Slashdot Mirror


NJ Bill Would Prohibit Anonymous Posts on Forums

An anonymous reader writes "The New Jersey legislature is considering a bill that would require operators of public forums to collect users' legal names and addresses, and effectively disallow anonymous speech on online forums. This raises some serious issues, such as to what extent local and state governments can go in enacting and enforcing Internet legislation."

3 of 487 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Ah, the sweet sweet sound... by rebeka+thomas · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I was skiing this week with a friend of mine who manages a half-billion dollar investment fund. His skepticism about the US was withering. It will not be very long before the world economy interprets America, with its spaghetti of ludicrous, paranoiac IT legislation, DMCA bullshit and general hostility towards 'the other', as damage, and routes around it.

    And just where is he going to move to to be more "relevant"? Europe with its socialism inherent and impossibility of making a go of it? Russia filled with organised crime, or Canada with the same eurosocialists in power? Africa with 15c to rub together, or Asia where you can make millions in one of a hundred currencies so devalued they're worthless anywhere else? South america where the greens are so entrenched in industry that it's nearing impossibility to make a profit?

    If he thinks he's got it bad in the USA your friend really needs to get out into the world a bit more.

    --
    RST
  2. Civil Rights by stlhawkeye · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    The only thing that's worse for civil rights than a Republican government is a Democratic one. For all the failings of Republicans, I find Democrats are far more often found running around like little busybodies trying to protect everybody from themselves. So we either get Jesus shoved up our butts or well-intentioned hand-wringers trying to stop us from running with scissors. I'm honestly not sure which is worse.

    --
    "I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
  3. supreme courts=bass ackwards by zogger · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    The way it is setup now, one has to violate a law, at your great expense and peril, take it or get taken to some state or fed "supreme" court, their to plead your case. If you win, it sucks, you've just spent a ton of money just to get back to where you started from. If you lose, the same, except now it costs you even more and you might wind up in the pokey.

    Nuts! That's mind boggling INSANE

    Whenever they pass ANY law, it should immediately be run through the state supreme court or fed supreme court FIRST before it is inflicted on the public. There's no reason to run some poor guy through the wringer over these things, just because they do it BACKWARDS.

    And all laws need an automatic timeout sunshine clause, to see if they did what they were intended for, or to see if it turned out to be a big fat waste of time.