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."
Frist post (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Frist post (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Frist post (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Frist post (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Frist post (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't care how they sugarcoat it -- this is outright oppression. Who is the violent man here: the guy who wants to post anonymously on some discussion board which people view voluntarily, or the guy who wants to employ coercion a
I've said it before... (Score:4, Informative)
Fucking Jersey.
Re:I've said it before... (Score:4, Funny)
Which is like New Jersey, only a little farther west and markedly more liberal.
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)
NEEDED: AN EXPLICIT RIGHT TO ANONYMITY (Score:3, Insightful)
Mod parent up. It's also a violation, IMHO, of the First, Fourth (right to privacy) and 14th Ammendmants to the Constitution, and the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3).
I have long been of the opinion that we need to add an explicit right to anonymity to the constitution, to include both intellectual anonymity [e.g. the right to post anonymously on the internet, or the right to send anonymous SMTP traffic, or the right to publish books or other works under a pseudonym], but also to include
Re:Frist post (Score:3, Interesting)
Until State law contradicts the Constitution. That is when Federal law trumps.
B.
With apologies to Douglas Adams (Score:5, Funny)
Assemblyman Peter J. Biondi: Come off it, Mr. Coward! You can't stand in front of the tanks in Tienanmen Square indefinitely! This law for the information superhighway has got to be built, and it's going to be built!
Anonymous Coward: Why's it got to be built?
Biondi: What do you mean "why"? It's a law! You've got to pass laws! You were quite entitled to make any suggestions or protests at the appropriate time, you know.
Anonymous Coward: Appropriate time?! The first I knew about it was when you pre-filed Assembly Bill No. 1327, the cops showed up and they said they were ready to come and take me away!
Biondi: Have you any idea how much damage the government would suffer if we just let the law roll straight over you?
Anonymous Coward: No, how much?
Biondi: None at all.
Vogon: Apathetic bloody citizenry. I've no sympathy at all.
Predictable results (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Predictable results (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Predictable results (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Predictable results (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Predictable results (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Predictable results (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Predictable results (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Drive people out of the state... (Score:4, Funny)
Think of the children!
Re:Predictable results (Score:3, Insightful)
You know, get off your ass, go outside, talk to people and do something.
Brrrrrrr (Score:5, Insightful)
Comes a vacuum, as posters retreat who aren't criminals but have reasonable fears of retribution, and a clear need for anonymity...
<grrr
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.
Re:Brrrrrrr (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Brrrrrrr (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Brrrrrrr (Score:3, Interesting)
No, its because the law violated the constitutional protection against self-incrimination.
Re:Brrrrrrr (Score:5, Funny)
Actually, you can't scream libel no matter how hard you try, you can only scream slander. You have to write libel. Of course, you can scream "libel", but that not quite the same thing.
Re:Brrrrrrr (Score:5, Insightful)
It can be false and defamatory without causing harm. Currently, the burden is on the person seeking the information to demonstrate that they suffered damages as a result of the information. This bill aims to circumvent that, so that no judge or panel of judges would have to be consulted.
You can bet that the bill was intentionally worded poorly and vaguely -- it allows for:
(1) Enforcement to be wide open to interpretation, so that it can be used by those in power or running for office effectively;
(2) The court to establish the boundaries of the law after it has been passed, if it passes in current form (which, as you say, is highly unlikely).
It's a common tactic in NJ -- write a bill that overreaches in scope, hope it gets through, and then allow the courts to restrict the law. You know, see what you can get away with. Also, by overreaching they establish a 'middle ground' which is what they wanted in the first place, and get credit for compromising to reach that middle ground.
Biondi's a bit of a [insert slanderous term here], anyway --
Of note, he sponsored a bill to extend implied consent to blood testing for illegal substances -- and allow reasonable force to get that test if the suspect was involved in an accident causing serious bodily harm.
Re:Brrrrrrr (Score:3, Funny)
Not only your dynamic address be detected, subpoenaed and you would be sent a legal notice, your neighbours in next state or the single-mom having NO computer would also be sent the same.
In addition troopers from RIAA would come knocking down your doors at midnight dragging you off, searching your house for illegal CD's, records, MP3s (disguised as Tapes), etc.
You would be renditioned for further "processing" and conditio
Re:Brrrrrrr (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's already a sad state of affairs when people think they have to fight for anonymity as a right, as if it's the only way they think they can speak freely.
