The end to anonymous message boards... possibly in new York

[down_to_business]

Anonymous Comment Ban: Internet Protection Act Threatens Online Anonymity For New York-Based Websites

 

Summarized: “…if someone doesn’t like your comment the Web site will be legally bound to make you reveal your identity. The accused commenter will also be required to verify that his or her “IP address, legal name and home address are accurate’.”

 

if New York State legislation dubbed the Internet Protection Act passes as planned, anonymous online speech will be banned on New York-based websites. The bill was quietly introduced in both chambers of New York's legislature to combat cyberbullying.

 

The legislation requires that the web administrator of any New York-based site, including blogs, social networks, online publications and message boards, "remove any comments posted on his or her website by an anonymous poster unless such anonymous poster agrees to attach his or her name to the post," upon request.

***

At least this would curtail internet trolls I guess, but I think it would do this by completely killing anonymous message boards.

 

Thoughts?

[RockHard]

This came up in a conversation just the other day. I'm told this may be the future for internet forum participation across the country. Cyber bullies aren't the only reason. IMO, if it becomes law in every state in America, this site will cease to exist. I can't imagine anyone wanting to use their legal name on this board.

[unsub2O17]

This came up in a conversation just the other day. I'm told this may be the future for internet forum participation across the country. Cyber bullies aren't the only reason. IMO, if it becomes law in every state in America, this site will cease to exist. I can't imagine anyone wanting to use their legal name on this board.

 

I agree! I think that this is absolutely terrible! It's "Big Brother" rearing its head.

[bigvalboy]

I think that 'Free Speech Groups' would certainly challenge this in court. It would probably take years to litigate. I can't imagine who would monitor or decide who was in violation of the law. If however, something like this was enacted, it most certainly would be the end to much of these kinds of anonymous boards.

 

I posted something similar awhile back on Arizona's attempt to monitor cyber bullying. It will be interesting to see if any of these ideas catch fire.

[rguer]

Somewhat facetious blog about this:

 

http://www.animalnewyork.com/2012/why-trolling-needs-to-be-legal/

[bigvalboy]

Very very funny...thank you rguer. No one wants to unleash a plague of Trolls on us. It is perfect Troll containment. I loved it.

[BewareofNick]

The law will be challenged almost immediately in court. It has a chilling affect on free speech and I believe it will be found unconstitutional. Naturally, this bill is being sponsored and put forth by Republicans. The GOP has treated the Constitution like toilet paper since Sept.11th and have long had an intense hatred of the Constitution in general. It's not surprising that they would be doing this as conservatives generally hate free speech.

[seeker630]

Very scary! I would HOPE such a law would be unconstitutional, but I'm not sure. In the end, it comes down to interpretation of the Constitution.

[JT Brooklyn]

Year's ago when Rentboy was having problems with a couple of wack job "anonymous characters" who would just go on and on with their Message Board..they just simply shut it down!

 

Old Lore has it that it was an Inmate with Computer Privilages! I'm thinking with some Threads lately he may still be using those Privilages!

[RockHard]

It has a chilling affect on free speech and I believe it will be found unconstitutional...Conservatives generally hate free speech.

 

Interesting. I hear the law has bipartisan support, and a lot of it. Major support among men and women. I also hear it won't affect free speech in the least. No one will be prohibited from saying anything. You just can't say it anonymously. Which means, if you publish slander, you can be sued for slander. I see a lot of people and businesses seeing this as a good thing.

[maxwellissmart]

Interesting. I hear the law has bipartisan support, and a lot of it. Major support among men and women. I also hear it won't affect free speech in the least. No one will be prohibited from saying anything. You just can't say it anonymously. Which means, if you publish slander, you can be sued for slander. I see a lot of people and businesses seeing this as a good thing.

 

Well it's not like they can't find out fairly easily who anyone is these days via IP addresses and MAC numbers for devices.

[unsub2O17]

The problem with laws that are supposed to curb abuses is that they often end up being abused and become even more abusive themselves. Not only is this an issue of free speech and constitutionality. But what about simple privacy?

[+ Lucky]

Reading RockHard's two posts in tandem, one wonders just who he has been talking to!

