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

[+ Lucky]

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.

 

Could someone please explain that first sentence? Was RockHard dreaming of the right dinner to attend? Or, are we supposed to come away with the thought that HE was at that table, without him ever coming right out and saying I hang out with lawyers who work for the presidential campaign (Romney?) or major media companies (FOX?)? If most people know what slander implies, then why did he misuse the word? (And then have to make a correction for Lucky? hehe)

 

Now we are into terrorist stuff too. The ante is upped! RockHard is probably at dinner with Mossad this moment!

[BewareofNick]

Could someone please explain that first sentence? Was RockHard dreaming of the right dinner to attend? Or, are we supposed to come away with the thought that HE was at that table, without him ever coming right out and saying I hang out with lawyers who work for the presidential campaign (Romney?) or major media companies (FOX?)? If most people know what slander implies, then why did he misuse the word? (And then have to make a correction for Lucky? hehe)

 

Now we are into terrorist stuff too. The ante is upped! RockHard is probably at dinner with Mossad this moment!

 

I thought he had dinner with Liza on Sundays?

[orbital sander]

Could someone please explain that first sentence? Was RockHard dreaming of the right dinner to attend? Or, are we supposed to come away with the thought that HE was at that table, without him ever coming right out and saying I hang out with lawyers who work for the presidential campaign (Romney?) or major media companies (FOX?)? If most people know what slander implies, then why did he misuse the word? (And then have to make a correction for Lucky? hehe)

 

Now we are into terrorist stuff too. The ante is upped! RockHard is probably at dinner with Mossad this moment!

 

:D Lol!

[down_to_business]

If any court would uphold the constitutionality of this act it is the John Roberts court. The vote would be 5-4 with Justice Kennedy being the deciding factor (not sure which way he votes either).

 

I am not saying I agree with the act at all, but I do not see anything in the constitution that guarantees the right to post anonymously. In the mean time every anonymous message board would shut down because the cost to the website owners would be astronomical (in terms of time and potential costs).

[orbital sander]

If any court would uphold the constitutionality of this act it is the John Roberts court. The vote would be 5-4 with Justice Kennedy being the deciding factor (not sure which way he votes either).

 

I am not saying I agree with the act at all, but I do not see anything in the constitution that guarantees the right to post anonymously. In the mean time every anonymous message board would shut down because the cost to the website owners would be astronomical (in terms of time and potential costs).

 

IF..... it ever got that far, they would all be worm food by the time it reached the court.

[Lookin]

Perhaps Daddy could move the site to Romania.

 

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-IPxb8YeuDWM/TzoQq4-fSWI/AAAAAAAAE58/gydYReL7Bg0/s1600/Alex-ceobanu-16.jpg

 

We could start having erections too. I know I could. http://www.maleescortreview.com/forum/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif

[bigvalboy]

Aaaah yes...those Romanian boys, great idea 'Lookin'. We could have annual meetings there. Ok, I need a cigarette.

[BostonPhil]

I am not saying I agree with the act at all, but I do not see anything in the constitution that guarantees the right to post anonymously.

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

 

Requiring identification for speech would be seen as abridging.

[uwsman2]

I agree, there would be a serious constitutional challenge to this law, not only on 1st Amendment grounds, but also I think NY would probably be preempted by federal law from attempting to regulate the internet in this way.

[down_to_business]

I agree, there would be a serious constitutional challenge to this law, not only on 1st Amendment grounds, but also I think NY would probably be preempted by federal law from attempting to regulate the internet in this way.

 

I don't think the interpretation of free speech equals anonymous speech will hold. They are not limiting your right to post to the internet, only your ability to do it anonymously. I am not a constitutional lawyer, so my interpretation isn't necessarily right.

 

I think a better constitutional argument might be your other point, that federal law would trump state law or that New York lacks the standing to regulate interstate or international commerce-- but again not convinced this doesn't stand up in the John Roberts led Supreme Court.

 

I guess only time will tell.

 

Oh and damn.. I want to go to Romania now!

[RockHard]

Rockhard's post is full of the 'Some say" bullshit that Fox "News" has popularized in order to further their propaganda.

 

Dude, step back from the edge. No one is "furthering their propaganda." Daddy will be here for you next week. Don't worry. Be happy.

 

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

 

I didn't get that impression, either.

 

Come on guys, this will never see the light of day.

 

That's what artists said about copyright law and little by little, changes that were once thought impossible, are seeing the light of day.

 

Could someone please explain that first sentence?

 

Well, dear, without your fabulous Quotes, nothing makes sense.

 

Was RockHard dreaming of the right dinner to attend?

 

RockHard makes dreams come true.

 

without him ever coming right out and saying I hang out with lawyers

 

I hang with lawyers, all kinds of lawyers. Some friends fascinate me.

 

If most people know what slander implies, then why did he misuse the word?

 

Had a "slander" article up on my second monitor as I wrote my post. I used the word by accident, thinking only an asshole lawyer with a small penis could complain about its incorrect usage.

 

(And then have to make a correction for Lucky?)

 

Never imagined.

 

I thought (RH) had dinner with Liza on Sundays?

 

Haven't had dinner with Liza in over 20 years. I can't hang with smokers anymore.

 

Requiring identification for speech would be seen as abridging.

 

I'm not convinced anonymous speech is protected. It can seem quite similar to yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, except you're on the internet. The laws of the internet are still evolving.

[+ Lucky]

No one puts more time into his posts than RockHard. Isn't it wonderful how he gave us each our due? And that part suggesting I have a small penis? I mean, isn't that the intellectual way of making an argument? Plus, he runs two computers at once. No internet addiction there. RockHard is truly one of my favorite posters.

[RockHard]

Dearest Lucky,

 

Two monitors does not mean two computers. I posted years ago that I work at a 2-monitor set-up for work. Have you forgotten that important detail? Nothing to do with an addiction, dear. Is cut-n-paste really that time consuming? I don't think so, especially if you know the shortcuts. As for your penis size, never imagined. I'm not a size-queen. Did you forget that, too?

 

And that part suggesting I have a small penis?

 

Maybe you didn't notice that I used the word "could" (complain) as opposed to "would." By using could, I "expressed the possibility" that some lawyer might speak up. I was careful to point a finger but not directly in your face.

 

isn't that the intellectual way of making an argument?

 

Who is arguing, dearest? Or would you prefer that I start a thread about dildos and their thickness?

 

Love you, dear.

[+ Lucky]

You can start a thread on anything you want, including why grown men might call each other dear. I have fun with your posts no matter the subject.

[RockHard]

why grown men might call each other dear?

 

I'm a product of sex in the 50's. Back then everyone was a dear. (Yes, I watch Mad Men.)

 

I have fun with your posts no matter the subject.

 

Ditto, dear.

[rguer]

I don't think the interpretation of free speech equals anonymous speech will hold. They are not limiting your right to post to the internet, only your ability to do it anonymously.

 

Anonymous speech was important to the founding fathers. For example, what we now call The Federalist Papers.

[Rick Munroe]

I'm a product of sex in the 50's. Back then everyone was a dear. (Yes, I watch Mad Men.)

 

Enough to know it takes place in the 60s?

[citylaw1]

I'm not convinced anonymous speech is protected. It can seem quite similar to yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, except you're on the internet. The laws of the internet are still evolving.

 

I'm not convinced either.

[BewareofNick]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

 

I know that with a majority of conservative justices there's reason to fear that the Supreme Court will whittle away at the First Amendment, but this law definitely abridges teh freedom of speech.

[Lookin]

And now in Idaho, a Republican Central Committee Chairwoman has gone to court to get the name of an anonymous poster who accused her of pocketing $10,000 in party funds. She's also asking for the identities of two other anonymous posters who questioned the allegations, so they can be called as witnesses. The judge is thinking it over.

