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.'"
Death of Slashdot? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hardly. Unless your servers are located in Illinois the bill is meaningless.
Re: Death of Slashdot? (Score:5, Insightful)
That politician's mouth is in Illinois. Can we get a kill switch for attention-seeking asshats who want to take away our rights?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Illinois politicians are about as far left and as corrupt (not suggesting the two are related) as it gets in the US. Nobody that lives here could be at-all surprised by this.
Re: Death of Slashdot? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, there's a grand mixture of fools and thieves from both parties, governors, senators, mayors, lots of convictions. Not far left. Big mixture there.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not far left. Big mixture there.
Chicago is notoriously democratic, and corrupt, however.
Re: Death of Slashdot? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but Democrats aren't far-left. They're a center-right pro-big-business party.
They only appear to be far-left to far-right extremists.
Re: (Score:3)
Thank you. I'm so sick of people conflating leftists and liberals with Democrats. Doing so is like calling GWB a fiscal conservative.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Cheers! The green party is farther left than the Democrats.
"The political terms Left and Right were coined during the French Revolution (1789–1799), referring to the seating arrangement in the Estates General: those who sat on the left generally opposed the monarchy and supported the revolution, including the creation of a republic and secularization,[5] while those on the right were supportive of the traditional institutions of the Old Regime. Use of the term "Left" became more prominent after the re
Re: (Score:3)
the usage of US thoughts on the political affiliations...
Regardless, you are using the English language, not FoxNewspeak. And I doubt that you or your friends are the arbiters of "US thought".
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
That's not what left means. Left means giving the government control and making "society" responsible. Right means giving the population control and making the individual responsible.
Re: (Score:3)
Never rely on Wikipedia for any subject remotely controversial.
Wikipedia is useless for such subjects.
Re: (Score:3)
I think you mean the bills drafted by the MPAA/RIAA.
This is just corporate lobbying at work. I don't think anyone in congress actually wants censorship in principle.
Re: Death of Slashdot? (Score:4, Funny)
Of course they don't want censorship in principle. That would require having principles.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Death of Slashdot? (Score:5, Informative)
They were close colleagues. This is from the New Yorker in 2010:
As a rising politician with Ivy League connections, Obama had financial backing from all over, including from a class of young black entrepreneurs. But he has had Jewish mentors throughout his career. Philanthropists like Bettylu Saltzman, Penny Pritzker, and Lester Crown were crucial to his campaigns. His friend and neighbor the late Arnold Jacob Wolf was a rabbi. Michelle Obama’s cousin Capers C. Funnye, Jr., is the first African-American member of the Chicago Board of Rabbis and the spiritual leader of Beth Shalom, a congregation on the South Side. One of Obama’s closest colleagues in Springfield was Ira Silverstein, an Orthodox Jew, with whom he shared an office suite in the Capitol building; Obama acted as Silverstein’s shabbos goy, turning on lights and pushing elevator buttons for him on Saturdays.
Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2010/03/29/100329taco_talk_remnick#ixzz2LZl8gLSJ [newyorker.com] [newyorker.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah it sounds like one of those cases where the attention whore can "want a kill switch" in one hand and " shit" in the other hand, then observe which hand fills first.
His constituents should be outraged and demand he be drug tested immediately.
Violated his oath, Kick him out (Score:4, Insightful)
Every elected official in this country takes an oath to uphold the laws of the nation. By introducing the Internet Posting Removal Act Ira Silverstein his demonstrated his contempt for the constitution and is unfit to serve in the Illinois state senate.
Meaningless? (Score:5, Insightful)
Already, Facebook and Google+ forbid anonymous postings. Facebook's comment system is used all over the web, so you can't post anonymously anywhere it is found -- you can, of course, violate their terms of service and use a *false* ID, but in that case, again, you can lose your voice and your posts at any time. For that matter, if you're not a Facebook member, you can't post at all on a Facebook comment system, either within Facebook or used externally.
You're looking in the wrong place for the real threat. The government isn't (really) looking to curb anonymous speech, just this one asshat in Illinois; and his stupid little idea isn't going anywhere.
