Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NJ Bill Would Prohibit Anonymous Posts on Forums

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the glad-we're-not-in-nj dept.

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."

4 of 487 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Brrrrrrr by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I RTF Bill and it'll get slapped down by the courts.

    The bill does not define "reasonable" and it does not require a court to find that information posted is "false or defamatory".

    And "false" information is not necessarily defamatory. Maybe if the bill said "False and defamatory" it'd stand a chance, because truth is an affirmative defense against charges of libel/slander.

    I can scream defamation/libel at the top of my lungs and it doesn't matter for shit until a Judge says "yea, that was libel."

    This Bill is poorly written from a legal standpoint, not just in it's comprehension of the internet.

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
  2. Re:Brrrrrrr by larry+bagina · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Back in the 90s, California passed a law requiring all gun owners to register their guns. Eventually, the supreme court decided that convicted felons were not required to register since to do so would violate their 5th amendments rights (they're not legally allowed to have guns; registering one would be an admission of guilt).

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  3. Re:Frist post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    new jersey bill is a direct violation of section 230 ( keeps webhosts and bloggers immune from this )

    http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/u sc_sec_47_00000230----000-.html

    mainly

    No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.

  4. Re:Frist post by hhlost · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Mod parent up. It's also a violation, IMHO, of the First, Fourth (right to privacy) and 14th Ammendmants to the Constitution, and the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). Furthermore, how would New Jersey inforce this? Would it apply only to sites hosted in Jersey? Companies and/or individuals based in New Jersey? If this passes (which it won't) then there will be a huge public outcry. Maybe their intention is to help define the legal jurisdiction of the Internet, setting up more control for the Feds. That's not good.