Slashdot Log In
State Lawmaker Wants To Ban Anonymous Posting Online
Posted by
Zonk
on Mon Mar 10, 2008 12:21 PM
from the didn't-know-kentucky-was-so-powerful dept.
from the didn't-know-kentucky-was-so-powerful dept.
bfwebster writes "According to a local news article from last week, Kentucky state lawmaker Tim Couch wants to ban anonymous posting on the internet in order to 'cut down on online bullying', which he says has been 'a particular problem in eastern Kentucky.' His bill would require posters to register with their real names and e-mail addresses under threat of fines. Looks like another battle in the right for anonymous free speech."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.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.
how about passing laws that have some... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:how about passing laws that have some... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:how about passing laws that have some... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, that isn't anyone's main flaw. But it should be mandatory that these lawmakers should have at least enough of a clue to determine if what they are proposing is even possible before they start drafting legislation.
This makes as much sense as drafting a law making it illegal for it to rain on Thursdays. The frightening part is that the bozo drafting the law doesn't see why it's a problem.
Parent
Re:how about passing laws that have some... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:how about passing laws that have some... (Score:4, Insightful)
First off, I have no idea why this got modded to -1 because that's exactly what they'll most likely do.
The problem is, how would an ISP manage this with any degree of certainty? What is to stop me from logging in to Slashdot using Tor [torproject.org] and giving any contact info I wish?
And let's say I do bully someone and it goes to court. Taco could wind up paying thousands in fines for it. So let's say that happens and he decided to get tough and crack down on false IDs.
How do you do it?
The answer is the same one you'd give if you were trying to comply to the "no rain on Thursdays" law. You can't.
So this is a law that is impossible to comply with, even if you wanted to in the first place. That's why it's a bad idea. Well that, and the whole "right to privacy" thing, which is another discussion.
Parent
Re:how about passing laws that have some... (Score:5, Insightful)
The question of whether something is within the capabilities of the state to enforce is (supposed) to be addressed by the administration's (governor's) veto power. If a legislative body passes a bill that they cannot reasonably implement, they have that chance to make their point.
Unfortunately, there is no requirement that a bill be vetted for its constitutionality by the courts. Once passed into law, the courts cannot consider it until a case is brought before a court empowered to make such a decision. That means: someone has to violate the law and then spend years and millions of dollars (occasionally contributed by advocacy organizations) to see the case through the requisite trial and appeals.
I suspect that some legislators know this and just submit their bills in the hope that nobody will have the balls to stand up for their rights.
Parent
Re:how about passing laws that have some... (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:how about passing laws that have some... (Score:4, Insightful)
An initiative like this will cost millions if not billions of dollars. It would probably be more effective to just set up a victims fund and pay for counseling for anyone who gets bullied. We waste so much money in this country on ridiculous activities like this, when we could be housing the homeless, educating our kids, or researching cures for cancer.
It should not only be mandatory that lawmakers have a clue about feasibility, but every bill that's passed should have a study done as to the ultimate costs and the methods of funding the new law. If the money isn't in the budget the lawmakers can't pass the bill. If the lawmakers don't have enough money to conduct an adequate study, the bill also shouldn't be passed.
Parent
Re:how about passing laws that have some... (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, the probably wouldn't. The one thing the public cares about, and politicians are afraid of, is raising taxes. Lawmakers will go out of their way to avoid having anything that looks like a tax increase in their record. That's why the country just borrows trillions of dollars, steals from the social security funds, . If they raised taxes to cover all costs of Iraq, the War on Drugs, and whatever else, there would be riots in the streets. You need to go back and play some civ, AOE, Empire Earth or sim city. People get PISSED when you raise taxes.
Parent
Re:how about passing laws that have some... (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:how about passing laws that have some... (Score:4, Insightful)
I think we can both agree we're still pretty far from this.
Parent
Re:I have a serious question abou that (Score:5, Insightful)
Because they face re-election every few years. If they are supported by their constituents,
they return to office. If lawmakers were subject to legal threats every time they proposed
something, there would be so much abuse that would make today's level of corruption look like
child's play.
Consider that a state assemblyman represents a rather limited group of constituents, and is
a pretty small voice in a pretty big crowd. He is small potatoes even by Kentucky standards,
representing a county of about 25,000 population, under 30 percent of them high schoolgraduates,
where the average income is $16,000 and the average home value under $10,000.