A law isn't a law... (Score:5, Insightful)
My fear about unenforceable laws such as this one is the true power behind the law. Sure, it will be hard to enforce, but the powers the State will request to try to enforce it will play directly into the hands of those willing to finance the system.
Anonymous posting is harmless, yet un criminalizing it I can easily see how it can play into the hands of the RIAA and the MPAA -- giving them (and others) greater power in their cartels.
Re:A law isn't a law... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A law isn't a law... (Score:2)
I suspect however, that this law will not reach the light of day. Surely the Supreme Court of NJ will see it for what it is and overturn it, if NJ lawmakers are stupid enough to pass it in the first place. I personally will lobby against this locally. Ultimate
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:A law isn't a law... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A law isn't a law... (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if a law "makes it to the books," it can still later be declared unconstitutional. The courts don't approve laws before they become official (in the U.S., anyway; some countries they do); but it can strike them down later, when a challenge is presented against that particular law. This also means that a bad law can be on the books (and enforced by th
Re:A law isn't a law... (Score:5, Insightful)
Americans have always hated and mistrusted their representatives. They knew they were crooks, because they knew damned well that they'd do the same if they were in power. I should coin a cool Latin phrase for this concept.
We're not an honest people. Politicians learn to call their constituents honest and good, knowing damned well how sneaky and underhanded the Peeple really are. Peeple don't want honest representatives. The "politians" are scapegoats for all that we dislike about our culture, about ourselves.
The peeple don't want to be represented by angels. They want bastards who will steal as much as possible for their district. Hence the problem. If they wanted angels, they'd elect ministers and professors. They don't; they elect lawyers and businessmen, and expect some payback for their votes.
Biggest practical problem for getting rid of the truly odious moneygrabbers is the way we finance campaigns. Corporations are legally individuals. The SCOTUS has ruled that money is speech, so corps can spend as much as they like under the First Amendment right of free speech. We refuse to publically finance elections. We don't want to eliminate lobbyists. Logically, we have the system now where corporation A puts money in slot B to produce result C, and that's the way we want it.
Don't like it? Then ban all - ALL - contributions to political campaigns. Finance them with public funds. Provide the candidates with FREE air time, as we did before 1987. Making politians pay for airtime has made the rich the only winners in this idiocy that sprang up in the last two decades. There is no other solution. Else elections will simply be bought, and the lawmakers will have to take in money to pay for their reelection campaigns, so laws will be bought. Remove the money. And, oh yes, ban lawmakers from ever working for the people who lobby them after they leave office. That's simply bribery post-office.
Re:A law isn't a law... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:A law isn't a law... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:A law isn't a law... (Score:3, Insightful)
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]...
Also a way to shut people up (Score:5, Insightful)
Will I provide my real name if no such proof of ID is required? Hardly. And who would take it upon himself to prove that I am really myself? Hell, you can register DNS entries with fake IDs, do you really think your neighborhood forum admin will go to greater lengths than companies making some bucks with holding databases of their users?
But the bill goes further than that. A forum admin is liable for slander on his board. Now, ain't this great? Sure, you can't shut people up, first amendment and all that. But you can make sure nobody dares to offer services that would allow you to execute said right. No board, no discussion, no dissent.
Less direct than China, but by no means less efficient. You can't shut them up per se, but cover them in enough red tape that they can't go to the lengths required to stay out of harm's way and shut up "voluntarily". Either you can sink enough money into the identification process of your users to make SURE they are who they claim to be, or you can just as well shut down your board because you can't afford the lawsuits that just might spring up when someone dares to say a word someone important doesn't enjoy hearing.
Yes, yes, I can understand that it's not cool to hear slander and libel on boards. But the tools to get the person under your thumb are already here. IP logs exist, trace them to their source and you got who you need. Case closed.
So what for do you need the poster ID?
*sigh*
Let's hope our clever and very smart politicians never find out something like the usenet even exists.
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:Also a way to shut people up (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Also a way to shut people up (Score:4, Insightful)
Day 0 - Legislature passes bill, governor indicates it will be signed. state laws dictate at some future date law will come into affect. (For purposes of argument, let's assume NJ has a 90 day rule, that's pretty typical).
Day 1 - ACLU, EFF, and about 3 dozen other organizations start finding people willing to be defendents in a "Test Case", as well as lining up counsel (ie lawyers) and other needed assets.
Day 5 (at the latest, it takes time to write legal briefs) - ACLU, EFF, et al file lawsuit under the title of the lead test defendant, with Federal Court allegding that the law infringes on rights of test defendant in some way.
