Illinois Politician Wants a Kill Switch For Anonymous Speech Online 522
New submitter OhSoLaMeow writes with a story at The Daily Caller with unpleasant news from the Illinois state Senate, where a state senator has introduced a bill that "would require anonymous website comment posters to reveal their identities if they want to keep their comments online." From the article (warning — obnoxious ads with sound): "The bill, called the Internet Posting Removal Act, is sponsored by Illinois state Sen. Ira Silverstein. It states that a 'web site administrator upon request shall remove any comments posted on his or her web site by an anonymous poster unless the anonymous poster agrees to attach his or her name to the post and confirms that his or her IP address, legal name, and home address are accurate.'"
Who voted him in? (Score:2, Interesting)
http://votesmart.org/candidate/18194/ira-silverstein
Checking that page, with a guy refusing to give statement on important topics, no speeches, no nothing and still in office since 1999?! What kind of interests are behind him, considering he was an outsider when he got into office.
Re:Cash seizures (Score:4, Interesting)
Not misleading at all. Where did your money come from? If it passed through the hands of a drug dealer or user at ANY point in the life of the bills prior to your coming into it (from the bank or grocery store, whatever), are you now perfectly OK with the cops seizing it?
If you rent a UHaul, and someone else moved drugs in it, are you OK with being drug charges being brought against you?
How is it that the activities of someone else magically translate in your mind into your own property loss?
Re:Meaningless? (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe that is the game... Your freedom of speech is only valid if you are presented as you? As in, how do I know there is even a person behind that statement? If there isn't, then it can be terminated! Just thinking from the other side
Re:Cash seizures (Score:4, Interesting)
I think the related news from the Louisiana Supreme Court [thenewspaper.com] is even more hilarious:
In his affidavit, Trooper Mire testified the money was bundled with rubber bands, sealed in plastic shrink wrapping, and hidden in the vehicle's floor compartment. He stated based on his experience, such packaging indicates a "substantial connection between the questionable currency and narcotics transactions." The claimants presented no evidence to contradict these statements made by Trooper Mire in his affidavit.
Relying on the reasoning of the court of appeal, the claimants contend the dog's alert is not reliable evidence of criminal activity because 96% of currency in circulation may contain trace amounts of narcotic residue. (...) Even if the claimants had shown a large percentage of currency in circulation contains trace amounts of narcotic residue, they did not show these trace amounts of narcotics would cause a trained police dog to alert.
Trooper Mire's affidavit also implies Tina Beers was traveling on a route commonly used to transport drug money.
Other factors to consider are Tina Beers' nervousness upon being stopped and her initial denial of ownership of the money. The claimants contend these facts do not prove the money was drug-related. While these facts alone do not prove the money is drug-related, they may be considered under the totality of circumstances to determine if there was probable cause for forfeiture.
That pretty much sums up their arguments. So we have a trooper saying drug users often hide their cash and drive this road, but there's absolutely zero evidence of any drug relation except the narcotics dog they brought in to sniff the cash at the police station alerted them. That the dog alerted them is considered proof that it is drug related and the government will do nothing to test the reliability of their dogs, they are faultless until you provide evidence to the contrary. Oh yeah and she was nervous, I guess lots of people carrying drug cash is nervous so that's slam dunk evidence it's drug related.
And this was at the state Supreme Court level, last year. Not that I generally carry $100k+ in cash, but sounds more like an arbitrary seizure of cash than anything that belongs in a civilized society. I mean really, all you need is a dog that can alert when its owner wants it to, have a police officer make some ominous claims on where the money might be coming from and all presumption of innocence is thrown out the window, you have to prove to the court beyond any probable cause that the money is really yours or it will be forfeit.
Re:Meaningless? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, and despite him being able to Google, it doesn't change the fact that I am still "anonymous" according to the proposed law. Even if the information was part of my signature and appeared in every post, it still wouldn't be enough for the proposed law.
I also suspect that he might be seeing some "troll" mods for what most would consider a breach of etiquette.