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."

Comments

Frist post

[Anonymous Coward]

First post! (Soon to be illegal)

Re:Frist post

[SEWilco]

Void where prohibited by law.

Re:Frist post

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Frist post

[hhlost]

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.

Predictable results

[Rei]

"In other news, roads became congested today as a wave of trucks was seen hauling piles of servers across the New Jersey state line..."

Re:Predictable results

[StonedYoda47]

You've never driven in Jersey on a normal day, have you?

Re:Predictable results

[squizzz]

Will, or will not: http://www.zug.com/pranks/turnpike/

Also a way to shut people up

[Opportunist]

So you have to get proof of ID? Nice. Now, how do you do that? By sending a copy of your passport to a forum admin? Great, thanks for opening a new and interesting opportunity for Nigeria scammers. Don't have to send lengthy mails around, all you need now is his bank account, you already got the harder to get part.

Will I provide my real name if no such proof of ID is required? Hardly. And who would take it upon himself to prove that I am really myself? Hell, you can register DNS entries with fake IDs, do you really think your neighborhood forum admin will go to greater lengths than companies making some bucks with holding databases of their users?

But the bill goes further than that. A forum admin is liable for slander on his board. Now, ain't this great? Sure, you can't shut people up, first amendment and all that. But you can make sure nobody dares to offer services that would allow you to execute said right. No board, no discussion, no dissent.

Less direct than China, but by no means less efficient. You can't shut them up per se, but cover them in enough red tape that they can't go to the lengths required to stay out of harm's way and shut up "voluntarily". Either you can sink enough money into the identification process of your users to make SURE they are who they claim to be, or you can just as well shut down your board because you can't afford the lawsuits that just might spring up when someone dares to say a word someone important doesn't enjoy hearing.

Yes, yes, I can understand that it's not cool to hear slander and libel on boards. But the tools to get the person under your thumb are already here. IP logs exist, trace them to their source and you got who you need. Case closed.

So what for do you need the poster ID?

*sigh*

Let's hope our clever and very smart politicians never find out something like the usenet even exists.

I wonder what our Founders would think?

[WillAffleckUW]

Many of them posted handbills - anonymously - at public places.

Some of them posted scurious tracts arguing for Common Sense and other radical ideas, many using pen names (the same as anonymous postings).

I for one welcome our Thought Police Masters and bow to them in the East five times a day ...

Re:I wonder what our Founders would think?

[QCompson]

The founding fathers are sooo pre-911.

Re:Brrrrrrr

[TubeSteak]

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.

Unconstitutional in 1960

[orthogonal]

MR. JUSTICE Hugo Black, writing for the Supreme Court of the United States in Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960), declaring unconstitutional a California ordinance requiring that handbills and pamphlets be signed:

Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind. Persecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all. The obnoxious press licensing law of England, which was also enforced on the Colonies was due in part to the knowledge that exposure of the names of printers, writers and distributors would lessen the circulation of literature critical of the government. The old seditious libel cases in England show the lengths to which government had to go to find out who was responsible for books that were obnoxious [362 U.S. 60, 65] to the rulers. John Lilburne was whipped, pilloried and fined for refusing to answer questions designed to get evidence to convict him or someone else for the secret distribution of books in England. Two Puritan Ministers, John Penry and John Udal, were sentenced to death on charges that they were responsible for writing, printing or publishing books. 6 Before the Revolutionary War colonial patriots frequently had to conceal their authorship or distribution of literature that easily could have brought down on them prosecutions by English-controlled courts. Along about that time the Letters of Junius were written and the identity of their author is unknown to this day. Even the Federalist Papers, written in favor of the adoption of our Constitution, were published under fictitious names. It is plain that anonymity has sometimes been assumed for the most constructive purposes.

  We have recently had occasion to hold in two cases that there are times and circumstances when States may not compel members of groups engaged in the dissemination of ideas to be publicly identified. Bates v. Little Rock, 361 U.S. 516 ; N. A. A. C. P. v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 462 . The reason for those holdings was that identification and fear of reprisal might deter perfectly peaceful discussions of public matters of importance. This broad Los Angeles ordinance is subject to the same infirmity. We hold that it, like the Griffin, Georgia, ordinance, is void on its face. [362 U.S. 60, 66]

Of course, the Court's membership isn't the same as it was in 1960. The President can appoint who he wants to the Supreme Court. So, who'd you vote for, for president, in 2004?

Re:Brrrrrrr

[larry bagina]

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).

Re:Brrrrrrr

[lgw]

I can scream defamation/libel at the top of my lungs

Actually, you can't scream libel no matter how hard you try, you can only scream slander. You have to write libel. Of course, you can scream "libel", but that not quite the same thing.

Re:I can picture it already.

[Reziac]

No, no, no. You'll have only ONE user, who makes ALL the posts:

Name: Peter J. Biondi
Address: 1 E. High St., Somerville NJ 08876
email: AsmBiondi@njleg.org

Yes, you may be a member!

[mariox19]

Actually, check the criteria in the U.S. Code. You may be a member of what is called the "unorganized militia." I'll print it below for your convenience.

Title 10 Subtitle A Part 1 Chapter 13 Section 311

311. Militia: composition and classes
Release date: 2005-07-12

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are--

1. the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
2. the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Don't be led by the recent release date into believing that this is something new. This is very old law.

Re:A law isn't a law...

[Catbeller]

. The legislature is... just us. They're representative of the people they sprang from. If they're sneaky and self-serving, well, that's what we are. Why do you expect angels?

Americans have always hated and mistrusted their representatives. They knew they were crooks, because they knew damned well that they'd do the same if they were in power. I should coin a cool Latin phrase for this concept.

We're not an honest people. Politicians learn to call their constituents honest and good, knowing damned well how sneaky and underhanded the Peeple really are. Peeple don't want honest representatives. The "politians" are scapegoats for all that we dislike about our culture, about ourselves.

The peeple don't want to be represented by angels. They want bastards who will steal as much as possible for their district. Hence the problem. If they wanted angels, they'd elect ministers and professors. They don't; they elect lawyers and businessmen, and expect some payback for their votes.

Biggest practical problem for getting rid of the truly odious moneygrabbers is the way we finance campaigns. Corporations are legally individuals. The SCOTUS has ruled that money is speech, so corps can spend as much as they like under the First Amendment right of free speech. We refuse to publically finance elections. We don't want to eliminate lobbyists. Logically, we have the system now where corporation A puts money in slot B to produce result C, and that's the way we want it.

Don't like it? Then ban all - ALL - contributions to political campaigns. Finance them with public funds. Provide the candidates with FREE air time, as we did before 1987. Making politians pay for airtime has made the rich the only winners in this idiocy that sprang up in the last two decades. There is no other solution. Else elections will simply be bought, and the lawmakers will have to take in money to pay for their reelection campaigns, so laws will be bought. Remove the money. And, oh yes, ban lawmakers from ever working for the people who lobby them after they leave office. That's simply bribery post-office.