backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 46 comment(s) - last by hathost.. on Mar 14 at 4:57 PM

Rep. Tim Couch proposes legislation to ban Internet anonymity; knows of its impending doom and doesn't follow through

Anonymity is one of the great things about the internet.  The web is one place where people can be whoever they want, or say whatever they want.  But according to one Kentucky lawmaker, attention should be drawn to the anonymous bullying.

Tim Couch proposed a bill criminalizing anonymous internet posting (HB775) and would mandate posters to give up their complete name, mailing address, and e-mail address.  The information would have to be posted on websites alongside any comments made on the Internet.  Failure for any website to require this or any person to give up their information will result in a $500 fine.   That sum is just for the first offense; it is a $1,000 fine for any following offenses.

There are certain obvious flaws with the proposed bill such as the infringement on First Amendment rights, and the state’s ability to regulate Internet, or rather their inability to do so.  The most important flaw in this bill is that it only includes websites hosted out of Kentucky.  Even if the bill was passed, people would see very little effect from it. 

Couch admits that the bill is unlikely to get passed and is unconstitutional. He notes that his goal with this move is that he just wants to make aware the “bullying” that takes place on the internet.

"I think right now (online posting) is pretty much just on its own. It's a machine that's going to go its own way," said Couch in an interview with the Lexington Herald-Leader. "The state can try to pass some rules, but I don't really think it would do anything."

Lawmakers in the past have sidestepped censoring internet anonymity with other laws, like libel.  Just in this case as in others in the past, it is the rights of the First Amendment that come into question.

"Some nasty things have been said about high school kids in my district, usually by other kids," Couch said. "The adults get in on it, too … When you're anonymous, you can say anything you want to about someone, and nobody knows who you are." 

In other cases, courts explored the idea of devaluing a public company via negative anonymous comments.  But there still exists that idea that a price will always have to be paid in order to retain our rights.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

1st Amendment?
By rcc on 3/12/2008 4:47:38 PM , Rating: 2
Ok, let me start by saying this bill should die.

However, the article indicates that it would be a violation of the 1st Amendment. How?




RE: 1st Amendment?
By Cobra Commander on 3/12/2008 4:53:43 PM , Rating: 4
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.


RE: 1st Amendment?
By masher2 (blog) on 3/12/2008 5:06:44 PM , Rating: 5
I always find it amazing that people who so easily interpret "freedom of speech" to cover anonymous blog postings can turn around and interpret "right to bear arms" as "we can ban any weapons whenever and whereever we wish".

And, for the record, I also believe anonymous postings are protected speech. I simply wish the same standards of interpretation would apply to the entire Constitution.


RE: 1st Amendment?
By Xerio on 3/12/2008 5:18:42 PM , Rating: 1
Amen! Unfortunately, people always have and always will twist things to fit some freaking agenda.


RE: 1st Amendment?
By Ryanman on 3/13/2008 3:09:29 PM , Rating: 2
and I find it amazing when people interpret the "right to bear arms" as the right to take all weapons from law abiding citizens because of propaganda, fear, ignorance, and inflated statistics.


RE: 1st Amendment?
By charliee on 3/12/08, Rating: -1
RE: 1st Amendment?
By DigitalFreak on 3/12/2008 7:35:59 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
"right to bear arms"


THAT would explain why all the Kentucky hicks walk around with sleeveless shirts! They got confused.


RE: 1st Amendment?
By ATWindsor on 3/13/2008 4:16:49 AM , Rating: 2
I think I have never met anyone who wants to let people have any kind of weapon, or even any kind of small arms weapon. As I see it the "diffrent sides" just wants to set the "point of illegality" at diffrent places in the spectrum.


RE: 1st Amendment?
By Spivonious on 3/13/2008 9:29:00 AM , Rating: 2
The second amendment was put in there so the military/federal government couldn't be more powerful than the people. Do I feel that I need an assault rifle? No, but should I ever feel that need, then I should be able to go and get one.


RE: 1st Amendment?
By ATWindsor on 3/13/2008 12:10:17 PM , Rating: 2
But should you be able to get a rocket launcher? Or a Davy Crocket? Most people put the limit somewhere on how effective weapons people should be legally able to own.


RE: 1st Amendment?
By Spivonious on 3/13/2008 3:11:37 PM , Rating: 2
Not to get into an argument but yes.

If the federal government has rocket launchers, I should be able to get one too, so if the government becomes a tyranny, we can band together and actually have a chance against the army. That is the purpose of the 2nd amendment.


RE: 1st Amendment?
By ATWindsor on 3/13/2008 3:17:42 PM , Rating: 3
Ok, that is intereseting, I think you are the first i hae seen with this view. You have no problem with people beeing able to buy nuclear weapons, and neither with biological og chemical then i guess, no matter how great their effectivness?

AtW


RE: 1st Amendment?
By hathost on 3/14/2008 4:57:35 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not not too worried that the military would side with the government in the event it turns into a tyranny, on the other hand...it's happened so many times in the past that I'd prefer to allow any piece of military hardware available to the civilian populace and live with the consequences than strip citizens of the right to defend themselves. The gov't should recieve its power from the citizens not the other way around. The best way to fix problems in a free society is more freedom.


RE: 1st Amendment?
By Ryanman on 3/13/2008 3:12:29 PM , Rating: 2
You should. The only way you can truly stop people from obtaining weapons is to make them prohibitively expensive to produce.
The only reason I DON'T support being able to purchase such "extreme" weapons is that, should the government organize a coup, the benefits of guerilla warfare will make nearly all small arms usable in a revolution. It's the saving grace of gun control laws.


RE: 1st Amendment?
By rcc on 3/12/2008 5:30:09 PM , Rating: 2
Yup, I read it too. However, they are not restricting what you can say, only requiring that you take credit for you.

Let me reiterate though, I'm not in favor of the bill, I just find it funny how "freedom of speech" in the online world has come to mean "doing what I want with impunity".

Before they worry about this issue too much, they should require junk mailers, spammers, telemarketers, etc. to provide full Name, Address, Phone, etc. info on every piece of garbage they send out so you know with whom to discuss it.

On a separate note, I think it should be a shooting offense to post articles, blogs, or pretty much anything on the internet without a date, and preferably a time stamp.


RE: 1st Amendment?
By ebakke on 3/12/2008 8:13:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
On a separate note, I think it should be a shooting offense to post articles, blogs, or pretty much anything on the internet without a date, and preferably a time stamp.


And search engines should order my results by the most recent timestamp.


RE: 1st Amendment?
By Will14 on 3/13/2008 10:55:35 AM , Rating: 2
I agree on adding date and time stamps to everything.

I also agree all spammers, telemarketers etc should provide all information. So when I address the fact that they've called me 8 times in the last 2 weeks. Ask to talk to their manager about their illegal use of an auto-dialer to someone on the do not call list. When they then put me on hold for 20 minutes and hang up. I can report them. Not that it matters because these particular spam/scammers are in India anyway.


Maybe...
By Xodus Maximus on 3/12/2008 4:36:33 PM , Rating: 5
Kentucky should just stick to not believing in evolution, and leave the magical things they don't comprehend,like the internet, alone.

Anonymity is the only freedom mankind has!




RE: Maybe...
By mmntech on 3/12/2008 4:45:28 PM , Rating: 2
Doesn't the Peoples' Republic of China ban internet anonymity? Something to think about.


RE: Maybe...
By AlvinCool on 3/12/2008 4:46:29 PM , Rating: 5
Thats so untrue

They believe in evolution and practice it more than your family I bet. You are just jealous cause you only got 10 fingers and 10 toes.