 

[QUOTING ROCKHARD= This came up in a conversation just the other day. I'm told this may be the future for internet forum participation across the country. QUOTE]

Interesting. I hear the law has bipartisan support, and a lot of it. Major support among men and women. I also hear it won't affect free speech in the least. No one will be prohibited from saying anything. You just can't say it anonymously. Which means, if you publish slander, you can be sued for slander. I see a lot of people and businesses seeing this as a good thing.

 

 

Yes, indeed. It all came up in a conversation the other day, and that certainly gives Rockhard's opinion heft. "I'm told" and "I hear" and "I see" always make for substantive argument.

 

Incidentally, one does not "publish" slander. To put it in writing makes it libel.

[+ Lucky]

The proposal is discussed in Time magazine, and even just reading about will make a lawyer feel money. I doubt that it stands a chance. Will the courts really want to become message board moderators? Because they would be under this law.

The real nasty people who cause harm to others beyond what thick skin can handle should be held accountable for any harm that results, and I believe a court can already order a website owner to disclose identifying information to prevent harm to others or to show evidence of a crime. I'll let Daddys lawyer earn that money though as I have not researched this issue, although it did come up in a conversation the other day....

 

http://techland.time.com/2012/05/24/the-new-york-bill-that-would-ban-anonymous-online-speech/

 

For comparison to what New York is proposing, here is Facebook's stated policy, which shows that privacy online yields to safety:

 

How does Facebook work with law enforcement?

We work with law enforcement where appropriate and to the extent required by law to ensure the safety of the people who use Facebook. We may disclose information pursuant to subpoenas, court orders, or other requests (including criminal and civil matters) if we have a good faith belief that the response is required by law. This may include respecting requests from jurisdictions outside of the United States where we have a good faith belief that the response is required by law under the local laws in that jurisdiction, apply to users from that jurisdiction, and are consistent with generally accepted international standards.

 

We may also share information when we have a good faith belief it is necessary to prevent fraud or other illegal activity, to prevent imminent bodily harm, or to protect ourselves and you from people violating our Statement of Rights and Responsibilities. This may include sharing information with other companies, lawyers, courts or other government entities.

[RockHard]

one wonders just who (RH) has been talking to

 

A table of gay guys, of whom two are lawyers; one works for the pres campaign in D.C., the other works for a CEO of a major media corp.

 

I'm not a lawyer and nor do I play one on TV (or at the DMV court). Most people know what "slander" implies. But Lucky is correct, in written form it legally becomes "libel."

 

This law was news to me at dinner, and my you've-got-to-be-kidding reaction was similar to some of the posts on this thread. They weren't kidding.

 

It seems the goal is to make America safer by shutting down anonymity. It seems certain cells communicate via web forums, and some of the communication is originated within U.S. borders. Making it difficult to hide your identity may help shut or slow such communications down.

 

If the forum arena loses trolls and cyber-bullies in the process, many voters see it as a win-win. I know I wouldn't miss the trolls, but clearly, some people enjoy them.

 

The only line missing from the Facebook policy is "legal name required for registration." We'll see what the future holds.

 

I don't even see a need to enforce this law because a simple threat of financial fine or site shut down, if a site owner does not comply, will send most forum owners running, or they'll take the law seriously and work within the system. Anyone wanna try to post an erection photo on this thread to see what happens?

 

Like I said, on other sites, I use my legal name to register. But given the subject matter here, I doubt many men would be willing to register with their legal name. Who knows how escort names would fit in, since most aren't registered as a business name.

[maxwellissmart]

A table of gay guys, of whom two are lawyers; one works for the pres campaign in D.C., the other works for a CEO of a major media corp.

 

Well obviously this means only one thing—I need to befriend Lucky and borrow his Rolodex. Rent is due.

[BewareofNick]

Rockhard's post is full of the 'Some say" bullshit that Fox "News" has popularized in order to further their propaganda. It generally works like this: O'Reilly or Hannity states an opinion on something or pushes one of Roger's talking points for the day. The alleged news shows then present the talking point as fact, using the "Some say" lead in without attributing it to one of the talk show hosts. If you believe in the Constitution, you cannot support this law. Government has no business restricting free speech except where the public safety is concerned (such as yelling fire or bomb in inappropriate places). People liking the law does not make it right, just as FNC being the highest rated cable news channel doesn't make it news. This will have a chilling affect on free speech. It is decidedly unAmerican and should be opposed vehemently.

[BostonPhil]

Never gonna happen.

 

https://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity

 

Also, cost prohibitive. Sites would have to require registration in order to do just about anything of worth. Not just forums but blogs and shopping sites.

 

Oh and terrorist cells, let us just call that what it is. Bull shit.

 

First, if they really wanted to know the names of people posting online it is very very easy. Making people use their real name would only cause these guys to use some one else's name. If they are are terrorists why the fuck would they not go out and steal some one's wallet for their ID? Oh, wait that is too obvious for these dumb ass politicians, or perhaps they think some one willing to kill wouldn't take the risk of lifting a wallet so they can open a twitter account. They are correct of course, the will get those terrorists. Unless the terrorists just decided to use a forum not hosted in New York or the United States, where they don't need to use their real name!

 

Two things really bother me about legislation like this, the excuse that it is to fight terrorism or the "Save the kids" child porn.

[seeker630]

Rockhard's post is full of the 'Some say" bullshit that Fox "News" has popularized in order to further their propaganda. It generally works like this: O'Reilly or Hannity states an opinion on something or pushes one of Roger's talking points for the day. The alleged news shows then present the talking point as fact, using the "Some say" lead in without attributing it to one of the talk show hosts. If you believe in the Constitution, you cannot support this law. Government has no business restricting free speech except where the public safety is concerned (such as yelling fire or bomb in inappropriate places). People liking the law does not make it right, just as FNC being the highest rated cable news channel doesn't make it news. This will have a chilling affect on free speech. It is decidedly unAmerican and should be opposed vehemently.

 

Interesting comment. I didn't get the impression that RH was in favor of it.

[orbital sander]

Come on guys, this will never see the light of day. If it did the uproar would be so massive that it would get killed immediately. (unless we were in some massive war or something so horrendous that it would not matter anyway...like an alien invasion, or Dolly Pardon's boobs fell off).

[seeker630]

Come on guys, this will never see the light of day. If it did the uproar would be so massive that it would get killed immediately. (unless we were in some massive war or something so horrendous that it would not matter anyway...like an alien invasion, or Dolly Pardon's boobs fell off).

 

I hope you're right, but do you think the average American really cares that much about this issue?

 

My state just joined the majority of states in enacting a ban on gay marriages, so maybe I'm not feeling that optimistic about the ethical beliefs of the majority or the political process.

[orbital sander]

I hope you're right, but do you think the average American really cares that much about this issue?

 

My state just joined the majority of states in enacting a ban on gay marriages, so maybe I'm not feeling that optimistic about the ethical beliefs of the majority or the political process.

 

The average American will care if it is ever enacted. It would never happen, this is just "button pushing", and as Phil pointed out, financially impossible.

 

Unfortunately, this is miles away from the ban on gay marriage. The lawyers would have a field day, and the internet industries that would be affected would crush it to DEATH if it ever got close to a reality, which it never will.

[seeker630]

The average American will care if it is ever enacted. It would never happen, this is just "button pushing", and as Phil pointed out, financially impossible.

 

Unfortunately, this is miles away from the ban on gay marriage. The lawyers would have a field day, and the internet industries that would be affected would crush it to DEATH if it ever got close to a reality, which it never will.

 

You're probably right - the opposition of big business would probably prevent it.

[BostonPhil]

The average American will care if it is ever enacted. It would never happen, this is just "button pushing", and as Phil pointed out, financially impossible.

 

Unfortunately, this is miles away from the ban on gay marriage. The lawyers would have a field day, and the internet industries that would be affected would crush it to DEATH if it ever got close to a reality, which it never will.

 

I can only imagine how Amazon would react after what they do regarding sales tax. Unfortunately, we here in the states think we own the internet and that it stops at borders.

[bigvalboy]

Come on guys, this will never see the light of day. If it did the uproar would be so massive that it would get killed immediately. (unless we were in some massive war or something so horrendous that it would not matter anyway...like an alien invasion, or Dolly Pardon's boobs fell off).

 

And this would be tied up in the courts for years. There are huge 'Freedom of Speech' issues at play here.