Commercial interests, however, have a huge stake in making sure they know who you are, and are well into the process of making it standard. even here on slashdot, we have numerous naive koolaid drinkers who will blithely tell you that anonymous speech is a bad thing.
Slashdot itself starts anonymous speech at a lower value than speech with an ID, a slight, but not subtle, nudge to get you to provide your information to the world. Basically for anyone who utilizes the mod system here, anonymous speech is by default invisible. No, you can't count on the mods to fix all the cases that need fixing, either -- not enough mods or modpoints.
Seriously people... you're fighting the wrong fight. 1, support anonymous speech, and 2, don't feed the trolls. Get off Facebook and Google+ until or unless they come around. Or else swallow and don't spit when they don't let you post anonymously.
Re:Meaningless? (Score:5, Insightful)
Slashdot itself starts anonymous speech at a lower value than speech with an ID, a slight, but not subtle, nudge to get you to provide your information to the world.
The wording of this proposed law is such that almost every post on Slashdot and every other forum (even ones that supposedly require real names like Facebook) would be considered "anonymous".
Even though I am a registered user, Slashdot does not have my "legal name and home address" as required by this law. Almost no sites that I frequent have my "legal name", despite the fact that they might have what most people would consider is my "real name". And, pretty much the only sites that have my home address are stores that ship me stuff, but I know many people where even that isn't true, as they ship to their work and use a P.O. Box for their credit card billing address.
Re:Meaningless? (Score:5, Insightful)
Also with some people, if they put their legal name then when Facebook asks their friends if their name is correct then they'll most probably say no because it isn't one they recognise.
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.
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:Meaningless? (Score:5, Informative)
The constitution guarantees your freedom of speech, as long as you're wiling to let the jackbooted thugs know which door you sleep behind, so that they can kick it in during the night.
That's not quite how I read the story of the revolution, and it's not quite how I read the constitution.
Re:Meaningless? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll stick with the following interpretation, courtesy of the Supreme Court, thanks...
https://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity [eff.org]
Anonymous communications have an important place in our political and social discourse. The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the right to anonymous free speech is protected by the First Amendment. A much-cited 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:
Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.
Re:Meaningless? (Score:5, Insightful)
I take exception to the anonymous by default is invisible on slashdot. Nicknames with no real ID is OK on Slashdot. My RL and Slashdot life are only loosly connected so what is said in truth on Slashdot does not fill my inbox in RL with takedown notices and threats of legal action for what I say. Did I mention hardware I own is mine to modify and repair? Did I mention anything else someone would like to suppress by legal threats and or action?
I have an account. It does not contain my real name, address, or phone number. It does contain my old email address, but that is not publicly revealed. If it was, I am no longer at the address where I was when it was opened. It would take quite a bit of investigation to connect my Slashdot ID with my RL ID, unlike Facebook.
Because Facebook uses RL info, I post very little on it. It is only family and circle of friends stuff and never used to discuss copyright and other News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters.
I don't post on Slashdot that I enjoyed a relative's birthday party. I don't post on Facebook what I think about the RIAA or BSA. (Not the scouts)
Re:Meaningless? (Score:5, Insightful)
You realize that's just as much a violation of the 1st Amendment as forbidding anonymity, right?
Re: Death of Slashdot? (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no constitutional clause that says "freedom of speech, after you provide your legal name and address". It infringes on freedom of speech,
Just wondering if you apply the same reasoning to the second amendment? Background checks/registration is a requirement to provide legal name and address...
Re: (Score:3)
I may be misunderstanding you but your response seems like a non-sequitur to the question it's a response to.
Obfuscant asked if the same reasoning -- the First Amendment just lists the right to free speech with no caveats or prerequisites, so any caveats or prerequisites would be prima facie unconstitutional -- should apply to the Second Amendment, which likewise lists no caveats of prerequisites to the right to bear arms (though it does list a rationale). If the same reasoning applies, then caveats or prer
Re:Death of Slashdot? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hardly. Unless your servers are located in Illinois the bill is meaningless.
EVEN if the servers are located in Illinois this law would be unconstitutional. Its unconstitutional even under the State Constitution.