 

 

Just to set the record straight (and I intend absolutely no value judgement in using this particular term), I'd like to take this opportunity to confirm that I consider all of my fellow-posters here, without exception, to be trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent. Unless, of course, they would prefer not to be characterized as such, in which case, fine by me, and it's all good. http://www.maleescortreview.com/forum/public/style_emoticons/default/hug.gif

 

 

And, finally, if anyone should take the slightest umbrage at any perfectly innocent comment I might have made in the past or may inadvertently let slip in the future, I remain secure in the knowledge that Deej and Daddy will prove unswervingly discreet and close-lipped and would never give me up without a fight. http://www.maleescortreview.com/forum/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif

 

. . . . . http://www.fortworthchamber.com/images/newz/20090318/bird.gif

[instudiocity]

in Idaho[/url][/u], a Republican Central Committee Chairwoman has gone to court to get the name of an anonymous poster who accused her of pocketing $10,000 in party funds. She's also asking for the identities of two other anonymous posters who questioned the allegations, so they can be called as witnesses. The judge is thinking it over.

Is everybody paying attention? The judge is considering ordering the websites where the anonymous posters posted to give up their identities.

 

FYI, I'm unaware of any website that I do business with or post to by name or Anonymously that isn't linked to my Facebook or Google identities or has my basic contact information - at least my name, email and phone number - INCLUDING m4m-forum.org.

[seeker630]

Is everybody paying attention? The judge is considering ordering the websites where the anonymous posters posted to give up their identities.

 

FYI, I'm unaware of any website that I do business with or post to by name or Anonymously that isn't linked to my Facebook or Google identities or has my basic contact information - at least my name, email and phone number - INCLUDING m4m-forum.org.

 

Doesn't this already happen in criminal investigations? (although this appears to be civil). I'm a bit torn here. but it seems to be about accountability for libel, and not a freedom-of-speech issue.

[instudiocity]

Doesn't this already happen in criminal investigations? (although this appears to be civil). I'm a bit torn here. but it seems to be about accountability for libel, and not a freedom-of-speech issue.

I'm in the same boat with ya. I was thinking about 18th Century Pamphleteering and the often libelous things published back then. Even the Federalist Papers, supposedly written anonymously are tied to their authors today. I'm reading a book about Thomas Jefferson by William Safire called Scandalmonger - our third president a scandalmonger!

 

So Freedom of Speech seems to be available - anonymously - to us all - while yet in the public square our person may appear and in the Internet space our handle. I can't see where the New York bill would take away a freedom we haven't already given up. In order to speak, we have to have a forum and in that forum we are identifiable either by our appearance, our name, our nickname even our manner of speaking.

 

At the same time, I'm not sure how our Internet speech could be called anonymous, either. Everybody knows my handle. The proprietors of the forum have my handle tied to my name, email and phone number, so how the hell can I be anonymous?

[RockHard]

The proprietors of the forum have my handle tied to my name, email and phone number, so how the hell can I be anonymous?

 

You're kidding, right?

 

Since when does any site and/or Yahoo or Gmail require legal I.D. to sign up? Every free internet email account that I use has completely fictitious information attached to it. The same is true for 99% of forum registrations. I never give my out my correct phone number to anyone I don't know and trust. My cable bill, which includes my IP address is not in my name. There better be proof of a serious crime before I give up my anonymity, or I'll quit this diversion.

[BewareofNick]

Is everybody paying attention? The judge is considering ordering the websites where the anonymous posters posted to give up their identities.

 

FYI, I'm unaware of any website that I do business with or post to by name or Anonymously that isn't linked to my Facebook or Google identities or has my basic contact information - at least my name, email and phone number - INCLUDING m4m-forum.org.

 

You'll note yet another assault on free speech by a Republican. I'll never understand why the GOP has such disdain for the Constitution.