Day 6 - Federal judge reviews pleading and determines that there is, in fact, a decent chance that the law might be unconstitutional, files a temporary restraining order prohibiting New Jersey from enforcing the law.
Day 374 - Case actually comes to trial.
In the meantime, no one can be arrested, charged, prosecuted, threatened with prosecution, or in any other way hit over the head with this law, it is forbidden to be enforced until judgement is rendered.
(Worst Case scenario) Day 380 - Judge determines ACLU is wrong, law is allowed to go into effect. At this point, prosecutions could begin, assuming the restraining order is not continued to allow appeal (which would almost certainly happen)
(Best Case scenario) Day 380 - Judge determines New Jersey was smoking crack and the law is patently wrong, rules for test defendents. Temporary injunction is made permanent (assuming NJ doesn't appeal).
So, in short, until the Courts and the lawyers are done, this will have no effect at all.
Re:Also a way to shut people up (Score:3, Insightful)
Still, the people who wind up in limbo, waiting for the legal wheels to grind their slow course and mash bad laws out of existence, are not going to be happy with their lost time and lost defense money; they don't get compensated for that, do they?
I did get the feeling, when I RTF Bill, that it
Re:Also a way to shut people up (Score:3, Funny)
So I guess "free, as in speech" really ISN'T "free, as in beer".
Now New Jersey just needs a poll tax and literacy tests.
I can picture it already. (Score:5, Funny)
Name: Hugh Jass.
Address: 123 Fake Street.
Email: yourmomma@home.com
Brilliant idea!
Re:I can picture it already. (Score:2, Funny)
- Hugh
Re:I can picture it already. (Score:5, Funny)
Name: Peter J. Biondi
Address: 1 E. High St., Somerville NJ 08876
email: AsmBiondi@njleg.org
I wonder what our Founders would think? (Score:5, Insightful)
Some of them posted scurious tracts arguing for Common Sense and other radical ideas, many using pen names (the same as anonymous postings).
I for one welcome our Thought Police Masters and bow to them in the East five times a day
What would the Founders think? You have to ask? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What would the Founders think? You have to ask? (Score:3, Informative)
One thing that stands out from the wiki entry is at the end. The part regarding the Bill of Rights. The last two sentences read:
Re:What would the Founders think? You have to ask? (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, they were not smart enough to add "no really, we mean it, moron" to the end of each amendment. Or to establish a system of ostracism for government officials who can't comprehend phrases like "no law" and "shall not be violated".
Re:What would the Founders think? You have to ask? (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed there are far too many folks who are either ignorant of, or intentionally ignore the 9th Amendment:
However, as a strong believer in the 9th Amendment I would be loath to take up the banner of the Living Document crowd. "Living Documentists" are word twisters and shades-of-gray, "it depends of what you think the word means" semanticists. They're intellectually bankrupt in that they seem to think the constitution is a rubbery, flexible thing that can be molded into whatever their "modern vision of society" requires. The classic example is the attempt to recast the 2nd Amendment as only assurance that states are allowed to have a [militia/National Guard], rather than a guarantee that the check against tyranny of an armed populace remains.
No, Strict Constructionists (or rather, Originalists) have the right idea, but the current crop of conservative ones we have around display a maddening tendency towards specific, selective blindness. I believe the founding fathers meant exactly what they wrote in the constitution, and that it only requires that you actually read it for it to be effective.
Re:I wonder what our Founders would think? (Score:5, Insightful)
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 tur
Re:Ah, the sweet sweet sound... (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean, European governments and the EU have no shortage of retarded legislation restricting free speech, commerce, and privacy on the internet. And places like China definitly don't have speech internet legislation that I would want to emulate, although they tend to be moving towards more freedom (where the U.S. and Euro
Re:Ah, the sweet sweet sound... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's just the symptom. The real problem is one that all great civilizations face: abundance decreases motivation and creates a false sense of entitlement. Just look at companies like Enron who fabricate business models out of thin air. There's so much money floating around the United States, that monetary success has very little to do with creating any kind of value. Meanwhile, developing countries like China are plowing full steam ahead. Right now the United States is basically just riding a wave of lucky historical opportunity. Given the concentration of wealth and power, that wave can carry the US by intertia for quite some time, but maybe not as long as most Americans think.
I'm truly shocked... (Score:2, Funny)
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:At the same time.... (Score:2)
Re:Are you a member of "a well-regulated militia"? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, you may be a member! (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, check the criteria in the U.S. Code. [tinyurl.com] You may be a member of what is called the "unorganized militia." I'll print it below for your convenience.
