NY Proposes Ban on Anonymous Comments

I am no fan of anonymous comments. As a conservative, if I don't like them I can choose to turn them off. Liberals (even Republican liberals) are not content to make their own choice. They want you to make their choice too.

NYS lawmakers are proposing a ban on anonymous comments.

I am serious. There is no problem so small that legislators can leave to ordinary people.
Nearly half of the Republicans serving in the New York State Assembly have proposed legislation that would ban anonymous online comments.

If enacted, the legislation would require websites — including social networks and online newspapers — to remove all anonymous comments that are brought to the attention of administrators.

An anonymous comment could remain if the author “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.”

UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh told The Daily Caller that the bill is “clearly unconstitutional.”

“The Supreme Court has held for 50 years that anonymous speech is protected,” explained Volokh, pointing to the 1960 case Talley v. California. “This kind of breach of anonymity on demand is just not constitutional.”

“I would love to hear from these legislators… Presumably at least one of them should be able to speak to the constitutional objections to the statute,” Volokh added.

The sponsor of the state Senate’s version, Republican Thomas O’Mara, told TheDC that he had not initially considered that the legislation might ban First Amendment-protected speech.
Butt out!!

Comments

  1. When I first saw the headline I thought this had to be satire.

    Nope.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sigh. No. Anonymous commenting is a huge netiquette violation—but commenting under a consistent identity (e.g., "Sophia's Favorite") is not anonymous.

    As the dude who writes Penny Arcade said, "Accountability is crucial...and a fixed persona makes the laws of a microculture enforceable. But the idea that this persona must bear your actual name to lend it value (for you, or for others) is ludicrous."

    As is pointed out in the comic that went up the day he said that, your real name and address being that easy to access means people have a much easier time crawling in your window and murdering you for saying something stupid. Did those legislators seriously not consider that?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Homer J. Simpson 742 Evergreen Terrace Springfield, NAMay 24, 2012 at 12:29 PM

    I think it is much needed legislation that will put a stop to all that anonymous activity that is ruining this great country

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Now that there is funny! I don't care whatcha say!

      Delete
  4. If my representatives in New York are not, mentioned and openly
    catigated by Mr. Romney for this and told by the State Republican Party that they each must repent in writing and in public, EACH who
    is involved with this tyranny, I will vote for every Democrate as liberal as possible and I will vote for the sitting President of the United States, GLADLY.

    Such behavior is worse then reprehensible.

    Almost certainly, NOW, I will vote for OBAMA.

    Heads must roll, to address this. Many, many heads!


    Karl

    ReplyDelete
  5. Part of me wants this to pass just to watch the mess it makes unfurl.

    This law is a lot like NY's "gay marriage" law. It legislates the impossible. After this, they will mandate that the sky be green (in NY).

    This definitively answers the question: are they really that dumb?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'm not sure how New York would enforce this across the internet... It sort of makes my brain hurt thinking about how they would enforce, say, THIS SITE from letting me post on it anonymously.

    What sort of nexus to the state of New York would have to be shown?

    I'm not that upset about this - it's probably impossible and unconstitutional if possible. But my 22 online alter egos are furious!

    ReplyDelete
  7. I'm not sure it's unconstitutional, do you really have the right to post on websites at all let alone anon? No, any web admin has the right to ban anon comments. Although I suppose it could be seen as 1st amendment violation of the web admins who WANT anon comments. Or just a gov overreach.

    From a legistics point of view who would this effect? Is NY saying it has the right to ban anon comments for people in Virginia or even England? Is it only for anon people who LIVE in NY? Or website admins who LIVE in NY? What if the server is in NJ? Just stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  8. These people want the State to control every area of people's lives - areas that ought never come into State control, as a matter of natural law. This is inherently wrong, and inherently beyond the State's constitutional area of control. This is totalitarianism. Whom are they purporting to protect by such a patently invalid law?

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Sigh. No. Anonymous commenting is a huge netiquette violation—but commenting under a consistent identity (e.g., "Sophia's Favorite") is not anonymous."

    LOL!!Your pompous hypocrisy knows no bounds, does it??!! Well, I consistently post as "Anonymous", so I am not anonymous, either!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Your pompous hypocrisy knows no bounds, does it??

    I'm sure the nuance flies right over your head, but posting with a pseudonym is much different than posting anonymously. With people like Sophia's Favorite, the other readers know immediately who is actually making the comment and can associate their comments with ones made previously. Those who post totally anonymously leave no record, and therefore readers cannot distinguish one anonymous poster from another.

    The main problem with anonymous commenting, frankly, is that it makes following thread discussions much more difficult. Is it really hard to pick a blog handle at random and simply go with it? Are you so uncreative that you can't pick a word to use in order to post?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Lynda said...
    "These people want the State to control every area of people's lives - areas that ought never come into State control, as a matter of natural law. This is inherently wrong, and inherently beyond the State's constitutional area of control. This is totalitarianism. Whom are they purporting to protect by such a patently invalid law?"
    because the blogmaster may erase any and all anonymous posts before they become public. Newspapers may keep confidential names of contributors, and persons have a right to pen names even "anonymous".

    ReplyDelete
  12. I use "anonymous" here because I have had technical issues logging in. After losing a few comments after selecting profile (other than anonymous) I just use the orofile that works on this site - anonymous.

    ReplyDelete
  13. If you can't select a profile to sign in as, at least put a name at the bottom of the comment.

    ReplyDelete
  14. It would make his work so much easier!

    No need to "out" commenters when NY already did it for you, right?

    My nom de'Cyber makes it easier to identify me than my name....

    ReplyDelete
  15. I fail to see how an pseudonymous name is any better than anonymous. You are still anonymous and could be anyone posing as anyone or anything. You're correct, you "nuance" eludes me. Obssessing over names is simply a way to distract from having to address a point of argument or an idea. Posting a cute name does not change whether a thing is true or not. I couldn't care less who you are personally. WHAT you are, yes. But no pseudonym is going to tell me that.

    ReplyDelete
  16. You're correct, you "nuance" eludes me.

    I'm sorry. Reading comprehension isn't for everyone.

    Obssessing over names is simply a way to distract from having to address a point of argument or an idea.

    People who lack the courage to place a name or a consistent form of identification to their opinions deserve to be taken less seriously.

    Posting a cute name does not change whether a thing is true or not.

    No, but it enables the reader to recognize precisely who is saying what.

    ReplyDelete
  17. @Anonymous: You didn't read the quote in my post, did you? ""Accountability is crucial...and a fixed persona makes the laws of a microculture enforceable." That is, Mr. Archbold and company can say "Sophia's Favorite's a jerk, delete any more of his comments", or people reading can say "Sophia's Favorite? Dude's obsessed with 'bebunking' Joss Whedon, don't read his comments on a TV blog". They don't need to know my real name, any more than you need to know who Samuel Clemens is to have an opinion on Mark Twain.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment