backtop


Print 111 comment(s) - last by ClownPuncher.. on Jun 1 at 4:07 PM

All users posting to websites would have to post their real name and address, non-compliant posts would be axed

When people think anonymity, Anonymous and their iconic Guy Fawkes masks often pop into mind these days.  But long before the members of that controversial hacker collective were a mere twinkle in their mothers' eyes, another anti-authoritarian rabble-rouser was using anonymous protest to stir up revolt against a totalitarian ruling elite.  His name was Thomas Paine, and his anonymously published work Common Sense helped ignite the colonists in revolution against Britain.

I. Want to Post?  Put Your Legal Name and Address Here!

Yet today in the country that Thomas Paine's anonymous writings helped to give birth to, a country in which speech is supposedly free, something alarming is happening.  Several states are looking to outlaw online anonymity.

New York is among them.  The State Senate is contemplating Bill S6779 a measure that would force users to post (and verify) their home address, IP address, and legal name in any post they make online.

That's right; New York is considering laying waste to privacy and anonymous speech in the name of "preventing" online bullying.  The bill describes:

A web site administrator upon request shall remove any comments posted on his or her web site by an anonymous poster unless such anonymous poster agrees to attach his or her name to the post and confirms that his or her IP address, legal name, and home address are accurate. All web site administrators shall have a contact number or e-mail address posted for such removal requests, clearly visible in any sections where comments are posted.

It's unclear exactly how much support the bill has in the State Senate.  It was introduced just over two months ago by Sen. Thomas F. O'Mara (R—Big Flats).  

Senator Thomas O'Mara
New York Republican State Senator Thomas O'Mara wants to force anonymous internet posters to surrender their right to anonymous free speech.
[Image Source: Thomas O'Mara]

Under the plan, New York State law enforcement officials and employees would be taxed with -- using taxpayer money -- sending takedown requests to websites.  Of course, the irony is that the law is grossly out of line with federal laws -- and likely unconstitutional -- thus if a website is hosted by out of state companies New York regulators might have no way of "forcing" websites like 4Chan or blogs to expose their users.

II. First Amendment, Anyone?

Such a practice would be unacceptable to most web businesses involving user-generated posts.  Not only would it violate user privacy and raise legal liability issues, it would also likely decrease participation.  At the same time it would hit sites with a double whammy by requiring them to pay for expensive code additions and extra administration.

The First Amendment states:

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.

Several state laws prohibiting anonymous pamphlets have already been ruled unconstitutional.  See Talley v. California (1960) and McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission (1995), for Supreme Court rulings defending citizens' right to anonymous speech and printed works.

Supreme Court
Despite at least two Supreme Court rulings beating them back, states' effort to ban anonymous free speech has persisted into the digital era [Image Source: City-Data]

Thus, one thing is for sure -- if New York does adopt this wild restriction of civil liberties, it will surely be swiftly challenged.  And based on past precedent, it will almost certainly be ruled illegal on First Amendment grounds.

Sources: NY State Senate, AP



Comments     Threshold


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

This guy hates his job
By hkscfreak on 5/25/2012 6:17:50 PM , Rating: 3
He might as well quit now.




RE: This guy hates his job
By Reclaimer77 on 5/25/2012 6:35:29 PM , Rating: 3
That's okay. The Tea Party will have him removed. Just like bunches of other big government liberal Republicans who lost their jobs in 2010.

Personally I think we should take them out back and shoot them. Oh yeah, I said that on the Internet. Anonymously!


RE: This guy hates his job
By FITCamaro on 5/25/2012 6:53:07 PM , Rating: 3
Does it surprise anyone that a thought like this came out of New York?


RE: This guy hates his job
By ClownPuncher on 5/25/2012 7:11:45 PM , Rating: 3
No. Honestly, sometimes NY politics make SF politics seem rational.


RE: This guy hates his job
By AssBall on 5/25/2012 8:23:21 PM , Rating: 3
In a sick sort of backwards way. Both states blow my mind with their political retardation.


RE: This guy hates his job
By MrBlastman on 5/25/2012 9:19:35 PM , Rating: 2
Pardon my profanity... but this guy is a fucktard!


RE: This guy hates his job
By rs2 on 5/27/12, Rating: 0
RE: This guy hates his job
By gamerk2 on 5/27/2012 3:32:28 AM , Rating: 2
As a NYker, California is worse, because those idiotic proposed laws actually get approved, where in NY, they die in silence.

Remember, NY has three distinct parts: Long Island, Upstate, and NY proper. One heavily liberal, one heavily conservative, and one thats basically split down the middle. Thats why, despite never having a shot to own the assembly, Republicans have historically run NY [especially the Senate].


RE: This guy hates his job
By Samus on 5/27/2012 4:16:21 AM , Rating: 3
Believe me, I've lived in Brooklyn and San Diego, and neither of their states' have Chicago (Illinois) politics beat for idiotic ideas and corruption :\


RE: This guy hates his job
By FITCamaro on 5/27/2012 9:52:54 AM , Rating: 3
And now we have those idiotic laws at a federal level.


RE: This guy hates his job
By delphinus100 on 5/27/2012 10:52:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Long Island, Upstate, and NY proper.


I assume 'NY proper' means 'New York City...'

(Says someone living in one of the 'other' cities.)


RE: This guy hates his job
By Chadder007 on 5/26/2012 10:54:23 AM , Rating: 3
I thought it at least would have come from California first.


RE: This guy hates his job
By BluntForceTrama on 5/27/2012 6:12:27 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Does it surprise anyone that a thought like this came out of New York?


http://static.someecards.com/someecards/usercards/...


RE: This guy hates his job
By ClownPuncher on 5/25/2012 7:08:19 PM , Rating: 4
You and your misuse of terms! Sometimes you have the right idea at heart, but kinda botch the delivery.

This is a progressive conservative collectivist. By definition, liberals would want more personal freedom and less government interference. This is how the rest of the world sees it, but US politics and media obfuscate the real understanding of the political spectrum.

There are many social conservatives that would be considered collectivist progressives. Fiscal "conservatives" would and should be called fiscal liberals, because they believe in the liberal free market and often individual rights.

Now, obviously the left has more progressives than the right, but to blame the idiocy of the progressive right on a different group is dishonest.

Read up on the Scottish Enlightenment and authors like John Locke to get a good idea of what values the US was founded upon. (not progressive ideology)


RE: This guy hates his job
By zozzlhandler on 5/25/2012 7:45:22 PM , Rating: 2
The "political spectrum" is part of the problem here. A spectrum is one-dimensional. Politics has at least two dimensions (see "Pournelle Axes").


