New York To Ban Anonymous Posts?

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Barefootsies
    Choice is an Illusion
    • Feb 2005
    • 42635

    #1

    New York To Ban Anonymous Posts?

    Your tax dollars hard @ work...

    New York Legislators have introduced a new bill, called the Internet Protection Act that would make it illegal to posts anonymously. The purpose of the bill was initially started to prevent cyber-bulling, but also includes attacks against businesses, and “baseless political attacks” when posted anonymously.

    According to the author, one James Conte, “With more and more people relying on social media and the Internet to communicate and gather information, it is imperative that the legislature put into place some type of safeguard to prevent people from using the Internet’s cloak of anonymity to bully our children and make false accusations against local businesses and elected officials.”

    Notice the part where they added “baseless political attacks” in order to protect themselves.

    While at the outset this may not seem like something that affects our industry, it does. Anytime that the right of a person to speak their word, whether its anonymously or not, is restricted, it can be used to intimate advertisers. Much of performance-based marketing relies on viral based marketing about competing products.

    Would you like to be in a situation where a company with a lot more money, decides to go after you because you were promoting a competing product without identifying yourself?

    Any restriction on free speech is not only unconstitutional, but plain stupid.

    On that note, James Conte you are an idiot for proposing this law. And that’s not “baseless” at all.
    STORY
    Should You Email Your Members?

    Link1 | Link2 | Link3

    Enough Said.

    "Would you rather live like a king for a year or like a prince forever?"
  • u-Bob
    there's no $$$ in porn
    • Jul 2005
    • 33063

    #2
    What if I send an anonymous letter and don't write a return address on the back of the envelope?

    Comment

    • epitome
      So Fucking Lame
      • Jun 2009
      • 12156

      #3
      I think it is ironic that it's a push by Republicans who are against anything that would violate the second amendment but could care less about the first.

      The Federalist Papers probably wouldn't have been written if they had to sign their names to them.

      Comment

      • Best-In-BC
        Confirmed User
        • Jun 2002
        • 9509

        #4
        Yeah, thats a bright idea, ROFL, poke the Dragon
        Vacares - Web Hosting, Domains, O365, Security & More
        Unparked domains burning a hole in your pocket? 5 Simple Ways to Make Easy $$$ from Unused Domains

        Comment

        • bigluv
          Confirmed User
          • Jul 2008
          • 850

          #5
          Uhm, how is this going to work?

          Is it based on where the site is located?
          Is it based on where the poster is located?
          Is it based on where the subject of discussion is located?

          Comment

          • Joe Obenberger
            Confirmed User
            • May 2003
            • 466

            #6
            In Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960), the Court struck down a Los Angeles city ordinance that made it a crime to distribute anonymous pamphlets. In McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995), the Court struck down an Ohio statute that made it a crime to distribute anonymous campaign literature.

            The Federalist Papers, which laid down the political/philosphical foundation for the Constitution, and are frequently cited by the Supreme Court to interpret it, written actually by Madison and others, were written and published anonymously. It's through this important legal lens that the Supreme Court looks at the protection of anonymous speech.

            I'll declare this one dead on arrival in any Federal Court with a petition for an emergency Temporary Restraining Order.


            Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice. . . Restraint in the pursuit of Justice is no virtue.
            Senator Barry Goldwater, 1964

            Comment

            • CyberHustler
              Masterbaiter
              • Feb 2006
              • 28961

              #7
              How are they thinking about enforcing that?
              “If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.”

              Comment

              • 2012
                So Fucking What
                • Jul 2006
                • 17189

                #8
                Originally posted by CyberHustler
                How are they thinking about enforcing that?
                selectively
                best host: Webair | best sponsor: Kink | best coder: 688218966 | Go Fuck Yourself

                Comment

                • epitome
                  So Fucking Lame
                  • Jun 2009
                  • 12156

                  #9
                  Originally posted by Joe Obenberger
                  In Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960), the Court struck down a Los Angeles city ordinance that made it a crime to distribute anonymous pamphlets. In McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995), the Court struck down an Ohio statute that made it a crime to distribute anonymous campaign literature.

                  The Federalist Papers, which laid down the political/philosphical foundation for the Constitution, and are frequently cited by the Supreme Court to interpret it, written actually by Madison and others, were written and published anonymously. It's through this important legal lens that the Supreme Court looks at the protection of anonymous speech.

                  I'll declare this one dead on arrival in any Federal Court with a petition for an emergency Temporary Restraining Order.
                  Interesting. I knew the Federalist Papers were anonymous and a precursor to our rights today, but didn't know they are the baseline that the Supreme Court uses.

                  Comment

                  • epitome
                    So Fucking Lame
                    • Jun 2009
                    • 12156

                    #10
                    Originally posted by 2012
                    selectively
                    It would be nice to read a newspaper article about the weather and not see the comments full of people blaming it on Obama and illegal aliens.

                    Comment

                    • VS_Jeff
                      Confirmed User
                      • Jan 2012
                      • 427

                      #11
                      Isn't this what the internet is for?? Politicians trying to take all the fun out of everything...
                      http://affiliates.Flirt4Free.com
                      http://www.Flirt4Free.com

                      Jeff -at- Flirt4Free dot com

                      Skype: jeff.vsmedia

                      Comment

                      • $5 submissions
                        I help you SUCCEED
                        • Nov 2003
                        • 32189

                        #12
                        Originally posted by Joe Obenberger
                        In Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960), the Court struck down a Los Angeles city ordinance that made it a crime to distribute anonymous pamphlets. In McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995), the Court struck down an Ohio statute that made it a crime to distribute anonymous campaign literature.

                        The Federalist Papers, which laid down the political/philosphical foundation for the Constitution, and are frequently cited by the Supreme Court to interpret it, written actually by Madison and others, were written and published anonymously. It's through this important legal lens that the Supreme Court looks at the protection of anonymous speech.

                        I'll declare this one dead on arrival in any Federal Court with a petition for an emergency Temporary Restraining Order.

                        Comment

                        • L-Pink
                          working on my tan
                          • Mar 2005
                          • 39151

                          #13
                          I think Internet posting should be restricted to those with the same opinion as myself.

                          Comment

                          • - Jesus Christ -
                            Confirmed User
                            • Mar 2003
                            • 7197

                            #14
                            Originally posted by L-Pink
                            I think Internet posting should be restricted to those with the same opinion as myself.
                            this

                            Amen

                            Comment

                            • LiveDose
                              Show Yer Tits!
                              • Feb 2002
                              • 25792

                              #15
                              Wow, these political freaks never cease to amaze.

                              Scammer Alert: acer19 acer [email protected] [email protected] Money stolen using PayPal

                              Comment

                              • mromro
                                So Fucking Banned
                                • Jan 2011
                                • 770

                                #16
                                They will keep trying until they succeed. Even though they know it's unconstitutional they keep trying every few years.

                                The constitution is not here to protect speech you like but the speech that you hate.
                                Last edited by mromro; 05-23-2012, 05:53 PM.

                                Comment

                                • mchacal
                                  Confirmed User
                                  • Aug 2007
                                  • 1078

                                  #17
                                  Couldn't care less about NY legislation
                                  Future AI Creators: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpC...FtsolMzRuWe3-A tostadomedia at gmail dot com

                                  Comment

                                  • Paul Markham
                                    Too old to care
                                    • Jun 2001
                                    • 52942

                                    #18
                                    Originally posted by CyberHustler
                                    How are they thinking about enforcing that?
                                    In essence it's a good idea. Why should someone come on here and bully, abuse and defame others. While us not having a clue who he is. Why should this be done to our children?

                                    The problem is enforcing it.

                                    Freedom of speech is a right you have to respect, not abuse.



                                    Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500.
                                    PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

                                    Comment

                                    • u-Bob
                                      there's no $$$ in porn
                                      • Jul 2005
                                      • 33063

                                      #19
                                      "The ultimate test of a belief in free speech should be whether it can be extended to people you hate." -- Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes


                                      Originally posted by Paul Markham
                                      In essence it's a good idea. Why should someone come on here and bully, abuse and defame others. While us not having a clue who he is. Why should this be done to our children?

                                      The problem is enforcing it.

                                      Freedom of speech is a right you have to respect, not abuse.
                                      "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -Voltaire

                                      Comment

                                      • u-Bob
                                        there's no $$$ in porn
                                        • Jul 2005
                                        • 33063

                                        #20
                                        Originally posted by Joe Obenberger
                                        In Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960), the Court struck down a Los Angeles city ordinance that made it a crime to distribute anonymous pamphlets. In McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995), the Court struck down an Ohio statute that made it a crime to distribute anonymous campaign literature.

                                        The Federalist Papers, which laid down the political/philosphical foundation for the Constitution, and are frequently cited by the Supreme Court to interpret it, written actually by Madison and others, were written and published anonymously. It's through this important legal lens that the Supreme Court looks at the protection of anonymous speech.

                                        I'll declare this one dead on arrival in any Federal Court with a petition for an emergency Temporary Restraining Order.
                                        thank you.

                                        Comment

                                        • PR_Glen
                                          Confirmed User
                                          • Oct 2006
                                          • 9058

                                          #21
                                          Originally posted by epitome
                                          It would be nice to read a newspaper article about the weather and not see the comments full of people blaming it on Obama and illegal aliens.
                                          have to agree with that.. wasn't that long ago where i thought the comments were an added personal touch to an article now its all trolls and megatrolls just trying to stir up shit and have no point of view on anything.

                                          ruins sports sites for me too. If they had an option to turn that off i would hit that so fast it would leave them spinning...



                                          edit: freedom of speech and freedom of anonymity isn't the same thing is it?
                                          Last edited by PR_Glen; 05-24-2012, 05:23 AM.
                                          webmaster at pimproll dot com

                                          Comment

                                          • u-Bob
                                            there's no $$$ in porn
                                            • Jul 2005
                                            • 33063

                                            #22
                                            Originally posted by PR_Glen
                                            edit: freedom of speech and freedom of anonymity isn't the same thing is it?

                                            "A desire for privacy does not imply shameful secrets; Moglen argues, again and again, that without anonymity in discourse, free speech is impossible, and hence also democracy. The right to speak the truth to power does not shield the speaker from the consequences of doing so; only comparable power or anonymity can do that."
                                            ― Nick Harkaway, The Blind Giant

                                            Comment

                                            • brassmonkey
                                              Pay It Forward
                                              • Sep 2005
                                              • 77395

                                              #23
                                              the government is trying to chip away at your freedom.
                                              TRUMP 2026 KEKAW!!! - The Laken Riley Act Is Law!
                                              DACA ENDED - SUPPORT AZ HCR 2060 52R - email: brassballz-at-techie.com

                                              Comment

                                              • PR_Glen
                                                Confirmed User
                                                • Oct 2006
                                                • 9058

                                                #24
                                                Originally posted by u-Bob
                                                "A desire for privacy does not imply shameful secrets; Moglen argues, again and again, that without anonymity in discourse, free speech is impossible, and hence also democracy. The right to speak the truth to power does not shield the speaker from the consequences of doing so; only comparable power or anonymity can do that."
                                                ― Nick Harkaway, The Blind Giant
                                                do you only speak with other peoples words now or do you not have any opinions of your own any more?

                                                speaking in complete anonymity sounds cowardly to me.
                                                webmaster at pimproll dot com

                                                Comment

                                                • Joe Obenberger
                                                  Confirmed User
                                                  • May 2003
                                                  • 466

                                                  #25
                                                  Originally posted by epitome
                                                  Interesting. I knew the Federalist Papers were anonymous and a precursor to our rights today, but didn't know they are the baseline that the Supreme Court uses.
                                                  Quotations from the Federalist Papers are frequent and abundant in the decisions of the Supreme Court. I looked for a fast example in the cases that I set out on my site, and the first to come up is the Burger-Rhenquist dissent in Schad: http://www.xxxlaw.com/cases/schad-ephraim.html

                                                  When you think about it, it should not be any surprise that they are influential to the courts in understanding the Constitution. They were written with the motive of influencing the states to ratify the Constitution and were written by the leading intellectual lights of the revolutionary generation, people who had a hand in banging out the Constitution at Independence Hall in Philadelphia - at a time long before otherwise intelligent people started to argue about who made the best cheese steak sandwich in that town.


                                                  Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice. . . Restraint in the pursuit of Justice is no virtue.
                                                  Senator Barry Goldwater, 1964

                                                  Comment

                                                  • epitome
                                                    So Fucking Lame
                                                    • Jun 2009
                                                    • 12156

                                                    #26
                                                    OMG now Philly Cheese Steaks are being mentioned in this thread! I can't escape it.

                                                    Getting a great cheese steak in Fort Lauderdale is near impossible.

                                                    What I really, really, really miss since I am from the Baltimore suburbs is pit beef sandwiches. I want to open a chain of road side stands down here just so I don't have to go without them.

                                                    Now about anonymous speech. Your speech online is not typically anonymous. Make a physical threat to a certain someone and they will find you unless you go to great extent to cover your tracks. If you make a threat like that you should be tracked down and dealt with.

                                                    What is in jeopardy with this law is to be able to make a statement for or against something without your name being attached. We should absolutely have that right to express our opinion anonymously. That right should not ever be taken from us.

                                                    Comment

                                                    • bigluv
                                                      Confirmed User
                                                      • Jul 2008
                                                      • 850

                                                      #27
                                                      Originally posted by PR_Glen
                                                      do you only speak with other peoples words now or do you not have any opinions of your own any more?

                                                      speaking in complete anonymity sounds cowardly to me.
                                                      How about in china where if they find you speaking against the government they put you in jail or torture you or punish your family etcetera etcetera. Still think its cowardly?

                                                      Comment

                                                      • bigluv
                                                        Confirmed User
                                                        • Jul 2008
                                                        • 850

                                                        #28
                                                        Originally posted by JohnnyClips
                                                        How about in amerika where you go to jail if you have the wrong vegetation in your pocket?
                                                        The fact they let a mental case such as yourself run around free is actually testament to things not being so bad in the USA in regard to totalitarianism.

                                                        Comment

                                                        • bean-aid
                                                          So Fucking Banned
                                                          • Jun 2011
                                                          • 16493

                                                          #29
                                                          great worthless thread again. bf... better start posting something or my mexican ass is going to kick your ass

                                                          Comment

                                                          • martinsc
                                                            Too lazy to set a custom title
                                                            • Jun 2005
                                                            • 27043

                                                            #30
                                                            Originally posted by 2012
                                                            selectively
                                                            Make Money

                                                            Comment

                                                            • epitome
                                                              So Fucking Lame
                                                              • Jun 2009
                                                              • 12156

                                                              #31
                                                              Originally posted by beaner
                                                              great worthless thread again. bf... better start posting something or my mexican ass is going to kick your ass
                                                              32 posts, discussion, history and the weighing in of a highly respected industry attorney.

                                                              Hardly worthless. Did BF piss in your Wheaties?

                                                              I guess you're not interested because it's not a billing conspiracy?

                                                              Comment

                                                              • u-Bob
                                                                there's no $$$ in porn
                                                                • Jul 2005
                                                                • 33063

                                                                #32
                                                                Originally posted by PR_Glen
                                                                do you only speak with other peoples words now or do you not have any opinions of your own any more?
                                                                Oh don't worry, I've got plenty of ideas of my own. And as I've demonstrated plenty of times on this board, I'm not afraid to speak my mind.

                                                                When I resort to copy/pasting from my quote file, it's either a (lack of) time thing or to make a point. There used to be a time when people were still very much aware of their rights and who worked for who. These days, it seems, a lot of people seem very eager to let others violate their rights. Where once people knew the government worked for them and got its power from their consent, they now seem more than willing to let that government run every aspect of their lives. When I dig up old quotes, in this case, it's an attempt to remind people of a time when government wasn't their keeper but their servant.

                                                                speaking in complete anonymity sounds cowardly to me.
                                                                Are soldiers who wear body armor in combat cowards? Wouldn't it be more courageous to face the enemy without a bulletproof vest?

                                                                Speaking once mind can be a dangerous thing. Pissing off the wrong people can have serious consequences. In a time when mentioning the health benefits of vitamins can get you into trouble with the FDA or mentioning that drinking water can prevent dehydration is illegal in the EU, hiding your identity is not unnecessarily a sign of cowardliness, but more likely a sign of prudence.

                                                                To save some time I'll paste a recent blog post by tellfred:
                                                                ANONYMOUS - A Proud American Tradition
                                                                Who wins when individuals challenge the ruling class. When they exercise their natural rights to free speech. When they ask questions and get ridiculed, mocked and threatened. When they are retaliated against by having their livelihood taken from them. Shouldn't "Common Sense" prevail as it did in Thomas Paine's vivid defense of liberty through the use of pamphleteering.

                                                                What conditions compelled so many of America's founding fathers and ordinary citizens to write thousands upon thousands of pamphlets that were sold and distributed throughout the colonies. "It was in this form - as pamphlets - that much of the most important and characteristic writing of the American Revolution appeared," writes Harvard University historian Bernard Bailyn. American patriots opposed attempts to require anonymous authors to reveal their identities. They needed the freedom to express themselves without fear of retaliation from King George III of England.

                                                                Many of the essays in the Federalist Papers were published under the name "Publius". Who shared this pen name? John Jay, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton is also known to have written several newspaper essays under the veil of anonymity using a variety of names taken from characters from ancient Rome. "Candidus" a name used by Baptist minister Benjamin Austin, also authored some of the Federalist Papers. Ever hear these names from your American history classes: "Silence Dogood," "the Busy-Body," "Obadiah Plainman," "Robin Good-fellow," "Richard Saunders," and of course, "Poor Richard" as in "Poor Richard's Almanack." These were pseudonyms of American patriot Benjamin Franklin. Our second President of the United States, John Adams, often used the pseudonym (just another name for anonymous) "Novanglus" and "Clarendan.

                                                                Early American patriots were fearful of arrest and punishment as severe as death. Today's American patriots who choose to speak out anonymously, are doing so out of fear of a darker more contemptuous punishment, being starved to death by the modern King George III's, who are often times their employer or union.

                                                                And what of the Anonymous today? They fear for their family, their jobs, their homes, their friends and co-workers. That's a lot to put at risk as our founding fathers fully recognized.
                                                                Last edited by u-Bob; 05-25-2012, 04:16 AM.

                                                                Comment

                                                                • DamianJ
                                                                  Too lazy to set a custom title
                                                                  • Jul 2006
                                                                  • 15808

                                                                  #33
                                                                  Originally posted by Paul Markham
                                                                  In essence it's a good idea. Why should someone come on here and bully, abuse and defame others.
                                                                  True. At least you put your own name on your posts when you bully, abuse and defame others. As well as all the lies.

                                                                  You may be a nasty little liar, but you are man enough to stand behind your own name.

                                                                  Well done.

                                                                  Comment

                                                                  • Vendzilla
                                                                    Biker Gnome
                                                                    • Mar 2004
                                                                    • 23200

                                                                    #34
                                                                    Originally posted by epitome
                                                                    I think it is ironic that it's a push by Republicans who are against anything that would violate the second amendment but could care less about the first.

                                                                    The Federalist Papers probably wouldn't have been written if they had to sign their names to them.
                                                                    I don't think it's just the republicans, sounds like they all want this.

                                                                    http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-574...?tag=mncol;txt
                                                                    Carbon is not the problem, it makes up 0.041% of our atmosphere , 95% of that is from Volcanos and decomposing plants and stuff. So people in the US are responsible for 13% of the carbon in the atmosphere which 95% is not from Humans, like cars and trucks and stuff and they want to spend trillions to fix it while Solar Panel plants are powered by coal plants
                                                                    think about that

                                                                    Comment

                                                                    • PR_Glen
                                                                      Confirmed User
                                                                      • Oct 2006
                                                                      • 9058

                                                                      #35
                                                                      Originally posted by u-Bob
                                                                      Oh don't worry, I've got plenty of ideas of my own. And as I've demonstrated plenty of times on this board, I'm not afraid to speak my mind.

                                                                      When I resort to copy/pasting from my quote file, it's either a (lack of) time thing or to make a point. There used to be a time when people were still very much aware of their rights and who worked for who. These days, it seems, a lot of people seem very eager to let others violate their rights. Where once people knew the government worked for them and got its power from their consent, they now seem more than willing to let that government run every aspect of their lives. When I dig up old quotes, in this case, it's an attempt to remind people of a time when government wasn't their keeper but their servant.



                                                                      Are soldiers who wear body armor in combat cowards? Wouldn't it be more courageous to face the enemy without a bulletproof vest?

                                                                      Speaking once mind can be a dangerous thing. Pissing off the wrong people can have serious consequences. In a time when mentioning the health benefits of vitamins can get you into trouble with the FDA or mentioning that drinking water can prevent dehydration is illegal in the EU, hiding your identity is not unnecessarily a sign of cowardliness, but more likely a sign of prudence.

                                                                      To save some time I'll paste a recent blog post by tellfred:
                                                                      did you just compare internet trolls to soldiers... that's fucking sick... whats the matter with you?

                                                                      you were better off doing the cut and paste thing..
                                                                      webmaster at pimproll dot com

                                                                      Comment

                                                                      • PR_Glen
                                                                        Confirmed User
                                                                        • Oct 2006
                                                                        • 9058

                                                                        #36
                                                                        Originally posted by bigluv
                                                                        How about in china where if they find you speaking against the government they put you in jail or torture you or punish your family etcetera etcetera. Still think its cowardly?
                                                                        again.. comparing someone standing up for their human rights to a troll posting that a kid should kill himself because he is a fucking loser is complete idiocy.


                                                                        troll? bully? anonymous? coward, there is no argument.
                                                                        webmaster at pimproll dot com

                                                                        Comment

                                                                        • u-Bob
                                                                          there's no $$$ in porn
                                                                          • Jul 2005
                                                                          • 33063

                                                                          #37
                                                                          Originally posted by PR_Glen
                                                                          did you just compare internet trolls to soldiers... that's fucking sick... whats the matter with you?
                                                                          No, I said that protecting yourself against danger is not cowardly but prudent. I doesn't matter if the danger comes from bullets flying around, the Stasi knocking on your door, the FDA raiding you because you claimed that vitamins are good for your health, extremely religious neighbors who don't like pornographers, hooligans that hate the football team that you support, Mexican gangs that kidnap wealthy individuals,...

                                                                          Danger comes in all forms and shapes... and so do the means you can use to protect yourself. Anonymity and shielding your identify are tools/tactics you can use to protect yourself. Using them does not say or prove anything about the morality, level of courage or integrity of the individual who uses them.

                                                                          Comment

                                                                          • u-Bob
                                                                            there's no $$$ in porn
                                                                            • Jul 2005
                                                                            • 33063

                                                                            #38
                                                                            Originally posted by PR_Glen
                                                                            again.. comparing someone standing up for their human rights to a troll posting that a kid should kill himself because he is a fucking loser is complete idiocy.


                                                                            troll? bully? anonymous? coward, there is no argument.
                                                                            No one here questions the lack of integrity of a troll or bully, but that's not what this is about.

                                                                            This is about legislators introducing a law that is essentially identical to what oppressive regimes like the Chinese government have installed to silence opposition. The fact that they are trying to sell this as "a way to protect the children", doesn't change the fact that it's unconstitutional, violates people's right to free speech, opens the door to all kinds of abuse,...

                                                                            Comment

                                                                            • Freaky_Akula
                                                                              Confirmed User
                                                                              • Oct 2005
                                                                              • 3670

                                                                              #39
                                                                              First they came for the hackers. But I never did anything illegal with my computer, so I didn't speak up. Then they came for the pornographers. But I thought there was too much smut on the Internet anyway, so I didn't speak up. Then they came for the anonymous remailers. But a lot of nasty stuff gets sent from anon.penet.fi, so I didn't speak up. Then they came for the encryption users. But I could never figure out how to work pgp5 anyway, so I didn't speak up. Then they came for the trolls. But I never liked Paul Markham, prono jew or Baddog, so I didn't speak up. Then they came for me. And by that time there was no one left to speak up.

                                                                              Comment

                                                                              • L-Pink
                                                                                working on my tan
                                                                                • Mar 2005
                                                                                • 39151

                                                                                #40
                                                                                Originally posted by Freaky_Akula
                                                                                First they came for the hackers. But I never did anything illegal with my computer, so I didn't speak up. Then they came for the pornographers. But I thought there was too much smut on the Internet anyway, so I didn't speak up. Then they came for the anonymous remailers. But a lot of nasty stuff gets sent from anon.penet.fi, so I didn't speak up. Then they came for the encryption users. But I could never figure out how to work pgp5 anyway, so I didn't speak up. Then they came for the trolls. But I never liked Paul Markham, prono jew or Baddog, so I didn't speak up. Then they came for me. And by that time there was no one left to speak up.


                                                                                .

                                                                                Comment

                                                                                • KingNigel
                                                                                  Confirmed User
                                                                                  • Aug 2006
                                                                                  • 1756

                                                                                  #41
                                                                                  http://www.decryptedtech.com/index.p...ing&Itemid=139
                                                                                  OKPay Sponsors
                                                                                  Load your OKPay account directly with Moneybookers, Liqpay, Bitcoin, Cashu, RBK Money,... No need for a 3rd party exchanger.
                                                                                  Payment gateway modules for OSCommerce, Zen-Cart, VirtueMart, cubecart, 3dcart,... available. Find out more.

                                                                                  Comment

                                                                                  • Barry-xlovecam
                                                                                    It's 42
                                                                                    • Jun 2010
                                                                                    • 18083

                                                                                    #42
                                                                                    Anonymous speech is protected speech by the US Courts unless that anonymous speech is tortuous or criminal (unlawful speech).

                                                                                    Comment

                                                                                    • KingNigel
                                                                                      Confirmed User
                                                                                      • Aug 2006
                                                                                      • 1756

                                                                                      #43
                                                                                      Violet Blue: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-574...line-comments/
                                                                                      OKPay Sponsors
                                                                                      Load your OKPay account directly with Moneybookers, Liqpay, Bitcoin, Cashu, RBK Money,... No need for a 3rd party exchanger.
                                                                                      Payment gateway modules for OSCommerce, Zen-Cart, VirtueMart, cubecart, 3dcart,... available. Find out more.

                                                                                      Comment

                                                                                      • Fap
                                                                                        Just Du It
                                                                                        • Feb 2004
                                                                                        • 12094

                                                                                        #44
                                                                                        Anyone have a non-sketchy source?

                                                                                        Comment

                                                                                        • u-Bob
                                                                                          there's no $$$ in porn
                                                                                          • Jul 2005
                                                                                          • 33063

                                                                                          #45
                                                                                          Originally posted by Fap
                                                                                          Anyone have a non-sketchy source?
                                                                                          Wired, EPJ, CNET, Business Insider, CBS,...

