Slashdot Log In
NJ Bill Would Prohibit Anonymous Posts on Forums
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Mon Mar 06, 2006 02:06 PM
from the glad-we're-not-in-nj dept.
from the glad-we're-not-in-nj dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The New Jersey legislature is considering a bill that would require operators of public forums to collect users' legal names and addresses, and effectively disallow anonymous speech on online forums. This raises some serious issues, such as to what extent local and state governments can go in enacting and enforcing Internet legislation."
Related Stories
[+]
Slashback: OSX Security, DoD Filtering, Anonymous Posting 211 comments
Slashdot tonight brings some corrections, clarifications, and updates to previous Slashdot stories, including some favorable results from the University of Wisconsin's Mac OS X Challenge, skeptics investigate cold fusion claims, more on DoD web filtering, AT&T cuts 10,000 jobs after BellSouth merger, more child-proofing efforts for MySpace, Why Windows Vista Will Suck: a rebuttal, Harvard Professor punished for reporting bugs, Assemblyman Biondi backpedals on NJ anonymous posting bill, and a followup on Chinese TLDs -- Read on for details.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Frist post (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Frist post (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Frist post (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
I've said it before... (Score:4, Informative)
Fucking Jersey.
Parent
Re:Frist post (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/
mainly
No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.
Parent
Re:Frist post (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
With apologies to Douglas Adams (Score:5, Funny)
Assemblyman Peter J. Biondi: Come off it, Mr. Coward! You can't stand in front of the tanks in Tienanmen Square indefinitely! This law for the information superhighway has got to be built, and it's going to be built!
Anonymous Coward: Why's it got to be built?
Biondi: What do you mean "why"? It's a law! You've got to pass laws! You were quite entitled to make any suggestions or protests at the appropriate time, you know.
Anonymous Coward: Appropriate time?! The first I knew about it was when you pre-filed Assembly Bill No. 1327, the cops showed up and they said they were ready to come and take me away!
Biondi: Have you any idea how much damage the government would suffer if we just let the law roll straight over you?
Anonymous Coward: No, how much?
Biondi: None at all.
Vogon: Apathetic bloody citizenry. I've no sympathy at all.
Predictable results (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Predictable results (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Predictable results (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Predictable results (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Predictable results (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Drive people out of the state... (Score:4, Funny)
Think of the children!
Parent
Brrrrrrr (Score:5, Insightful)
Comes a vacuum, as posters retreat who aren't criminals but have reasonable fears of retribution, and a clear need for anonymity...
<grrr
Re:Brrrrrrr (Score:5, Interesting)
The bill does not define "reasonable" and it does not require a court to find that information posted is "false or defamatory".
And "false" information is not necessarily defamatory. Maybe if the bill said "False and defamatory" it'd stand a chance, because truth is an affirmative defense against charges of libel/slander.
I can scream defamation/libel at the top of my lungs and it doesn't matter for shit until a Judge says "yea, that was libel."
This Bill is poorly written from a legal standpoint, not just in it's comprehension of the internet.
Parent
Re:Brrrrrrr (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Brrrrrrr (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Brrrrrrr (Score:5, Funny)
Actually, you can't scream libel no matter how hard you try, you can only scream slander. You have to write libel. Of course, you can scream "libel", but that not quite the same thing.
Parent
Re:Brrrrrrr (Score:5, Insightful)
It can be false and defamatory without causing harm. Currently, the burden is on the person seeking the information to demonstrate that they suffered damages as a result of the information. This bill aims to circumvent that, so that no judge or panel of judges would have to be consulted.
You can bet that the bill was intentionally worded poorly and vaguely -- it allows for:
(1) Enforcement to be wide open to interpretation, so that it can be used by those in power or running for office effectively;
(2) The court to establish the boundaries of the law after it has been passed, if it passes in current form (which, as you say, is highly unlikely).
It's a common tactic in NJ -- write a bill that overreaches in scope, hope it gets through, and then allow the courts to restrict the law. You know, see what you can get away with. Also, by overreaching they establish a 'middle ground' which is what they wanted in the first place, and get credit for compromising to reach that middle ground.