It goes nowhere, and if it succeeds in getting passed, it gets bitchslapped by the courts.
Re:Death of Slashdot? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not necessarily; it'll only get "bitchslapped" if the courts do their jobs properly. Lots of stuff is unconstitutional (whether by a state constitution or the US Constitution) and is still enforced; the 4th Amendment in particular has been null and void for a long time (if you don't believe me, try carrying $100K in cash around and get yourself searched by the cops, or even just go through airport security with it).
Re:Death of Slashdot? (Score:5, Funny)
Cops: Why are you carrying $100K in cash?
You: I'm going to the Apple store.
Cops: Carry on.
Much of the Second, also. (Score:4, Insightful)
Lots of stuff is unconstitutional (whether by a state constitution or the US Constitution) and is still enforced; the 4th Amendment in particular has been null and void for a long time ...
Much of the second as well. That's why you can't have machine guns, silencers, short shotguns, and a number of other guns or accessories in most states and to have them where the states don't ban them you must go through major federal hoops, (fingerprints, $200 tax per item, risk of federal prison {or a shoot the dog, stomp the cat, throw the pregnant wife against the wall and make her miscarry, raid} if the BATF {thinks} your paperwork is defective or you have something you didn't tell them about).
U.S. v. Miller (1939) said the fed could tax guns that AREN'T suitable for "militia" (military) use, in particular a short barreled ("sawed-off") shotgun (because Miller and his team weren't there to "bring to judicial notice" that they were also called "trench guns" and were an important weapon in WW I). The federal and state governments have taken that to mean they can tax any gun any amount, erect arbitrarily draconian red tape barriers, then bust anyone for screwing up the red tape or failing to pay the tax - "revenuer"/"untouchables"/Waco/Ruby Ridge style.
Re: (Score:3)
Because as long as there's one place which is worse, apologists for the state will sneer at you for even suggesting the place you're in is not a paragon of liberty.
The one place, of course, is North Korea. Why else has no country slapped it down by now? Somewhere in a work camp in China, an overseer is telling his charges they should be happy they're not in Haengyong.
Cash seizures (Score:5, Informative)
Cash can be subject to seizure without a warrant or other cause.
Read it and weep. [thenewspaper.com]
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:Cash seizures (Score:4, Insightful)
Most money has traces of drugs on it. If someone has a big stack of bills, and they are a not freshly printed a dog is basically guaranteed to find some trace of drugs.
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: (Score:3)
Most car dealerships are not equipped to handle cash in large quantities, and would most likely offer to take you to your bank to have your wonderful stack of money converted into a banker-countersigned cashier's check for the purchase. That way, if the banker screws up and miscounts - they have recourse, and a cashier's check is safer for them in case the dealership were to be robbed. Of course, if your in a high-end dealership like Audi, BMW, MB, or the like - they will most likely be very accepting of
Re:Death of Slashdot? (Score:4, Informative)
There's no debt until after a sale. A business can refuse to make a cash sale in the first place, and that's legal.
Re:Death of Slashdot? (Score:4, Informative)
Are there specific limitations on how much companies can accept by cash, by law?
No, there are not. However, there are PATRIOT act rules that require them to verify your identity to prove they aren't doing business with a "terrorist." Those rules are not technically cash-only, but cash is basically the only way to make a purchase that does not also involve officially identifying yourself - so you will get that bit of hassle.
Re: (Score:3)
"Illegal? How do you figure?"
Now that I think about it, there was a more recent, famous case.
A campaign worker for one of the Pauls (I think it was Ron, but it might have been Rand) had lots of cash with him when he went to board a plane. (For obvious reasons, he didn't want to put it in his luggage.) TSA discovered the cash. Non-hilarity ensued.
He was detained, and grilled about where the cash came from. He refused to tell them. (Yay for him!) Of course, TSA could see right there in the pile, a number of checks that said "R. Pau
Re: (Score:3)
Anyway you slice it they don't have the right to confiscate it without a warrant.
Oh no, they don't have the right to search YOU without a warrant, but standing jurisprudence is that your money is not a person and therefore has no rights. See Civil Forfeiture [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3)
"I wouldnt call this a "right", but a "privilege"."
Absolutely not. If you think it through, it is unworkable.
The Supreme Court itself has ruled that anonymous speech is a right, because without it freedom of speech could not exist.
Think about it:
(A) The majority of personal communication now takes place either by telephone or the internet. By far the majority of public speech is on the internet. Therefore it is in general an essential public forum.
(B) If any anonymous speech that could be interpreted as political (i.e., literally anything) could
Re: (Score:3)
So, free speech may have actually degraded to the point of tirades and nonsensical babbling because of anonymity.
"free speech" has not degraded. Free speech simply means you can speak freely without being punished. Anonymity cannot hurt that.
Do I care if people know my opinions?
I don't know. Do you enjoy not getting hired for a job or getting fired from a job for mysterious reasons, by chance? If so, I can see why you wouldn't care.
But what this is is censorship. Removing posts because they're anonymous? Censorship.
Re:Death of Slashdot? (Score:5, Funny)
I've got more faith in a supreme pizza than I do the supreme court...
Re: (Score:2)
Even if it doesn't get slapped down, websites with anonymous posting can just use geolocation and block Illinois.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if it doesn't get slapped down, websites with anonymous posting can just use geolocation and block Illinois.
Why would they bother? Websites not located in Illinois need not concern themselves with Illinois law.
Re: (Score:3)
The right to anonymous speech has been a core part of the right to free speech from the beginning. Some of the founders themselves made anonymous anti-British pamphlets every bit as flamebait and trollish as you'd find in rants on Slashdot today.
None of this is new to the Internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really, this may even have CFAA implications. Violate a website's terms of service that is now mandated by state law to provide your actual information on a server in Illinois and the feds will have a field day once the Illinois authorities finds your information to be incorrect, incomplete or untraceable. It doesn't matter where you are in the US.
Re:Death of Slashdot? (Score:4, Insightful)
today's politicians (Score:3)
The fact that there's even ONE politician (yeah there are more) at a state level in this country advocating for this should be setting off alarms in everyone. What the hell are these ivy league lawschool graduates being taught that makes them think like this?
Re:today's politicians (Score:4, Insightful)
(cough)Democrat(Cough)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Both sides do this equally. It is just a matter of who is paying the bills today.
Re:today's politicians (Score:4, Funny)
kids : this is NOT a joke. (Score:2)
Vhat a country!
Re: (Score:3)
What the hell are these ivy league lawschool graduates being taught that makes them think like this?
Law, obviously.
Re: (Score:2)
I think there's more being taught than mechanics of law.
Re: (Score:2)
They're being taught that you will get money from lobbyists by taking extreme positions...
Re: (Score:3)
I expect this at the State and especially more local levels.
It's my perception that the lower the level you get in government, the more controlling and power-hungry the officials are and the less they care about rights. And, more worryingly, usually the better access they have to law enforcement willing to enable abuses of power.
We're all familiar with the high profile abuses by the FBI or other federal agents, but really, it seems like they have a lot higher risk profile in terms of abuse (even if they ha
WTF... (Score:2)
How are all these treasonous socipaths getting elected anyway?
And yes, treason. Treason is betraying your country, and since your country is its collective people, betrayal of your constituents like this should be considered treason.
Re:WTF... (Score:5, Insightful)
> betrayal of your constituents like this
In the 21'st century a politicians constituents are the various lobby interests that give him money to run the campaigns that get them elected. "citizens" don't come into the picture except as demographics to be manipulated by the advertising campaign.
I suspect this bill was advanced directly in the interests of one of the senators "constituents".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It stems from something way pettier. Someone anonymous on the internet was mean to him, and he tried to found out who but couldn't, so now he's got this. The text also matches, nearly exactly, a proposed bill in NY that was absolutely trashed there as well. Here's an article with the texts as well.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130219/10065822029/illinois-politician-seeks-to-outlaw-anonymous-comments-allow-anonymous-gun-ownership.shtml
Re:WTF... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe not, but it should be. Proposing any law which is obviously unconstitutional should be considered treason, and prosecuted as such.
Re:WTF... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Somebody needs to make them read the "Federalist Papers," to educate them on the importance of anonymous speech.
Re: (Score:3)
How Are They Going To Enforce It? (Score:2)
What is to stop people from making up a "fake real name" and just plucking an address out of the phone book?
Will this bill require web site admins to require commentators to register with credit card number or cell phone number?
Please.
Re:How Are They Going To Enforce It? (Score:5, Informative)
Rather than go random, people should just put in:
Ira I. Silverstein
2951 West Devon
Chicago, IL 60659
(773) 743-5015
Re:How Are They Going To Enforce It? (Score:4, Funny)
Elwood Blues
1060 W. Addison Ave.
Chicago
Re: (Score:3)
As Ira, sure. But why would you do that to Ms. Silverstein and those poor kids? Haven't they suffered enough already? They're required to keep a log for every time they go to the fridge, so Ira never has to wonder who drank the last of the milk.
All posts to all forums come from Sen. Ira Silvers (Score:3)
All posts to all forums should from here on in, come from Sen. Ira Silverstein. Should be easy enough to get his address, IP, and even a few other juicy details. Make all anon. posts come from this turkey and sooner or later, he'll get the point.
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.
freenet = 100% lack of censorship (Score:5, Informative)
freenetproject.org = absolutely no one can censor (delete) anything.
Also of-course it is anonymous (more then TOR).
Downside: it's slow.
But best thing we have now for truly NO CENSORSHIP, good for online anonymity.
got 3 minutes?
For geeks only (need patience!)
- freenetproject.org grab .jar (sorry, it's java)
- java -jar thefile.jar (and -console if headless)
- http://localhost:8888/ (from separate firefox profile, block outside-localhost access by setting invalid proxy if you want, disable java/flash if you want, JS also not needed)
- in wizard set LOW or NORMAL security (you can't have HIGH unless you know >10 freeneters practically)
- later, go to Freenet Message System and install it - its 100% uncensorable board (will take hour to start up, it's normal. create id, solve captchas)
- do NOT use Freetalk (extreamly slow), but on very fast (ram/hdd=ssd) computer try Sone and WoT plugins (Twitter!)
Greetings from anons, Johny and tgs3 see you there :)
If questions ask us there and #freenet on irc2p and freenode.org
unconstitutional on its face! (Score:2)
Article 11 (interstate commerce) and Amendment 1 (free speech, free association) rulez the Illinois foolz
Time to furlough the politicians. (Score:5, Insightful)
Illinois is a tinpot little banana republic (Score:3)
This places Illinois on equal footing with Syria, China, and China. I mean that sincerely: if China were advancing this bill, there'd be a huge outcry over the obvious human rights violations.
There is nothing in the Constitution that grants government the power to register or regulate all of your speech, and the first amendment explicitly states that it can't. Why do these little dictator wanna-bes keep insisting that this time it's different?
Streisand effect (Score:2)
So here is how I see this going down. Some public figure get pissed off because some anonymous person has said they enjoy going to parties where they pretend to be a cow and get milked. The public figure uses the law to squash the anonymous posts. The person who posted
Bill to require computer experience in politicians (Score:2)
"No person shall be considered for any public office who cannot sign up for a free web mail account and send an email by his or her self."
That should reduce the political idiocy by a third, I hope.
Links to the Bill and It's Originator (Score:3)
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?GA=98&DocTypeID=SB&DocNum=1614&GAID=12&SessionID=85&LegID=72466 [ilga.gov]
http://www.ilga.gov/senate/Senator.asp?MemberID=1874 [ilga.gov]
Police State (Score:2)
Another omitted (D) (Score:5, Insightful)
Inconvenient Party affiliation omitted, twice in one day.
Back here [slashdot.org] we have a Democrat state senator Toni Harp [ct.gov] from Connecticut trying to "Ban Kids From Using Arcade Guns." Now we have Democrat state senator Ira Silverstein [ilga.gov] of Illinois with another statist gem.
Could we please stop this game? When we're raging [slashdot.org] about Republicans there is no hesitation qualifying names with parties. I know it's inconvenient that all bad government isn't the fault of fundies, but pretending statists aren't a problem isn't helpful behavior.
Dictator's Guide to the Internet (Score:2)
There are days I really wonder (wishful thinking) (Score:2)
It feels as if they exactly know how to propose things that will set us off, and the precise language that guarantees people getting up in arms about it.
Maybe they're really the craftiest, most masterful trolls there ever was? Elevating the art of trolling to heights the kiddies cannot even dream about? At least on Slashdot, it never seems
AC is okay for money though? (Score:2)
Yet being an AC is okay when donating money, which the supreme court ruled equates to speech.
Even bothering making up a problem to solve? (Score:3)
The voters are pretty gullible. It doesn't take great salesmanship to get this through, you're just being lazy dude.
First ... (Score:3)
Won't this require the entire internet become 18+? (Score:3)
Won't this require the entire internet to become 18+?
As it stands, most places that allow people to post are 13+, since that is the minimum age due to the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. However, it would seem that requiring 13-17 year olds to post their real name online and confirm their personal details is a little sketchy.
Think of the children (Score:3, Informative)
I don't know why anyone with any sense would allow their kids to have their real name and faces on the internet on a easy searchable place.
It's pretty much like a pedophile menu, where he can choose the nearest kids, know where they go and what they do and do their thing easily.
They want to control the information (Score:3)
One way to do it - eliminate anonymous speech. Yes, there's a lot of vicious nastiness that internet tough guys and raging nerds say on the internet that they would never say in real life. But what about a whistleblower at a financial company? Or in a politician's office?
What happens if a citizen writes something unflattering about a politician and the politician decides to pursue a vendetta against the citizen? Politicians have a great deal of power to make that happen.
Anonymous speech is essential to lubricate the flow of information. It's something that leaders and marketplace gatekeepers have a hard time controlling. It undermines their authority and profit. Which is why we need it.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot is not hosted in Illinois.
Where Is that Completely Guaranteed? (Score:5, Insightful)
doesn't mean freedom of anonymity...
I don't understand why people think that anonymity is or should be an unquestionably protected given.
While I disagree with this politician's proposal, I feel like we should make it clear that not all speech should be behind an anonymous veil. It's difficult to explore and draw the line but, for instance, if you call in a bomb threat or threaten someone's life over the phone and they use the appropriate means to track you down, I don't think you should be able to say that your speech should be anonymous and by removing the anonymity you're a treasonous free speech hater. However, if I want to criticize my leaders you shouldn't be able to trace whatever communications I use to do so in order to identify me. And I think we have court systems and warrants and wiretapping laws in place (or rather we should) that make this a process that does not become abused. When your words have a large amount of weight, they shouldn't be anonymous -- I think that testifying against someone is a great example of this. Can I anonymously swear to tell the truth and call you a pedophile and will you demand that be entered into the record in a court of law?
Another recent example I can think of that annoys me is when your "anonymous free speech" is equated to hundreds of millions of dollars [slashdot.org] or campaign donations. At that point we're talking about sums that can positively or negatively affect many lives and when it hits a certain point it should simply be published. This would reduce some of the legalized bribery in this country that is parading around as "free speech."
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It doesn't actually say anything about anonymity although I understand how forcing identification could amount to fear of response and future duress. So at that point you need to involve a judge in the process of determining whether identification is needed without violating the first amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Simply give anonymous (or AC) speech an appropriate level of respect. Problem solved.
You stupid AC (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe one day we should propose the following amendment to the Illinois Constitution:
SECTION 2. LEGISLATIVE COMPOSITION ...
(c) To be eligible to serve as a member of the General
Assembly, a person must be a United States citizen, at least
21 years old, and for the two years preceding his election or
appointment a resident of the district which he is to
represent....
Addition:
No person may be elected or appointed to the Assembly unless that
person submits proof of attendance at and su
Re:With all that's going on... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The vast majority of US politicians are attorneys. Isn't that what people generally do when they don't believe in anything and want power for its own sake? They go to law school and then run for office.