RE: This guy hates his job
By ClownPuncher on 5/25/2012 7:50:36 PM , Rating: 2
I do agree. It's sort of amazing how things got distilled, repourposed, simplified, distilled again and then scrambled.


RE: This guy hates his job
By knutjb on 5/26/2012 1:00:43 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly. Progressives were viewed in a dim light after WWI so they dropped the name and slowly spread into both parties but mostly with the democrats. They high jacked the liberal term for many years until most had forgotten or never knew the original meaning of progressive. They continually take common terms and twist their meaning.

Progressives believe they know best and you are too stupid to know any better. Teddy Roosevelt was one for a while then came to his senses. Margret Sanger, Woodrow Wilson,... there are plenty out there to choose from. Know your history; it's the most terrifying read out there.

John Locke is an excellent read. Amazing wisdom.


RE: This guy hates his job
By Reclaimer77 on 5/26/12, Rating: -1
RE: This guy hates his job
By idiot77 on 5/26/2012 1:40:52 AM , Rating: 3
Because you're retarded and honestly, you're what that moron had in mind when he wants less anonymity. My guess you're winning personality is why you rarely leave your house.


RE: This guy hates his job
By BluntForceTrama on 5/26/2012 5:13:28 AM , Rating: 1
The proposed legislation is quite stupid, but he hates it for the same reasons the KKK would hate not being anonymous, they're simply too embarrassed to behave that way in real life.

On a more realistic note, should this law apply to journalists as well? The Associated Press doesn't sign 95% of the articles they produce.


RE: This guy hates his job
By knutjb on 5/26/2012 2:28:10 AM , Rating: 1
Sadly you’re shallow. Kind of like Homer, ummm doughnuts… easily distracted from the event. The correct label does make a difference. Over simplification presents an incorrect image. You are happy with:
quote:
Every American knows when someone calls this a-hole Senator from NY a "liberal", what that means. Isn't that all that matters?


But there is more to it. Try reading what was suggested and then you might just understand the parsing. That is unless you're complict...Nah, just read.


RE: This guy hates his job
By Reclaimer77 on 5/26/2012 9:19:02 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry but I refuse to use political terminology that's simply not applicable to American politics in a discussion about American politicians. Understand that and move on. Why are we still talking about this?

If I'm "shallow", than you and Clown are being anal retentive.


RE: This guy hates his job
By room200 on 5/26/12, Rating: 0
RE: This guy hates his job
By ClownPuncher on 6/1/2012 4:07:00 PM , Rating: 1
You're not right, because he isn't a liberal. You and I both disagree with him, but that doesn't mean he is a liberal by any stretch of the imagination. Your misunderstanding of the terms makes you incorrect. If you drop the ego for a minute, you can learn.


RE: This guy hates his job
By Reclaimer77 on 5/25/12, Rating: -1
RE: This guy hates his job
By rabbitslayer21 on 5/25/2012 8:22:37 PM , Rating: 4
A spectrum is one-dimensional, not one-sided.


RE: This guy hates his job
By twhittet on 5/26/2012 4:38:20 PM , Rating: 4
Don't bother with him - talking to him is like talking to a (one sided) wall.


RE: This guy hates his job
By kilkennycat on 5/26/2012 10:34:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The "political spectrum" is part of the problem here. A spectrum is one-dimensional. Politics has at least two dimensions (see "Pournelle Axes").


Very true indeed.

Bribery and Corruption and.....


RE: This guy hates his job
By Reclaimer77 on 5/25/12, Rating: -1
RE: This guy hates his job
By room200 on 5/26/2012 3:55:15 AM , Rating: 1
I'm a liberal and I think the law is idiotic, and i think you're an idiot.


RE: This guy hates his job
By ClownPuncher on 6/1/2012 3:55:28 PM , Rating: 1
Good god, man. You really don't understand politics, do you?


RE: This guy hates his job
By rudolphna on 5/25/2012 7:58:22 PM , Rating: 3
See now I live in NYS. And Im liberal. And Im seriously opposed to this law, and so is everyone I know who knows about it. Just because someone is a "liberal" doesn't mean we support crap like this.


RE: This guy hates his job
By StevoLincolnite on 5/25/2012 10:18:26 PM , Rating: 2
Regardless of where you live, what political party you follow or other political views... No one, no where on this planet should ever accept any limitations on free speech, ever, if you don't have free speech, fight for it!


RE: This guy hates his job
By Reclaimer77 on 5/26/12, Rating: -1
RE: This guy hates his job
By room200 on 5/26/2012 3:57:29 AM , Rating: 1
You mean sorta like how your party wants to force everyone to be Christian, tell women what to do with their bodies, etc? Talk about the ultimate nanny state.


RE: This guy hates his job
By BluntForceTrama on 5/26/2012 5:02:47 AM , Rating: 1
You won't find any here like him that don't live by the all too frequent republican double standard. This is the "logic" of the extremist cult follower.


RE: This guy hates his job
By Reclaimer77 on 5/26/2012 9:31:24 AM , Rating: 2
There's no double standard. This man clearly does NOT embrace Conservative ideals. If he did, I'm sure he wouldn't have won his election in New York in the first place, but I digress. Call him what you want, I don't care. But he's not the kind of Republican we need in office to "represent" the party.

I never thought I would take so much crap for pointing out the obvious. This guy is just another of the mainstream establishment "progressive" Republicans. What, exactly, is so polarizing about pointing that out?

You people are acting like I'm injecting politics where it doesn't belong or something. That's a little hard to NOT do given the subject matter here. No "extremist" here. Just a bunch of idiots who cannot call something like it is.


RE: This guy hates his job
By gamerk2 on 5/27/2012 3:35:52 AM , Rating: 4
Actually, he's one of the most conservative members of the NY state senate; he's a typical Upstate Republican.

Heck, he was BACKED by the Tea Party during his election. Hardly meets the marker of a "progressive" Republican.


RE: This guy hates his job
By room200 on 5/27/2012 10:28:31 AM , Rating: 3
That doesn't fit the narrative of reclaimer77 and others, so it will therefore be ignored. LOL


RE: This guy hates his job
By Reclaimer77 on 5/28/2012 8:09:50 AM , Rating: 1
"Most conservative" in NY senate just means he's not a flaming liberal. He's still a moderate to "progressive" Republican. He might have been the least liberal option. But a Conservative? Ha!

And the Tea Party doesn't have a crystal ball. All too often people will sing the Conservative song as a Republican to get in office *cough Bush cough* , only to become an entirely different politician once elected.

quote:
he's a typical Upstate Republican.


Exactly. I'm sorry but what's the argument here? I've been saying the whole time that he's a typical Upstate Republican!! The only way you even get elected there in the first place is to be progressive.