                                                                                          Comment

                                                                                          • Barry-xlovecam
                                                                                            It's 42
                                                                                            • Jun 2010
                                                                                            • 18083

                                                                                            #46
                                                                                            http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-986.ZO.html

                                                                                            Comment

                                                                                            • Rochard
                                                                                              Jägermeister Test Pilot
                                                                                              • Dec 2001
                                                                                              • 75770

                                                                                              #47
                                                                                              Originally posted by u-Bob
                                                                                              What if I send an anonymous letter and don't write a return address on the back of the envelope?
                                                                                              That seems to be okay.

                                                                                              I get their point. It's too easy for anyone to start harassing people on line. A lot of people are mentally unstable. I post on a lot of auto related message boards, and one a few boards people were pretty vindictive. I saw lots of threats rolling around.
                                                                                              Herschel Savage
                                                                                              Brooklyn, NY

                                                                                              Comment

                                                                                              • Barry-xlovecam
                                                                                                It's 42
                                                                                                • Jun 2010
                                                                                                • 18083

                                                                                                #48
                                                                                                MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, concurring.

                                                                                                In judging the validity of municipal action affecting rights of speech or association protected against invasion by the Fourteenth Amendment, I do not believe that we can escape, as Mr. Justice Roberts said in Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147, 161 , "the delicate and difficult task" of weighing "the circumstances" and appraising "the substantiality of the reasons advanced in support of the regulation of the free enjoyment of" speech. More recently we have said that state action impinging on free speech and association will not be sustained unless the governmental interest asserted to support such impingement is compelling. See N. A. A. C. P. v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 463 , 464; Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234, 265 (concurring opinion); see also Bates v. Little Rock, 361 U.S. 516 .

                                                                                                Here the State says that this ordinance is aimed at the prevention of "fraud, deceit, false advertising, negligent use of words, obscenity, and libel," in that it will aid in the detection of those responsible for spreading material of that character
                                                                                                . But the ordinance is not so limited, and I think it will not do for the State simply to say that the circulation of all anonymous handbills must be suppressed in order to identify the distributors of those that may be of an obnoxious character. In the absence of a more substantial showing as to Los Angeles' actual experience with the distribution of obnoxious handbills, * such a [362 U.S. 60, 67] generality is for me too remote to furnish a constitutionally acceptable justification for the deterrent effect on free speech which this all-embracing ordinance is likely to have.

                                                                                                On these grounds I concur in the judgment of the Court.

                                                                                                http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...l=362&invol=60
                                                                                                It's an election year ... Harassment and Defamation are unlawful speech now -- he (the NY Legislator) just wants some attention.
                                                                                                Last edited by Barry-xlovecam; 05-25-2012, 09:56 AM.

                                                                                                Comment

                                                                                                • epitome
                                                                                                  So Fucking Lame
                                                                                                  • Jun 2009
                                                                                                  • 12156

                                                                                                  #49
                                                                                                  Originally posted by Vendzilla
                                                                                                  I don't think it's just the republicans, sounds like they all want this.

                                                                                                  http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-574...?tag=mncol;txt
                                                                                                  I guess we will see when they vote on it. The news article posted (and those I read on my own) said introduced by Republicans and quotes them. This commentary piece you posted by someone that doesn't use their real name says both parties and quotes a Republican.

                                                                                                  Democrats that vote for it don't get a free pass.

                                                                                                  Comment

                                                                                                  • ottopottomouse
                                                                                                    She is ugly, bad luck.
                                                                                                    • Jan 2010
                                                                                                    • 13177

                                                                                                    #50
                                                                                                    Can't work until everybody in the world has a unique name. Or a number.

                                                                                                    ↑ see post ↑
                                                                                                    13101

                                                                                                    Comment

                                                                                                    Working...