Slashdot Log In
State Lawmaker Wants To Ban Anonymous Posting Online
Posted by
Zonk
on Monday March 10, @01:21PM
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
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
how about passing laws that have some... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:how about passing laws that have some... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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.
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.
Re:how about passing laws that have some... (Score:5, Interesting)
-Ayn Rand
...
Brian Gordon
Yes.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:how about passing laws that have some... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
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.
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]
Anonymously post your comments to Rep. Couch (Score:5, Interesting)
Please... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Great Idea! (Score:5, Funny)
- "Tim"
Re:What we should ban... (Score:5, Funny)