NJ Bill Would Prohibit Anonymous Posts on Forums 487
An anonymous reader writes "The New Jersey legislature is considering a bill that would require operators of public forums to collect users' legal names and addresses, and effectively disallow anonymous speech on online forums. This raises some serious issues, such as to what extent local and state governments can go in enacting and enforcing Internet legislation."
Ah, the sweet sweet sound... (Score:2, Interesting)
I was skiing this week with a friend of mine who manages a half-billion dollar investment fund. His skepticism about the US was withering. It will not be very long before the world economy interprets America, with its spaghetti of ludicrous, paranoiac IT legislation, DMCA bullshit and general hostility towards 'the other', as damage, and routes around it.
Maybe the last person in the US with a job which does not involve burgers could turn out the lights.
Re:I wonder what our Founders would think? (Score:1, Interesting)
At the same time.... (Score:4, Interesting)
At least with the First Amendment, they can get out of it by saying "It says "CONGRESS" shall make no law, not New Jersey."
Re:Brrrrrrr (Score:5, Interesting)
The bill does not define "reasonable" and it does not require a court to find that information posted is "false or defamatory".
And "false" information is not necessarily defamatory. Maybe if the bill said "False and defamatory" it'd stand a chance, because truth is an affirmative defense against charges of libel/slander.
I can scream defamation/libel at the top of my lungs and it doesn't matter for shit until a Judge says "yea, that was libel."
This Bill is poorly written from a legal standpoint, not just in it's comprehension of the internet.
two points. (Score:1, Interesting)
Every Slashdot user who read that headline probably thought immediatley of "anonymous coward" posts on Slashdot -- but this isn't about posting without a handle, it's about posting without your legal name and address on file! I'm not logged in, to make a point about New Jersey (I just pointed my cantenna across the state line to NJ - good thing I live on the eighth floor), but if I were logged in, I would still be making an "anonymous post".
2.
I do not think this word means what the submitter thinks it means.
Is it just me ... (Score:1, Interesting)
Granted this is at state level, and not federal, but when I see one 'asshat' politician thinking this is someway somehow 'representative of what their states people want', I think it is time for that politicians tenure* in office to be up.
The 'day' anything like this EVER gets passed in the U.S. (state or federal), is a day I become a ghost on the Internet.
So long 'Anonymous Coward'! I knew thee well
Re:A law isn't a law... (Score:5, Interesting)
How about an amendment to all the Constitutions with a 3 strikes and you're out law? If a law-maker votes for 3 bills that are later found to be unconstitutional, they're booted.
It amazes me how much junk makes it past the various Supreme Courts, though. Sure, this law might get tossed, but how many more make it to the books?
Re:Ummmm nothing to do with anonymous posting, rea (Score:5, Interesting)
The same can be said of anonymous pamphlets. The same has been done with anonymous pamphlets.
And yet, anonymous pamphlets have been very specifically ruled to be constititonally protected by the Supreme Court.
The cops' "need" to find people does not supersede the people's right to free expression, even anonymously.
Re:Also a way to shut people up (Score:3, Interesting)
As it happens, they're not, I doubt this bill could change that even if it became a law. 47 USC 230(c)(1) basically says that forums et al are not liable -- with regard to libel or slander, among other things -- for posts where the content was provided by someone else, generally the user who made the post.
This federal law trumps state law.
Re:How to enforce it (Score:2, Interesting)
Key points of the proposed bill:
So you're covered as long as you have a "registration required to post" setting. As resources are not readily available to give board operators the ability to validate any information submitted, this will be effectively unenforcable.
Re:Brrrrrrr (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Also a way to shut people up (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Frist post (Score:5, Interesting)
I would hate being a hosting provider in NJ (Score:2, Interesting)
Elbo's Three Rules of Information (Score:2, Interesting)
2. All private information relinquished to the public domain will be used and for whatever purpose and at whatever time as the collector sees fit. The likelihood of that information being used increases the more ardently the collector states that it will not be used. The likelihood of that information being used for nefarious or damaging purposes increases the more ardently the collector states that it will not be used for nefarious or damaging purposes.
3. Private information made public may be rendered inaccurate or irrelevant (by moving, changing phone number, etc.) but may never be assumed to be destroyed.
With these three rules in hand, it is easy to see why governmental authority wishes to have more of your personally identifiable information available at every point where anonymity might be possible: Censure and threat. There is no easier way to make people step and fetch than if you intimate that their words may be used against them. There is no better way to coerce rebellious elements of the society into cowed silence than by taking away their anonymous avenues to lambasting the status quo. Of course, most people don't realize that this sort of law won't protect politicians from remarks such as these. It is a long established precedent that public figures, especially those in the elected service to the people are not protected equally from libel or slanderous speech as private citizens.
Re:Self-incrimination (Score:2, Interesting)
Will these transparency laws apply to the Govt? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Frist post (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/
mainly
No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.
Re:Frist post (Score:5, Interesting)
I propose "Brandon's Law" (cf. Godwin's Law) (Score:3, Interesting)
As an online discussion of anything privacy-related grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving RIAA or the MPAA approaches 1.
See also Godwin's Law [wikipedia.org]...
Re:Frist post (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Predictable results (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Frist post (Score:3, Interesting)
Until State law contradicts the Constitution. That is when Federal law trumps.
B.
Founding Fathers == Terrorists (Score:4, Interesting)
But, if you think about it, these folks are trying to help protect us. The terrorists hate us because of our freedoms. So, take away the freedoms, you take away the reason for the terrorists to hate us. You take away their reason to be terrorists.
All this is part of the brilliant War On Terror.
Re:Brrrrrrr (Score:3, Interesting)
No, its because the law violated the constitutional protection against self-incrimination.
Re:Predictable results (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Frist post (Score:2, Interesting)