Biondi's a bit of a [insert slanderous term here], anyway --
Of note, he sponsored a bill to extend implied consent to blood testing for illegal substances -- and allow reasonable force to get that test if the suspect was involved in an accident causing serious bodily harm.
Parent
Re:Brrrrrrr (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's already a sad state of affairs when people think they have to fight for anonymity as a right, as if it's the only way they think they can speak freely.
Parent
A law isn't a law... (Score:5, Insightful)
My fear about unenforceable laws such as this one is the true power behind the law. Sure, it will be hard to enforce, but the powers the State will request to try to enforce it will play directly into the hands of those willing to finance the system.
Anonymous posting is harmless, yet un criminalizing it I can easily see how it can play into the hands of the RIAA and the MPAA -- giving them (and others) greater power in their cartels.
Re:A law isn't a law... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:A law isn't a law... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:A law isn't a law... (Score:5, Interesting)
How about an amendment to all the Constitutions with a 3 strikes and you're out law? If a law-maker votes for 3 bills that are later found to be unconstitutional, they're booted.
It amazes me how much junk makes it past the various Supreme Courts, though. Sure, this law might get tossed, but how many more make it to the books?
Parent
Re:A law isn't a law... (Score:5, Insightful)
Americans have always hated and mistrusted their representatives. They knew they were crooks, because they knew damned well that they'd do the same if they were in power. I should coin a cool Latin phrase for this concept.
We're not an honest people. Politicians learn to call their constituents honest and good, knowing damned well how sneaky and underhanded the Peeple really are. Peeple don't want honest representatives. The "politians" are scapegoats for all that we dislike about our culture, about ourselves.
The peeple don't want to be represented by angels. They want bastards who will steal as much as possible for their district. Hence the problem. If they wanted angels, they'd elect ministers and professors. They don't; they elect lawyers and businessmen, and expect some payback for their votes.
Biggest practical problem for getting rid of the truly odious moneygrabbers is the way we finance campaigns. Corporations are legally individuals. The SCOTUS has ruled that money is speech, so corps can spend as much as they like under the First Amendment right of free speech. We refuse to publically finance elections. We don't want to eliminate lobbyists. Logically, we have the system now where corporation A puts money in slot B to produce result C, and that's the way we want it.
Don't like it? Then ban all - ALL - contributions to political campaigns. Finance them with public funds. Provide the candidates with FREE air time, as we did before 1987. Making politians pay for airtime has made the rich the only winners in this idiocy that sprang up in the last two decades. There is no other solution. Else elections will simply be bought, and the lawmakers will have to take in money to pay for their reelection campaigns, so laws will be bought. Remove the money. And, oh yes, ban lawmakers from ever working for the people who lobby them after they leave office. That's simply bribery post-office.
Parent
Also a way to shut people up (Score:5, Insightful)
Will I provide my real name if no such proof of ID is required? Hardly. And who would take it upon himself to prove that I am really myself? Hell, you can register DNS entries with fake IDs, do you really think your neighborhood forum admin will go to greater lengths than companies making some bucks with holding databases of their users?
But the bill goes further than that. A forum admin is liable for slander on his board. Now, ain't this great? Sure, you can't shut people up, first amendment and all that. But you can make sure nobody dares to offer services that would allow you to execute said right. No board, no discussion, no dissent.
Less direct than China, but by no means less efficient. You can't shut them up per se, but cover them in enough red tape that they can't go to the lengths required to stay out of harm's way and shut up "voluntarily". Either you can sink enough money into the identification process of your users to make SURE they are who they claim to be, or you can just as well shut down your board because you can't afford the lawsuits that just might spring up when someone dares to say a word someone important doesn't enjoy hearing.
Yes, yes, I can understand that it's not cool to hear slander and libel on boards. But the tools to get the person under your thumb are already here. IP logs exist, trace them to their source and you got who you need. Case closed.
So what for do you need the poster ID?
*sigh*
Let's hope our clever and very smart politicians never find out something like the usenet even exists.
Re:Also a way to shut people up (Score:4, Insightful)
Day 0 - Legislature passes bill, governor indicates it will be signed. state laws dictate at some future date law will come into affect. (For purposes of argument, let's assume NJ has a 90 day rule, that's pretty typical).
Day 1 - ACLU, EFF, and about 3 dozen other organizations start finding people willing to be defendents in a "Test Case", as well as lining up counsel (ie lawyers) and other needed assets.
Day 5 (at the latest, it takes time to write legal briefs) - ACLU, EFF, et al file lawsuit under the title of the lead test defendant, with Federal Court allegding that the law infringes on rights of test defendant in some way.
Day 6 - Federal judge reviews pleading and determines that there is, in fact, a decent chance that the law might be unconstitutional, files a temporary restraining order prohibiting New Jersey from enforcing the law.
Day 374 - Case actually comes to trial.
In the meantime, no one can be arrested, charged, prosecuted, threatened with prosecution, or in any other way hit over the head with this law, it is forbidden to be enforced until judgement is rendered.
(Worst Case scenario) Day 380 - Judge determines ACLU is wrong, law is allowed to go into effect. At this point, prosecutions could begin, assuming the restraining order is not continued to allow appeal (which would almost certainly happen)
(Best Case scenario) Day 380 - Judge determines New Jersey was smoking crack and the law is patently wrong, rules for test defendents. Temporary injunction is made permanent (assuming NJ doesn't appeal).
So, in short, until the Courts and the lawyers are done, this will have no effect at all.
Parent
I can picture it already. (Score:5, Funny)
Name: Hugh Jass.
Address: 123 Fake Street.
Email: yourmomma@home.com
Brilliant idea!
Re:I can picture it already. (Score:5, Funny)
Name: Peter J. Biondi
Address: 1 E. High St., Somerville NJ 08876
email: AsmBiondi@njleg.org
Parent
I wonder what our Founders would think? (Score:5, Insightful)
Some of them posted scurious tracts arguing for Common Sense and other radical ideas, many using pen names (the same as anonymous postings).
I for one welcome our Thought Police Masters and bow to them in the East five times a day
Re:I wonder what our Founders would think? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:What would the Founders think? You have to ask? (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed there are far too many folks who are either ignorant of, or intentionally ignore the 9th Amendment:
However, as a strong believer in the 9th Amendment I would be loath to take up the banner of the Living Document crowd. "Living Documentists" are word twisters and shades-of-gray, "it depends of what you think the word means" semanticists. They're intellectually bankrupt in that they seem to think the constitution is a rubbery, flexible thing that can be molded into whatever their "modern vision of society" requires. The classic example is the attempt to recast the 2nd Amendment as only assurance that states are allowed to have a [militia/National Guard], rather than a guarantee that the check against tyranny of an armed populace remains.
No, Strict Constructionists (or rather, Originalists) have the right idea, but the current crop of conservative ones we have around display a maddening tendency towards specific, selective blindness. I believe the founding fathers meant exactly what they wrote in the constitution, and that it only requires that you actually read it for it to be effective.
Parent
At the same time.... (Score:4, Interesting)
At least with the First Amendment, they can get out of it by saying "It says "CONGRESS" shall make no law, not New Jersey."
Re:Are you a member of "a well-regulated militia"? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Yes, you may be a member! (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, check the criteria in the U.S. Code. [tinyurl.com] You may be a member of what is called the "unorganized militia." I'll print it below for your convenience.
Don't be led by the recent release date into believing that this is something new. This is very old law.
Parent
Re:Yes, you may be a member! (Score:5, Informative)
Not really. The 2nd amendment guarantees the right "of the people" to bear arms, not the right of the militia to bear arms.
Parent
Re:Are you a member of "a well-regulated militia"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, I think it just means that you aren't a particularly useful member of the militia. It's sort of like being a member of the citizenry -- just because somebody doesn't vote or participate politically doesn't mean they suddenly stop being a citizen.
Parent
Re:Are you a member of "a well-regulated militia"? (Score:4, Insightful)
Using your interpretation of the second amendment, the above sentence would prohibit anyone who isn't well-educated from reading. Also, as the other poster pointed out, "militia" as it is used in the Constitution is a much broader term than you seem to think.
Parent
Dead on Arrival, I'd say. (Score:5, Informative)
I doubt this bill even gets out of committee, let alone gets passed by the NJ Assembly so that it can be immediately struck down by a NJ judge. As for why, then, a hopeless, pointless bill was introduced by Assemblyman Biondi -- mmmm, maybe he's got an election coming up? Needs to do a little grandstanding?
Unconstitutional in 1960 (Score:5, Informative)
Of course, the Court's membership isn't the same as it was in 1960. The President can appoint who he wants to the Supreme Court. So, who'd you vote for, for president, in 2004?
Deare Reader (Score:4, Insightful)
yr. svnt.
Poor Richard
But, but, but... (Score:4, Funny)
A Historical Note (Score:5, Insightful)
Founding Fathers == Terrorists (Score:4, Interesting)
But, if you think about it, these folks are trying to help protect us. The terrorists hate us because of our freedoms. So, take away the freedoms, you take away the reason for the terrorists to hate us. You take away their reason to be terrorists.
All this is part of the brilliant War On Terror.
Parent
After much deliberation and consideration... (Score:5, Insightful)
I have spent a good part of today deliberating on this story and have constructed a carefully reasoned and highly cogent argument against the bill. It follows in the next paragraph.
Fuck that noise.
I feel that my reasoning is plain and does not require explanation.
For those with questions I refer you to the Declaration of Independence, the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, and the Colonial Revolution of 1776.
"IT IS FAR FROM OVER" (Score:4, Informative)
N.J. judge dismisses lawsuit over anonymous Web site criticism [freedomforum.org]
New Jersey Court of Appeals rules for EyeOnEmerson website [eff.org]
"It is far from over," said Jack Darakjy, the attorney representing the plaintiffs [freedomforum.org]. "We will appeal the decision. If we need to, our clients are prepared to take this all the way to the Supreme Court."
Or, if you are politically connected in New Jersey, maybe you just go to your party and get them to take up your crusade.
jurisdiction (Score:5, Informative)
You may be thinking that New Jersey has no jurisdiction over people who live in other states. Not true. New Jersey asserts jurisdiction over everyone who lives in New Jersey and also everyone who does business in New Jersey, or who materially affects a citizen of New Jersey or the general interests of the citizens of New Jersey.
Hence, if you, Joe Citizen of any U.S. state other than NJ, or even a citizen of another country, do something over the 'net that affects someone in NJ, and is illegal under NJ law, then a NJ court will have no problem issuing a warrant for your arrest. The governor of NJ (or rather one of his underlings in law enforcement) would then issue a request for extradition to your state or country. If that request is granted, then your home state or country arrests you as a courtesy to NJ and (if necessary by force) sends you to NJ to stand trial.
How often is extradition granted? Depends. Between the states of the United States, or between countries of the EU, almost always. For credible accusations of traditional crimes of violence, like murder, rape, arson, or robbery, then again almost always. For nonviolent crimes, and crimes where public policy differs widely, like fraud, child custody violations, or Internet crime such as this one -- all bets are off.
So in this case, you're almost certainly right -- if New Jersey criminalized anonymous posting, I doubt very much if most states in the Union, let alone most Western countries, would honor an extradition request. But as a general rule, you do not escape a state's jurisdiction merely because you don't live there.
Parent
Re:Ummmm nothing to do with anonymous posting, rea (Score:5, Interesting)
The same can be said of anonymous pamphlets. The same has been done with anonymous pamphlets.
And yet, anonymous pamphlets have been very specifically ruled to be constititonally protected by the Supreme Court.
The cops' "need" to find people does not supersede the people's right to free expression, even anonymously.
Parent
Re:Uh huh (Score:5, Insightful)
1. By all companies that rent server space moving out of New Jersey.
2. By all websites that allow users to post putting "Persons located in New Jersey are not permitted to comment, because your state's legislators are fools. By hitting submit, I affirm I am not currently located in the State of New Jersey" beside every submit button.
Parent
Re:Ah, the sweet sweet sound... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's just the symptom. The real problem is one that all great civilizations face: abundance decreases motivation and creates a false sense of entitlement. Just look at companies like Enron who fabricate business models out of thin air. There's so much money floating around the United States, that monetary success has very little to do with creating any kind of value. Meanwhile, developing countries like China are plowing full steam ahead. Right now the United States is basically just riding a wave of lucky historical opportunity. Given the concentration of wealth and power, that wave can carry the US by intertia for quite some time, but maybe not as long as most Americans think.
Parent