Think about these numbers, and then ask yourself how much influence you think Rep. Tim Couch has,
and how likely it is for this bill to get past committee.
Parent
Re:how about passing laws that have some... (Score:5, Interesting)
-Ayn Rand
...
Brian Gordon
Yes.
Parent
Re:how about passing laws that have some... (Score:5, Insightful)
Tobacco Companies
Alcohol Companies
Private Prison Companies
We incarcerate more people than china.
We strip away a very particular group of people's voting rights through selective drug law enforcement.
We have double the drug use of Amsterdam (where drug use is legal).
Parent
Re:how about passing laws that have some... (Score:5, Insightful)
I just recently saw a movie on the drug war and it was pretty upsetting (including fairly substantial and substantiated evidence) that the CIA under reagan (who I voted for) ran cocaine into america to support their revolution in central america.
The bits about private prisons was very disturbing. I've known for quite a while that we imprison people in the US at a higher rate than the rest of the world.
But to see an LA policeman relating how the CIA contacted him to ignore selected drug lords in an open public meetings (and to see the CIA director's obvious distress) was pretty shocking to me so I guess it was waiting to spew out somewhere.
It pulled no punches-- drug users were shocking dregs in some cases. But so are extreme alcohol and tobacco users.
We have so many bad laws related to this area- and now that they are tying "any drug sales == support for terror" they are able to ignore civil rights at increasing levels.
Then you get some cheesehead like this guy wanting to ban the equivalent of posting anonymous hand bills and it is extremely irritating.
Parent
Re:how about passing laws that have some... (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at what happened with America's failed experiment to outlaw alcohol. What did we get? A thriving underground drug culture and a massive new revenue source for organized crime. We've been making the same mistake for 70 plus years only this time we seem content to just let things continue in this broken dysfunctional state. Drug use causes harm, but prohibition is worse.
But, money is being made on all sides of the "War on drugs" so no one in power really wants it to end.
Parent
Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not saying I agree with laws that are restricting speech, but at least if it was a law that was enforceable then there could be a point to it. You could debate if it was a good idea or not, if the tradeoff was worth it. Here, it is just a fucking waste of time since regardless of any merits, it just won't work.
Parent
Re:Yes (Score:5, Interesting)
That's not true at all. Such laws are used all the time. They come in very handy if there's someone you want to harrass. Hold them in jail for a day or three, then say "Sorry, it looks like we can't actually try you in this jurisdiction for violating that law. Have a nice day", and escort them out to the street. Where they're promptly arrested again, if the local authorities so wish.
The common term is "nuisance law", and they're almost universal. It's very difficult to get a law annulled unless someone is actually charged and tried for violating it.
A similar principle applies to "violating a suspect's rights". In a town where I once lived, there was a protest in which a lot of people were arrested and held in the town jail overnight. They were denied any communication, not even the standard "one call to your lawyer". The next day they were all released. The explanation was simple: The local authorities didn't want to take anyone to court; that would have been a huge political (and probably legal) disaster for them. Since the arrestees rights had been violated, the police couldn't be forced by local officials to press charges. As for the arrestees pressing charges, the police's response was simple: "Who are you? We have no record that you've ever been in this town before. Can you prove you were here and were arrested?"
I knew a bunch of people who learned a valuable lesson that day about how the legal system actually works. (I was just an onlooker, but I knew a number of the people involved. If asked, I could have testified that they'd been in town that day, but I couldn't testify that I'd personally seen any of them arrested.
Parent
Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:how about passing laws that have some... (Score:5, Insightful)
That is yet another and separate reason it should not pass, in addition the First Amendment issues.
Parent
Re:how about passing laws that have some... (Score:4, Funny)
I drink your milkshake! LOLCATS!11 All your base belong to us! uh, uh... Ron Paul for Prezedent!
Parent
Re:how about passing laws that have some... (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Root of the Problem (Score:5, Funny)
All sorts of problems would just "go away".
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
All they have to do is import the technology from China - the "other place" that wants to do the same thing ...
Please remind me again what's the difference between the "land of the free" and "dirty commie bastards".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In dirty commie strongholds, governments own the people, that run the companies, that makes the money, that funds the government. The elite are the government, and since everyone knows who is really in charge, revolution is more attainable and more likely.
