New York To Ban Anonymous Posts?

[Barefootsies]

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

[u-Bob]

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

[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.

[Best-In-BC]

Yeah, thats a bright idea, ROFL, poke the Dragon

[bigluv]

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?

[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.

[CyberHustler]

How are they thinking about enforcing that?

[2012]

Originally Posted by CyberHustler

How are they thinking about enforcing that?

selectively

[epitome]

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.

[epitome]

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.

[VS_Jeff]

Isn't this what the internet is for?? Politicians trying to take all the fun out of everything...

[$5 submissions]

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.

[L-Pink]

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

[- Jesus Christ -]

Originally Posted by L-Pink

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

this

[LiveDose]

Wow, these political freaks never cease to amaze.

[mromro]

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.

[mchacal]

Couldn't care less about NY legislation

[Paul Markham]

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.

[u-Bob]

"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

[u-Bob]

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.

[PR_Glen]

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?

[u-Bob]

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

[brassmonkey]

the government is trying to chip away at your freedom.

[PR_Glen]

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.

[Joe Obenberger]

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.

[epitome]

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.

[bigluv]

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?

[bigluv]

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.

[bean-aid]

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

[martinsc]

Originally Posted by 2012

selectively

[epitome]

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?

[u-Bob]

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.

[DamianJ]

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.

[Vendzilla]

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

[PR_Glen]

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..

[PR_Glen]

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.

[u-Bob]

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.

[u-Bob]

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,...

[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.

[L-Pink]

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.

.

[KingNigel]

http://www.decryptedtech.com/index.p...ing&Itemid=139

[Barry-xlovecam]

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

[KingNigel]

Violet Blue: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-574...line-comments/

[Fap]

Anyone have a non-sketchy source?

[u-Bob]

Originally Posted by Fap

Anyone have a non-sketchy source?

Wired, EPJ, CNET, Business Insider, CBS,...

[Barry-xlovecam]

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

[Rochard]

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.

[Barry-xlovecam]

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]

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.

[ottopottomouse]

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