No More Anons In New York

[Smurfette Principle]

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/05/anonymous-online-speech-ban/

Proposed legislation in both chambers would require New York-based websites, such as blogs and newspapers, to “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.”

No votes on the measures have been taken. But unless the First Amendment is repealed, they stand no chance of surviving any constitutional scrutiny even if they were approved.

Republican Assemblyman Jim Conte said the legislation would cut down on “mean-spirited and baseless political attacks” and “turns the spotlight on cyberbullies by forcing them to reveal their identity.”

...yeah, have fun with that, New York. You do realize that pretty much every website has anonymous submissions for a reason, right? You realize that anonymous submissions are what let people keep their jobs and speak their minds freely, right?

Idiots.

[ironbite]

Oh there's this thing in the way.  What's it called?  Oh yeah.

Ironbite-THE FIRST AMENDMENT!

[Saturn500]

I live in New York, and I'm thinking that if they really want to combat “mean-spirited and baseless political attacks” and “turns the spotlight on cyberbullies," they should start by outlawing TV advertising from the US Chamber of Commerce.

[N. De Plume]

I live in New York, and I'm thinking that if they really want to combat “mean-spirited and baseless political attacks” and “turns the spotlight on cyberbullies," they should start by outlawing TV advertising from the US Chamber of Commerce.

Hear Hear!

[ThunderWulf]

Do politicians even READ the constitution anymore?

[RavynousHunter]

Are we sure the majority of them can even read at all?

[Fpqxz]

What annoys me is that our politicians propose legislation that they know full well is unconstitutional, just because they know it will stay on the books unless and until someone challenges it.

[Thejebusfire]

I live in New York, and I'm thinking that if they really want to combat “mean-spirited and baseless political attacks” and “turns the spotlight on cyberbullies," they should start by outlawing TV advertising from the US Chamber of Commerce.

This.^

[nickiknack]

Calling ACLU...

[Cerim Treascair]

As a proud New Yorker (for the last 4 and a half years, as of yesterday), this is fucking STUPID.  First Amendment exists for a reason, dumbfucks!

[Sylvana]

I think I just don't understand American constitutional law all that well, but in what way is the first amendment being violated? To my understanding the first amendment is freedom of speech and expression, but does not in any way guarantee someones right to be anonymous while making that speech. This bill does not stop people from speaking, only that they do so in a personal capacity. So basically you can say exactly the same thing on the internet as if you were out on the street and saying it in public yourself. However, like I said that is just my interpretation of this.

That said though, this is a stupid plan. This will be almost impossible to implement as the internet stretches far beyond state boundaries. People will just stop using new york based sites, and may strongly harm any internet related business of those sites. There are many ways to deal with cyber bullying, but this is not one of them.

[N. De Plume]

What annoys me is that our politicians propose legislation that they know full well is unconstitutional, just because they know it will stay on the books unless and until someone challenges it.

Indeed. This is one reason I really think there needs to be some sort of constitutional review process that takes place before new laws take effect. ‘Cause wining a lawsuit doesn’t really undo all the damage done to whoever was lucky enough to be the first person wronged by the law.

Quite frankly, I also think if it can be shown a legislator knowingly and willingly passed a law that so flagrantly violated the Constitution that there should be severe legal consequences. Of course, that sort of thing would get pretty fuzzy in practice, so even in this case I wouldn’t expect much to come of such a rule. But hopefully, such a rule would help keep legislators on their toes.

[gomer21xx]

Going with the assumption that this passes and all of that, don't these guys realize that people could just use fake names, anyway?

[Meshakhad]

Going with the assumption that this passes and all of that, don't these guys realize that people could just use fake names, anyway?

I'm going with "Jim Conte".

[ironbite]

I think I just don't understand American constitutional law all that well, but in what way is the first amendment being violated? To my understanding the first amendment is freedom of speech and expression, but does not in any way guarantee someones right to be anonymous while making that speech. This bill does not stop people from speaking, only that they do so in a personal capacity. So basically you can say exactly the same thing on the internet as if you were out on the street and saying it in public yourself. However, like I said that is just my interpretation of this.

That said though, this is a stupid plan. This will be almost impossible to implement as the internet stretches far beyond state boundaries. People will just stop using new york based sites, and may strongly harm any internet related business of those sites. There are many ways to deal with cyber bullying, but this is not one of them.

Being Anon is also a form of protest you could argue which the First Amendment also covers.  Ah-hah you say, so being a cyberbully is protesting eh?  No says I, the handsome 'raptor with a heart of pure plasma and a gun that can level planets.  It's for the legit protesters who use anon to protest crap like this.  And again, people will just use fake names.

Ironbite-really all this does is waste people's time and money.