Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Government Censorship News

State Lawmaker Wants To Ban Anonymous Posting Online 471

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

State Lawmaker Wants To Ban Anonymous Posting Online

Comments Filter:
  • Ummm... (Score:5, Informative)

    by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Monday March 10, 2008 @01:28PM (#22703948) Journal
    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.
  • by GarryFre ( 886347 ) on Monday March 10, 2008 @01:34PM (#22704112) Homepage
    We all knew the names of bullies at school. It didn't stop them. Take one look at Uselessnet and you see bullying from folks who give out their names, emails and all kind of stuff. Stupid people (bullies) stand by their stupidity.
  • Re:How (Score:2, Informative)

    by cyclopropene ( 777291 ) on Monday March 10, 2008 @01:35PM (#22704158)

    Obvious comment: How do you fine someone you can't identify?
    By reading the article?

    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.
  • by michaelwigle ( 822387 ) <michaelwigle@hotmail.com> on Monday March 10, 2008 @01:36PM (#22704162) Homepage
    That's just another twist in this proposed law.

    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.
    It's the site operators he's going after. Here's hoping /. has a big slush fund. Or will we just not be allowed to post AC anymore? I wish writing and trying to pass unenforcable, not to mention unconstitutional, laws wasn't a pass-time activity for some of our elected officials.
  • by Tsiangkun ( 746511 ) on Monday March 10, 2008 @01:53PM (#22704570) Homepage
    In the land of the free, companies own the people,that make the money, that is used to influence the government. The elite are international banksters, and the government is a puppet executing their wishes while protecting their names and faces.

    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.

  • by turtledawn ( 149719 ) on Monday March 10, 2008 @01:55PM (#22704622)
    This bill is something the senator introduced at the request of his constituents, and would apply only to Kentucky residents. The way he was quoted in the original story makes it clear that he thinks it's hairbrained, unlikely to pass, sure to be shot down if it is, and he won't vote for it. Don't go beating up on the guy for trying to appease his constituency- for all I know, one of them is my grandmother-in-law, and I've certainly said any number of things to get her to stop pestering me.

    (I love you Sandra, but you're not the most computer savvy individual)
  • by turtledawn ( 149719 ) on Monday March 10, 2008 @02:02PM (#22704758)
    http://www.kentucky.com/454/story/338489.html [kentucky.com]

    This was the original story. Replying to myself, yeah I know.. but I didn't have the link yet for my prior post.
  • Re:Informal Title (Score:5, Informative)

    by erlenic ( 95003 ) on Monday March 10, 2008 @02:03PM (#22704780) Journal
    I'm willing to bet that the most appropriate title would be the "Tim Couch got his feeling hurt by an online troll Bill".

    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]
  • Re:Ummm... (Score:2, Informative)

    by Spasemunki ( 63473 ) on Monday March 10, 2008 @03:21PM (#22706142) Homepage
    The 3/5ths compromise wasn't a Supreme Court decision, it was made at the Philadelphia Constitutional convention. And while SC decisions can be revisited, the court is very, very wary of overturning earlier decisions without a very big change in the culture; the justices are on the whole a very conservative body, and are typically unwilling to directory contradict the reasoning of an earlier justice unless there is either a marked flaw in the decision (as in logical fallacy) or there's been a big change in the country (Plessy v. Vergusson vs. Brown v. BOE). Since the privacy decision that the EFF cites was made in 1995, the odds of the Supremes (much less the Four Tops, or the Shirelles) revisiting the decision seems very slim. Particularly over some goofy law that (I believe) an ex-University of Kentucky quarter back made up on his weekend off because people were calling him names on the intertubes,
  • by tattood ( 855883 ) on Monday March 10, 2008 @04:12PM (#22707148)
    People, all drugs are not legal in Amsterdam. Only Marijuana and hash are legal, and they are very tightly controlled by the government. They control how many shops are allowed to sell it, and where they are placed. Companies that are licensed to sell weed and hash are also limited to 30 grams on hand at any one time.

    They also make a very distinct differentiation between "hard" and "soft" drugs. Weed and hash are considered soft drugs, while cocaine and heroine are hard drugs, and are definitely illegal. But, the Dutch government does make a big attempt to help people with drug problems, including giving free methadone to the hardcore junkies, in the attempts to help them clean up.

    And regarding the comment about number of drug addicts in Amsterdam compared to the U.S., the Netherlands has about 16 million people. U.S. has about 300 million. Of course with that many more people, there is going to be a larger number of drug addicted people.
  • by lupine ( 100665 ) * on Monday March 10, 2008 @04:43PM (#22707620) Journal
    As a resident of Wisconsin I would like to point out that this idiot is from Kentucky. So you can call him a bluegrasshead or say that he has cheese for brains, but do not call him a cheesehead.

    Representative Tim Couch [ky.gov] Bio Highlights:
    Church of God
    Hazard Community College
    NRA. Natl Wild Turkey Federation
    Hyden Masonic Lodge 664
  • by ArcherB ( 796902 ) * on Monday March 10, 2008 @05:08PM (#22708048) Journal

    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
    Well, according to the Laffer Curve [wikipedia.org], Raising taxes would give us LESS money to pay for things like Iraq, War on Drugs and whatever else. The government has been pulling in record receipts since Bush's tax cuts. Sorry, but raising taxes slows the economy and ends up with less tax revenue.

If you think nobody cares if you're alive, try missing a couple of car payments. -- Earl Wilson