Don't be led by the recent release date into believing that this is something new. This is very old law.
Re:Yes, you may be a member! (Score:5, Informative)
Not really. The 2nd amendment guarantees the right "of the people" to bear arms, not the right of the militia to bear arms.
Re:2nd Amendment Clarification (Score:3, Informative)
Then you have never consulted the Oxford English Dictionary, where the term "well regulated" is defined in exactly the way the U.S. Army uses the term today. A soldier learns to "regulate" his rifle by learning how to operate the rifle, set the sights and shoot accurately.
As for "militia", the law has already been posted in this thread. Unless you're female and not in the national guard, incapable, under 17 or over 45, you're in the mi
Re:Are you a member of "a well-regulated militia"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, I think it just means that you aren't a particularly useful member of the militia. It's sort of like being a member of the citizenry -- just because somebody doesn't vote or participate politically doesn't mean they suddenly stop being a citizen.
Re:Are you a member of "a well-regulated militia"? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Are you a member of "a well-regulated militia"? (Score:3, Insightful)
You see, in history, every oppressed minority, or enslaved group has been denied the right to possess weapons. Traditionaly only the upper class
Re:Are you a member of "a well-regulated militia"? (Score:3, Insightful)
But in regards to nuclear weapons, I support complete nuclear disarmament... If private citizens are not allowed to own nuclear weapons, then I think governments should not be allowed to own nuclear weapons either. That would avoid any problems of having an "upper class" of the nuclear armed, and a "lower class" of those without nuclear weapons. Since most of t
Re:Are you a member of "a well-regulated militia"? (Score:4, Insightful)
Using your interpretation of the second amendment, the above sentence would prohibit anyone who isn't well-educated from reading. Also, as the other poster pointed out, "militia" as it is used in the Constitution is a much broader term than you seem to think.
Yep (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm also the Inspector General and Sergeant at Arms. We have very loose naming, but our regulations are otherwise quite strict. Since our membership highly exclusive, our discipline has so far been perfect.
So come get my gun if you want it. Oh, but find me first.
Which is the point: anonymous posting and gun ownership are two sides of the same coin. One is the pen, the other the sword. If New Jersey or Congress try to take away one, they will
Re:Yep (Score:3, Insightful)
I couldn't have said it better, and I didn't want the comment to languish in 0 point land.
The pen IS mightier than the sword. The sword is only needed when they try to outlaw the pen...
Re:Are you a member of "a well-regulated militia"? (Score:3, Informative)
"Well Regulated" simply means that the militia isn't going around looting, or hanging people without trial, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
It's unconstitutional (Score:2, Insightful)
Anonymous pamphleteering is protected under the first ammendment. There are a number of cases that set a precident for this. For this NJ law to stand would fundamentally change the law of the land.
Papers, please. (Score:2)
I hate politicians.
I am sure this will go over well. (Score:2, Insightful)
The result?
- People in NJ who want to remain anonymous to do obnoxious postings will use a proxy
- The people who will be hassled and thus pissed off? The people who live in NJ and are not doing obnoxious postings.
Way to bring home the vote fellas - by pissing off all your constitients.
Dead on Arrival, I'd say. (Score:5, Informative)
I doubt this bill even gets out of committee, let alone gets passed by the NJ Assembly so that it can be immediately struck down by a NJ judge. As for why, then, a hopeless, pointless bill was introduced by Assemblyman Biondi -- mmmm, maybe he's got an election coming up? Needs to do a little grandstanding?
How to enforce it (Score:2)
You, as the board admin, are liable for everything that happens on your board. If you don't find someone to blame other than yourself, you're hanging for it.
So they shift the burden of proof to the ones running the boards. Can't prove that it's someone else? Ok, we'll take you instead.
The net effect will most likely be, that people who run their boards in NJ move out of the state. If more states pass that law, it will move out of the US.
And
I'm just curious (Score:2, Insightful)
Unconstitutional in 1960 (Score:5, Informative)
Of course, the Court's membership isn't the same as it was in 1960. The President can appoint who he wants to the Supreme Court. So, who'd you vote for, for president, in 2004?
Re:Unconstitutional in 1960 (Score:3, Insightful)
fine (Score:3, Funny)
State Lines (Score:3, Insightful)
For that matter, what makes it a New Jersey forum? The physical location of the server? The physical location of the forum admins?
And if another state supports anonymous posting, but the anonymous posting happens to be on a NJ server...
