonymous?

Vikas




I might agree with the law including an online rgistration with address but I do not think that your full name should have to be included in the post. The user name would be able to be tracked through the registration of the user if it became necessary. People might not be inclind to speak up out of fear. I also think it would be next to impossible to track the millions of posts that "guests" would provide. I'm all about trying to cut down on harassment but there should be a better way.

Sub: #1 posted on Fri, 03/14/2008 - 11:14

angell angell

(Posts: 302 | Credits: 13.47)

question?would that apply to blogs,threads,and homepages?

Sub: #2 posted on Fri, 03/14/2008 - 11:18

paulmergel paulmergel
Moderators Cum Industry Expert
(Posts: 15511 | Credits: 1255.27)

I think it's a good idea for the website admin to know who is posting on their site. But I don't think that the person's full name should be public. I think if this bill passed the way it is it would be the death of most message boards and online communities.

Sub: #3 posted on Fri, 03/14/2008 - 11:55

goudah2424 goudah2424

(Posts: 7936 | Credits: 1221.13)

I agree with Goudah!

Sub: #4 posted on Fri, 03/14/2008 - 11:57

Frogpatch Frogpatch
Moderators Cum Industry Expert
(Posts: 5381 | Credits: 651.18)

This is absolutely the biggest crock of sh*t to come down the wire since Al Gore invented the Internet! It's stupid, and it's unenforceable. It's also unconstitutional. See Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60.

Sub: #5 posted on Fri, 03/14/2008 - 17:08

unclewulf unclewulf
Moderators
(Posts: 3173 | Credits: 314.27)

hmmm like we don't have better things for our elected officals to worry about :twisted:

Sub: #6 posted on Fri, 03/14/2008 - 17:16

spatterson_40 spatterson_40

(Posts: 400 | Credits: 55.28)

Well....... Fortunately, the PIQ [pinhead in question] isn't my elected official. Unfortunately, some of the elected officials here are just about as bad.

Sub: #7 posted on Fri, 03/14/2008 - 17:28

unclewulf unclewulf
Moderators
(Posts: 3173 | Credits: 314.27)

Well I am from New York - need I say anymore :cry:

Sub: #8 posted on Fri, 03/14/2008 - 18:55

spatterson_40 spatterson_40

(Posts: 400 | Credits: 55.28)

Spatt - don't feel bad, i bet there isn't a state that hasn't had an elected official in some sort of scandal..I know oregon has, though our scandal never got the publicity that New York gets.

Sub: #9 posted on Fri, 03/14/2008 - 19:07

whiterock73 whiterock73

(Posts: 376 | Credits: 47.89)

Well, I don't think it's a violation of their first amendment rights. Your still saying what you want to say, it would just be that everyone knows who is doing it. As to the validation, it would be tough. Perhaps require a credit card? I don't see the bill getting passed, it would create too much hassle.

Sub: #10 posted on Sat, 03/15/2008 - 05:57

JCEMT JCEMT
Moderators
(Posts: 2934 | Credits: 191.93)

Attachment
More information
  • Files must be less than 500 MB.
  • Allowed file types: txt pdf jpg jpeg png.


Page loaded in 0.281 seconds.