Re:how about passing laws that have some... (Score:5, Funny)
Couch went on to acknowledge that Space is big, that there are quite a few people in China, that antidisestablishmentarianism is a long word, and that John McCain is not very young.
Parent
Re:how about passing laws that have some... (Score:5, Insightful)
Laws like this need to be nipped in the bud. BEFORE they get passed so we don't have to spend the $$ to fight them back out of existence. This law is draconian and clearly unconstitutional--obviously this guy or one of his big donors has their panties in a wad over something said anonymously about them and it just frosts them that they can't find out who it is.
And lawmakers like this one need to be nipped in the bud and tossed out of office.
Parent
What we should ban... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
In this case, you have other, better educated politicians talk to the stupid ones
about things like equal protection, or chilling effects on free speech. You know,
the stuff the ignorance of which has ended the careers of so many other stupid politicians.
On the other hand, the opinion of a single lawmaker in a state assembly has about the same merit as that of one slashdot poster. They say stupid stuff all the time and nothing com
Re:What we should ban... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:What we should ban... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Ahh, the smell of burning karma (Score:5, Funny)
Informal Title (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Informal Title (Score:5, Informative)
He claims that this is to prevent cyber-bullying (I hate that term) in our schools, but he probably wants to get revenge on the owner of kyvotes.org. It's a website that lists all the bills being debated in the legislature, and gives people the ability to comment on those bills. Considering the extreme ignorance of almost all of our legislators, they get ripped pretty badly. Here's the discussion for this bill: http://www.kentuckyvotes.org/2008-HB-775 [kentuckyvotes.org]
Parent
Anonymously post your comments to Rep. Couch (Score:5, Interesting)
Please... (Score:5, Insightful)
OK, Arrest me (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's not you he wants... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Not A Solution (Score:5, Insightful)
And if you think any country's laws - including the USA's - can regulate the world-wide Internet, you're dreaming. All this law would accomplish is to cause the creation of anonymous blogging centers in countries with stricter privacy laws.
And by the way, hasn't the Supreme Court already said that you have a right to be anonymous online?
The only people who would benefit from this are the individuals, corporations, and politicians seeking to quash dissent by outing, and then suing, those who post unflattering comments, no matter how truthful. And those aren't the people I want to be helping out.
Ummm... (Score:5, Informative)
Ah yes, here we go: http://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity [eff.org]
Yet another law just waiting to be struck down, and it took five seconds on Google to demonstrate why.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't SCOTUS already rule that anonymous speech is protected? Ah yes, here we go: http://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity [eff.org]. Yet another law just waiting to be struck down, and it took five seconds on Google to demonstrate why.
Ah, so SCOTUS decisions are written in stone, are they? If that were true, we would still be counting African-Americans as 3/5 of a person. Courts change, attitudes change, decisions that seemed immutable get overturned or reversed or gutted. Don't think it
Won't pass (Score:3, Insightful)
Cut down on bullying.. (Score:4, Interesting)
So let's find some thing (internet) to yell about because you don't like it (because you cannot control it)
Great Idea! (Score:5, Funny)
- "Tim"
Let's see if I have this straight (Score:3, Insightful)
So we'll make them register their names and email addresses with the state.
But they can get literally thousands of email address, for free, from services that aren't subject to our state's (or even country's) laws, and there is no mechanism even possible to police what email address or name they actually use, so they can continue to post anonymously.
And even though we can't track down anonymouse cyber bullies now, we'll be able to later, when they're not using the name or email address they registered with the state.
In addition to having no effect whatsoever, we will give them a legal defense of "Well, that's not my name or email adress! I registered those with the state, just like the law requires, so how could it be me?"
This doesn't even look like an attempt to "do something." In fact, it looks more like an attempt to protect bullies than punish them.
Scientology (Score:4, Interesting)
Read the rest of the article (Score:4, Informative)
(I love you Sandra, but you're not the most computer savvy individual)
Re:Fscking no-nothing inbred hicks (Score:3, Insightful)
First of all, you spelled "know" incorrectly.
Secondly, where did anyone mention religion? I must've missed that.
Thirdly, do you have to use profanity? I mean I just sent Rep. ClueStick an email on his form, and was perfectly polite in telling him where to stick his bill
Re:Hmmm ... (Score:4, Funny)
Parent