State looking to ban Anonymous Forum Postings

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.

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

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.

I agree with Goudah!

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

Quote:

Good point as always Vikas, I forgot about the part of the proposed bill that would require users to post with their real name, if this applied to all forums then it could pose a threat to minors.

[quote=spatterson_40]Well I am from New York - need I say anymore[/quote]

Nah, Spatt. That pretty much sums it up.

I don't agree with JCEMT since even the current Supreme Court is very protective of the first amendment. (About the only thing I like about it . . .) A law that exposes posters to retribution, i.e., harassment suits by well-heeled payday lenders and collection agencies that can afford $500 an hour lawyers, "chills" (one of the court's favorite verbs) freedom of speech.

Of course, the law would have to pass and someone would have to be charged and then fight it to get it in front of the court. Hopefully, the ACLU or something like that would pick up THAT tab . . .

this is most definitely unconstitutional. Talley v. California, in 1960, established precedent that anonymous speech is, nonetheless, speech, and is therefore protected under the 1st amendment. Anyone who would be charged under this ridiculous idea would need only present Talley v. California as case law to show the precedent, and it would be all done with.

Also, more and more these days, we are seeing real crimes result from internet confrontations. A guy in Baltimore was involved in some arguments about Islam online, and he and his family were killed by one of the other participants.....requiring everyone's identity to be announced will only open the door for more of these whack-jobs to be able to locate their victims....

freaky I also don't agree with JCEMT!~


















jcemrt

I totally do NOT agree with this new law. Speaking for myself, it would limit (if not completely hault)what I would feel comfortable talking about on ANY forum. I don't want the whole world to know that I am in debt up to my eyeballs. It's bad enough being in this position without having people who know me, stumble upon posts I made about my financial situation. What's next? No more anonymity when reporting crimes? I wonder how many eye witnesses would be willing to risk their neck to give out information to the police knowing they were placing themselves and family members life in danger? Just saying. :?

I agree..it's a catch 22 situation....people are comfortable on the internet because it is an anonymous thing..and that is why you either get very heartfelt responses and admissions that would never happen in real life face to face situations....but that is also why you get all the b.s and deception as well...too many laws are due to too much government intervention...too often it seems like the fox guarding the hen house!