RE: This guy hates his job
By room200 on 5/26/2012 3:51:10 AM , Rating: 2
This has NOTHING to do with liberal anything. This guy is one of YOURS. Accept it and move on. Even when it has nothing to do with democrats, you still launch into your tirade about liberals. You are a fucking nutcase.


RE: This guy hates his job
By BluntForceTrama on 5/26/2012 5:06:07 AM , Rating: 1
Exactly, typical extremist.

+1


RE: This guy hates his job
By TheJian on 5/26/2012 6:57:22 PM , Rating: 2
Well, one point he makes is correct. Generally speaking republicans FIGHT for your rights, not TAKE them from you. Republicans believe YOU should take care of your medical, retirement, etc. Dems/libs would take it away and the government is ALWAYS smarter at spending your money than YOU in their eyes.

This idiot from NY (they don't have republicans there running things, you're aware of that right?) would never get elected in a republican state. That pretty much proves he's NOT what republicans would want running their party, their states, etc. If you at any point tell me you can spend my money better than ME (and force me to let you do it) you're not from the party I signed up with. If you waste money on crap that the PRIVATE sector would NEVER spend a dime on, you're not from the party I signed up for. All of this green crap would NEVER be done by the private sector because they can't make money on battery cars etc...Too expensive and save nothing over the life of the car (at a $5-15K premium you never get it back in gas savings).

This all comes back to the point of Govt NOT being in business. They have no business being in business. Today they own all our loans, GM etc. What are they doing making battery investments, car/bank bailouts etc? All of these should have failed on their own and just lost their money. Someone else will take their place within a month if not less...LOL. There's no need to police the internet either. For one, it's impossible. We'd end up with an empty internet in the US and everyone on foreign servers that give this law the finger (not that I believe it could pass - but this guy should be put in jail as a traitor to his country along with the RIAA/MPAA, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank etc...). These people creating these laws are completely against what our country was founded on. FREEDOM. We should treat them all just like we would have treated the Brits landing on our soil telling us what to do say, 250 years ago :) We would have KILLED THEM.

This guy is a Democrat wearing republican clothes. You can't get elected in NY as a republican (a real one). But they'll gladly elect someone to run their state that has NEVER lived there before if your a democrat...ROFL (Hilary...LOL). Didn't she beat a republican that had lived in the state his ENTIRE life as a republican?...ROFL. See the point? Clinton rolled in with NO experience running NY at all. Dem vs. Rep in NY? What? Who cares if she's never lived here (and he's been in the state his whole life, public service etc), she's a dem vote the idiot in no matter what...ROFL.

This guy must have run unopposed in his district. :) Oh, FYI if any republican ever tries to pass laws that tell women what to do with their bodies (I don't care if they believe differently than me until they tell me I HAVE TO BELIEVE IT ALSO) I'll promptly vote against them. You guys always seem to throw abortion around even when it's not on topic (no different than what you say Reclaimer77 does with liberals etc). While I believe the rep's do have anti-abortion as a belief, there are a scant few that would ever try to tell others to abide by it (the crazies outside the abortion clinics...LOL - not exactly representative of Rep's beliefs in PERSONAL FREEDOM/responsibility).

This guy is NOT one of ours. He couldn't get elected in ANY republican state. That pretty much makes you NOT one of ours doesn't it? If democrats vote you in, in arguably the most democrat state in the country, your a democrat...LOL. I don't care what you claim. His actions are speaking quite loudly. No freedom of speech? I'm almost embarrassed to call him a democrat even. This isn't even AMERICAN is it? He barely qualifies for a scum dem. I don't put many people in a group with Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, and their ilk. But this guy is a part of that group. If you're fighting to take away my rights, you're anti-American. PERIOD. They should be passing laws to punish companies for suing dead grandma's, or people who have no PC's etc. If they make a mistake in their frivolous lawsuit, charge them a 1mil per suit thrown out (10mil? 100mil? What would stop them?). Rights back to the people instantly.

Semi-related: We have the same crap happening with these game haters. I've been virtually killing people by the millions for years. I have no intention of killing someone for real. Playing games has no effect on a SANE NORMAL person. I shouldn't have to curtail my virtual fun because some nut-job goes on a killing spree and owns a copy of quake or doom (OMG..noooo). Again, personal responsibility. The nut-job went on a killing spree. It has nothing to do with me or my games. Should we take the WWF/WWE etc off the air because some kid did a piledriver on his baby sister? Why pick on a game that shows the same stuff? It's on TV every night. Bad parenting, not bad tv or games. I think wrestling is completely stupid (not the real stuff, college wrestling is pretty awesome to watch), but I still believe people should be able to watch it even if I don't and NEVER have.


RE: This guy hates his job
By room200 on 5/27/2012 10:21:59 AM , Rating: 1
Well, one point he makes is correct. Generally speaking republicans FIGHT for your rights, not TAKE them from you. Republicans believe YOU should take care of your medical, retirement, etc. Dems/libs would take it away and the government is ALWAYS smarter at spending your money than YOU in their eyes.

Really? They're attempting to take away women's right to choose. Gay people's civil rights. The right of evryone to be free of religion or to choose their own religion by always implementing crap that talks about how this is a Christiona nation.

This idiot from NY (they don't have republicans there running things, you're aware of that right?) would never get elected in a republican state. That pretty much proves he's NOT what republicans would want running their party, their states, etc. If you at any point tell me you can spend my money better than ME (and force me to let you do it) you're not from the party I signed up with. If you waste money on crap that the PRIVATE sector would NEVER spend a dime on, you're not from the party I signed up for. All of this green crap would NEVER be done by the private sector because they can't make money on battery cars etc...Too expensive and save nothing over the life of the car (at a $5-15K premium you never get it back in gas savings).

Which is EXACTLY why some things should never be left up to the private sector. The private sector does not care about what's best for America; they care about what's best for the company. That usually doesn't translate into best for the country. Government is supposed the be on the side of the people. the same cannot be said for corporations.

This all comes back to the point of Govt NOT being in business. They have no business being in business. Today they own all our loans, GM etc. What are they doing making battery investments, car/bank bailouts etc? All of these should have failed on their own and just lost their money. Someone else will take their place within a month if not less...LOL. There's no need to police the internet either. For one, it's impossible. We'd end up with an empty internet in the US and everyone on foreign servers that give this law the finger (not that I believe it could pass - but this guy should be put in jail as a traitor to his country along with the RIAA/MPAA, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank etc...). These people creating these laws are completely against what our country was founded on. FREEDOM. We should treat them all just like we would have treated the Brits landing on our soil telling us what to do say, 250 years ago :) We would have KILLED THEM.

The government has a responsibility to do what's best for the country. In a recession to let millions of jobs die because of right-wing ideology would be stupid. Besides, the governement will ALWAYS be in business. They have historically bought congress and manipulated the market to the point to where there truly is no free market anymore. Besides, the minute a private company hands out a government contract, the idea of the free market is out the window.

This guy is a Democrat wearing republican clothes. You can't get elected in NY as a republican (a real one). But they'll gladly elect someone to run their state that has NEVER lived there before if your a democrat...ROFL (Hilary...LOL). Didn't she beat a republican that had lived in the state his ENTIRE life as a republican?...ROFL. See the point? Clinton rolled in with NO experience running NY at all. Dem vs. Rep in NY? What? Who cares if she's never lived here (and he's been in the state his whole life, public service etc), she's a dem vote the idiot in no matter what...ROFL.

This guy is a republican backed by the Teaparty. The teaparty does not back liberals.

This guy must have run unopposed in his district. :) Oh, FYI if any republican ever tries to pass laws that tell women what to do with their bodies (I don't care if they believe differently than me until they tell me I HAVE TO BELIEVE IT ALSO) I'll promptly vote against them. You guys always seem to throw abortion around even when it's not on topic (no different than what you say Reclaimer77 does with liberals etc). While I believe the rep's do have anti-abortion as a belief, there are a scant few that would ever try to tell others to abide by it (the crazies outside the abortion clinics...LOL - not exactly representative of Rep's beliefs in PERSONAL FREEDOM/responsibility).

Excuse me? If you voted against them, there wouldn't be any to vote for; they always focus on these wedge issues and you know it. Nearly 100% of republicans vote in lock-step on every one of these types of bills.

This guy is NOT one of ours. He couldn't get elected in ANY republican state. That pretty much makes you NOT one of ours doesn't it? If democrats vote you in, in arguably the most democrat state in the country, your a democrat...LOL. I don't care what you claim. His actions are speaking quite loudly. No freedom of speech? I'm almost embarrassed to call him a democrat even. This isn't even AMERICAN is it? He barely qualifies for a scum dem. I don't put many people in a group with Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, and their ilk. But this guy is a part of that group. If you're fighting to take away my rights, you're anti-American. PERIOD. They should be passing laws to punish companies for suing dead grandma's, or people who have no PC's etc. If they make a mistake in their frivolous lawsuit, charge them a 1mil per suit thrown out (10mil? 100mil? What would stop them?). Rights back to the people instantly.

He's a rethug plain and simple. Here's a note; you can't say that any rethug you disagree with is a liberal and get away with it. This is tantamount to what you're saying. That let's you off the hook every time. Nope.


RE: This guy hates his job
By knutjb on 5/28/2012 2:19:15 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Really? They're attempting to take away women's right to choose. Gay people's civil rights. The right of evryone to be free of religion or to choose their own religion by always implementing crap that talks about how this is a Christiona nation.
A womans right to choose what? That is a moral dilema. How much do you value life of the unborn? How would you feel about it if your mother had "chose" not to have you? As for the Christian comments you need a history lesson, free from modern revisionism.

quote:
Which is EXACTLY why some things should never be left up to the private sector. The private sector does not care about what's best for America; they care about what's best for the company. That usually doesn't translate into best for the country. Government is supposed the be on the side of the people. the same cannot be said for corporations.
OK Comrade. Show me where the private sector intentionally goes out of its way to harm America? I simply point to the Energy Depts loan program with a 20% success rate and falling. The GSA western conference was a winner too. That is good for America? Your fallacious arguments are terribly weak on fact and reality. Go back to LBJ's raiding of the moneys set aside for social security. Lets see, he paid for war and the great society with it. To date over $16T has been blown and we are still fighting a war on poverty? Your are so right, only government is good. BTW the 50 year return on social security contributions is 0.25% annual. That evil stock market.

quote:
The government has a responsibility to do what's best for the country. In a recession to let millions of jobs die because of right-wing ideology would be stupid. Besides, the governement will ALWAYS be in business. They have historically bought congress and manipulated the market to the point to where there truly is no free market anymore. Besides, the minute a private company hands out a government contract, the idea of the free market is out the window.
The problem is it hasn't. If the economy is prevented from self correcting, letting companies fail, you will end up with what took down the Soviet Union. A government micro-managed economy, it will never succeed. And contrary to your belief that government will always be in business. Without tax revenues from the private sector it will fail. The part where you are correct is the free market. Yep Capitalism, the free market, has its hands tied by onerous regulations. Not all are bad but most are knee jerk reactions to prevent the unpreventable. The SEC did a bang up job containing Madoff. To see my point go back and read about the depression we had following WWI. Also try George McGoverns biogrphy about his business experience after losing in 1972.
quote:
Excuse me? If you voted against them, there wouldn't be any to vote for; they always focus on these wedge issues and you know it. Nearly 100% of republicans vote in lock-step on every one of these types of bills.
Your facts? Come back to reality.
quote:
This guy is a republican backed by the Teaparty. The teaparty does not back liberals.

This proposed law is moronic. Any politician can let themselves be seduced by the "power to do good." We send them there to run things but when they try this they must be stopped and sent packing. Typically laws like this are proposed and pushed by the left. Though every once and a while one on the right does this. The big difference is those in the TEA Party, no I am not one, are already looking to find replacements for those vainly trying to prevent the unpreventable.

That typically doesn't happen on the left. On the left Joe Lieberman comes to mind but that's all that comes to mind at the moment. On the right John McCain's immagration push was knocked down, debt limit extesions, over spending, and so on are just a few causing greif for those on the right.


RE: This guy hates his job
By Dr of crap on 5/29/2012 8:26:40 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry, I saw politics and I DIDN'T READ IT!


RE: This guy hates his job
By tayb on 5/26/2012 8:38:43 AM , Rating: 2
Even when the man pushing this crap is Republican you still manage to put an amazing amount of spin on it and blame liberals and/or progressives. This is the same party that used scare tactics and fear mongrring to pass unconstitutional legislation such as the Patriot Act.

The tea party makes me laugh. Anti big government except when they're not anti big government. The fact that this movement accepts Mitt Romney is just an absolute joke to me. The guy signed gun control laws and mandated health care laws while a governor!!


RE: This guy hates his job
By Reclaimer77 on 5/26/2012 9:13:54 AM , Rating: 1
Spin? So you think Left leaning ideology only comes from the Democrat party? I think it would be more dishonest and "spin" if that was the argument I was making. Here I am telling you, plainly admitting, that the Republican party has it's fair share of "progressive" idiots, and you're having a problem with that?

Ummm okay...

quote:
The fact that this movement accepts Mitt Romney is just an absolute joke to me.


Where do you see the Tea Party enthusiastically endorsing Romney? Fact is though he's the candidate, and we MUST defeat Obama, so oh well. Whether it's voting for Romney or simply voting against Obama makes no difference in the end.

Troll on tayb.


RE: This guy hates his job
By twhittet on 5/26/2012 4:42:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Whether it's voting for Romney or simply voting against Obama makes no difference in the end.


And, once again, you display what is wrong with your whole "movement", and how you don't even care where this country is going, "as long as it isn't Obama". Genius. Really. You're awesome. Never change. Not that you will - it's beyond your ability.


RE: This guy hates his job
By BluntForceTrama on 5/26/2012 4:48:43 PM , Rating: 2
Don't forget the ongoing hypocrisy of calling others trolls all the while doing absolutely nothing but trolling over on the DT Apple articles.

The double standard lives on.

quote:
Never change

Perpetual stagnancy, it's something to strive for throughout one's lifetime.


RE: This guy hates his job
By Reclaimer77 on 5/26/2012 5:07:48 PM , Rating: 2
Blunt your ENTIRE post history is dedicated to me. This is an obvious alternate account or someone in bad need of a life. Either way you're pathetic.


RE: This guy hates his job
By BluntForceTrama on 5/27/2012 6:10:22 AM , Rating: 5
Please stop flattering yourself. Your overstatement is just another deflection. One, your kind is very predicatable, and two, others like your haven't ventured as far in their arguments as you have.

There's a lot of irony in your accusation, given I sincerely doubt you behave the way you do in public. Alternate account versus alter ego? No comparison.

As part of your kind's feeble defense system you get to make ad hominem attacks on a regular basis aimed at not only individuals, but entire states, religions, political groups, anything that doesn't suit your fancy. If we examine history what do see when groups are addressed in such a manner? So who's pathetic?

And the moment someone addresses your clearly visible limitations that's a personal attack? Have you ever not lived to a double standard?

In bad need of a life? The pot factory is addressing a single kettle. Seriously? Do you exist anywhere outside this private little Idaho?


RE: This guy hates his job
By room200 on 5/27/2012 10:24:32 AM , Rating: 2
+1 Brother


RE: This guy hates his job
By Reclaimer77 on 5/26/2012 4:59:19 PM , Rating: 2
Of course I care where this country is going. Going radically into Marxism/Socialism isn't a good direction.

Please show me all the awesome things that Obama has done that would make me want to vote for him. Oh ya, you can't. So your little speech and lecture attempt is laughable.


RE: This guy hates his job
By gamerk2 on 5/27/2012 3:28:11 AM , Rating: 1
January 2009: Jobs lost: ~750,000
January 2011: Jobs gained: ~250,000

And for whatever reason, we decided to give the other guys a shot at running government. Fast forward to today, and we're at, what, about 125k a month?

So yeah, compared to where we were, economically, things are vastly improved over where they were when Obama took office. The fact things have gotten worse since Republicans took the house should farther illustrate why Obama is the correct choice.


RE: This guy hates his job
By SlyNine on 5/28/2012 10:45:10 PM , Rating: 2
Do you buy made in china to save a buck. Its no ones fault but our own.


RE: This guy hates his job
By room200 on 5/27/2012 10:26:48 AM , Rating: 2
Then they should shoot themselves; the Teaparty backed him. Since they are nothing but right wing nutjobs and hypocrites, he'll sail back into office as the conservative rethug he was when he got elected.


RE: This guy hates his job
By JasonMick (blog) on 5/25/2012 7:22:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
He might as quit now.
My take on Sen. O'Mara in one eloquent word...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ecFPc1nVUQ


RE: This guy hates his job
By JasonMick (blog) on 5/25/2012 7:31:01 PM , Rating: 2
Whoops, actually this video, though the other could apply too...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iubog28_KBI


RE: This guy hates his job
By marraco on 5/25/2012 10:17:21 PM , Rating: 2
Like SOPA and creationism, if they fail, they will make subtle changes, relabel it, and try again and again, until they make the cracks in the system.


RE: This guy hates his job
By stimudent on 5/26/2012 12:09:03 PM , Rating: 2
Nazi Germany all over again. History repeating itself. One would expect something like this out of North or South Carolina, Virginia.


RE: This guy hates his job
By BluntForceTrama on 5/30/2012 8:01:48 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Sinclair_Lewis

Recognize anybody from around these parts?


RE: This guy hates his job
By talikarni on 5/28/2012 5:54:33 PM , Rating: 2
agreed, just because someone has an "R" by their name does not mean he is a conservative or subscribes to Constitutional law.


RE: This guy hates his job
By km9v on 5/29/2012 12:23:40 PM , Rating: 2
Don't worry, it will never pass.


This is not a bad idea!
By EricMartello on 5/27/12, Rating: 0
RE: This is not a bad idea!
By Reclaimer77 on 5/27/2012 10:01:59 PM , Rating: 2
Remember Michael Asher? He was a pretty good writer here on DT. I dare say one of the best. Problem was, if this can be considered to be a problem, he wrote articles that didn't conform to the establishment average Internet radical wacko viewpoint.

He dissapeared one day and just up and stopped writing for Daily Tech. Turns out that there's enough information on the Internet about someone that, just with a name, you can find out someones address, phone number, family photos, place of employment etc etc.

Michael Asher apparently stopped writing because someone didn't like what he was saying and threatened him and his family in a very personal and disturbing way. If he was using a handle, and not his real name, none of this would have happened.

Long story short, grow up. Anonymity isn't just for "puss1es" on the Internet.


RE: This is not a bad idea!
By Anonymouse123 on 5/28/2012 2:50:40 PM , Rating: 2
That's hilarious. What proof do you have that your user name is, in fact, your real name. I challenge you to furnish some sort of proof.


RE: This is not a bad idea!
By Anonymouse123 on 5/28/2012 10:50:33 PM , Rating: 2
Well, I guess you don't want to want to play this game.

Your name is NOT Eric Martello. Eric Martello is (or was) a TV weatherman somewhere, and you are a fraud.

You pretended to be named Eric Martello at Anandtech too. But, you were banned there for trying to scam the other users by posting fake product reviews and spam links. You've also attempted these scams here and there with a few other "real name" type sounding accounts like "Larry Peters." He doesn't exist either.

Also, the business you constantly brag about is just a few websites with zero traffic or revenue. Probably why you still at home with your parents (who are also losers,) despite being in your mid 30's.

It took me like 15 minutes using only Google to find out your REAL name. Pathetic loser.


RE: This is not a bad idea!
By SlyNine on 5/28/2012 10:52:00 PM , Rating: 2
If there isn't a real Larry Peters out there some where I'll eat my shorts. lol


RE: This is not a bad idea!
By Anonymouse123 on 5/28/2012 11:15:44 PM , Rating: 2
I think you missed my point. I'm sure there are hundreds of people with that name. And obviously there is more than one person on Earth named Eric Martello. My point is that it isn't his name.


RE: This is not a bad idea!
By EricMartello on 5/31/2012 1:56:08 AM , Rating: 2
@Anonyh0m069
LOL that is some fail logic. You do a google search for my email address, no doubt thinking you are a genius for coming up with that idea, click on the first link that appears - some thread on anandtech. You then, ingeniously I might add, discover that someone did a whois search on a domain I own and posted it in said thread.

Continuing this display of god-like intelligence you google the whois information you discovered in the thread because that whois info must belong to me...then you realize that it is associated with...a...company...that... hosts my website.

Since I'm not making any money with that website I better go return all my cars, my airplane and that boat sitting in the dock behind my house. I've been living beyond my means this whole time AND with my parents no less!!!!

Bravo, I've been found out. Will the real Eric Martello please stand up? Clever use of Google.

@Reclaimer
I think that's the story he tells people at parties...but the real reason he left is that he got tired of dealing with all the idiots that post here daily. He spent time to write articles, only to be greeted with tons of inane comments or someone getting rated up to 5 for re-posting a tired-a55 meme.

They should rename this site to dailymoron because it seems like it's full of morons. I don't really post much either, mainly because of that.


RE: This is not a bad idea!
By Anonymouse123 on 5/31/2012 9:07:30 AM , Rating: 2
That's exactly the response I was waiting for.

You're name is Ilarion Bilynsky, and you own neither boats nor airplanes. There's no dock behind your house. You have no actual customers, just fake identities. You're a fraud and a crook, and remarkably unsuccessful at everything you attempt.

There's no Eric Martello. There's no Larry Peters. All these supposed customers are just you - a liar, a loser, and a troll. You've been called out everywhere you've attempted these little scams, and you make the same claims each time.

If you want to live your life as a loser, have fun with that. If you want to commit fraud (which you're doing by the way,) you'll eventually end up in jail. But don't think that the readers here believe you.

If anyone is actually following this exchange, reading through these two links should interest them.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=11984...
http://www.audiobanter.com/archive/index.php/t-679...

I have plenty more if this continues. I'll keep posting more each time "Eric" replies.

Can you believe that was 2003, and it's 2012 already? Business has gone downhill a little bit in the last few years, hasn't it, Ilarion?


RE: This is not a bad idea!
By EricMartello on 5/31/2012 5:08:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's exactly the response I was waiting for.

You're name is Ilarion Bilynsky, and you own neither boats nor airplanes. There's no dock behind your house. You have no actual customers, just fake identities. You're a fraud and a crook, and remarkably unsuccessful at everything you attempt.


OH OK! I must be him because you've declared that I am not actually who I say I am. The entertainment value of some troll thinking he is onto me is high. Please continue... :)

quote:
There's no Eric Martello. There's no Larry Peters. All these supposed customers are just you - a liar, a loser, and a troll. You've been called out everywhere you've attempted these little scams, and you make the same claims each time.


I suppose you're going to prove your claims next with more google'd information that was just a few clicks away.

quote:
If you want to live your life as a loser, have fun with that. If you want to commit fraud (which you're doing by the way,) you'll eventually end up in jail.


Which "fraud" is it that you are referring to? Do share!

quote:
But don't think that the readers here believe you.


You're right - they should take some random guy who thinks he's a CIA mastermind for executing a few google searches and finding information that was not hidden.

quote:
If anyone is actually following this exchange, reading through these two links should interest them.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=11984...
http://www.audiobanter.com/archive/index.php/t-679...


Well the first link is a post I made a long time ago about a review I posted getting deleted from retarded-ratings, but the second one I have no idea about and my name is not even mentioned in that posting, which appears to have been lifted off of usenet. I actually never posted anything on usenet.

About the AT post- I wrote a positive review for a company on RR and was accused of posting a fake review by scott weener. The thread you linked to only shows why AT is full of morons - who instead of looking at the issue objectively they decided to "attack" me because there is no way their beloved RR would do something like that. People believe want they want to believe, just like you believe I am not actually me. In most cases that which people choose to believe is wrong.

quote:
I have plenty more if this continues. I'll keep posting more each time "Eric" replies.


Oh yeah, keep it flowing bro!!!

On a sidenote, the behavior you are exhibiting is exactly the type of behavior that an anti-anonymity law would address.

quote:
Can you believe that was 2003, and it's 2012 already? Business has gone downhill a little bit in the last few years, hasn't it, Ilarion?


I can say that life is pretty good for me...but judging by the amount of time you have on your hands, it looks like there isn't a whole lot going on in yours.

Feel free to keep googling me because there is no doubt that reading about me is more interesting than actually being you. :D


NY State oath of office
By siconik on 5/25/2012 6:42:34 PM , Rating: 4
NEW YORK STATE SENATE or NEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLY MEMBER, OFFICER or EMPLOYEE OATH/AFFIRMATION

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the State of New York, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office..."

Here is the question: why do people like him are not immediately removed from office having violated their oath so egregiously?




RE: NY State oath of office
By ClownPuncher on 5/25/2012 7:26:16 PM , Rating: 2
Because "we" do not hold them accountable.


RE: NY State oath of office
By TSS on 5/26/2012 5:12:33 AM , Rating: 2
Because who will do the actual removing?

The other politicians that are just as corrupt/stupid/incompetent as this guy?


RE: NY State oath of office
By vXv on 5/26/2012 5:31:00 AM , Rating: 2
Courts?

That should be ultimately there job. Decide whether there is enough evidence and in case there is kick the moron out. (and while at it charge him fines).


RE: NY State oath of office
By Initium on 5/26/2012 8:53:50 PM , Rating: 2
They are held accountable by the use of free and fair elections. That is the essential nature of democracy. The power to install or remove elected officials rests solely with the people. Separation of powers ensures the courts cannot be used to subordinate or usurp the power of the people to elect whoever they choose. Of course the people have to vote and before voting care. The Constitution can be amended which means an elected official has to introduce an amendment which by your logic would amount to breaking their oath. Shame about all those 'good' amendments huh?


RE: NY State oath of office
By vXv on 5/28/2012 4:26:43 AM , Rating: 2
Well in case they break their oath they have betrayed the people they are supposed to represent and so should be removed from office right away not stay there until the term ends.


By JeanVictorCote on 5/25/2012 8:47:52 PM , Rating: 2
...by anyone hell bent on finding it.




By Camikazi on 5/26/2012 12:11:54 AM , Rating: 2
If they are that intent on finding my real name then they will have to work for it :P I will not make it easy for them, it will be work for them. It's a quick way of seeing if they really want to find me or not.


By BluntForceTrama on 5/26/2012 2:28:52 PM , Rating: 2
No effort at all.

http://www.youtube.com/user/Reclaimer77

Can't see his concealed penis extender in this photo.


By Cheesew1z69 on 5/26/2012 9:02:33 PM , Rating: 2
And....there isn't other people on the internet with the same name eh?


Should be a crime
By lightfoot on 5/25/2012 6:30:33 PM , Rating: 2
I for one am sick of elected officials who constantly try to pass laws that are clearly unconstitutional.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that it should be a crime for any legislator to try to subvert the U.S. Constitution by attempting to pass legislation that they know to be in violation of the Constitution.




RE: Should be a crime
By ebakke on 5/25/2012 6:36:16 PM , Rating: 2
How about just simply a violation of their oath of office? That should justify immediate impeachment hearings. No need to create new laws.


RE: Should be a crime
By Reclaimer77 on 5/25/12, Rating: 0
RE: Should be a crime
By hero_of_zero on 5/26/12, Rating: 0
RE: Should be a crime
By BluntForceTrama on 5/26/2012 2:22:10 PM , Rating: 2
He wants a corporatist that caters to the K St whores on the right side of the street, not the left side. After all they are a superior breed of whore, don't you know.


The End of Free Speech?
By FurryOne on 5/26/2012 9:20:53 AM , Rating: 1
Wow, such nasty comments! Let's get one thing perfectly clear - In the US, you have a Constitutional right to "Free Speech. That means that you can say what you like, as long as it doesn't constitute libel on your part. You do NOT have a Constitutional right to be Anonymous, period! You are responsible for what you say or write, no matter when or where you do it. That's part of being a "responsible adult". (Of which, there are very few on the internet today.) When the Internet started, you sent mail directly between users computers, and you know exactly who was sending the messages you received. As the internet grew, so did the ways of sending and receiving information, and direct transfers of messages was dropped in favor of servers, allowing anonymous messages. That turned the internet into the Electronic Wild West it is today. Well, just like the Wild West died, the internet version will also die. It's just a matter of time. Part of IPv6 is addressing this, and eventually everyone on the internet will be identified by their IP address.




RE: The End of Free Speech?
By Solandri on 5/26/2012 12:07:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Let's get one thing perfectly clear - In the US, you have a Constitutional right to "Free Speech. That means that you can say what you like, as long as it doesn't constitute libel on your part. You do NOT have a Constitutional right to be Anonymous, period! You are responsible for what you say or write, no matter when or where you do it. That's part of being a "responsible adult".

Um, wow. Most of the founding fathers of the U.S. would've been arrested and jailed by Great Britain if they'd been forced to say/write what they felt openly. The revolutionary ideas only spread and took hold because they were able to distribute them anonymously in the form of leaflets, newsletters, and books. The Constitution does not say anything about anonymity not because it doesn't protect it, but because it's so obviously implicit in the Free Speech clause.

When appraising laws, you cannot only consider how they work in the ideal case. You have to also consider the worst way they can be abused. And the worst way you can abuse a loss of anonymity is to make trumped-up charges to arrest and jail anyone who disagrees with the government. The chilling effect that would have on free speech is precisely what the 1st Amendment seeks to prevent.

quote:
When the Internet started, you sent mail directly between users computers, and you know exactly who was sending the messages you received. As the internet grew, so did the ways of sending and receiving information, and direct transfers of messages was dropped in favor of servers, allowing anonymous messages. That turned the internet into the Electronic Wild West it is today.

No, you have that backwards. I was there. When the Internet was new, most hosts were connected via UUCP. They didn't have dedicated connections. They'd queue up mail, news, then (usually overnight when rates were lowest) make a long-distance phone call to transmit that data to their upstream host. Only the top hosts (e.g. MIT, Berkeley, UCLA) had dedicated connections between each other.

In those days, emails were sent over a multiple hub-spoke model much like connecting airline flights. If I sent an email from Harvey Mudd (my undergrad school) to Boston University, it wouldn't go straight to BU. HMC didn't know where bu.edu was, so it would send it up a level to Claremont McKenna (central server for the Claremont Colleges). CMC wouldn't know how to deliver it so it would send it up a level to UCLA, which likewise would give up and send it to UC Berkeley. Berkeley would say, ah ha, this is an East coast address, and send it to MIT. MIT would say, "oh yeah, I know those guys," and deliver it to BU.

Except for the UCLA-Berkeley-MIT hops, none of those were dedicated connections. Each were phone calls which added an hour or so to the time for the mail to be delivered. Back then it wasn't unusual for an email to take days or even a week to get to an obscure address (some sites only connected to exchange data once every night).

It's this hierarchical node structure with multiple connections that made the Internet magical. Each host didn't have to know how to deliver mail to every other host. As long as they could kick it upstream, someone who knew how to deliver it would eventually get it going in the right direction. (This is why the DoD paid to develop the Internet. They wanted a network which would still work if large parts of it were wiped out by nuclear attacks. As long as any one route between two nodes still exists, the Internet will eventually be able to deliver data between those two nodes. The nodes don't have to know the route ahead of time.)

Nowadays with everyone sitting on dedicated connections, when you send an email from hmc.edu to bu.edu, the mail server at HMC makes a direct connection to the mail server at BU and sends the email within seconds. The data packets are still routed the same way email used to be (hop by hop), but the dedicated connections mean it acts like a virtual direct connection.

quote:
Well, just like the Wild West died, the internet version will also die. It's just a matter of time. Part of IPv6 is addressing this, and eventually everyone on the internet will be identified by their IP address.

In the early days of the Internet, sysadmins believed that email, news, and hosted services like ftp would fall apart if people were allowed to be anonymous. Everyone self-imposed a requirement that your email address and user account be linked to your real identity. In hindsight, it wasn't based on any real evidence. It was based on a theoretical belief that the inner troll in everyone would be let out if people were allowed to be anonymous.

Anonymity came about in two ways at about the same time. First, computers started coming down in price enough to where you could run your own server with its own IP address. You could create your own accounts, including anonymous usernames and email addresses. Second, AOL joined the Internet, and they allowed each account to have up to 5 self-chosen usernames (so a family could share a single account). But there was no way short of a subpoena to link a username@aol.com to a specific account or individual.

And people have been talking about IPv6 since the early 1990s (I "warned" some of my friends about the switchover around the mid-1990s). It's been pushed back so much it's really anyone's guess as to if it'll eventually take hold. Yeah ideally we'd switch to IPv6, but the prevalence of NAT on IPv4 takes care of most of the problems IPv6 solves. So the switchover isn't going to be quick, nor is it even guaranteed.


RE: The End of Free Speech?
By BluntForceTrama on 5/26/2012 3:10:08 PM , Rating: 2
The press has written articles anonymously since the birth of this nation. And it has also published anonymous commentary from readers as well.

What the Internet has done is increased really bad behavior without fear of punishment or shame, same reason pedophiles found a haven online as well. But ultimately you simply can't regulate to any degree how much of an arse orifice a person is.

quote:
and eventually everyone on the internet will be identified by their IP address.


Just another reason to live off the grid.


Everything I hate...
By Trisped on 5/25/2012 6:52:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
All users posting to websites would have to post their real name and address, non-compliant posts would be axed
So everything I hate about Facebook would become required by law?

I understand they are trying to prevent net bullies, but at some point kids have to be taught how to deal with bullies on the internet, the same way they are taught to deal with bullies at school.




RE: Everything I hate...
By Dr of crap on 5/29/2012 8:30:38 AM , Rating: 2
You mean paretns would have to parent and be INVOLVED with their kid???
Blasphemy!


It makes me sad to say...
By Shawn5961 on 5/25/2012 7:00:39 PM , Rating: 2
It makes me very sad to say that this man represents my district of New York. His office can look forward to hearing how I feel about the subject very soon.




RE: It makes me sad to say...
By Initium on 5/26/2012 9:08:09 PM , Rating: 2
Now that is the best way to address this issue. Even better if you round up all your friends and do it in bulk.


By stm1185 on 5/25/2012 8:05:13 PM , Rating: 2
and toss him into the river! Anti American Prick!




Who is bullying who?
By z57 on 5/26/2012 4:12:19 PM , Rating: 2
Seems the government is bullying We the People. Irony




Unfortunate
By vcolon on 5/26/2012 10:48:33 PM , Rating: 2
Yet another RINO (Republican in name only). Might as well switch parties and become a Democrat, just like Arlen Specter did in 2009.




what?
By sweatshopking on 5/27/2012 10:51:22 AM , Rating: 2
while you may or may not agree with this law (i haven't made up my mind) i hardly see where it says "freedom of speech for anonymous internet nerds". I don't think anyone is restricting what you say, just saying you need to put your name on it. i don't really see how this is much different than a petition. you want to tell the government something, sign here.




Ahh yes
By ipay on 5/27/2012 8:46:47 PM , Rating: 2
Ahh yes, the police state of New York thinks I am going to play this game? LOL I got news for you buddy, I have more than one IP, more than one address, and can come up with about a billion more at a seconds notice. Good luck enforcing this one, it will BE A LAW I PLAN ON BREAKING.




By kenyee on 5/27/2012 10:34:27 PM , Rating: 2
It's really a messed up state...including NJ and CA. They might as well just say they want to run everyone's lives and take everyone's money to fund their own messed up system for their buddies :-P




Brilliance
By In2Boost on 5/29/2012 11:12:11 AM , Rating: 2
<beginrant>
So let me get this straight: Another politician is pushing a broad, general law that will at the least, curtail free speech, in order to satisfy or accommodate a focused problem.
Broad, general laws are the weapon of the small minded, thoughtless, and are created and passed without weighing its effects against law-abiding citizens.
These types of laws essentially allow other similarly small minded individuals to interpret and execute said law in any way their prerogitive, agenda, or personal feeling deems fit. (see politicians and authoritarians from O'Brother, Where Art Thou)
So now this guy, who decides to back a law as such, apparently does not hold the first amendment as paramount (please see author's quote from BoR), nor the mass populous. If we're not your first priority, who is?
A single demographic, in this case, those whose children are being bullied online.
Obviously I'm totally against bullying, but I also do not have children of my own. What about my rights? Who are you to try to limit them or take them away? What if I want to criticize the government or hold them accountable? Should I be concerned about retaliation in any form?
Why is this guy still in office? I'm sure this isn't the first bright idea he's had.
I feel like I'm losing brain cells just reading about this guy. I would feel so shameful about myself if I voted for him.
Another half-arsed politician holding America back.
Brilliance.
</endrant>




By johnsmith9875 on 5/29/2012 11:26:32 AM , Rating: 2
Tell ya what Senator, you force all corporations to have open books for political contributions and we will surrender our privacy over the internet.

What? No? Oh come on...oh okay whatever you say.




This bill would change the Net for the better
By Beenthere on 5/26/12, Rating: -1
RE: This bill would change the Net for the better
By Solandri on 5/26/2012 12:20:41 PM , Rating: 2
Except it wouldn't. If the U.S. were to require all webmasters to link posts to a real name and ID, the American hosting services would all go out of business. Everyone would move their hosting to foreign servers without such a requirement. (The whole point of running a web server is to let the computer deal with it. Webmasters won't want to waste time verifying everyone's ID when they can just move the server offshore.)

If you tried to prevent Americans from accessing sites hosted on foreign servers, then you've become China. If you tried to prevent Americans from hosting sites on foreign servers, then you've become worse than China.

Anonymity is like AIDS and nukes. The genie is out of the bottle and there's no putting it back. You just have to deal with it.


By Initium on 5/26/2012 8:58:23 PM , Rating: 2
Actually it would be a boon to the companies and individuals running the servers because they could then sell the information to marketers.


By Reclaimer77 on 5/26/2012 12:49:33 PM , Rating: 2
What is wrong with you? I hope this wasn't serious.


RE: This bill would change the Net for the better
By Beenthere on 5/26/12, Rating: 0
By Reclaimer77 on 5/26/2012 6:00:53 PM , Rating: 2
Oh give it a rest. I mean please. If you want to apply libel rules to the Internet, the entire thing would have to be shut down.

The Internet gives both parties equally free speech. If someone says something that you think is false, a simple blog post or Tweet can be used to give the facts.

If you open this Pandoras Box and attempt to regulate speech under the guise of libel laws and destroying anonymity, you're a flaming idiot if you think it will stop there and the power won't be abused. The Internet as we know it will be irrevocably censored and altered.


By Dr of crap on 5/29/2012 8:33:54 AM , Rating: 2
MAYBE you shouldn't have such a thin skin!

Really you get affended by what people MIGHT say about you on the internet??? And you believe it??? Had good parnets did you???

Hope you have a bomb shelter to live in!


By JediJeb on 5/29/2012 10:21:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you got something to say, stand up identify yourself


Seriously, your parents named you Beenthere?


"If you can find a PS3 anywhere in North America that's been on shelves for more than five minutes, I'll give you 1,200 bucks for it." -- SCEA President Jack Tretton














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki