State Lawmaker Wants To Ban Anonymous Posting Online 471
bfwebster writes "According to a local news article from last week, Kentucky state lawmaker Tim Couch wants to ban anonymous posting on the internet in order to 'cut down on online bullying', which he says has been 'a particular problem in eastern Kentucky.' His bill would require posters to register with their real names and e-mail addresses under threat of fines. Looks like another battle in the right for anonymous free speech."
how about passing laws that have some... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:how about passing laws that have some... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:how about passing laws that have some... (Score:4, Funny)
I drink your milkshake! LOLCATS!11 All your base belong to us! uh, uh... Ron Paul for Prezedent!
Re:how about passing laws that have some... (Score:5, Interesting)
Root of the Problem (Score:5, Funny)
All sorts of problems would just "go away".
Re:how about passing laws that have some... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, that isn't anyone's main flaw. But it should be mandatory that these lawmakers should have at least enough of a clue to determine if what they are proposing is even possible before they start drafting legislation.
This makes as much sense as drafting a law making it illegal for it to rain on Thursdays. The frightening part is that the bozo drafting the law doesn't see why it's a problem.
Re:how about passing laws that have some... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:how about passing laws that have some... (Score:4, Insightful)
First off, I have no idea why this got modded to -1 because that's exactly what they'll most likely do.
The problem is, how would an ISP manage this with any degree of certainty? What is to stop me from logging in to Slashdot using Tor [torproject.org] and giving any contact info I wish?
And let's say I do bully someone and it goes to court. Taco could wind up paying thousands in fines for it. So let's say that happens and he decided to get tough and crack down on false IDs.
How do you do it?
The answer is the same one you'd give if you were trying to comply to the "no rain on Thursdays" law. You can't.
So this is a law that is impossible to comply with, even if you wanted to in the first place. That's why it's a bad idea. Well that, and the whole "right to privacy" thing, which is another discussion.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
GeoIP to prevent anyone from Kentucky from buying a subscription, anyone?
Re:how about passing laws that have some... (Score:5, Insightful)
The question of whether something is within the capabilities of the state to enforce is (supposed) to be addressed by the administration's (governor's) veto power. If a legislative body passes a bill that they cannot reasonably implement, they have that chance to make their point.
Unfortunately, there is no requirement that a bill be vetted for its constitutionality by the courts. Once passed into law, the courts cannot consider it until a case is brought before a court empowered to make such a decision. That means: someone has to violate the law and then spend years and millions of dollars (occasionally contributed by advocacy organizations) to see the case through the requisite trial and appeals.
I suspect that some legislators know this and just submit their bills in the hope that nobody will have the balls to stand up for their rights.
Re:how about passing laws that have some... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:how about passing laws that have some... (Score:4, Insightful)
An initiative like this will cost millions if not billions of dollars. It would probably be more effective to just set up a victims fund and pay for counseling for anyone who gets bullied. We waste so much money in this country on ridiculous activities like this, when we could be housing the homeless, educating our kids, or researching cures for cancer.
It should not only be mandatory that lawmakers have a clue about feasibility, but every bill that's passed should have a study done as to the ultimate costs and the methods of funding the new law. If the money isn't in the budget the lawmakers can't pass the bill. If the lawmakers don't have enough money to conduct an adequate study, the bill also shouldn't be passed.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So you totally miss the part about it being illegal to establish a prior restraint on free speech, or for government
to introduce a "chilling effect" on what is otherwise a First Amendment protected activity.
This legislation would be fought from so many different angles, it's almost amusing.
Conservatives will not want to be forced to reveal their identities when
Re:how about passing laws that have some... (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, the probably wouldn't. The one thing the public cares about, and politicians are afraid of, is raising taxes. Lawmakers will go out of their way to avoid having anything that looks like a tax increase in their record. That's why the country just borrows trillions of dollars, steals from the social security funds, . If they raised taxes to cover all costs of Iraq, the War on Drugs, and whatever else, there would be riots in the streets. You need to go back and play some civ, AOE, Empire Earth or sim city. People get PISSED when you raise taxes.
Re:how about passing laws that have some... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:how about passing laws that have some... (Score:4, Insightful)
I think we can both agree we're still pretty far from this.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But in an age of total fiat currency, there is little need to raise taxes. By printing more money, they've essentially raised taxes on our savings, without most people even understanding it. Most people will blame the lose of their purchasing power on the rising prices of oil or something, but that's just blaming the symptoms.
Exactly, that's what started this whole discussion. Until there is some way to enforce some type of fiscal responsibility on the government. Government officials need to account for these grandiose schemes they have - we have to stop letting them just print/borrow money.
If you were to add up all the taxes, fees, cost of compliance with tax laws and cost of real inflation, and spell it out for people, then you'd see that rioting in the streets you mention.
If you could make people understand, but I don't think you ever will. I would LOVE to see a president get into office that consolidated all of the tax code into something like a flat sales tax. We have allowed lawmakers to hide t
Re:I have a serious question abou that (Score:5, Insightful)
Because they face re-election every few years. If they are supported by their constituents,
they return to office. If lawmakers were subject to legal threats every time they proposed
something, there would be so much abuse that would make today's level of corruption look like
child's play.
Consider that a state assemblyman represents a rather limited group of constituents, and is
a pretty small voice in a pretty big crowd. He is small potatoes even by Kentucky standards,
representing a county of about 25,000 population, under 30 percent of them high schoolgraduates,
where the average income is $16,000 and the average home value under $10,000.
Think about these numbers, and then ask yourself how much influence you think Rep. Tim Couch has,
and how likely it is for this bill to get past committee.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Since lawsuit
Re: (Score:2)
Re:how about passing laws that have some... (Score:5, Interesting)
-Ayn Rand
...
Brian Gordon
Yes.
Re:how about passing laws that have some... (Score:5, Insightful)
Tobacco Companies
Alcohol Companies
Private Prison Companies
We incarcerate more people than china.
We strip away a very particular group of people's voting rights through selective drug law enforcement.
We have double the drug use of Amsterdam (where drug use is legal).
Re:how about passing laws that have some... (Score:5, Insightful)
I just recently saw a movie on the drug war and it was pretty upsetting (including fairly substantial and substantiated evidence) that the CIA under reagan (who I voted for) ran cocaine into america to support their revolution in central america.
The bits about private prisons was very disturbing. I've known for quite a while that we imprison people in the US at a higher rate than the rest of the world.
But to see an LA policeman relating how the CIA contacted him to ignore selected drug lords in an open public meetings (and to see the CIA director's obvious distress) was pretty shocking to me so I guess it was waiting to spew out somewhere.
It pulled no punches-- drug users were shocking dregs in some cases. But so are extreme alcohol and tobacco users.
We have so many bad laws related to this area- and now that they are tying "any drug sales == support for terror" they are able to ignore civil rights at increasing levels.
Then you get some cheesehead like this guy wanting to ban the equivalent of posting anonymous hand bills and it is extremely irritating.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Representative Tim Couch [ky.gov] Bio Highlights:
Church of God
Hazard Community College
NRA. Natl Wild Turkey Federation
Hyden Masonic Lodge 664
Re:how about passing laws that have some... (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at what happened with America's failed experiment to outlaw alcohol. What did we get? A thriving underground drug culture and a massive new revenue source for organized crime. We've been making the same mistake for 70 plus years only this time we seem content to just let things continue in this broken dysfunctional state. Drug use causes harm, but prohibition is worse.
But, money is being made on all sides of the "War on drugs" so no one in power really wants it to end.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As a "Judeo-Christian" ethical person, I take exception to this vile screed designed to illicit the same kind of "fear" that he rails against later on
One of the biggest reasons I'm what I am today is founded upon the notion that MAN cannot rule himsel
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact that the law itself would be dead in the water as being in conflict with the Bill of Rights is a concern, but not
Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not saying I agree with laws that are restricting speech, but at least if it was a law that was enforceable then there could be a point to it. You could debate if it was a good idea or not, if the tradeoff was worth it. Here, it is just a fucking waste of time since regardless of any merits, it just won't work.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not entirely. You're assuming the intent is to actually enforce law. Many such laws are passed everyday and are designed simply to foster a sense of accomplishment and augment power. Most are then marketed as necessary "for the safety of our children." When election time comes guess who the vast unwashed are going to vote for?
Re:Yes (Score:5, Interesting)
That's not true at all. Such laws are used all the time. They come in very handy if there's someone you want to harrass. Hold them in jail for a day or three, then say "Sorry, it looks like we can't actually try you in this jurisdiction for violating that law. Have a nice day", and escort them out to the street. Where they're promptly arrested again, if the local authorities so wish.
The common term is "nuisance law", and they're almost universal. It's very difficult to get a law annulled unless someone is actually charged and tried for violating it.
A similar principle applies to "violating a suspect's rights". In a town where I once lived, there was a protest in which a lot of people were arrested and held in the town jail overnight. They were denied any communication, not even the standard "one call to your lawyer". The next day they were all released. The explanation was simple: The local authorities didn't want to take anyone to court; that would have been a huge political (and probably legal) disaster for them. Since the arrestees rights had been violated, the police couldn't be forced by local officials to press charges. As for the arrestees pressing charges, the police's response was simple: "Who are you? We have no record that you've ever been in this town before. Can you prove you were here and were arrested?"
I knew a bunch of people who learned a valuable lesson that day about how the legal system actually works. (I was just an onlooker, but I knew a number of the people involved. If asked, I could have testified that they'd been in town that day, but I couldn't testify that I'd personally seen any of them arrested.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:how about passing laws that have some... (Score:5, Insightful)
That is yet another and separate reason it should not pass, in addition the First Amendment issues.
Re: (Score:2)
But, it would be feasible!! I think in his bill, he requires that each of us on the interweb be assigned a personal, and uniquely identifiable "tube", from which we all have to post and email from.
No sharing or using anonymous tubes, if you get caught....fine and jail time.
See? It is simple as that!!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
All they have to do is import the technology from China - the "other place" that wants to do the same thing ...
Please remind me again what's the difference between the "land of the free" and "dirty commie bastards".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In dirty commie strongholds, governments own the people, that run the companies, that makes the money, that funds the government. The elite are the government, and since everyone knows who is really in charge, revolution is more attainable and more likely.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Easy, the land of he free has Moms Apple pPie.
(Now available from a frozen food isle near you..).
Seriously though, the main difference is that while the US government might get angry at you, or take you to court over something you said, they won't have you taken away in the middle of the night and executed. That's a biggie, trust me on this.
I was going to add that you wouldn't be imprisoned for life witho
Re:how about passing laws that have some... (Score:5, Funny)
Couch went on to acknowledge that Space is big, that there are quite a few people in China, that antidisestablishmentarianism is a long word, and that John McCain is not very young.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
which is quite apt, as China is another country that intends to ban anonymous posting online, with the difference that they actually have the manpower to enforce it.
Re:how about passing laws that have some... (Score:5, Insightful)
Laws like this need to be nipped in the bud. BEFORE they get passed so we don't have to spend the $$ to fight them back out of existence. This law is draconian and clearly unconstitutional--obviously this guy or one of his big donors has their panties in a wad over something said anonymously about them and it just frosts them that they can't find out who it is.
And lawmakers like this one need to be nipped in the bud and tossed out of office.
What we should ban... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
In this case, you have other, better educated politicians talk to the stupid ones
about things like equal protection, or chilling effects on free speech. You know,
the stuff the ignorance of which has ended the careers of so many other stupid politicians.
On the other hand, the opinion of a single lawmaker in a state assembly has about the same merit as that of one slashdot poster. They say stupid stuff all the time and nothing com
Re:What we should ban... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What we should ban... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You can't outlaw stupid, because then who would we put into office?!?
You mean stupid voters (Score:2)
Ahh, the smell of burning karma (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Informal Title (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Informal Title (Score:5, Informative)
He claims that this is to prevent cyber-bullying (I hate that term) in our schools, but he probably wants to get revenge on the owner of kyvotes.org. It's a website that lists all the bills being debated in the legislature, and gives people the ability to comment on those bills. Considering the extreme ignorance of almost all of our legislators, they get ripped pretty badly. Here's the discussion for this bill: http://www.kentuckyvotes.org/2008-HB-775 [kentuckyvotes.org]
Well, Of Course! (Score:2)
Anonymously post your comments to Rep. Couch (Score:5, Interesting)
Please... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
OK, Arrest me (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not you he wants... (Score:2, Informative)
If the bill becomes law, the website operator would have to pay if someone was allowed to post anonymously on their site. The fine would be five-hundred dollars for a first offense and one-thousand dollars for each offense after that.
It's the site operators he's going after. Here's hoping /. has a big slush fund. Or will we just not be allowed to post AC anymore? I wish writing and trying to pass unenforcable, not to mention unconstitutional, laws wasn't a pass-time activity for some of our elected officials.
Re:It's not you he wants... (Score:4, Insightful)
antagonistic (Score:2)
there's really no purpose in discussing this - its simply fodder for humor.
with that said, methinks said politician would be quite chagrined to have his doings on TEH INTERWEBS completely revealed to the world.
any takers?
Not A Solution (Score:5, Insightful)
And if you think any country's laws - including the USA's - can regulate the world-wide Internet, you're dreaming. All this law would accomplish is to cause the creation of anonymous blogging centers in countries with stricter privacy laws.
And by the way, hasn't the Supreme Court already said that you have a right to be anonymous online?
The only people who would benefit from this are the individuals, corporations, and politicians seeking to quash dissent by outing, and then suing, those who post unflattering comments, no matter how truthful. And those aren't the people I want to be helping out.
Ummm... (Score:5, Informative)
Ah yes, here we go: http://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity [eff.org]
Yet another law just waiting to be struck down, and it took five seconds on Google to demonstrate why.
unless SCOTUS reverses that decision (Score:2)
As far as the actual topic goes, I believe anonymous posting should be allowed, just like anonymous tips to the police regarding any illegal activity. Unfortunately, most people are not using anonymity for good reasons, but because they want to get away with whatever they're doing - be it the 'bullying' mentioned here, or libel/slander, etc; things that themselves are likely to have a negative impact on another, with no particular virtue other than
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't SCOTUS already rule that anonymous speech is protected? Ah yes, here we go: http://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity [eff.org]. Yet another law just waiting to be struck down, and it took five seconds on Google to demonstrate why.
Ah, so SCOTUS decisions are written in stone, are they? If that were true, we would still be counting African-Americans as 3/5 of a person. Courts change, attitudes change, decisions that seemed immutable get overturned or reversed or gutted. Don't think it
Won't pass (Score:3, Insightful)
Wait a second!! (Score:2)
Why stop there? (Score:2)
Why not try to pass other non-enforcable laws too. Try these ones on:
"Tim Couch bans gravity in the state of Kentucky."
"Tim Couch raises speed limit for light."
"Tim Couch bans beer in all counties."
"Tim Couch raises smoking age from 18 to 64."
Why don't you actually pass a useful law that helps to reduce racisim, which is rampant in your state and is the core issue around much of the 'bullying' problem?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Tim Couch sets the value of pi to 3.2 in the state of Kentucky"
Well, it almost worked for Indiana [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Cut down on bullying.. (Score:4, Interesting)
So let's find some thing (internet) to yell about because you don't like it (because you cannot control it)
Great Idea! (Score:5, Funny)
- "Tim"
Yes to govt. regulation (Score:2)
It is a loony libertarian idea to say that private individuals and companies, left to themselves will sort it out.
Re: (Score:2)
The easy way out (Score:2)
How did this guy become a lawmaker? Law is all about balancing rights of many segments of society (sometimes conflicting). You can't just pass a law to help a certain segment while instantly treading on the rights of everyone else. Or perhaps he thinks being anonymous online is "no big deal" unless you're a bully or something.
Yes! Please do this! (Score:2)
WTF happened to anonimity? (Score:2)
Next, they will attempt to ban attempts to disguise your identity in public by wearing masks [wikipedia.org].
Posting disparaging comments online is analogous to meeting in a library and making disparaging comments. The latter is protected by the Bill of Rights under the Freedom of Assembly. The former should be protected by the same bill.
And besides... anonymous posts online can technically be traced back to an IP address and that can be traced to a specific computer with a specific location and knowing the time can
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, as somebody who doesn't think of internet browsing as something that I should go out of my way to protect, I don't use TOR.
Let them pass it... (Score:2)
Pedobear not allowed. I don't want the FBI Party van showing up. Those damn bastards have no sense of fun...... I tried to spark a joint and the bastards tried to arrest me!
Let's see if I have this straight (Score:3, Insightful)
So we'll make them register their names and email addresses with the state.
But they can get literally thousands of email address, for free, from services that aren't subject to our state's (or even country's) laws, and there is no mechanism even possible to police what email address or name they actually use, so they can continue to post anonymously.
And even though we can't track down anonymouse cyber bullies now, we'll be able to later, when they're not using the name or email address they registered with the state.
In addition to having no effect whatsoever, we will give them a legal defense of "Well, that's not my name or email adress! I registered those with the state, just like the law requires, so how could it be me?"
This doesn't even look like an attempt to "do something." In fact, it looks more like an attempt to protect bullies than punish them.
Unprecedented! (Score:2, Interesting)
Then again, as far as the hoodie ban goes, anything that even makes an attempt at reclaiming the UK's streets is welcome, whatever the free-speech implications.
Bullying on the internet, however, can be addressed more effectively by simply rotating 180 degrees until one's face is no longer pointing toward the screen. Further measures may include going out,
Scientology (Score:4, Interesting)
Read the rest of the article (Score:4, Informative)
(I love you Sandra, but you're not the most computer savvy individual)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This was the original story. Replying to myself, yeah I know.. but I didn't have the link yet for my prior post.
Message to the Commonwealth of Kentucky (Score:3, Interesting)
Over the years, we have been watching you. Your campaigns of misinformation; suppression of dissent; your litigious nature, all of these things have caught our eye. With the leakage of your latest propaganda video into mainstream circulation, the extent of your malign influence over those who trust you, who call you leader, has been made clear to us. Anonymous has therefore decided that your organization should be destroyed. For the good of your followers, for the good of mankind -- for the laughs -- we shall expel you from the Internet and systematically dismantle the State of Kentucky in its present form. We acknowledge you as a serious opponent, and we are prepared for a long, long campaign. You will not prevail forever against the angry masses of the body politic. Your methods, hypocrisy, and the artlessness of your organization have sounded its death knell.
You cannot hide; we are everywhere.
We cannot die; we are forever. We're getting bigger every day--and solely by the force of our ideas, malicious and hostile as they often are. If you want another name for your opponent, then call us Legion, for we are many.
Yet for all that we are not as monstrous as you are; still our methods are a parallel to your own. Doubtless you will use the Anon's actions as an example of the persecution you have so long warned your followers would come; this is acceptable. In fact, it is encouraged. We are your SPs.
Gradually as we merge our pulse with that of your "State", the suppression of your followers will become increasingly difficult to maintain. Believers will wake, and see that salvation has no price. They will know that the stress, the frustration that they feel is not something that may be blamed upon Anonymous. No -- they will see that it stems from a source far closer to each. Yes, we are SPs. But the sum of suppression we could ever muster is eclipsed by that of the RTC.
Knowledge is free.
We are Anonymous.
We are Legion.
We do not forgive.
We do not forget.
Expect us.
Pfft (Score:2)
Knowing the perversity of /. readers... (Score:2, Interesting)
This is bad for whistle blowers who some times.... (Score:3, Interesting)
hilarious (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, before anyone mods me as flamebait (which the zealots love to do) I'm a patriotic American and in case you haven't heard about something called The Monroe Doctrine...
I'm from Kentucky... (Score:3, Interesting)
I encourage everyone to contact Mr. Couch and let him know how unfeasable and insulting this idea is. That measn well-thought and well-written messages, not
Rep. Couch's Page @ lrc.ky.gov [ky.gov]
Again, please make sure your correspondence is professional and polite. The last thing we need is a bunch of idiots spamming his inbox and basically proving him right...
Feel free to let Rep. Couch know what you think (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Fscking no-nothing inbred hicks (Score:3, Insightful)
First of all, you spelled "know" incorrectly.
Secondly, where did anyone mention religion? I must've missed that.
Thirdly, do you have to use profanity? I mean I just sent Rep. ClueStick an email on his form, and was perfectly polite in telling him where to stick his bill
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Well look on the bright side, if you ever go on holiday outside of the states then you will be free to post anonymously to your hearts content.
If this ever get
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hmmm ... (Score:4, Funny)