Isn't this why the federal government controls interstate relations (i.e., currency)?
Deare Reader (Score:4, Insightful)
yr. svnt.
Poor Richard
But, but, but... (Score:4, Funny)
Look at the monkey (Score:3, Insightful)
Another stupid bill that has essentially zero chance of passing, but which will generate a huge amount of outrage.
Whenever I see a story like this, I always wonder what it is they are trying to distract people away from.
-- Should you believe authority without question?
Sorry New Jersey, can't do it (Score:3, Informative)
Have you ever seen an anonymous letter stapled to a telephone pole, slandering someone? You'd like to be able to sue for defamation, but you can't. That's life, it sucks, deal with it. You can't just tack on the words "on the internet" and change things. Of course, that's what this bill is trying to do -- impose an affirmative duty to watch each and every telephone pole and identify the posters by legal name and address.
Now although it's not the main issue, economics should be addressed. Sure, the cost is spread out over all the website operators and not consolidated in the phone company, but the same cost is being imposed nonetheless. Every website operator will now have to 'hire guards' (databases, coding special HTML pages, access restrictions, etc). This makes hosting a public forum more expensive. You might even call it a 'tax' on free speech.
Both from a rights perspective and an economic perspective, this bill stinks.
I have nothing to hide (Score:3, Funny)
First Name: Cro
Last Name: Magnon
Address: 1234 Inna Cave Dr.
A Historical Note (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
After much deliberation and consideration... (Score:5, Insightful)
I have spent a good part of today deliberating on this story and have constructed a carefully reasoned and highly cogent argument against the bill. It follows in the next paragraph.
Fuck that noise.
I feel that my reasoning is plain and does not require explanation.
For those with questions I refer you to the Declaration of Independence, the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, and the Colonial Revolution of 1776.
"IT IS FAR FROM OVER" (Score:4, Informative)
N.J. judge dismisses lawsuit over anonymous Web site criticism [freedomforum.org]
New Jersey Court of Appeals rules for EyeOnEmerson website [eff.org]
"It is far from over," said Jack Darakjy, the attorney representing the plaintiffs [freedomforum.org]. "We will appeal the decision. If we need to, our clients are prepared to take this all the way to the Supreme Court."
Or, if you are politically connected in New Jersey, maybe you just go to your party and get them to take up your crusade.
jurisdiction (Score:5, Informative)
You may be thinking that New Jersey has no jurisdiction over people who live in other states. Not true. New Jersey asserts jurisdiction over everyone who lives in New Jersey and also everyone who does business in New Jersey, or who materially affects a citizen of New Jersey or the general interests of the citizens of New Jersey.
Hence, if you, Joe Citizen of any U.S. state other than NJ, or even a citizen of another country, do something over the 'net that affects someone in NJ, and is illegal under NJ law, then a NJ court will have no problem issuing a warrant for your arrest. The governor of NJ (or rather one of his underlings in law enforcement) would then issue a request for extradition to your state or country. If that request is granted, then your home state or country arrests you as a courtesy to NJ and (if necessary by force) sends you to NJ to stand trial.
How often is extradition granted? Depends. Between the states of the United States, or between countries of the EU, almost always. For credible accusations of traditional crimes of violence, like murder, rape, arson, or robbery, then again almost always. For nonviolent crimes, and crimes where public policy differs widely, like fraud, child custody violations, or Internet crime such as this one -- all bets are off.
So in this case, you're almost certainly right -- if New Jersey criminalized anonymous posting, I doubt very much if most states in the Union, let alone most Western countries, would honor an extradition request. But as a general rule, you do not escape a state's jurisdiction merely because you don't live there.
Re:jurisdiction (Score:3, Informative)
The other good thing to note here, is that even if no one grants your NJ extradition charge, if you end up within their jurisdiction, they can arrest you there.
Let's take a small example, you're in s
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:Uh huh (Score:5, Insightful)
1. By all companies that rent server space moving out of New Jersey.
2. By all websites that allow users to post putting "Persons located in New Jersey are not permitted to comment, because your state's legislators are fools. By hitting submit, I affirm I am not currently located in the State of New Jersey" beside every submit button.
Re:I didn't think of it that way (Score:3, Insightful)
Not only could, it would. What I've been waiting for somebody else to mention is that it also violates the First Amendment, making the bill unconstitutional in two entirely different ways. This bill doesn't have the proverbial snowball's chance of making it into law because enough legislators are lawyers that some of them will see how impossible it is. Frankly, I doubt it will ever get to a vote, but be killed in