GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   New York To Ban Anonymous Posts? (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1069119)

KingNigel 05-25-2012 07:13 AM
http://www.decryptedtech.com/index.p...ing&Itemid=139

Barry-xlovecam 05-25-2012 07:33 AM
Anonymous speech is protected speech by the US Courts unless that anonymous speech is tortuous or criminal (unlawful speech).

KingNigel 05-25-2012 07:57 AM
Violet Blue: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-574...line-comments/

Fap 05-25-2012 10:21 AM
Anyone have a non-sketchy source?

u-Bob 05-25-2012 10:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fap (Post 18964989)
Anyone have a non-sketchy source?
Wired, EPJ, CNET, Business Insider, CBS,...

Barry-xlovecam 05-25-2012 10:32 AM
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-986.ZO.html

Rochard 05-25-2012 10:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by u-Bob (Post 18961811)
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.

Barry-xlovecam 05-25-2012 10:55 AM
Quote:
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.

epitome 05-25-2012 11:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 18964512)
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.

ottopottomouse 05-25-2012 11:15 AM
Can't work until everybody in the world has a unique name. Or a number.

http://i.imgur.com/bfyZq.png

u-Bob 05-25-2012 11:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 18965046)
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.
I'd say that's another reason to hide your identity online... to prevent the hotheads from showing up at your home.

tmx007 05-25-2012 12:09 PM
I'm a very much against any form of internet censorship.
(well expect stuff that is clearly wrong of immoral - IE rape, child obscenity, etc..)

I was talking with a friend about it a while ago. SOPA & PIPA weren't the first attempts at internet censorship, & they won't be the last. We have CISPA up now too... All they do is try to pass a bill, then when it fails, rewrite it and make it look more friendly...

In the end, it doesn't matter what exactly the bill targets, because a little bit of censorship power basically equates to all the censorship power they need...
If they don't like you (whether it be for political reasons, social, or otherwise..) you're screwed...




Quote:
Originally Posted by 2012 (Post 18961924)
Quote:
Originally Posted by CyberHustler (Post 18961910)
How are they thinking about enforcing that?
selectively :winkwink:
^^

tmx007 05-25-2012 12:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ottopottomouse (Post 18965096)
Can't work until everybody in the world has a unique name. Or a number.
sigh,... yep.......

Quote:
Originally Posted by u-Bob (Post 18965109)
I'd say that's another reason to hide your identity online... to prevent the hotheads from showing up at your home.
& yep...


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:18 AM.
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123